Exploring Architectural Strategies For Designing Human Libraries PDF

MKSSS's
DR.BHANUBEN NANAVATI COLLEGE OF

ARCHITECTURE
KARVENAGAR, PUNE
ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT- 1 (DISSERTATION)
ON
EXPLORING ARCHITECTURAL STRATEGIES FOR DESIGNING

HUMAN LIBRARIES
BY
TANUSHREE SALUJA
(FOURTH YEAR B.ARCH 2017-18)
UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF
PROF. KAVITA MURUGKAR
FACULTY IN-CHARGE
PROF. KAVITA MURUGKAR

PROF. SHARVEY DHONGDE
SAVITRIBAI PHULE PUNE UNIVERSITY

DECLARATION
I, Tanushree Saluja, declare that Architectural Dissertation is carried out

entirely by me under the guidance of Ar. Kavita Murugkar of the MKSSS’
Dr.Bhanuben Nanavati College of Architecture, Karvenagar, Pune. The
dissertation has not been presented either wholly or partly, for any academic
work elsewhere before.
All sources of scholarly information used in this dissertation are duly

acknowledged.
TANUSHREE SALUJA
Tanushree Saluja, 4th Year B.arch. 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my gratitude towards all those who gave me valuable
contribution to this work, my guide Ar. Kavita Murugkar for accelerating my
interest in study and analysis of this topic. Her consistent guided has helped
me to analyze various complex aspects in “Exploring architectural strategies for
designing Human Libraries”.
I would also like to extend my thanks to Principal Dr. Anurag Kashyap, Dr.
Bhanuben Nanavati College of Architecture, without their support this
research would not have been possible.
Dissertation: Exploring architectural strategies for designing Human Libraries, March 2018
CONTENT
S.NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1. Abstract 03
2. Introduction 04
3. Theoretical Background 04
4. History of Human Library 06
5. Literature Review 07
6. Problem Definition 08
7. Research Methodology
 Sample
 Research tools
8. Observations 09
 Summary of responses (Books)
 Summary of responses (Readers)
 Summary of responses (Organizing team)
9. Discussions 20
10. Conclusions 22
 Books & Readers
 Organizing Team
11. Bibliography 25
12. Annexure 26
 Type A (Journal papers)
 Type B (Questionnaires)
 Type C (Attempted interviews)
1. ABSTARCT
The Human Library is an international organization and movement that first started in Copenhagen,
Denmark in 2000 with the aim to challenge prejudice against social contact among people. Similar to
how a traditional library works, the Human Library participants can be checked out, at which point
they engage in conversations and share stories with the public. Human Library is a concept so
relatable where every individual feels like a story and every eager soul offers his/her ear to them.
Such becomes the strong reason and as a result, the idea has been accepted and appreciated by the
people from different nations and cultural backgrounds. One challenge is translating design goals
into tangible designs while trying to resolve issues of human behaviour and interactions. This paper
questions and argues for planning and design improvement and seeks for possible design strategies
and their integration for a permanent space for ever-growing Human Library. As part of the Human
Library, qualitative data is presented from 30 members from Poland and India in the year 2018. On
observing and analysing the paper concludes with certain architectural strategies that could be used
by the architects in the coming recent years in order to fulfilling the upcoming demand for a
permanent structure dedicated to Human Library. The major preference of space by books and
readers was found to be informal for such interactions. In terms of privacy and security, the users
preferred one-on-one conversation with no one on watch in the room. The users felt completely
safe, free, welcoming and open to extreme conversations. Natural lighting suited them over
mechanical lighting. The time of the sunset suited them the most in terms of availability as books
and acceptance of new conversations as readers.
2. INTRODUCTION
We live in a world of transformation. Every moment every soul and every tiny particle- CHANGES.
We have moulded ourselves in the realms of adaption and acceptance. Human Library stands
strongly and is a concept for social change.
Human Libraries is a concept designed to build a positive framework for conversations that can
challenge stereotypes and prejudices through dialogue. It is a place where real people are on loan to
readers. It is a place where difficult questions are expected, appreciated and answered. The concept
wants to make people talk & relate, make the world a better place and make each one a better
human. The books found within the Human Library are people representing different groups that
encounter or are likely to be met with prejudice and stereotypes (regarding their gender, age,
education, job, ethnicity, race, religion, etc.) and who might fall victims to discrimination and social
exclusion, or eventually they can just be people with stories that could give the reader a unique
experience in the field of diversity. Within the Human Library, the reader can be anyone who’s
willing to face their own prejudice and stereotypes. He or she is a person who wishes to spend 50
minutes of his or her time in order to obtain a learning experience full of significance. Within the
library, the books not only talk, but also answer questions, they themselves being able to ask
questions so as the learning experience would go both ways.
We’re all caged in our own mindsets. We think the knowledge we have is enough, that what we
know is OK for now. But it’s never OK. The more you come to know about people, the more you
realise how different their experiences can be.
The purpose of this study was therefore in the inclination of findings of the outline for the
architect/interior designer needs in order to ever design a space/structure best suited for the human
library in the coming years.
3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
For the past two decades, academic libraries have been dramatically reinventing their physical
spaces. The traditional mode of cavernous reading rooms and dark warrens separated by stacks of
books is incompatible with the digital age.
ABOUT HUMAN LIBRARIES
“A stranger is a friend you haven’t met yet.”
The human library offers people the opportunity of discussing personally with someone which they
might consider a ‘stranger’ in a structured, protected way, with a time limit, but without any
following commitments. It is a creative and innovative method presented in this guide aims at
provoking interpersonal dialogue between people who wouldn’t normally get a chance to talk in an
organised setting. It represents an opportunity for intercultural dialogue and personal growth
directed towards people who usually have very little contact with non-formal educational programs.
WHAT IS DIVERSITY?
Diversity is NOT:
About reducing standards
About removing our prejudices; it is about recognising they exist and then questioning them before
we act.
About positive discrimination; it is about positive action.
Everyone is different; everyone has different abilities, skills and resources. DIVERSITY is not only
about celebrating the fact that people are different in many visible and invisible ways, but also about
valuing and using these differences as learning resources.
Diversity builds on concepts such as:
These notions are no longer unknown to us; they have become part of our reality. People have
become increasingly aware of their existence and effect. The attempt to understand in depth why
we assign attributes based on pre-conceptions, without knowing the details of individuality, has
become increasingly important in today’s society.
4. HISTORY OF HUMAN LIBRARY

The idea of the Human library is not new in UK or Romania. It has been practiced in the form of
simulations, singular events lasting a few hours, by other British and Romanian organisations.
The idea of Human Library was initially developed by the Danish organisation “Stop the Violence”, as
part of an activity that the organisation was offering visitors in 2000 during the Roskilde Festival.
Based in Copenhagen, the Stop the Violence organisation worked with young people and aimed at
educating the youth, with the ultimate goal of making them more active regarding actions to
prevent violence. The first event of that year was organised in partnership with the Roskilde
Foundation and it became clear, both to the Danish organisation and organisers of the festival, that
Human Library had a potential far beyond their initial expectations.
This positive experience during the festival attracted the attention of the director of the European
Youth Centre of the European Council in Budapest (EYCB). With his mediation, the Danish organisers
were introduced to the organisers of the Hungarian Festival Sziget. In 2001, they decided to organize
Human Library for the first time during the festival.
Since 2003, at the Sziget Festival, Human Library has been organized at the stand of the European
Council over a period of 7 days. So far, the festival has organised more than five libraries that have
the highest attraction of the section offered to civil society during the festival. This is how the
European Council organisers realized that the method could go beyond Hungarian borders and be
adopted by other countries. Thus, during the time that the library was organized in Hungary, the
method was improved by adding dictionaries and books that would function as translators. In the
years that followed other organizers began to discover the concept of Human Library and the
extraordinary possibilities it offered. This, Human Libraries were organized as part of Nordic youth
committees in Norway. These even took place in a library, where approximately 450 young people
participated. In Portugal, the APAVE organisation which works with victim of violence, organized the
library during the Rock in Rio festival in Lisbon. The event was organized with a very low budget; it
had limited rental hours for books, but it showed that not only can Human Library be adapted to the
local context, but also to limit budgets. For example, in Roskilde, where it was first organised, there
were 75 books, in Sziget there were 50, in Lisbon 20. In Romania, the largest number of books i one
library was 45, but the event was not a part of a festival.
The Hungarian experience proved how elaborate Human Libraries can be; the Nordic countries
introduced new dimensions of a library and the Portuguese version is an example in terms of
adaptability. Thus, throughout the years, libraries were organised in Sweden, Iceland, Hungary,
Australia, Austria, Brazil, China, Cyprus, South Africa, Belgium, The Czech Republic, etc. In August
2010 the longest-lasting library in the world was organized and implemented in The Netherlands
during the Noorderzon Festival and it spanned over the duration of 9 days.
In every country, every organizer had a unique experience in coordinating the Human Library. Thus,
there is no perfect recipe in using this method and each event is different from community to
community.
5. LITERATURE REVIEW
This book has provided with the general probable outline and a few conditions in order to organize
the event. From choosing the venue, to how the invitations should be design, to what kind of
procedure should be followed by the organizing team, books and readers. (GOOGLE BOOKS:
Bilblioteca Vie; Human Library). This paper argues for planning and design improvement that
integrate, rather than supplant, existing local physical characteristics, social interactions and human
behaviours to maintain local identity and sustain urban life. (An urban “Mixity”: Spatial dynamics of
Social Interactions and Human Behaviour) The data collected included different aspects, but the
paper pays attention to three spatial dynamics: i.) spatial access of road networks; ii.) Open spaces
and iii.) Structure and social function of clan houses. In all three aspects, the central theme explored
relates to social interactions and human behaviour. This paper gives a summarization of ways to set
up spaces to foster interaction and improve communication in groups. The impact of various
furniture choices and arrangements, windows and lighting are discussed. An extensive annotated
bibliography is included. (Physical Space and Social Interactions)
Some specific recommendations:

 Having windows (as opposed to no windows) in a room increases its social desirability; the
bigger they are (between ceiling and floor) the better.
 Typically, if the room is well lit (ideally natural light), a high (or sloping) ceiling encourages
social interaction.
This paper focuses on measuring emotions and observing cardiac activity in various colour lights. The
results of the research are useful to study the effect of colours in advertising. However, they cannot
be used for architecture and design. (Psychological and Physiological Effects of Light and Colour on
Space Users)
6. PROBLEM DEFINITION
The basic idea of a Human Library is that of creating a physical space decorated as a library filled
with books, within which people come to discuss and observe diversity from a different angle. It is a
great way to engage the community both inside and outside the ring on issues that shed light on the
diversity of the community. We need more talking and more questions without walls.
Human Library is a concept so relatable where every individual feels like a story and every eager soul
offers his/her ear to them. Such becomes the strong reason and as a result, the idea has been
accepted and appreciated by the people from different nations and cultural backgrounds. In the past
two decades the idea of Human Library has augmented throughout the world. Currently, Human
Library Organization is active in over 72 countries.
With the recent increase in the acceptance of the concept, a strong demand for the permanent
structure completely habituated for the human library will be raised. It remains unclear what is the
utmost contribution an architect/interior designer can deliver so as to provide the users with the
best of comforts the space needs to possess.
One challenge is translating design goals into tangible designs while trying to resolve issues of
human behaviour and interactions. This paper questions and argues for planning and design
improvement that and seeks for possible design strategies and their integration for a permanent
space for ever-growing Human Library.
7. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A qualitative research was conducted in order to find answers to the questions mentioned in the
questionnaire.
7.1 Sample
The sample is chosen from the sampling frame, which consists of a list of all members of the
population of interest. The goal of this survey is not to describe the sample, but the larger
population. This generalizing ability is dependent on the representativeness of the sample. The total
sample of 11 books, 10 readers and 9 members of various organizing team were selected on the
availability basis. Among them, 12 were from Poland and 18 were from India (Delhi and Pune).
7.2 Research Tools
A pre-defined series of questions were framed to collect information from individuals. Each
questionnaire consists of close-ended questions.
 The respondents are given a list of predetermined responses from which to choose their
answer.
 Closed-ended questions are preferred in survey research because of the ease of counting
the frequency of each response.
 The lists of responses include every possible response and the meaning of the response does
not overlap.
 A Likert scale is used in the questionnaire for organizing team.
Likert (1932) developed the principle of measuring attitudes by asking people to respond to
a series of statements about a topic, in terms of the extent to which they agree with them,
and so tapping into the cognitive and affective components of attitudes. A Likert-type scale
assumes that the strength/intensity of experience is linear, i.e. on a continuum from strongly
agree to strongly disagree, and makes the assumption that attitudes can be measured.
Respondents may be offered a choice of five pre-coded responses with the neutral point
being neither agree nor disagree.
In its final form, the Likert Scale is a five point scale which is used to allow the individual to
express how much they agree or disagree with a particular statement. (McLeod, S. A. (2008).
Likert scale).
 Self-report scales are also used to examine the disparities among people on scale items.
These self-report scales, which are usually presented in questionnaire form, are one of the
most used instruments in psychology, and thus it is important that the measures be
constructed carefully, while also being reliable and valid.
8. OBSERVATIONS
8.1 Summary of responses received from 11 Books:
Gender
Nationality
Indian
Polish
Have you been a book in Human Library before?
No
Yes
What is your preference of space for such an event?
What kind of space comforts you the most for sensitive interactions?
If you chose Open space; what space would you prefer?
If you chose Semi-open space; what space would you prefer?
If you chose closed space; what space would you prefer?
What do you prefer more as a book?
If you chose group discussion, what is the size of group you're expecting?
If you chose, "one-on-one", what level of privacy/security do you prefer around?
Would you prefer a room filled with natural light?
If you'd prefer natural lighting, what source will suit your comfort more?
If you'd not prefer natural lighting, what would suit your comfort more?
What time of the day suits you best for open-heart interactions?
8.2 Summary of responses received from 10 Readers:
Gender
Nationality
Indian
Polish
Have you been a reader in Human Library

before?
No
Yes
What is your preference of space for such an event?
What kind of space comforts you the most for sensitive interactions?
What do you prefer more as a reader?
If you chose, "one-on-one", what level of privacy/security do you prefer around?
Would you prefer a room filled with natural light?
What time of the day suits you best for open-heart interactions?
8.3 Summary of responses received from 9 Organizing Team members:
What do you think could help in organizing the event better?
What kind of space suits best for meeting room for the books before the event?
What kind of location suits best for the HL events?
9. DISCUSSIONS
The following table reads the comparative analysis of summary 8.1 and
8.2 gives certain observations. Such observations lead to certain
inferences and helped with concluding some of the architectural
strategies for designing Human Libraries.
S.No. Observations Inference Conclusions
1. Both the groups have more The concept of HL continues to -

experienced crowd than first grip on the crowd while invited
timers. new members to a great extent.
2. Some of the books prefer - Informal/friendly/casual

formal space. 100% readers space
prefer informal space.
3. The percentage for both the - Semi-open space

group revolve around same
numbers. 60-70% prefers
semi-open space.
4. Around 80% from both the - Garden

groups prefers garden over
amphitheatre.
5. Courtyard is mostly preferred Books just need to connect with Courtyard

by both the groups. Some of the nature. Readers are quite
the books prefer benches particular and need some sort
around the trees, whereas, no of closure and the sense of
readers prefers benches openness.
around trees.
6. No book prefers private space. The books respect the purpose Averagely spacious
Readers do not want a space of HL enough to open up and closed room (maximum
like multi-purpose hall. talk. On the receiving end, the 5m by 3m)
readers do not want a space like
multi-purpose hall. They need
their own zone to absorb.
7. Books prefer one-on-one It probably becomes tough on One-on-one

conversations but really don’t the receiving end for the conversations
mind group discussions. readers to absorb, but the
Readers majorly prefer one- books are open to all the
on-one conversations. questions and thoughts being
fired.
8. People who chose group No book or reader prefers more Group discussion (1 to 5
discussion, all voted for group than 5 people at a time for a people)
of 1 to 5 people conversation.
9. Major part of the Books - No one watching and no

prefers no one watching and cameras
no cameras, they don’t mind a
CCTV camera or someone
watching over them. Readers
do not agree with the idea of
CCTV.
10. 90% from both the groups Natural lighting plays a major Natural light
prefer natural lighting. role in providing human
comfort in terms of psychology.
11. Books prefer regular sized Books probably feel the need to Regular sized windows
windows but none of them connect with the surroundings,
agree to the idea of thus, they choose windows.
ventilators. Some of the Readers do not feel bind in 4
readers prefer ventilators too. walls. They just need a source
of natural light.
12. 100% of the Books need well - Well lit space using
lit space using artificial artificial lighting
lighting. While a few readers
prefer dark room.
13. Most Books prefer 12noon to Interestingly, some books are 6pm to 9pm
3pm for such interactions. open to such sensitive
Many prefer the late evening interactions at early morning
hours, i.e. 6pm to 9pm. No hours, i.e. 3am to 6am.
book prefers 6am to 9am.
Readers prefer time from 3pm

to 9pm for interactions.
10.CONCLUSIONS
10. 1 Conclusions drawn from the responses received from books and
readers. The following flow charts show the possible options given to
the books and readers. The highlighted boxes came out to be the most
preferred and thus, concluded with main design strategies.
10.2 Conclusions drawn from the responses received from the organizers.
Depending on the level of need and requirement, the Organizers have
marked on the linear scale 1 to 5, where:
1 means least preferred
2 means most preferred
AREAS THEY DEMAND FOR IN A PERMANENT LIBRARY
 Display arena of the books of the event

 Hall of fame- exhibition zone dedicated for Human Library
AREAS THEY REQUIRE FOR OPTIMUM FUCTIONING OF THE LIBRARY
 Reception
 Reading area/lounge
 Lending area
 Book area
 Documentation/catalogue area
 Basic amenities like toilets, drinking water, and cafeteria)
AREAS THAT AREN’T REALLY REQUIRED
 Printing room
 Zone for store/selling point
 Stationary
 Technical room (might have CCTV screens)
 An area for Readers to browse through catalogues of the books is preferred over display area
near reception for running presentation briefing about the books.
 Toilets and drinking water station are the two most wanted basic amenities.
 Pantry for staff, canteen and cafe amenities could be added for better functioning of HL events.
 Any room is fine for the meeting of the organizing team before the event. They don’t need any
dedicated zone for it.
 Location at the centre of the city suits best for the HL events.
11. Bibliography
Abhijit Datey, V. D. (2012, November). Walking and Cycling in Indian CitieS: A struggle for reclaiming
road edges. CEPT University , p. 30.
Alison J. Head, P. (December 2016). Planning and designing acadmeic library learning spaces: experts
perspectives architects, librarians, and library consultants.
Brand, J. L. (2017). Physical space and spcoal interactions. Haworth , 19.
Carney, C. (n.d.). The human library as an educational tool .
Facebook. (n.d.). Retrieved 2018, from https://www.facebook.com/humanlibrarorg/
Google. Bilblioteca Vie Human Library .
Handke, A. (2018). Outgroup attitude change at the Human Library.
Herbert Fabian, S. G. (n.d.). Walkability and pedestrian facilities in Asian cities: State and Issues. ADB
Sustainable Development Working paper series , 79.
Human Library Organziation. (n.d.). Retrieved 2017 and 2018, from http://humanlibrary.org/
Kumar, S. a. (2007). Pedestrians at crossroads: A Case study of Bangalore. Bangalore: Secon Pvt. Ltd.
Raja Noriza Raja Ariffin, R. K. (2013, September). Perceptions of urban walking environments.
Procedia: Social and Behavioural Science , p. 9.
Rohan Giramkar, K. P. (n.d.). Decongestion of traffic in Pune city. IJARIIE .
Srilertchaipanij, H. (2013). Role of utilization of Public spacesin social context. School of Architecture
and Design, Thailand , 10.
Suryawanshi, S. (2013, March). Death on city roads. Times Of India , p. 1.
Tedenbrant, K. H. Don't judge a book by its cover- a case study about the human lbrary at the public
library. Sweden.
ANNEXURES
faculty of behavioural graduate school
and social sciences
Master’s thesis
Don’t judge a book by its cover –

Impact evaluation of a Human Library
Name and initials: Handke, A.L.
Student number: s2296942
Email address: a.l.handke@gmail.com
Cohort: 2015-2017
Thesis supervisor(s): dr. N. Hansen
Programme: Research Master Behavioural and Social Sciences
Specialization: Social Psychology
ECs: 35
Date: 10-11-2017
2
OUTGROUP ATTITUDE CHANGE AT THE HUMAN LIBRARY
Abstract
Social psychological research assumes that the key to successfully improve outgroup attitudes
is intergroup contact (Allport, 1954). This study investigated whether the intergroup contact
theory is applicable to a Human Library, a project where visitors get into contact with
members of various social minority groups, and it examined the implications of visiting such
an event. Specifically, this study tested whether visitors’ attitudes towards the minority group,
with whom they had contact, improved after the conversation and whether this effect was
moderated by the conversation quality and the typicality of the conversation partner. Based on
previous research, I expected that a conversation would increase visitors’ knowledge,
perspective taking and empathy and decrease their intergroup anxiety about the respective
minority group. Further, these changes were expected to mediate the effect of intergroup
contact on outgroup attitudes. I tested the hypotheses in a longitudinal field experiment,
interviewing 87 visitors of a Human Library event. As expected, visitors showed more
favorable outgroup attitudes towards the respective minority group after the conversation.
This effect was moderated by the conversation quality but not by the typicality. Visitors’
knowledge, perspective taking and intergroup anxiety changed after the conversation as
expected. However, these changes didn’t mediate the effect of intergroup contact on outgroup
attitudes. Contrary to expectations, visitors showed no changes in empathy. Overall, results
suggest that already a short conversation at a Human Library can change people’s
presentation of minority groups.
Keywords: intergroup contact, minority groups, outgroup attitudes, perspective taking,
empathy, knowledge, intergroup anxiety, Human Library.

3
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr.
Nina Hansen for her continuous support, patience and the freedom to focus on topics of per-
sonal interest throughout my entire Research Master, especially during the internship and the
Master thesis. I want to thank you especially for the support and flexibility during the past six
months.
I would like to thank the people from the Human Library: First of all, I would like to
thank the organizers from Groningen, Martijn Bergsma and Alex C. el-Jbeily, for their enor-
mous support in setting up this research. Besides the organizers, I would like to thank the
“books” of the Human Library for their willingness to participate in this study. I would also
like to thank Dora Mołodyńska-Küntzel, who supported the research idea from the beginning
on, as well as Marta Witkowska for sharing her research expertise on this topic.
Further, I want to thank the following people, who helped me with the data collection:
Romy Julia Streppel, Nele Lühring, Sophie Stadler, Saskia Tauber, and Eric Wieben. Without
their support, this research would not have been possible.
I want to express my gratitude to several experts at the University of Groningen. Spe-
cifically, I want to thank Marieke Timmerman for her statistical advice and spontaneous avail-
ability as well as the Qualtrics experts from the faculty of behavioural and social science, who
helped me structuring the endline questionnaire on Qualtrics.
Finally, my sincere thanks also goes to Gonneke Ton and (again) Alex for their sponta-
neous and continuous effort and time to translate the study from English to Dutch and Dutch
to English.
4
Don’t judge a book by its cover. An impact evaluation of a Human Library
“This event [the Human Library] is great. The conversations create awareness and break
taboos by directly talking about the problems.”
[Dutch Woman, 25 Years, talked to a person with an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)]
Prejudice is described as one of the main roots of intergroup conflicts as well as
negative intergroup relations (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Schaller & Neuberg, 2008). This
demonstrates what detrimental consequences negative attitudes towards members of a social
outgroup can have. Various interventions aim at reducing existing prejudice in society. One of
them is the Human Library. The Human Library is an initiative which organizes events, where
visitors get into contact with members of different social minority groups. Since its beginning
in 2000, this initiative has quickly gained popularity and is now being organized in almost 80
countries worldwide (Human Library, n.d.). By establishing personal contact between
members of different social groups, the event ultimately aims at reducing prejudice against
members of minority groups. To date, the impacts of the Human Library have not been
systematically tested. This master thesis aimed at providing a theory-driven analysis of the
impacts of a Human library event. More precisely, I investigated how a conversation with a
member of a minority group may change visitors’ attitudes towards the respective minority
group.
Intervention
A Human Library event is organized in form of a library, where people attend to
borrow books. The book titles present local minority groups, such as a refugee, an HIV
positive or a transgender. Members of these groups represent the books that can be borrowed,
while visitors of the event are called readers. Both, books and readers, participate voluntarily
in the event. When a reader borrows a book, the two individuals meet in person to have a
5
short conversation. The dialogues facilitate mutual exchange between the two participants and
do not follow a given structure. Thus, they are free-flowing-conversations. The ultimate aim
of a Human Library is to combat visitors’ prejudices against social outgroups by talking to an
outgroup member (Human Library, n.d.). However, past research found no support for the
event to reach its ultimate aim when testing for prejudice reduction (Kuta, Kwiatkowska,
Jacaszek, & Kaczaluba, 2015). The present study adds to this by examining the influence of
underlying mechanisms, thus provides a systematical analysis of the mechanisms of a Human
Library event. In the following, I provide a theory of change based on social psychological
research, meaning an explanation that describes how one conversation can reduce prejudices
(White, 2009).
Prejudice
To investigate whether intergroup contact can reduce prejudices, it is essential to first
define prejudice. Prejudice is described as an antipathy directed towards a social group and its
members, which is based on faulty and inflexible generalizations (Allport, 1954). Following,
it broadly describes (irrational) negative attitudes someone holds towards members of an
outgroup, thus negative outgroup attitudes. Therefore, researchers generally measure people’s
outgroup attitudes when approaching the concept of prejudice (see Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, &
Xu, 2002). The stereotype-content model (Fiske et al., 2002) differentiates between two
different dimensions of outgroup attitudes, namely perceived competence and warmth of an
outgroup. Over time, the model has been extended and warmth has further been specified into
two distinct dimensions, namely perceived sociability and morality (Brambilla, Hewstone &
Colucci, 2013; Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007). Brambilla et al. (2013) demonstrated that
each dimension operated as a distinct and relevant characteristic when assessing outgroup
attitudes. Concluding, this model provides a holistic and in-depth insight into people’s
presentation of outgroups and has been used to examine the positive effect of intergroup
6
contact on outgroup attitudes (see Brambilla et al., 2013), which is described as contact effect
in the following. Based on this research, I decided to use the extended stereotype-content
model to investigate the contact effect in the context of a Human Library event.
Theoretical explanation of intergroup contact
Contact effect. Social psychological theories offer theoretical explanations on how a
Human Library event may improve visitors’ outgroup attitudes. The intergroup contact theory
(Allport, 1954) assumes that contact between members of different groups improves
intergroup relations and outgroup attitudes. A meta-analysis of more than 500 studies
demonstrated a robust and highly significant contact effect by finding that more intergroup
contact significantly improved outgroup attitudes across divers groups and contexts (see
Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). In line with this, Brambilla et al. (2013) tested the intergroup
contact theory by using the extended stereotype-content model. They showed that personal
contact between Italian citizens and immigrants improved the citizens’ attitudes towards
immigrants by higher sociability, competence and morality perceptions of immigrants after a
face-to-face encounter. Hence, intergroup contact influenced all three dimensions.
Further, the meta-analysis from Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) revealed that four
different conditions have a positive impact on the contact effect (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006),
instead of being essential as Allport (1954) assumed. The four conditions are: Equal group
status within the situation, intergroup cooperation instead of competition, authority support,
and common goals (Allport, 1954). The Human Library dialogues mostly fulfill these
conditions: Both parties have equal rights and status during a conversation, the dialogues
present an intergroup collaboration, and the local community supports the event. However, no
concrete goals must be achieved. Overall, the Human Library provides a promising
environment for intergroup contact to improve outgroup attitudes, and therewith to achieve
the ultimate aim of the Human Library. In the current research, I tested the aim of the Human
7
Library assuming that a conversation with a member of a minority group in the context of a
Human Library event improves visitors’ attitudes towards this minority group compared to
people who do not engage in a conversation (Hypothesis 1a).
The role of moderators in the contact effect. Despite the strong support for the con-
tact effect, past social psychological research demonstrated that two factors modify this effect:
First, the perceived quality of the intergroup contact showed a strong influence on the inter-
group contact effect (see Brown, Eller, Leeds, & Stace, 2007; Brown & Hewstone, 2005;
Schwartz & Simmons, 2001). Specifically, more favorable attitudes would be observed if the
intergroup contact was perceived as a positive interaction. Paolini et al. (2014) showed that
only if the intergroup contact was perceived positively, outgroup attitudes would improve.
Otherwise, outgroup attitudes might even become more negative. Hence, it is essential to take
the perceived quality into consideration in the current study, when examining the contact ef-
fect at a Human Library event. Following, I expected that with an increasing extent of conver-
sation quality, the positive effect of the conversation on outgroup attitudes increases, too (Hy-
pothesis 1b).
Second, Brown and Hewstone (2005) showed that the perceived typicality of the per-
son with whom one has contact affects the contact effect. This means that more favorable out-
group attitudes would be observed if the conversation partner was perceived as a typical
member of the outgroup than if the person was perceived as less typical
(Brown, Eller, Leeds, & Stace, 2007). Intergroup contact with a typical member of an out-
group was also found to increase the degree of generalization from the member to the group,
meaning that outgroup attitudes improved for the entire outgroup and not merely for the con-
versation partner (Brown & Hewstone, 2005). The present research followed this line of
thinking and investigated the influence of perceived typicality of the conversation partner on
8
the contact effect in the context of a Human Library. I expected that, as the extent of per-
ceived typicality increases, the positive effect of the conversation on outgroup attitudes in-
creases, too (Hypothesis 1c).
The role of mediators in the contact effect. Next, it is important to gain a better
understanding of the underlying processes of the contact effect, meaning what induces an
improvement of outgroup attitudes. This presents the theory of change of the present study. A
meta-analysis (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008) revealed that this effect is mediated by three factors:
By (1) enhancing knowledge about the outgroup, (2) reducing anxiety of intergroup contact,
and (3) by increasing empathy and perspective taking. This suggests that intergroup contact
has a cognitive effect by learning about the outgroup as well as an affective one by reducing
negative emotions while simultaneously increasing positive ones (Brown & Hewstone, 2005).
All three factors are considered as key mediators for the contact effect. Particularly strong
empirical support exists for the influence of empathy and intergroup anxiety (Pettigrew &
Tropp, 2008), whereas the influence of knowledge is sometimes discussed controversially
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008) or lacks empirical support (Jarrot & Savla, 2015; Goto & Chan,
2005). Jarrott and Savla (2015) found that more contact with elderly people increases
teenagers’ empathy for them as well as decreases their extent of anxiety, but no changes in
knowledge about elderly people were found. Nevertheless, I assumed that knowledge plays a
crucial role in the contact effect at the Human Library, as visitors meet minority group
members that they generally do not interact with on the daily basis, such as an HIV-positive or
a brain damaged person. Thus, it is likely that they get new information. To provide a
complex insight into the effect of a conversation at a Human Library event, I tested all three
mediators in the present research. Specifically, I expected that a conversation at a Human
Library increases visitors’ knowledge about the minority group with whom they had contact
(Hypothesis 2), reduces their anxiety about intergroup contact with the minority group
9
(Hypothesis 3), and increases empathy and perspective taking (Hypothesis 4) compared to
people who do not experience intergroup contact (see Figure 1). Further, I expected that an
increase in knowledge, empathy and perspective taking as well as a decrease in intergroup
anxiety mediates the contact effect (Hypothesis 5). Thus, the theory of change of the present
study assumed that the contact effect can be explained by changes in the extent of knowledge,
intergroup anxiety, empathy and perspective taking.
Figure 1. Theoretical model of the impact of a Human Library event.
Present study
In this master thesis, I tested the impact of intergroup contact on outgroup attitudes
among visitors of a Human Library event. The present research had two distinct aims: (1) To
test the aim of the Human Library by investigating whether a conversation at a Human
Library can improve visitors’ attitudes towards the minority group with whom they had
contact, and (2) to explain the contact effect with social psychological research. Specifically, I
investigated whether the contact effect depends on the extent of perceived conversation
quality and the perceived typicality of the conversation partner. Further, I examined whether
10
the contact effect can be explained by changes in knowledge, intergroup anxiety as well as
empathy and perspective taking.
Method
Design
Planned study design. Initially, the present research intended to use a 2 (condition:
Treatment condition vs. comparison condition) x 3 (time: baseline, midline, and endline)
mixed Design. Specifically, I intended to investigate the effect of a conversation with a minor-
ity group member on visitors’ attitudes towards this minority group compared to participants
who had no conversation. This study followed a longitudinal design with three timepoints of
data collection. Participants in the treatment condition, thus people who experienced inter-
group contact, were questioned at all three points of assessment: (1) before the conversation
[baseline], (2) directly after the conversation [midline], (3) and one month after the conversa-
tion [endline]. Out of practical reasons, participants in the comparison condition, meaning
people with no intergroup contact, were interrogated at only two timepoints, namely baseline
and endline.
Response rates in the treatment condition. The overall response rate in the treatment
condition was very low, only 28.72% (n = 27) of the participants who completed the baseline
questionnaire also completed the endline questionnaire. From the 27 participants in the end-
line, I further excluded the responses of 17 participants due to incomplete questionnaires or
information that could not be merged (Table 1). In total, the final sample of the endline in the
treatment condition presented 10.64% (n = 10) of the original sample. The information of the
endline was not sufficiently informative, so that I decided to take it not into consideration for
further analysis. Therefore, I could only analyze the information of baseline and midline for
the treatment condition.

11
Response rate in the comparison condition. Similarly, the response rate was also very
low in the comparison condition, with only 9.76% (n = 4) of the participants from the baseline
completed the endline questionnaire. I further excluded the information of two participants
due to information that could not be merged with information from the baseline (Table 1).
Following, two participants remained in the final sample of the endline. Due to the low re-
sponse rate, I excluded the endline from the analysis of the current study. Thus, participants in
the comparison condition merely provided analyzable information at baseline, so that a
change over time was impossible to examine for the comparison condition. Consequently, I
decided to use the information of the comparison condition only to compare visitors and non-
visitors at the baseline, thus test for differences between the two samples. For the main anal-
yses, I merely focused on the information provided by participants of the treatment condition,
namely the Human Library visitors.
Table 1
Overview of the response rates.
Time Condition Original sample Attrition Final sample

a. Insufficient information
b. Not identifiablea
c. Dropoutb
d. Otherc
Baseline TC N = 94 c. 2.1% (n = 2) 97.9% (n = 92)
CC N = 41 - 100.0% (n = 41)
Midline TC N = 92 a. 4.3% (n = 4) 94.6% (n = 87)
d. 1.1% (n = 1)
CC - - -
Endline TC N = 27 a. 25.9% (n = 7) 37.0% (n = 10)
b. 37.4% (n = 10)
12
CC N=4 b. 50.0% (n = 2) 50.0% (n = 2)
Note. Percentage (Count). TC = treatment condition (visitors); CC = comparison condition
(non-visitors).
a
Responses could not be merged because participants provided an unidentifiable personal
code or reported conversations, which they didn’t report at baseline.

b
Visitors ended their study participation during the completion of the questionnaire, but con-
tinued having a conversation with the minority group member.

C
Visitors mistakenly received a wrong questionnaire.
Final study design. Due to the given data, I only focused on the treatment condition,
namely visitors of the Human Library event, to investigate change over time. Therefore, I
needed to adapt the study design. Finally, I investigated the effect of a conversation with a mi-
nority group member on visitors’ attitudes towards the respective minority group compared to
visitors’ attitudes towards another minority group, with whom they had no contact, thus a
comparison group. Consequently, the final design of this research used a 2 (groups: Treatment
group vs. Comparison group) x 2 (time: Pretest and Posttest) within-subject Design. Variables
were analyzed at two timepoints, namely (1) directly before the conversation [pretest], and (2)
directly after the conversation [posttest].
Comparison group. I used homeless people as the comparison group, namely a group
that no visitor talked to at the Human Library event. The choice of this comparison group was
based on theoretical as well as on practical reasons. Overall, I aimed to use a comparison
group which differed from the minority groups that were present at the event. Therefore, the
selection depended on practical conditions of the Human Library. The represented minority
groups at the Human Library event will be described in more detail in the upcoming para-
graph, see Minority groups at the Human Library. Theoretically, I based the selection of the
comparison group on the stereotype-content-model (Fiske et al., 2002), which categorized

13
various social minority groups in western societies on perceived competence and perceived
warmth, ranging from low to high. According to Fiske et al. (2002), homeless people were
perceived as relatively little competent and little warm, whereas the minority groups of the
Human Library, overall, were rather categorized with medium to high competence and
warmth (more detailed information will be provided in the following paragraph). Following,
homeless people presented a group that differed from the minority groups at the Human Li-
brary event. This contrast enabled me to compare the contact effect for all minority groups of
the Human Library, which will be referred to as overall effect in the following, with homeless
people. Due to the inclusion of multiple minority groups in the overall effect, the data of the
present study presented nested data (for further comments regarding the analysis, see prelimi-
nary analysis).
Minority groups at the Human Library. In total, 24 members of different minority
groups took part at the Human Library event in Groningen (see Table B1), meaning visitors
talked to different people. To provide additional and more precise information about the con-
tact effect, I decided to test for differences between the minority groups. However, due to
small sample sizes (range: 1 – 8) and a large diversity of minority groups, I merged several
minority groups to broader categories of minority groups (for more information, see Table 2).
In the analyses, I will specify the effect for the three largest categories: First, people with psy-
chological disorder (n = 15, 17.2%) consisting of one person with anxiety disorder (n = 4),
one person with obsessive-compulsory disorder (OCD, n = 5), and one suffering from post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD, n = 6). Second, refugees (n = 12, 13.8%), which included
one male homosexual African refugee (n = 3), one male African political refugee (n = 4), one
male Syrian refugee (n = 5) and one female Pakistani refugee (n = 3). The third category pre-
sented transgender (n = 11, 12.6%) and consisted of two transwomen (each n = 4) and one
transman (n = 3). Regarding the stereotype-content model, these categories were categorized
14
with relatively high warmth and low competence (Fiske et al., 2002), medium warmth and
competence (Fiske et al., 2002), and high warmth and competence (Partridge, 2016), respec-
tively. Concluding, besides reporting the overall effect of minority groups, the present re-
search further specified the effect for the three most convincing categories, which is referred
to as the individual minority groups in the following.
Participants
In total, 94 people participated in the study, who visited a Human Library event in
Groningen in June 2017. Among these, 12 visitors (11.3%) engaged in more than one conver-
sation, so that they appeared multiple times in the dataset (Table 2). To control for the effect
of multiple conversations, I considered only the information of their first conversation for the
analysis. Out of the 94 visitors, the information of seven visitors (6.6%) were excluded from
the dataset due to insufficient information (n = 4, 3.8%), dropouts (n = 2, 1.9%) or because
they mistakenly received a wrong questionnaire (n = 1, 0.9%), see Table 1. Concluding, the
final sample consisted of 87 visitors.
Table 2
Overview of conversations per visitor
Amount of conversations Count (%)
One conversation 82 (87.4%)
Two conversations 9 (10.3%)
Three conversations 3 (2.3%)
Total 94 (100.0%)
Note. This statistic reports the amount of recorded conversations per visitor at the Human Li-
brary event.
On average, the visitors were 30 years old (SD = 11.89; range: 15 - 61 years) and the
15
majority were women (68% women; 30% men; 2% indicated “others”). Regarding their edu-
cational background, most visitors held a university degree (n = 61, 70.1%). 16.1% (n = 14)
attended HBO, only a minority of 9.2% (n = 8) hold a high school degree and 1.15% (n = 1)
of the visitors indicated “others”. The majority of the visitors were Dutch (n = 44, 50.6%) or
German (n = 18, 20.7%), while the remaining indicated Iranian (n = 3, 3.4%), Chinese (n = 2,
2.3%), Turkish (n = 2, 2.3%), US American (n = 2, 2.3%) or other nationalities (n = 16; each n
= 1, 1.1%). Overall, the visitors indicated a high motivation to attend the event (M = 4.07, SD
= .83; range: 2-5). Most visitors (n = 65, 76.4%) visited a Human Library for the first time,
while 23.6% (n = 20) indicated to have already visited a Human Library event before. More
specifically, 13 visitors (15.3%) visited a Human Library once, four visitors (4.7%) visited it
twice, and three visitors (3.6%) indicated three or more previous visits. The participation in
the study was voluntary. To increase the response rate, the visitors had the chance of winning
one of three amazon vouchers, each worth 15 Euros.
Procedure
Visitors of the Human Library event were invited to participate in this study during
their visit, after they had selected the minority group with whom they wanted to have a con-
versation. Before completing the questionnaires, the visitors received an informed consent,
notifying them about the general purpose of the study, their voluntary participation as well as
the anonymous and confidential treatment of the data. Overall, each visitor completed two
questionnaires at the event. They could choose to complete the questionnaires either in Eng-
lish (n = 72, 82.4%) or in Dutch (n = 15, 17.2%).
Visitors filled in the first questionnaire before the conversation, namely the pretest (see
Appendix A). This was a paper-pencil questionnaire and consisted of three parts: First, a block
of questions about demographic information, including gender, age, nationality, education
level, and a recognition code to merge the data. Second, questions about intergroup contact.
16
This block assessed among others relevant study variables, namely outgroup attitudes, inter-
group anxiety, empathy, perspective taking, and knowledge (for more detailed information,
see Measures). These questions were posed twice, namely about intergroup contact with the
respective minority group and about intergroup contact with homeless people, and presented
in a randomized order. Third, follow-up questions, where visitors indicated their experiences
with and general interest in the Human Library.
Next, visitors had a conversation with a member of the chosen minority group. After-
wards, visitors completed the second questionnaire, the posttest. It followed a similar structure
as the pretest and consisted of the same three parts. Regarding the demographic information,
only the recognition code was requested. Next, I used the same intergroup contact questions
about both the specific minority group and about homeless people. Finally, visitors evaluated
their past conversation, their conversation partner as well as the Human Library. After com-
pleting the questionnaires, every visitor received a debriefing. On average, visitors filled in
the questionnaires within 15 minutes.
Measures1
Outgroup attitudes. Outgroup attitudes were assessed by a six-item scale applying
the extended version of the stereotype-content model (see Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007).
Specifically, visitors rated members of a specific minority group on a five-point Likert scale,
ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (To a great extent), on certain characteristics. Three dimen-
sions were examined, namely perceived sociability, competence and morality. Sociability was
assessed with two items, namely the perceived extent of friendliness and warmth (“To what
extent do you think refugees are friendly?”; “To what extent do you think refugees are
1
Additional variables of interest for the Human Library are discussed in the appendices, see Appendix C.
17
warm?”). In contrast, competence was measured by characteristics, such as perceived intelli-
gence and competence (“To what extent do you think refugees are intelligent?”; “To what ex-
tent do you think refugees are competent?”), while morality asked for the extent of honesty
and trustworthiness (“To what extent do you think refugees are honest?”; “To what extent do
you think refugees are trustworthy?”). The outcomes of the three dimensions did not differ
significantly from each other, with χ² (2)’s ≥ 0.62, p’s > .052. Overall, the scales showed high
internal reliabilities (α’s ≥ .78, see Table B2). Following, I computed outgroup attitude scales
including all six questions3.
Quality. I assessed the perceived quality of the conversation by a four-item scale in-
spired by Brown et al. (2007). Therein, visitors evaluated their conversation in the posttest on
a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (To a great extent). Specifically, visi-
tors indicated to what extent they perceived the conversation as pleasant, interesting, emo-
tional, and inspiring (“Overall, how would you describe this conversation? - Pleasant? Inter-
esting? Emotional? Inspiring?”). As the overall scale demonstrated a high internal reliability
(α’s ≥ .50), I computed quality scales including all four questions4.
Typicality. The perceived typicality of the conversation partner was assessed in the
posttest with a single item, as it was done by Brown et al. (2007), using a five-point Likert
scale, ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (To a great extent). Specifically, visitors rated the repre-
sentativeness of the conversation partner regarding the respective minority group (“In your
opinion, to what extent was your conversation partner a typical representative of refugees?).
Although, I would have preferred the use of a multi-item index, due to restricted time for the
completion of the questionnaires, I used a single-item to assess typicality.
2
The statistics are based on the Friedman’s test.
3
Ten scales were computed: For the overall effect, for the three individual minority groups and for the compari-
son group, each at the pre- and posttest.
4
Four scales were computed: For the overall effect and for the three individual minority groups at the posttest.
18
Knowledge. I assessed perceived knowledge about a minority group by two items us-
ing a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Nothing) to 5 (A great extent). The visitors were
asked to estimate the extent of personal knowledge about the minority group (“In general,
how much do you know about refugees?”; “How much do you know about the life of refu-
gees?”). The two items showed high bivariate correlations (r’s ≥ .49, p’s ≤ .05, except for
Transgender; see Table B2); hence I computed knowledge scales including both items5. Im-
portantly, the correlations for the individual minority groups were comparably lower, which
can be explained by the small sample sizes. Following, the outcomes of the individual minor-
ity groups need to be interpreted with caution.
Intergroup Anxiety. I assessed intergroup anxiety about contact with the minority
group with a six-item scale developed by Stephan (2002). Visitors indicated on a five-point
Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), the extent of certain
emotions that they would perceive during intergroup contact with a specific minority group
(“Please indicate, when interacting with a refugee, to what extent would you feel awkward?”).
Each question addressed a specific affect, namely awkwardness, comfort, being at ease, anxi-
ety, uncertainty, and confidence. The responses of comfort, being at ease and confidence were
reverse scored. The overall scales showed a high internal reliability (α’s ≥ .76; Table B2).
Thus, I computed intergroup anxiety scales including the six items5.
Empathy.6 Empathy was assessed by two statements that were rated on a five-point
Likert Scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The statements were
5
6
Initially, I planned to create one scale for Empathy and Perspective taking. However, the overall scales demon-
strated low internal reliabilities, with α’s between .38 and .71. Therefore, I decided to analyze both constructs
individually.
19
used and adapted from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980) and examined the ex-
tent of empathic concern for a specific group (“I often have tender, concerned feelings for ref-
ugees”; “When I see a refugee being treated unfairly, I generally feel very pity for him/her.”).
The two statements were relatively highly correlated (r’s ≥ .49; p’s ≤ 0.05, except for the mi-
nority groups Transgender and Psychological Disorder; see Table B2) and, thus I computed
empathy scales with both items7. Again, the bivariate correlations were notably lower for the
individual minority groups, so that their outcomes need to be interpreted with caution.
Perspective taking. This construct used two statements that were rated on a five-point
Likert Scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The statements were
used and adapted from the Interpersonal Understanding scale (Stephan, 2002) and focused on
the tendency to adopt the point of view of others (“I find it easy to put myself in the place of a
refugee to understand his/her viewpoint.”; “I find it easy to understand a refugee’s perspective
on most issues.”). The two items were highly correlated (r’s ≥ .55, p’s ≤ 0.02, except for
Transgender; see Table B2). Following, I computed perspective-taking scales including both
items7. Due to the low correlations of the individual minority groups, their outcomes need to
be interpreted with caution.
Motivation. Visitors extent of motivation to attend the event was assessed at the pre-
test with a single item (“How motivated are you to visit a Human Library?”). Specifically, vis-
itors rated their extent of motivation on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Not at all) to
5 (To a great extent).
Results
Preliminary analysis
7
20
To test the hypotheses, I first examined the distributions of relevant study variables.
According to the Shapiro-Wilk-Test, the study variables of the overall effect, homeless people
as well as several variables of the individual minority groups were non-normally distributed
(S-W’s ≥ .64, p’s ≤ .05, see Table B2). Similarly, visual inspections of their histograms indi-
cated non-normal distributions. Various transformations, such as log-transformations or
square root transformations, did not alter the distributions towards normality. Based on the ad-
vice of several statistical experts at the University of Groningen, the following analyses will
consequently be based on non-parametric tests. This must be taken into consideration when
interpreting the findings. Furthermore, it is important to note that due to the small sample
sizes, we did not discard extreme values from the dataset and no multilevel analyses could be
used (Maas & Hox, 2005).
For an overview of descriptive information of relevant study variables, see Table B2.
Overall, visitors’ attitudes towards both groups, treatment and comparison group, were rela-
tively high, with M’s ≥ 3.22, SD’s ≤ .81. Similarly, visitors indicated a relatively high extent
of perspective taking (M’s ≥ 3.06, SD’s ≤ 1.06), empathy (M’s ≥ 3.78, SD’s ≤ .87), quality of
the conversation (M = 4.23, SD = .57) and typicality of the conversation partner (M = 3.60,
SD = .91), while indicating a medium extent of knowledge (M’s ≥ 2.52, SD’s ≤ .99) and rela-
tively low intergroup anxiety (M’s ≤ 2.66, SD ≤ .61). Further, difference scores of all study
variables, thus the changes from pre- to posttest, for the treatment and comparison group were
positive, except for empathy and intergroup anxiety, see Table B2.
Baseline/ Pretest results. Next, I analyzed the results of the pretest to check whether
visitors of the Human Library differed significantly from non-visitors. Thus, I compared the
outcomes of the treatment condition with the ones of the comparison condition. Both samples
reported their extent of outgroup attitudes, knowledge, intergroup anxiety, empathy and per-
spective taking towards transgender, refugees and homeless people. Regarding the evaluations
21
of refugees and transgender, I found no differences between the two samples, with U’s ≤
285.00 and p’s > .05 (see Table B3), except for the evaluation of homeless people8. The two
samples differed significantly in the extent of empathy for homeless people (U = 1245.50, p <
.05) 8, with visitors indicating more empathy (M = 4.07, SD = .71) than non-visitors (M =
3.76, SD = .78), see Figure 2. Overall, it can be said that visitors and non-visitors evaluated
the three minority groups similarly before the Human Library event.
0
Outgroup Knowledge Intergroup Empathy Perspective
attitudes Anxiety taking
Treatment Condition Comparison Condition
Figure 2. Comparison of the evaluation of homeless people between the treatment condition
(visitors; n = 87) and the comparison condition (non-visitors; n = 41) at the pretest. * p <.05.
Next, I checked for differences within the treatment condition, meaning whether visi-
tors evaluated the minority group with whom they were going to have contact differently than
a comparison group, namely homeless people. Sign tests showed significant differences in all
study variables between the two groups, with Z’s ≤ -2.12, p’s < .05, and r’s ≥ .269, see Table
B4. More specifically, visitors demonstrated significantly more favorable attitudes (M = 3.72,
SD = .66), more knowledge (M = 2.89, SD = .99) and more perspective taking (M = 3.36, SD
8
Statistics are based on the Mann-Whitney U test.
9
The effect sizes were calculated by the formula: r = Z / √n (see Pallant, 2006).
Its interpretation is based on Cohen (1988), with .1 = small effect, .3 = medium effect, .5 = large effect.
22
= 1.06) towards the minority group, with whom they were going to have contact, than towards
homeless people (M = 3.22, SD = .49; M = 2.52, SD = .69; M = 3.06, SD = .98, respectively),
see Figure 3. Further, visitors indicated significantly less intergroup anxiety (M = 2.13, SD =
.61) and less empathy (M = 3.78, SD = .87) for the treatment group compared to the compari-
son group (M = 2.66, SD = .59; M = 4.07, SD = .73, respectively), see Figure 3.
5
**
***
4 *
*
***
3
0
Outgroup Knowledge Intergroup Empathy Perspective
attitudes Anxiety taking
Treatment group (contact) Comparison group (no contact)
Figure 3. Comparison of visitors’ evaluation of the treatment group (a minority group with
whom they were going to have contact) and their evaluation of the comparison group (a mi-
nority group with whom they were not going to have contact) at the pretest (N = 87). * p
<.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001.
Afterwards, I checked for differences between the evaluation of the three individual
minority groups of the Human Library, namely transgender, refugees and people with a
psychological disorder, see Figure 4. Visitors showed a significantly different extent of
knowledge about the three groups [χ² (2) = 15.36, p < .001], with a mean rank score of 10.64
for transgender, 20.83 for refugees, and 28.77 for people with a psychological disorder.
Similarly, visitors demonstrated a significantly different extent of perspective taking for the
three groups [χ² (2) = 7.27, p < .05], with a mean rank score of 15.64 for transgender, 18.57
for refugees, and 27.37 for people with psychological disorder. However, no significant
23
differences between the three minority groups were found in the extent of outgroup attitudes,
intergroup anxiety and empathy, with χ² (2)’s ≤ 4.37 and p’s > .05.
5
*** *
4
0
Outgroup knowledge Intergroup empathy perspective
attitudes anxiety taking
Transgender Refugee People with psych. Disorder
Figure 4. Comparison of visitors’ evaluation about the three individual minority groups of
the Human Library (transgender, refugee, and people with a psychological disorder) at the
pretest (N = 87). * p <.05. ** p <.01. ** p <.001.
Further, I examined the bivariate correlations between relevant study variables (for an
overview, see Table B5). First, I checked the correlation of two descriptive variables, age and
motivation to attend the event, with relevant study variables. While age was not significantly
related with the relevant study variables (r’s ≤ .20, p’s > .05), the motivation to attend the Hu-
man Library was significantly related with outgroup attitudes at the pre- and posttest (r’s ≥
.23, p’s < .05). Regarding outgroup attitudes and the mediator variables10, only empathy
demonstrated a significant correlation with outgroup attitudes at the posttest (r = .28, p < .05).
This means that the data doesn’t provide ground for a mediation analysis, so that Hypothesis 5
won’t be investigated further. When inspecting the correlations among the mediator variables,
10
Herein, I refer to the difference scores of the mediator variables, meaning posttest score – pretest score. Me-
diator variables are: Intergroup anxiety, knowledge, empathy and perspective taking.
24
all variables demonstrated significant inter-correlations (r’s ≥ .21, p’s < .05), except for empa-
thy and intergroup anxiety (r = .02, p = .85). Next, the conversation quality showed a signifi-
cantly positive correlation with outgroup attitudes at the pretest, posttest as well as with the
difference score. Further, typicality of the conversation partner showed a significant positive
correlation with outgroup attitudes at the posttest (r’s ≥ .29, p’s < .01), whereas no correlation
with the pretest.
Main analyses
Due to the low response rates, I needed to adapt the study design and the hypotheses
(for more information, see Design). The final hypotheses will be stated before each analysis in
the following. Based on the advice of several statistical experts at the University of
Groningen, the results for the main analyses are based on matched-pair sign tests. Wilcoxon
signed-rank tests were not used for the analyses as the assumption of symmetric distributions
were violated, which were examined by a visual inspection of the boxplots of the relevant
variables.
Hypothesis 1a
“I love this event because it breaks stereotypes and misconceptions that I have about other
people that I normally don’t meet in my daily life.”
(Egyptian Woman, 20 Years, talked to a refugee)
With the first hypothesis, I tested the assumption of the Human Library that visitors’
attitudes towards the minority group, with whom they had contact, improved after the
conversation, compared to their attitudes towards homeless people. First, I examined whether
visitors’ attitudes towards the minority group, with whom they had contact, changed over
time. Regarding the overall effect, a sign test indicated a significant change in visitors’
outgroup attitudes towards the respective minority group over time (Z = -4.76, p < .001, r =
25
.52), with significantly more favorable outgroup attitudes at the posttest (M = 4.05, SD = .75)
than at the pretest (M = 3.72, SD = .66), see Figure 5. Regarding the three individual minority
groups, visitors who talked to a person with a psychological disorder or to a refugee showed a
significant change in attitudes towards the respective minority group over time (Z’s = -2.74,
p’s < .05, r’s ≥ .21), with more favorable outgroup attitudes at the posttest (M’s ≥ 4.10, SD’s
≤ .81) than at the pretest (M’s > 3.52, SD’s ≤ .73). However, no significant change was
demonstrated for visitors’ attitudes towards transgender over time, with Z = -2.74 and p = .13.
Next, I compared the change of visitors’ attitudes towards the minority group, with
whom they had contact, with their change of attitudes towards a comparison group. Herein, I
focused on the difference scores of the variables. Visitors’ outgroup attitudes for the two
groups changed significantly different (Z = -2.27, p < .05, r = .26), with a stronger change of
attitudes towards the minority group with whom they had contact (M = .26, SD = .53) than
towards the comparison group (M = .11, SD = .40), see Figure 5. However, regarding visitors
who talked to one of the three individual minority groups, their outgroup attitudes didn’t
change significantly different for the respective minority group compared to the comparison
group (Z’s = -1.64, p’s > .05).
5 Outgroup attitudes
4 ***
*
**
3
* **
2
0
Pretest Posttest
Treatment group (contact) Comparison group (no contact)
26
Figure 5. Visitors’ extent of attitudes towards the minority group, with whom they had
contact, and towards a comparison group over time (Hypothesis 1a). * p <.05. *** p <.001;
black stars denote hypothesis relevant results, whereas grey stars denote hypothesis irrelevant
results.
Hypothesis 1b and 1c
“It is a very welcoming and emotional event. During our conversation, I felt so comfortable
that I could ask almost everything.”
(German woman, 28 Years, talked to an Iranian Woman)
Hypotheses 1b and 1c assumed that a high conversation quality and a typical
conversation partner increase the contact effect. To test for an indirect effect of quality and
typicality, I ran a multiple moderation analysis using Hayes Macro model (Hayes, 2012). Due
to the non-normally distributed variables, I can merely refer to the bootstrapped confidence
intervals, as they don’t require normal distributions (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Specifically, I
used a bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 samples. The results showed that the indirect
coefficient of quality was significant, b =.08, SE = .04, with a 95% CI = .02, 0.19, whereas the
indirect coefficient of typicality was statistically insignificant, b =.03, SE = .04, with a 95%
CI = -.02, 0.13.
Hypothesis 2
“This event helped me to learn something new that I would never be able to learn in my normal
daily interactions.”
(Irish Woman, 21 Years, talked to a blind person)
“This event gives the opportunity to find out more about minority groups.”
(Dutch Woman, 28 Years, talked to an ex-drug addict)

27
I expected to find that the extent of visitors’ perceived knowledge about the minority
group with whom they had contact increased after intergroup contact, compared to the extent
of perceived knowledge about a comparison group. Regarding the overall effect, visitors’
extent of perceived knowledge about the respective minority group changed significantly over
time (Z = -4.10, p < .001, r = .44), with increased perceived knowledge at the posttest (M =
3.30, SD = .82) compared to the pretest (M = 2.89, SD = .99), see Figure 6. Regarding the
three individual minority groups, only visitors who talked to a transgender showed a
significant change in the extent of knowledge (Z = -2.97 and p < .01), with a significantly
higher extent of knowledge at the posttest (M = 3.23, SD = .26) than at the pretest (M = 2.18,
SD = .56). However, the extent of knowledge neither changed significantly for visitors who
have talked to a person with a psychological disorder nor for visitors who talked to a refugee,
with Z’s = -3.72, and p’s ≥ .38.
Further, visitors change of knowledge about the treatment group did not differ
significantly from the change of visitors’ knowledge about the comparison group, with Z = -
1.56, p = .12, r = .26, meaning they changed over time to a similar extent (see Figure 6).
Regarding the individual minority groups, visitors’ extent of knowledge about a transgender
or a refugee changed significantly different compared to their change of knowledge about the
comparison group (Z’s = -1.74, p’s < 0.05), with a stronger increase of knowledge about
transgender or refugee (M’s ≥ .23, SD’s ≤ .57) than about the comparison group (M = .11, SD
= .40). However, regarding visitors who talked to a person with a psychological disorder,
visitors’ knowledge about the respective minority group did not change significantly different
than their knowledge about the comparison group (Z = -1.74, p >.05).

28
5
Knowledge
4
***
3
0
Pretest Posttest
Treatment group (Contact) Comparison group (no contact)
Figure 6. Visitors extent of perceived knowledge about the minority group, with whom they
had contact, and about a comparison group over time (Hypothesis 2). *** p <.001.
Hypothesis 3
“This event has a very nice atmosphere. I especially liked the opportunity to meet and talk to
people openly and to be honest about my anxieties around people that are different.”
(American Women, 29 years, talked to a blind person)
I expected to find a significantly decreased extent of intergroup anxiety about the
minority group, with whom the visitor had contact, after the conversation, compared to
visitors’ intergroup anxiety about a comparison group. Regarding the overall effect, visitors’
extent of intergroup anxiety about the minority group, with whom they had contact, changed
significantly from pre- to posttest (Z = -4.36, p < .001, r = .47), with a significantly lower
extent of intergroup anxiety at the posttest (M = 1.85, SD = .59) than at pretest (M = 2.13, SD
= .61). However, regarding the three individual minority groups, the extent of intergroup
anxiety did not change significantly, with Z’s = -3.83 and p’s ≥.07.
Visitors’ intergroup anxiety about the respective minority group changed significantly
different than their anxiety about the comparison group over time (Z = -8.95, p < .001, r =
29
.98), with a stronger decrease of anxiety about the minority group with whom they had
contact (M = -.29, SD = .58) than about the comparison group (M = -.15, SD = .58), see
Figure 7. Similarly, visitors’ intergroup anxiety about the three individual minority groups
decreased significantly stronger than their anxiety about the comparison group (Z’s = -6.48,
p’s ≤ .01).
5
Intergroup anxiety
4
3
***
***
2
**
1
0
Pretest Posttest
Treatment group (Contact) Comparison group (No contact)
Figure 7. Visitors extent of intergroup anxiety about the minority group, with whom they had
contact, and about a comparison group over time (Hypothesis 3). Black stars denote
hypothesis relevant results, whereas grey stars denote hypothesis irrelevant results. ** p <.01.
*** p <.001
Hypothesis 4. The fourth hypothesis predicted that visitors’ extent of empathy and
perspective taking for the minority group, with whom they had contact, increased
significantly after the conversation compared to their extent of empathy and perspective
taking for a comparison group.
Empathy.
“The conversations changed my perspective on how it [the drug addiction] affected his life and
how everybody could fall in such a situation.”

30
(Dutch Woman, 28 Years, talked to an ex-drug addicted)
Over time, visitors demonstrated a marginally significant change in the extent of
empathy towards the minority group with whom they had contact (Z = -1.94, p = .05, r = .21),
with a higher extent of empathy at the posttest (M = 3.99, SD = .81) than at the pretest (M =
3.78, SD = .87). When focusing on the individual minority groups, visitors’ extent of empathy
did not change significantly over time for any of the three groups, with Z’s = -1.80 and p’s
>.05. Moreover, the change of visitors’ extent of empathy for the minority groups of the
Human Library did not differ significantly from visitors’ change of empathy for homeless
people over time, with Z = -1.49 and p > .05. Likewise, visitors’ extent of empathy for the
three individual minority groups did not change significantly different for the respective
minority group than for the comparison group, with Z’s = -1.59, p > .05.
Perspective taking.
“It was great that I had the chance to put myself in her shoes to understand her better.”
(Dutch Woman, 57 Years, talked to a woman with cancer)
From pre- to posttest, visitors showed a significant change in the extent of perspective
taking of the minority group, with whom they had contact (Z = -4.96, p < .001, r = .53), with a
significantly higher extent of perspective taking at the posttest (M = 3.98, SD = .86) than at
the pretest (M = 3.36, SD = 1.06), see Figure 8. Regarding the individual minority groups, this
change over time was found for visitors who talked to a refugee or a transgender (Z’s = -2.92
and p’s < .05), with a significantly higher extent of perspective taking of the respective
minority group at the posttest (M’s ≥ 3.87, SD’s ≤ .84) than at the pretest (M’s ≥ 2.91, SD’s ≤
.98). However, no significant change over time was found for visitors who talked to a person
with a psychological disorder (Z = -2.92, p > .05).

31
Further, visitors’ extent of perspective taking of the minority groups at the Human
Library changed significantly different over time than their perspective taking for the
comparison group (Z = -2.81, p < .01, r = .31). Specifically, visitors demonstrated a
significantly stronger increase in perspective taking of the minority group, with whom they
had contact (M = .61, SD = .93), than of the comparison group (M = 2.26, SD = .71), see
Figure 8. Regarding the individual minority groups, only visitors who talked to a transgender
demonstrated a significantly different change of perspective taking between the respective
minority group and the comparison group (Z = -2.01, p < .05), with a stronger increase in
perspective taking of the respective minority group (M = 0.95, SD = .65) than of the
comparison group (M = 0.05, SD = .52). However, regarding visitors who talked to a person
with a psychological disorder or a transgender, the change in perspective taking of the
respective minority group and of the comparison group did not differ significantly (Z’s = -
2.01, p’s > .05).
5 Perspective taking
4 ***
**
3
0
Pretest Posttest
Treatment group (Contact) Comparison group (No contact)
Figure 8. Visitors’ extent of perspective taking of the minority group, with whom they had
contact, and of the comparison group over time (Hypothesis 4). ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Additional analysis
32
A high motivation to engage in intergroup contact plays a crucial role in the contact
effect (Halperin et al., 2012). Based on past research and the fact that visitors’ motivation
showed significant correlations with outgroup attitudes at the pre- and posttest (Table B5), I
tested for a mediation effect of visitors’ motivation to attend the event, meaning whether the
contact effect was explained by the extent of motivation. Indeed, when using Hayes Macro
model (Hayes, 2012), the outcomes of a bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 samples
demonstrated a significant effect of the indirect coefficient of motivation, with b =.64, SE =
.10, with a 95% CI = .01, .17.
Discussion
The present study aimed to provide an empirically based impact evaluation of the
Human Library, where I investigated the effects of a conversation with a minority group
member on visitors’ outgroup attitudes. In line with the aim of the Human Library, visitors’
attitudes towards the respective minority group became more favorable after a conversation,
thus the present data supports Hypothesis 1a. Further, this study showed that the quality of the
conversation moderated the contact effect, meaning that outgroup attitudes became more
favorable if the quality of the conversation was perceived to be high (Hypothesis 1b).
However, contrary to prior expectations (Hypothesis 1c), no significant influence of the
typicality of the conversation partner on the contact effect was found. Next, as predicted,
visitors indicated more perceived knowledge about the respective minority group (Hypothesis
2), less anxiety about contact with the respective minority group (Hypothesis 3), as well as
more perspective taking of this group after the conversation (Hypothesis 4). Interestingly,
visitors indicated the changes in outgroup attitudes and in intergroup anxiety not only for the
minority group, with whom they had contact, but also for homeless people, with whom they
had no contact. Nonetheless, outgroup attitudes and perspective taking changed significantly
stronger for the treatment group than for the comparison group. Contrary to my expectations,
33
visitors’ extent of empathy didn’t change after the conversation for none of the two groups
(Hypothesis 4). Further, changes in knowledge, intergroup anxiety and perspective taking
were not associated with changes in outgroup attitudes, thus no mediation effect and therewith
no support for Hypothesis 5 was found. Surprisingly, although these variables did not mediate
the contact effect, the high motivation to attend the Human Library event presented a positive
mediator, meaning that visitors’ high motivation explains the improvement of outgroup
attitudes. In the following, I elaborate on interesting findings that require further discussion.
The contact effect and the influence of quality. Overall, this study demonstrated that
a generalization from the individual to the respective minority group took place (Stark,
Flache, & Veenstra, 2013), meaning that visitors applied the impression of the individual,
with whom they had contact, to the entire group. The findings support the intergroup contact
theory (Allport, 1954) and indicate its applicability to the context of a Human Library
conversation. This demonstrates great strength for the theory as well as positive impacts of a
Human Library event. However, this study showed that not every intergroup contact evokes a
positive contact effect, instead the perceived conversation quality plays an influential role in
the contact effect. According to Paolini et al. (2014), quality of the contact is more important
than quantity for the contact effect. This is in line with the findings of this study, which
indicated that one short conversation with a minority group member is sufficient to improve
people’s attitudes towards the respective minority group if the conversation was positively
perceived. Consequently, it is difficult to generalize the impact of a conversation at a Human
Library event.
The contact effect and the influence of typicality. Contrary to my expectations and
to past research (see Brown et al., 2007), typicality did not moderate the contact effect.
Nonetheless, typicality of the conversation partner showed a significant, positive correlation
with outgroup attitudes after the contact, meaning that intergroup contact with a more typical
34
conversation partner is associated with more favorable attitudes towards the respective
minority group. The question remains, why this study found no significant moderation effect
for typicality. One possible explanation is the use of a single item, which asks about the
general representativeness (for an exact formulation, see Measures). This question leaves
space for diverse interpretations of representativeness, such as referring to a typical outward
appearance of the outgroup or rather to a typical life story. Consequently, different
interpretations might explain the insignificant results. Following, the use of multiple questions
and a clear formulation of typicality is advisable to avoid insignificant findings. In addition,
an investigation of different forms of typicality might be interesting to determine whether
different forms of typicality influence the contact effect in a different way.
The least wins the most. Especially people with negative outgroup attitudes benefit
from intergroup contact (see Hodson, 2011). The present study specifies this by finding that
especially people with little knowledge about a specific outgroup or with low perspective
taking for minority group members indicated the strongest improvement after the
conversation. Before the conversation, visitors indicated a different extent of knowledge about
as well as a different extent of perspective taking of the three individual minority groups.
Specifically, visitors who talked to a transgender demonstrated the least amount of knowledge
and the least ability to take the perspective of the respective minority group. However, after
the conversation, only visitors who talked to a transgender indicated a significant increase in
knowledge and only visitors who talked to a transgender or a refugee indicated a significant
increase in the extent of perspective taking over time. Following, these findings suggest that
intergroup effect can be especially beneficial for people, who know little about an outgroup or
who find it difficult to take the perspective of an outgroup member. Nonetheless, it must be
taken into consideration that visitors already scored relatively high on the relevant study
variables at the pretest. Concluding, this finding presents inspiration for future research but
35
cannot be generalized to people who have no knowledge or no ability to take the perspective
of an outgroup member before the contact.
The spillover effect to another outgroup. Interestingly, next to a generalization from
the individual to the group, this study further showed a generalization from the outgroup, with
whom the visitor had contact, to another outgroup of no contact, namely homeless people.
Although such a spillover effect is barely found (see Pettigrew, 1997), in the present study,
visitors showed a significant decrease in intergroup anxiety as well as a significant
improvement of attitudes towards homeless people after intergroup contact with a member of
another minority group. One possible explanation for the spillover effect is the environment
of the Human Library event. At the event, visitors were confronted with the existence of
numerous minority groups in different indirect ways. For example, the physical presence of
various minority group members at the event, as visitors were in the same room or sat at the
same table with different minority group members, might lower their anxiety to interact with
members of outgroups, in general. Further, visitors were presented with a booklet of the life
stories of all participating minority group members which might further raise visitors’
awareness about the existence of numerous minority groups, which might facilitate the
improvement of outgroup attitudes towards minority groups in general. Overall, the open and
welcoming atmosphere for social diversity at the event, without focusing on only one specific
minority group, might facilitate this spillover effect. It can be said that while the finding of a
spillover effect demonstrates a great strength for positive impacts of visiting a Human Library,
the specific reasons for such an effect at a Human Library event remain unclear and require
further research attention.
Underlying processes. In line with Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) and with the current
theory of change, this study supports the idea that intergroup contact increases the extent of
knowledge, perspective taking and outgroup attitudes and decreases intergroup anxiety. This
36
finding presents strong support for positive impacts of the Human Library. However, contrary
to the theory of change, the changes in knowledge, perspective taking and intergroup anxiety
were not correlated with outgroup attitudes, thus they did not explain the improvement of
outgroup attitudes. An explanation for the non-significant findings are the high correlations
among the mediator variables, as collinearity attenuates a mediation effect (see Preacher &
Hayes, 2004). In line with this, past research overly tested the influence of one of the
mediators on outgroup attitudes per study, but barely tested a mediation analysis including all
four mediators (see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). Although, theoretically speaking, the variables
describe distinct constructs, it is likely that they explain similar parts in the change of
outgroup attitudes, such as a cognitive change (knowledge and perspective taking) and an
affective change (empathy and intergroup anxiety). An in-depth investigation of the inter-
correlations as well as the individual and shared contributions of the mediators require further
research attention, as it could not be analyzed in this study due to a limited scope.
Empathy. Although Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) argued for an especially strong effect
of empathy on the contact effect, visitors’ extent of empathy did not change in the present
study. To explain this, I examined the construct of empathy in more detail. Past intergroup
contact research often used perspective taking and empathy as one construct (see Pettigrew et
al., 2006), whereas the present study used two distinct constructs and found different results.
In contrast to a positive change of perspective taking over time, no change was found in
empathy. Hence, the question arises, why visitors’ outcomes of the two constructs differed.
Although they were positively correlated, there are substantial differences, as perspective
taking is based on cognition, whereas empathy is based on emotion (Galinsky,
Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008). Following, the two constructs might rely on different
processes in the contact effect. In line with this, a recent study (Galinsky et al., 2008) argued
that while an increase in perspective taking is visible immediately, changes in empathy might
37
develop over time. Consequently, a possible explanation for no significant change in empathy
is the time and amount of data collection assessments in the present study. The final
analyzable data was assessed immediately after the conversation, thus visitors might not have
had enough time to process the information. Further, by using an additional wave of data
collection, as it was initially planned (see Design), one can account for possible effects that
require more time to process. Overall, it can be said that it was beneficial to assess empathy
and perspective taking with two distinct constructs and that it is important to collect data at
multiple timepoints.
Motivation. Although not hypothesized in advance, this study showed that the positive
contact effect can be explained by visitors’ high motivation to attend the Human Library. This
is in line with past research (see Halperin et al., 2012), which highlighted the importance of
people’s motivation to engage in intergroup contact in order to improve intergroup relations.
According to Pettigrew (1997), people who are more motivated engage more openly with
outgroup members and following have more favorable attitudes towards them. Since visitors
attended the event voluntarily, it seems likely that they were highly motivated to engage in
intergroup contact with minority group members. Nonetheless, this influential finding
demonstrates the variety of factors that might influence the contact effect but remain
undiscovered. Following, it is important for future research to not merely rely on the
established key mediators of past research but to pay further attention to potential others, such
as the motivation of the visitor or the environment of the intergroup contact.
Visitors versus non-visitors. A common critique towards the Human Library is that
people who attend a Human Library are generally less prejudiced against minority groups
than non-visitors, so that the findings cannot be generalized to non-visitors. However,
outcomes of the present study found no differences between visitors of the Human Library
and non-visitors in the evaluation of refugees, transgender and homeless people, except for
38
the extent of empathy towards homeless people (see Figure 2). Following, non-visitors
demonstrated a similar extent of outgroup attitudes, perspective taking, knowledge and
intergroup anxiety towards the minority groups, thus no initial differences were found. This
presents an important outcome and suggests that the positive impacts of the Human Library
cannot be explained by initial differences between the two populations, as both groups have
the same starting point.
Limitations and future research directions
Reality constraints of the Human Library. Due to the fact that this study presents
field research, I had limited control about certain study conditions. Following, a limitation of
this study were reality constraints, which this study faced, such as small sample sizes
regarding the minority groups due to the short duration of the event, a low response rate, non-
parametric distributions of the study variables and limited control about the available minority
groups, which forced me to merge different minority groups to broader categories. It is
important to highlight that these limitations decreased the statistical power of the results and
limit the ability to generalize the findings. Consequently, following aspects of improvement
are advisable for future research: (1) To increase incentives for participation in order to
increase response rates, (2) to investigate more than one Human Library event with similar
minority groups in order to increase sample sizes, (3) to use a comparison condition in order
to generalize the findings to a wider population, and (4) to conduct a laboratory follow-up
study, where a Human Library is duplicated in an experimental setting in order to increase the
control of the researcher and minimize these reality constraints.
Differences between the minority groups. Another limitation addresses differences
between the minority groups. Changes in the extent of outgroup attitudes, intergroup anxiety,
knowledge and perspective taking differed across the three individual minority groups,
meaning that for example the extent of outgroup attitudes only changed for visitors who
39
talked to a person with a psychological disorder or a refugee but not for visitors who talked to
a transgender. Concluding, different effects were noticed for visitors of different minority
groups. Since different visitors talked to different minority groups, it is difficult to compare
the outcomes of the diverse minority groups. The question arises, whether existing differences
were due to different minority groups or due to individual differences of the visitors? By
using an experimental follow-up study, this uncertainty can be eliminated.
Long-term effect. A final limitation of this study is the lack of an endline assessment,
as it was initially planned. This has two major limitations: First, as discussed above with
regard to the effect of empathy, certain factors might require more time to have an effect.
Thus, their effect only becomes visible over time. Second, certain effects might change over
time, for example the changes that we found might wear off over time. Consequently, no
inferences about a long-term effect of the Human Library can be made. Moreover, due to the
special environment at the Human Library and the immediate impact of the conversation, the
findings might present a change which not necessarily remains over time. However, to make
robust inferences about the impacts of a Human Library event, the use of multiple timepoints
of data collection after the intergroup contact is crucial.
Implications
The present study empirically tested the impact of a Human Library event and
provides first insights into ongoing processes, describing what happens to a visitor during a
conversation with a minority group member at the Human Library event. Overall, this study
provides strong support for the ultimate aim of the Human Library by demonstrating that one
rather short conversation at the event, wherein people participate voluntarily, can be sufficient
to improve visitors’ outgroup attitudes towards the respective minority group. This finding
further enriches the scientific knowledge regarding the applicability of the intergroup contact
theory (Allport, 1954) to the real world, namely to the context of a Human Library event.
40
Besides the improvement of outgroup attitudes, this study found that one short conversation
can increase knowledge and perspective taking as well as it can decrease visitors’ extent of
intergroup anxiety for the minority group. Moreover, a conversation with one minority group
member can even have positive effects on the visitors’ evaluation of another minority group,
which might be explained by the special environment of the Human Library event. Overall, it
can be said that, visiting the Human Library can be very beneficial to improve intergroup
relations in society. Nonetheless, it is important to consider various contextual and individual
factors that might influence the effect of the contact effect. This study demonstrated the
importance of the conversation quality and of visitors’ motivation to attend the event for the
contact effect at the Human Library. Consequently, it is difficult to generalize the benefits of a
conversation at the Human Library event.
A Human Library is a valuable initiative, which doesn’t require large financial
resources (Human Library, n.d.), as the minority group members and most organizers
generally participate voluntarily in the project and the expenses for the venue depend on the
location. Moreover, the event can be organized in different contexts and for different target
groups by selecting specific minority groups, thus is adjustable to diverse situations and
purposes. One example can be the organization of a Human Library event for pupils at school
with minority groups that especially teenagers have prejudices against. Concluding, a Human
Library can be very cost efficient and can be adapted to diverse situations.
Conclusion
This research demonstrates the importance to use social psychological research to
explain ongoing processes in the external world, thus to use field research. Field research
helps to take out the knowledge researchers have established in the laboratory to test its
effectiveness in the external world. This study adds to the existing literature by showing the
applicability of the intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954) to the context of a Human
41
Library event and demonstrates that one short conversation can be sufficient to improve
outgroup attitudes if the contact is perceived positively. Following, this study presents a first
systematic impact analysis of a Human Library event. Overall, this study supports the idea
that intergroup contact at the Human Library can have positive impacts for the visitor and
therewith for society by improving intergroup relations. Concluding, this study promotes the
slogan of the Human Library: Don’t judge a book by its cover.

42
References
Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading: Massachusetts. Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Brambilla, M., Hewstone, M., & Colucci, F. P. (2013). Enhancing moral virtues: Increased
perceived outgroup morality as a mediator of intergroup contact effects. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(5), 648-657. doi:10.1177/1368430212471737.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5.
Brown, R., Eller, A., Leeds, S., & Stace, K. (2007). Intergroup contact and intergroup
attitudes: a longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(4), 692-
703. doi:10.1002/ejsp.384.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS
Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.7754&rep=rep1&type=
pdf.
Dion, K. L. (1985). Social Distance Norms in Canada: Effects of Stimulus Characteristics and
Dogmatism. International Journal of Psychology, 20(3-4), 743-749.
doi:10.1080/00207598508247567.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype
content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and
competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878.
43
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why It Pays to Get Inside
the Head of Your Opponent. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378-384.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x.
Halperin, E., Crisp, R. J., Husnu, S., Trzesniewski, K. H., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. J. (2012).
Promoting intergroup contact by changing beliefs: Group malleability, intergroup
anxiety, and contact motivation. Emotion, 12(6), 1192-1195. doi:10.1037/a0028620.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Retrieved from
http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
Hodson, G. (2011). Do ideologically intolerant people benefit from intergroup contact?
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 154-159.
doi:10.1177/0963721411409025.
Human Library (n.d.). Retrieved from http://humanlibrary.org.
Kuta, I., Kwiatkowska, Z., Jacaszek, J., & Kaczaluba, M. (2015, May). Paradoxical effects of
the Human Library on general prejudice. Poster session presented at Psychology
faculty psychonalia 2014, Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw.
Leach, C.W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality
(vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 93, 234-249. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234.
Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling.
Methodology, 1(3), 86-92. doi:10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86.
Pallant, J. (2006). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
Windows (version 12). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Rubin, M., Husnu, S., Joyce, N., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Positive
44
and extensive intergroup contact in the past buffers against the disproportionate im-
pact of negative contact in the present. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6),
548-562. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2029.
Partridge, E. J. (2016). Exploring Predictors of Canadian Attitudes Toward Syrian Refugees
and How They Should be Helped. Undergraduate Honors Theses. 32. Retrieved Au-
gust 25, 2017 from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/psychK_uht/32.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized Intergroup Contact Effects on Prejudice. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 173-185. doi:10.1177/0146167297232006.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.90.5.751.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008), How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-
analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.504.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36(4), 717-731. doi:10.3758/bf03206553.
Schaller, M. & Neuberg, S.L. (2008). Intergroup prejudices and intergroup conflicts. In C.
Crawford, & D.L. Krebs (Eds), Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 399–
412). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stark, T. H., Flache, A., & Veenstra, R. (2013). Generalization of Positive and Negative Atti-
tudes Toward Individuals to Outgroup Attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 39(5), 608-622. doi:10.1177/0146167213480890.
Stephan, W.G. (2002). A survey for use in evaluating dialogue programs. Retrieved March 09,
2017 from http://ncdd.org/exchange/files/docs/walter_stephan.pdf.

45
van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put Your Money Where
Your Mouth Is! Explaining Collective Action Tendencies Through Group-Based Anger
and Group Efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 649-664.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649.
White, H. (2009). Theory-based impact evaluation: Principles and Practice (Working Paper
3). International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). Retrieved from
www.3ieimpact.org/media/filer_public/2012/05/07/Working_Paper_3.pdf.
46
Appendix A
Baseline Questionnaire/ Pretest for visitors who talk to a refugee
1. Please provide the following personal information:

1.1 Nationality ☐ Dutch ☐ German ☐ other:______________
1.2 Gender ☐ Woman ☐ Man ☐ other
1.3 Age _________ years
1.4 Level of education ☐ school ☐ HBO ☐ University ☐ other: ________
1.5 Please also indicate the following code: (which will be processed anonymously)
Example:
You are left-handed, you live in the Oude Boteringestraat 18, and you are born on the 15th of May.
Your code would be:
1. Left- or right-handed: L for left or R for right _L_
2. Your house number _18_
3. Your day of birth (two digits) _15_
Please indicate your code:

1. Left- or right-handed: L for left or R for right ____
2. Your house number ____
4. Your day of birth (two digits) ____
2. Please indicate: When interacting with a refugee, to what extent would you feel…
To a great
Not at all Very little Somewhat Much
extent
2.1 … awkward? 1 2 3 4 5
2.2 … comfortable? 1 2 3 4 5
2.3 … at ease? 1 2 3 4 5
2.4 … anxious? 1 2 3 4 5
2.5 … threatened? 1 2 3 4 5
2.6 … confident? 1 2 3 4 5
3. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements:
Strongly Neither
Somewhat Somewhat Strongl
Disa- Agree nor
Disagree Agree y Agree
gree Disagree
3.1 I find it easy to put myself in the
place of a refugee when I want to un- 1 2 3 4 5
derstand his/her viewpoint.
3.2 I find it easy to understand a refu-
1 2 3 4 5
gee’s perspective on most issues.
3.3 I often have tender, concerned feel-
1 2 3 4 5
ings for refugees.
3.4 When I see a refugee being treated
unfairly, I generally feel very pity for 1 2 3 4 5
him/her.
3.5 I would sign a petition that aims to
improve the integration of refugees in 1 2 3 4 5
society.
3.6 I would participate in a demonstra-
tion that aims to improve the integra- 1 2 3 4 5
tion of refugees in society.
47
4. Please indicate: To what extent do you think that refugees are …

Not at To a great
Very little Somewhat Much
all extent
4.1 ... honest? 1 2 3 4 5
4.2 … trustworthy? 1 2 3 4 5
4.3 … competent? 1 2 3 4 5
4.4 … intelligent? 1 2 3 4 5
4.5 … warm? 1 2 3 4 5
4.6 … friendly? 1 2 3 4 5
5. To what extent would you be open to have a refugee as …
Not at To a great
all extent
5.1 … your spouse? 1 2 3 4 5
5.2 … a close friend? 1 2 3 4 5
5.3 … a neighbor? 1 2 3 4 5
5.4 In general, to what extent are you
interested in having personal con- 1 2 3 4 5
tact with a refugee?
6. Please indicate what describes your experience with refugees best:
A great
Nothing Very little Somewhat Much
extent
6.1 In general, how much do you know
1 2 3 4 5
about refugees?
6.2 How much do you know about the
1 2 3 4 5
life of refugees?
6.3 How often have you been in con- ☐ ☐ ☐ Occasion- ☐ ☐
tact with a refugee? Never Rarely ally Frequently Very Fre-
quently
Rather Neither nega-
Very Rather Very pos-
negative nor posi-
negative positive itive
tive tive
6.4 How would you describe the past
1 2 3 4 5
contact?
6.5 How many people do you know
_____________ people.
that are refugees?
6.6 How many friends do you have
_____________ friends.
that are refugees?
7. Please indicate: When interacting with a homeless person, to what extent would you feel …
Not at To a great
all extent
7.1 … awkward? 1 2 3 4 5
7.2 … comfortable? 1 2 3 4 5
7.3 … at ease? 1 2 3 4 5
7.4 … anxious? 1 2 3 4 5
7.5 … threatened? 1 2 3 4 5
7.6 … confident? 1 2 3 4 5
48
8. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements:
Neither
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongl
Agree nor
Disagree Disagree Agree y Agree
Disagree
8.1 I find it easy to put myself in the
place of a homeless person when I
1 2 3 4 5
want to understand his/her view-
point.
8.2 I find it easy to understand a home-
less person’s perspective on most 1 2 3 4 5
issues.
8.3 I often have tender, concerned feel-
1 2 3 4 5
ings for homeless people.
8.4 When I see a homeless person be-
ing treated unfairly, I generally feel 1 2 3 4 5
very pity for him/her.
8.5 I would sign a petition that aims to
improve the integration of 1 2 3 4 5
homeless people in society.
8.6 I would participate in a
demonstration that aims to improve
1 2 3 4 5
the integration of homeless people
in society.
9. Please indicate: To what extent do you think that homeless people are…
Not at To a great
all extent
9.1 ... honest? 1 2 3 4 5
9.2 … trustworthy? 1 2 3 4 5
9.3 … competent? 1 2 3 4 5
9.4 … intelligent? 1 2 3 4 5
9.5 … warm? 1 2 3 4 5
9.6 … friendly? 1 2 3 4 5
10. To what extent would you be open to have a homeless person as …
Not at To a great
all extent
10. … your spouse?
1 2 3 4 5
1
10. … a close friend?
1 2 3 4 5
2
10. … a neighbor?
1 2 3 4 5
3
10. In general, to what extent are you
4 interested in having personal con- 1 2 3 4 5
tact with a homeless person?
11. Please indicate what describes your experience with homeless people best:
A great
Nothing Very little Somewhat Much
extent
49
11. In general, how much do you know
1
1 2 3 4 5
about homeless people?
11. How much do you know about the
2 1 2 3 4 5
life of homeless people?
12. Finally, we have a few questions about the Human Library:
12. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 What motivation brought you to the
Human Library? curiosity support for Personal To meet other:
(Multiple answers possible) the event reason new peo- _______
ple
12. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2 How did you hear about the Human Social via TV Ra- News- other:
Library? media friends dio paper ________
(Multiple answers possible) (i.e.facebook) ________
Not at To a
all great ex-
12. How motivated are you to visit a tent
3
1 2 3 4 5
Human Library?
12. How many times have you visited
4 __________ times.
the Human Library before today?
Thank you for answering the questions!
Now, enjoy your conversation!

50
Appendix B
Relevant tables presenting study results
Table B1
Overview of represented minority groups at the Human Library event and amount of re-
ported conversations
Book Title Count (%) Broader Category Count (%)
African Political-Activist Refu- 4 (4.6%) Refugee a 12 (13.8%)
gee
African Homosexual Refugee 3 (3.4%)
Syrian Refugee 5 (5.7%)
Pakistani Refugee 3 (3.4%)
OCD 5 (5.7%) Psychological Disorder a 15 (17.2%)
PTSD 6 (6.9%)
Anxiety Disorder 4 (4.6%)
Transwoman 4 (4.6%) Transgender a 11 (12.6%)
Transwoman 4 (4.6%)
Transman 3 (3.4%)
Blind 4 (3.4%) Blind 6 (6.9%)
Visually Impaired 2 (2.3%)
HIV+ (Man) 2 (2.3%) HIV+ 3 (3.4%)
HIV+ (Woman) 1 (1.1%)
Iranian Woman 4 (4.6%) Iranian Woman 4 (4.6%)
Clairvoyant 5 (5.7%) Clairvoyant 5 (5.7%)
Brain Damaged 5 (5.7%) Brain Damaged 5 (5.7%)

51
Vegan 4 (4.6%) Vegan 4 (4.6%)
Ex-Drug Addict 3 (3.4%) Drug Addicted 3 (3.4%)
Cancer 5 (5.7%) Cancer 5 (5.7%)
Bi-cultural 4 (4.6%) Bi-cultural 4 (4.6%)
BDSM 4 (4.6%) BDSM 4 (4.6%)
Tattooed 3 (3.4%) Tattooed 3 (3.4%)
Homosexual 1 (1.1%) Homosexual 1 (1.1%)
Note. N = 87
a
This category presents one of the three individual minority groups, which was used for
further in-depth analyses.
Table B2
Descriptive information of relevant study variables
Variable Group Time N M (SD) α/r S-Wa
Outgroup TG (overall effect) T1 85 3.72 (.66) .90 .96*

attitudes T2 83 4.05 (.75) .96 .88***
T2-T1 81 .26 (.53) - .91***
TG (Psych. Disorder) T1 14 3.52 (.73) .93 .98
T2 13 4.10 (.81) .98 .86*
T2-T1 11 .23 (.84) - .77**
TG (Refugee) T1 14 3.92 (.57) .90 .93
T2 14 4.23 (.69) .96 .88
T2-T1 14 .31 (.37) - .82*
TG (Transgender) T1 11 3.97 (.67) .96 .92*
T2 11 4.11 (.75) .97 .90
T2-T1 11 .13 (.44) - .83*
Comparison group T1 83 3.22 (.49) .78 .94**
T2 82 3.38 (.54) .88 .88***
T2-T1 81 .11 (.40) - .93***
Quality TG (overall effect) T2 84 4.23 (.57) .71 .92***
52
TG (Psych. Disorder) T2 15 4.10 (.56) .73 .87*

TG (Refugee) T2 15 4.40 (.47) .50 .93
TG (Transgender) T2 11 4.20 (.53) .82 .87
Typicality TG (overall effect) T2 82 3.6 (.91) - .89***
TG (Psych. Disorder) T2 15 4.07 (1.03) - .81**
TG (Refugee) T2 14 3.57 (.85) - .88
TG (Transgender) T2 10 3.30 (.95) - .91
Intergroup TG (overall effect) T1 86 2.13 (.61) .78 .95**
Anxiety T2 87 1.85 (.59) .76 .95**
T2-T1 86 -.28 (.61) - .91***
T2 15 2.10 (.63) .73 .94
T2-T1 15 -.29 (.92) - .81**
TG (Refugee) T1 15 2.04 (.56) .86 .95
T2 15 1.97 (.68) .84 .92
T2-T1 15 -.08 (.46) - .93
TG (Transgender) T1 11 2.34 (.47) .79 .92
T2 11 1.82 (.54) .80 .82*
T2-T1 11 -.52 (.47) - .95
Comparison group T1 83 2.66 (.59) .81 .96**
T2 83 2.51 (.61) .81 .97
T2-T1 82 -.15 (.59) - .92***
Empathy TG (overall effect) T1 87 3.78 (.87) .31** .94***
T2 87 3.99 (.81) .40*** .92***
T2-T1 87 .22 (.83) - .92***
T2 15 3.80 (.85) .22 .94
T2-T1 15 .10 (.95) - .93
TG (Refugee) T1 15 4.03 (1.03) .50* .79**
T2 15 4.40 (.63) .49* .85**
T2-T1 15 .37 (1.11) - .64***
TG (Transgender) T1 11 3.45 (.79) .19 .95
53
T2 11 3.50 (1.12) .33 .95

T2-T1 11 .05 (.93) - .94
Comparison group T1 83 4.07 (.73) .43*** .89***
T2 83 4.03 (.77) .41*** .89***
T2-T1 82 -.31 (.47) - .89***
Perspective TG (overall effect) T1 87 3.36 (1.06) .72 *** .95**
taking T2 87 3.98 (.86) .71*** .88***
T2-T1 87 .62 (.93) - .96*
TG (Psych. Disorder) T1 15 3.80 (.90) .84*** .88*
T2 15 4.13 (.77) .89*** .85*
T2-T1 15 .33 (.84) - 96
TG (Refugee) T1 17 3.17 (.97) .59* .95
T2 17 3.41 (.73) .55* .93
T2-T1 13 .90 (1.11) - .92
TG (Transgender) T1 11 2.91 (.77) .33 .82*
T2 11 3.86 (.84) .71* .92
T2-T1 11 .95 (.65) - .93
Comparison group T1 83 3.06 (.98) .62*** .95**
T2 83 3.28 (.94) .84*** .94***
T2-T1 82 .26 (.71) - .90***
Knowledge TG (overall effect) T1 87 2.89 (.99) .84*** .95**
T2 86 3.30 (.82) .77*** .92***
T2-T1 86 .40 (.73) - .89***
TG (Psych. Disorder) T1 15 3.73 (1.1) .78*** .90
T2 14 3.82 (1.05) .74** .90
T2-T1 14 -.04 (.41) - .77**
TG (Refugee) T1 15 2.83 (.52) .49* .76**
T2 15 3.07 (.70) .90*** .82**
T2-T1 15 .23 (.49) - .73**
TG (Transgender) T1 11 2.18 (.56) .66* .89
T2 11 3.23 (.26) .50 .65***
T2-T1 11 1.04 (.57) - .81**
54
Comparison group T1 83 2.52 (.69) .72*** .89***

T2 83 2.67 (.75) .85*** .86***
T2-T1 82 .12 (.54) - .89***
Note. TG = Treatment group (Minority group, with whom the visitor had contact). T1 = pre-
test; T2 = posttest; S-W = Shapiro-Wilk statistic; * p < .05. ** p < .01. ** p < .001.
a
The Shapiro-Wilks test statistics are based on the residuals
Table B3
Comparison of treatment condition (visitors) with control condition (non -visitors) at the
pretest
Variable Group Condition N M (SD) U
Outgroup attitudes Homeless TC 83 3.22 (.49) 1225.50
CC 41 2.96 (.77)
Transgender TC 11 3.97 (.67) 162.00
CC 41 3.82 (.78)
Refugee TC 14 3.92 (.57) 189.00
CC 41 3.61 (.68)
Intergroup Homeless TC 83 2.66 (.59) 1596.00
anxiety CC 41 2.68 (.71)
Transgender TC 11 2.34 (.47) 154.00
CC 41 2.06 (.67)
Refugee TC 15 2.04 (.56) 225.50
CC 41 2.23 (.66)
Empathy Homeless TC 82 4.07 (.73) 1247.50*
CC 41 3.70 (.78)
Transgender TC 11 3.45 (.79) 197.00

55
CC 41 3.61 (.68)
Refugee TC 17 4.06 (.97) 273.50
CC 41 4.00 (.86)
Perspective taking Homeless TC 83 3.06 (.98) 161.50
CC 41 3.23 (.82)
Transgender TC 11 3.45 (.79) 146.00
CC 41 3.35 (.94)
Refugee TC 15 4.03 (1.03) 235.50
CC 41 3.54 (.90)
Knowledge Homeless TC 83 2.52 (.69) 1495.50
CC 41 2.50 (.77)
Transgender TC 11 2.18 (.56) 162.00
CC 41 2.56 (.63)
Refugee TC 15 2.83 (.52) 258.00
CC 41 3.07 (.75)
Note. The statistics are based on the Mann-Whitney U Test. * p <.05. TC = Treatment con-
dition (visitors); CC = Control condition (non-visitors).

56
Table B4
Overview of changes over time.
Variable Group (Time) Z (p) N r
Outgroup Treatment group (T1) – Comparison group (T1) -5.62*** 82 .62
attitudes Treatment group (T2) – Treatment group (T1) a -4.76*** 83 .52
Comparison group (T2) – Comparison group (T1) -2.75** 81 .31
Treatment group (T2-T1) – Comparison group (T2-T1) a -2.27* 77 .26
Knowledge Treatment group (T1) – Comparison group (T1) -1.82 83 .20
Treatment group (T2) – Treatment group (T1) a -4.10*** 86 .44
Comparison group (T2) - Comparison group (T1) -1.08 82 .12
Treatment group (T2-T1) – Comparison group (T2-T1) a -1.56 81 .17
Intergroup Treatment group (T1) – Comparison group (T1) -4.93*** 82 .54
anxiety Treatment group (T2) – Treatment group (T1) a -4.36*** 86 .47
Comparison group (T2) - Comparison group (T1) -2.93** 82 .32
Treatment group (T2-T1) – Comparison group (T2-T1) a -8.95*** 81 .98
Empathy Treatment group (T1) – Comparison group (T1) -1.85 83 .20
Treatment group (T2) – Treatment group (T1) a -1.94 87 .21
Comparison group (T2) - Comparison group (T1) -.31 82 .03
Treatment group (T2-T1) – Treatment group (T2-T1) a -1.49 82 .16
Perspective Treatment group (T1) – Comparison group (T1) -1.09 83 .12
taking Treatment group (T2) – Treatment group (T1) a -4.96*** 87 .53
Comparison group (T2) - Comparison group (T1) -1.59 82 .18
Treatment group (T2-T1) – Comparison group (T2-T1) a -2.81** 82 .31

57
Note. The statistics are based on Sign Tests. * p <.05. ** p <.01. ** p <.001;
r = effect size (Pallant, 2006); C = comparison group; T1 = pretest; T2 = pretest;

a
denotes statistics that were used for hypotheses testings.
and social sciences
Table B5
Bivariate correlations of study variables and additional variables of interest
Variables Time 1a. 1b. 1c. 2a. 2b. 2c. 3a. 3b. 3c. 4a. 4b. 4c. 5a. 5b. 5c. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1a. Outgroup T1 1.00 .62*** -.20 .01 .11 .11 .12 .21 .05 -.31** -.17 .15 .14 .12 -.04 .25* .13 -.20 .29**
1b. attitudes T2 1.00 .55*** -.15 .12 .28* .10 .31** .16 -.20 -.39*** -.17 .14 .20 .03 .45*** .33** -.20 .34**
1c. T2 – T1 1.00 -.04 .20 .23* -.01 .10 .09 -.14 -.32** -.21 .02 .16 .15 .27* .19 -.16 .12
2a. Empathy T1 1.00 .51*** -.55*** .27* .08 -.23* -.12 .02 .14 .26* .05 -.28** .05 .03 .08 .09
2b. T2 1.00 .43*** .07 .08 -.01 -.27* -.10 .18 .13 .10 -.04 .31** .09 .04 .28*
2c. T2 – T1 1.00 -.21* -.01 .24* -.14 -.13 .02 -.15 .05 .25* .24* .06 -.05 .17
3a. Persp. taking T1 1.00 .55*** -.63*** -.42*** -.23* .20 .62*** .45*** -.35** .08 .28* .03 .25*
3b. T2 1.00 .30** -.23* -.39*** -.15 .49*** .51*** -.09 .25* .25* -.14 .31**
3c. T2 – T1 1.00 .27* -.10 -.36** -.26* -.04 .31** .13 -.09 -.16 .01
4a. Inter. anxiety T1 1.00 .49*** -.52*** -.33** -.34** .06 -.07 -.17 .10 -.29**
4b. T2 1.00 .48*** -.11 -.27* -.18 -.27* -.20 .10 -.37**
4c. T2 – T1 1.00 .22* .07 -.23* -.20 -.02 -.01 -.07
5a. Knowledge T1 1.00 .69*** -.59*** -.02 .27* -.13 .23*
5b. T2 1.00 .17 .09 .18 -.15 .32**

59
5c. T2 – T1 1.00 .12 -.15 .01 .07
6. Quality T2 1.00 .23* .19 .28*
7. Typicality T2 1.00 .09 .06
8. Age T1 1.00 -.23*
9. Motivation T1 1.00
Note. The statistics report Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r). * p <.05. ** p <.01. ** p <.001; T1 = pretest, T2 = posttest
and social sciences
Appendix C
Additional results of the Human Library event
By establishing personal contact between members of different social groups, the Hu-
man Library ultimately aims at reducing prejudice against social minority groups. For a sys-
tematic impact analysis of a Human Library event in Groningen, 87 visitors were interviewed
to learn more about how they experienced this event. This report provides additional infor-
mation to offer the following insights: (1) People’s reasons to visit the Human Library event,
(2) visitors’ knowledge about the respective minority group, (3) visitors’ evaluation of the
conversation, and (4) possible implications of the conversation on visitors’ behavioral inten-
tions.
People’s reasons to visit the Human Library event
Overall, visitors demonstrated a high motivation to attend the event (M = 4.07, SD =
.83)11. More specifically, the majority of the visitors indicated to visit the Human Library to
support the event and its idea (35.3%) and/ or to meet new people (27.1%, see Figure C1).
These promising findings suggest that people want to raise awareness about minority groups
in society and were open to challenge personal prejudices as well as to get into contact with
members of minority groups. Interestingly, 17.6% of the visitors indicated to attend the Hu-
man Library for personal reasons. A possible explanation for this finding is that people might
have personal experience with a specific minority group, for example by knowing a member
of this minority group or by being a minority group member themselves. Following, visitors
might perceive the conversation as an opportunity to discuss personal issues or to meet people
that face similar situations in life.
11
Visitors rated their motivation to attend the event on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from
1 (Not at all) to 5 (To a great extent), see Appendix A question 12.3.
61
Suggestion:
To increase the number of visitors who attend the event for personal reasons, it may be useful,
to publish a list with the participating minority groups in advance. Then, people are informed
about the minority groups that will participate at the Human Library event.
Reasons to visit the Human Library

other 7,8% (n = 7)
personal reason 17.6%, (n = 15)
meet new
27.1% (n = 23)
people
support the
35.3% (n= 30)
event
Figure C1. Overview of visitors’ reasons to attend the Human Library.
The majority of visitors further indicated that they heard about the event via social me-
dia, such as Facebook (41.7%), and/or via friends (45.9%, see Figure C2). Only a minority
learned about the event via local media, namely TV, radio or newspaper (3.6%). Thus, overall,
social networks had a large impact on people’s awareness about the event, whereas local me-
dia had less impact. Important to note, Groningen is an international student city and, in line
with this, 49.4% (n = 43) of the visitors were internationals with only one person not being a
student. Moreover, out of the 43 international visitors, only one visitor (2.3%) indicated that
he/ she heard about the event via local media, namely via the newspaper, while the remaining
indicated social media and/ or friends. These findings suggest that different forms of media
channels reached different people. Thus, these findings demonstrate the impact of the environ-
ment on the marketing efficiency.

62
Suggestion:
To increase the marketing efficiency, it may be advisable to develop a marketing strat-
egy depending on the target group of the event. Specifically, it is important to take the influ-
ence of certain characteristics of the target group, such as nationality or age, into considera-
tion when selecting media channels for advertisement.
Marketing
radio 0% (n = 0)
TV 1,2% (n = 1)
newspaper 2.4% (n = 2)
other 23,0% (n = 20)
social media 41, 7% (n = 35)
friends 45.9% (n = 39)
Figure C2. Overview of how visitors heard about the Human Library event.
Visitors’ knowledge about the respective minority group
In general, the visitors indicated that they knew somewhat about the respective minor-
ity group before the conversation (M = 2.89, SD = 1.00)12. More specifically, the majority
(92.8%, see Figure C3) indicated that they knew one or more members of the respective mi-
nority group, while the majority (58.3%) further indicated that they had no friends that are
members of the respective minority group (see Figure C4). The findings suggest that visitors
selected minority groups that they do meet in their daily lives but have had no personal con-
tact with, so far. Following, this event presents a unique opportunity for people to engage in a
personal conversation with new people and to learn more about their lives.
12
Visitors rated their extent of knowledge about the specific minority group on a five-point Likert scale, ranging
from 1 (Nothing) to 5 (A great extent), see Appendix A question 6.1 – 6.2.
63
Know minority group Have minority group

members members as friends
7,2%
(n = 6)
23,8%
30,1% (n = 20)
(n = 25)
17,9% 58, 3%
62,7% (n = 15) (n = 49)
(n = 52)
know no one no friend

know one person one friend
know two or more people two or more friends
Figure C3. Amount of people, the visitors Figure C4. Number of friends, the visitors
knew that were members of the respective had that were members of the respective
minority group (N = 83). minority group (N = 84).
Visitors’ evaluation of the conversation
After the conversations, visitors indicated that they learned new information about the
lives of the specific minority group (see results of the Master thesis). Besides this positive im-
pact of the conversation, the visitors further described the quality of the conversations as very
high (M = 4.23, SD = .57)13 and most visitors (82.4%, n = 70) voluntarily extended the regular
conversation time of 20 minutes for ten additional minutes. Interestingly, almost all visitors
(97.4%, see Figure C5) indicated that they were interested in continuing the conversation.
This is a very promising finding suggesting that visitors have not only benefitted from the
conversation by acquiring new knowledge about the outgroup, but they further enjoyed this
contact and indicated their interest to continue the conversation. Especially when considering
13
Visitors indicated to what extent they perceived the conversation as pleasant, interesting, emotional, and in-
spiring. They rated each component on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (To a great ex-
tent).
64
the fact that the minority group members had multiple consecutively and rather short conver-
sations per event, the positive evaluation of the visitors demonstrates strong support for the
efficiency of the Human Library event.
Visitors' motivation to continue the

conversation
2,6%
(n = 2)
Would like to continue the

conversation
Would not like to continue the
97,4% conversation
(n = 76)
Figure C5. Overview of visitors’ willingness to continue the conversation (N = 78).
Implications of the conversation on visitors’ behavioral intentions
Visitors indicated more favorable attitudes towards the specific minority group after
the conversation (see results of the Master thesis). Additionally, visitors indicated their behav-
ioral intentions for intergroup contact before and after the conversation. More specifically,
they indicated their interest to engage in future contact with members of the specific minority
group14, their willingness to engage in collective action to improve the integration of the re-
spective minority group15 as well as their motivation to become involved in upcoming Human
Library events.
14
Visitors rated their interest in engaging in intergroup contact with members of the specific minority group on
four items, using five-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (To a great extent), before and after the
conversation, see Appendix A questions 5.1 – 5.4. The items showed high internal reliabilities (α’s ≥ .77).
15
Visitors indicated their willingness to engage in collective on two items, using five-point Likert scales, ranging
from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), before and after the conversation, see Appendix A questions
3.5 - 3.6. The items showed high bivariate correlations (r’s ≥ .41, p’s ≤ .001).
65
Interestingly, visitors demonstrated a moderate to high interest to engage in future con-
tact with members of the respective minority group (M’s ≤ 3.78, SD ≤ .88), whereas a signifi-
cantly lower interest in contact with homeless people (M’s ≤ 2.85, SD ≤ .82) before and after
the conversation, with Z’s > -6.93, p’s < .001, r’s > 0.77. Thus, visitors preferred intergroup
contact with members of the respective minority group to contact with homeless people (see
Figure C6). Moreover, visitors’ interest in contact with the respective minority group in-
creased significantly after the conversation, with Z = -2.76, p < .01, r = .30. These findings
suggest that a short conversation with a minority group member can be sufficient to increase
people’s willingness to engage in intergroup contact with this minority group, thus to increase
visitors’ behavioral intentions.
Interest in future contact

5
**
4
***
3 ***
group with contact
2 group without contact
0
before the conversation after the conversation
Figure C6. Visitors’ willingness to engage in future contact with the respective minority
group, with whom the visitor had contact compared to homeless people, with whom the visi-
tors had no contact, over time (N = 82). ** p < .01. ** p < .001.
Further, visitors demonstrated a high extent of willingness to engage in collective ac-
tion for the respective minority group as well as for homeless people before and after the
event (M’s > 3.73, SD ≤ .95). Interestingly, only for the respective minority group, visitors in-
66
dicated a significant increase in their willingness to engage in collective action after the con-
versation (M = 4.15, SD = .87) than before the conversation (M = 3.83, SD = .95), with Z = -
3.97, p < .001, r = .43. Further, visitors’ willingness to engage in collective action for the re-
spective minority group (M = .30, SD = .65) changed significantly stronger than for homeless
people (M = -.07, SD = .59), with Z = -3.50, p < .001, r’s = .77. These findings suggest that a
short conversation with a minority group member can be sufficient to increase people’s will-
ingness to engage in collective action for this minority group. Based on the past two results,
visiting the Human Library event seems to increase positive intergroup behavioral intentions.
This means, that not only visitors’ cognitive presentations of the minority group became more
favorable after the conversation (see results of the Master thesis), but also visitors’ positive
behavioral intentions increased.
Collective action
5
***
4 ***
3 group with contact

group without contact
2
0
before the conversation after the conversation
Figure C7. Visitors’ willingness to engage collective action for the respective minority group,
with whom the visitor had contact, compared to homeless people, with whom the visitor had
no contact, over time (N = 86). *** p < .001.
Interestingly, 67.9% of the visitors indicated a high motivation to become involved in
the Human Library event in future, with 43.2% as a volunteer and 24.7% as a book (see Fig-
67
ure C8). The high interest in becoming a book at a Human Library event might have two pos-
sible explanations: First, people who identify themselves as a minority group member might
be more willing to visit a Human Library to get into contact with other minority group mem-
bers and to support the event. Second, the conversations and the general event might encour-
age people to talk about personal issues and to stand up for minority groups. The high interest
in becoming involved in a Human Library further indicates that visitors appreciate the idea of
the Human Library and see the benefits of the event. Following, the findings promisingly in-
dicate the potential to expand the event further by organizing it more frequently or by estab-
lishing Human Libraries in more cities.
Suggestion:
To further improve and expand the Human Library, it may be advisable to maintain the con-
tact with the people, who indicated their interest in becoming involved in a Human Library
event. One example is the use of mailing lists, so that interested people stay informed about
upcoming Human Library events or have the opportunity to apply for them.
Interest in the Human Library
No
24.7%
32.1% 67,9%
(n = 20) 43.2% Yes, as a book
(n = 26) (n = 55)
(n = 35) Yes, as a volunteer
Figure C8. Overview of visitors’ interest in becoming involved in a Human Library event (N
= 81).
3/22/2018 Questionnaire for Books of the Human Library
Questionnaire for Books of the Human Library

Dear Book,
Thanks for taking some time to ll in this short questionnaire, to share your experience in to being one of the
Human books. Your comments will contribute to further developing the "Architecture and Space for Human
Library" in the coming future. All answers will be treated con dentially and anonymously.
Your name:
Vipul Vaibhaw
Your age: *
23
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
India
What is the title of your book?
Mr Robot
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Xw2-SQMqjJCR2sxX8dlgkNwPsbHvA2nP48QE1makSF8/edit#response=ACYDBNi8lORY0RWEc87zxTzEW9… 1/66
Have you been a book in a Human Library before? If yes, when and
where? *
No
What is your preference of space for such an event? *
Formal Space
Informal/Friendly/Casual Space
What kind of space comforts you the most for sensitive interactions? *
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Spill-over space Benched seating around trees
Courtyard
Averagely spacious closed A multi-purpose hall

room (5m by 3m maximum)
Private space divided by

screen as of a confession
box
What do you prefer more as a book? *
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people
If you chose, "one-on-one", what level of privacy/security do you prefer

around?
One guy on watch in the room
CCTV cameras around
No one watching and no cameras
Would you prefer a room lled with natural light? *
Yes
No
Regular sized windows
Light penetrating through ventilators
Central spread through skylight
Well lit space using arti cial lighting
Dark room
What time of the day suits you best for open-heart interactions? *
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.
Forms

Dear Book,
Your name:
Vaishali patkar
Your age: *
45
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Indian
Rainbow
where? *
Pune
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Xw2-SQMqjJCR2sxX8dlgkNwPsbHvA2nP48QE1makSF8/edit#response=ACYDBNi8lORY0RWEc87zxTzEW… 10/66

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Book,
Your name:
Vartika awasthi
Your age: *
21
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Indian
The girl by herself
where? *
No
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Book,
Your name:
Zoya Ajmali
Your age: *
47
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Indian
Non believer to a believer
where? *
13 th January 2018 at Lady Hardinge’s medical college
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Book,
Your name:
Hunny Kapoor
Your age: *
24
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Indian
Different & Able
where? *
Yes many a times, Innov8 in Cp, IHC, Campus connect in IIT, GPF
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Book,
Your name:
Ranica Kapoor
Your age: *
21
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Indian
Walking On Thin Ice
where? *
IIT Delhi, LHMC
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Book,
Your name:
Krishna Varma
Your age: *
62
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Indian
Buddha in Daily Life
where? *
Yes! Number of times. HLD's 1st Event at Innov8, CP. 2. Campus Connect at IIT Delhi. 3. At
Gandhi Peace Foundation, 4. At Amake. 5. At Lady Hardinge Medical College
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Book,
Your name:
SONIA MEHTA
Your age: *
38
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
INDIAN
CANCER SURVIVOR
where? *
No
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Book,
Your name:
Lakshita
Your age: *
19
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Indian
Lady Lazarus
where? *
Yes on 19 Jan 2018, Delhi Technological University
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Book,
Your name:
Lukasz
Your age: *
24
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Poland
Feminist (men)
where? *
yes, in different cities in Poland
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Book,
Your name:
Katarzyna Szwed
Your age: *
29
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Polish
Feminist
where? *
Yes, for an event by the same organisation
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms
3/22/2018 Questionnaire for Readers of the Human Library
Questionnaire for Readers of the Human Library

Dear Reader,
Thanks for taking some time to ll in this short questionnaire, to share your experience in reading one or more of
the Human books. Your comments will contribute to further developing the "Architecture and Space for Human
Your age: *
22
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Polish
Have you been a reader in a Human Library before? If yes, please specify.
*
Yes
Formal Space
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1u9KbF3eTYOAR29JCkMkQN6gtKDx9EXFqllTGt7LWnyM/edit#response=ACYDBNhXXqOyeyNNyiQBgWrJE-… 1/60
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
What do you prefer more as a reader? *
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Reader,
Your age: *
21
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Indian
*
No
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1u9KbF3eTYOAR29JCkMkQN6gtKDx9EXFqllTGt7LWnyM/edit#response=ACYDBNhXXqOyeyNNyiQBgWrJE… 10/60

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Reader,
Your age: *
25
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Poland
*
Yes, many time
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Reader,
Your age: *
26
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Polish
*
Yes, like 7 times
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Reader,
Your age: *
31
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Belarus
*
Yes
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Reader,
Your age: *
25
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Polish
*
Yes, a few times.
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Reader,
Your age: *
14
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Polish
*
No
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Reader,
Your age: *
21
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Indian
*
No
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Reader,
Your age: *
56
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Pole
*
Yes, but I have been the book.
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms

Dear Reader,
Your age: *
23
Your gender: *
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Other:
Your nationality: *
Polish
*
Yes,
Formal Space
Open space
Semi-open
Closed
Garden Amphitheater
Courtyard


box
Group discussion
One-on-one talk
1-5 people
6-10 people
11-15 people

around?
CCTV cameras around
Yes
No
Dark room
00.00 to 3.00 am
3.00 am to 6:00 am
6.00 am to 9.00 am
9.00 am to 12 noon
12 noon to 3.00 pm
3.00 pm to 6.00 pm
6.00 pm to 9.00 pm
9.00 pm to 00.00
Forms
3/22/2018 Questionnaire for the Organizing team of Human library
Questionnaire for the Organizing team of Human library

Dear Team,
Thanks for taking some time to ll in this short questionnaire, to share your experience in to organizing one of
Depending on the level of need and requirement, mark the linear scale (1 to 5, 1 being not at all, 5 being YES)
Name: *
Angelika
Age: *
23
Address of the venue you worked for: *
Poland
Reading area/lounge *
1 2 3 4 5
Lending area *
1 2 3 4 5
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Wsvdm_-iYaNs79uMos6Yg6ef7zZztuamb2uRSTQ-eQ8/edit#response=ACYDBNj9XKCeV1KOStphDvAm-sB0… 1/36
Return area *
1 2 3 4 5
Book area *
1 2 3 4 5
Printing room *
1 2 3 4 5
Zone for Store/selling point *

1 2 3 4 5
Stationary *
1 2 3 4 5
Technical room (might have CCTV screens) *

1 2 3 4 5
Display arena of the books of the event *

1 2 3 4 5
Documentation/catalogue area *
1 2 3 4 5
Basic amenities like toilets, drinking water, cafeteria) *

1 2 3 4 5
Reception area *
1 2 3 4 5
Hall of fame- exhibition zone dedicated for Human library. *

1 2 3 4 5
What do you think could help in organizing the event better? *
Display area near reception for running presentation brie ng about the books
An area for readers to browse through catalogues of the books
Basic amenities should compulsorily have: (check as many as you wish

to) *
Pantry for staff
Public toilets
Drinking water
Canteen
Cafe
Restaurant
What kind of space suits best for meeting room for the books before the
event? *
Circular room/hall
Any room is ne
We can sit outside the building too
We don't need any dedicated zone for meeting
What kind of location suits best for the HL events? *
Countryside
Central of the city
Anywhere works ne
Forms

Dear Team,
Name: *
Shubanshu sharma
Age: *
24
Innova8
1 2 3 4 5
Lending area *
1 2 3 4 5
Return area *
1 2 3 4 5
Book area *
1 2 3 4 5
Printing room *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Stationary *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Reception area *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

to) *
Pantry for staff
Public toilets
Drinking water
Canteen
Cafe
Restaurant
event? *
Circular room/hall
Any room is ne
Countryside
Central of the city
Anywhere works ne
Forms

Dear Team,
Name: *
Payal
Age: *
25
Delhi
1 2 3 4 5
Lending area *
1 2 3 4 5
Return area *
1 2 3 4 5
Book area *
1 2 3 4 5
Printing room *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Stationary *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Wsvdm_-iYaNs79uMos6Yg6ef7zZztuamb2uRSTQ-eQ8/edit#response=ACYDBNj9XKCeV1KOStphDvAm-sB… 10/36

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Reception area *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

to) *
Pantry for staff
Public toilets
Drinking water
Canteen
Cafe
Restaurant
event? *
Circular room/hall
Any room is ne
Countryside
Central of the city
Anywhere works ne
Forms

Dear Team,
Name: *
Aishwarya Loomba
Age: *
22
Events By Delhi Chapter
1 2 3 4 5
Lending area *
1 2 3 4 5
Return area *
1 2 3 4 5
Book area *
1 2 3 4 5
Printing room *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Stationary *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Reception area *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

to) *
Pantry for staff
Public toilets
Drinking water
Canteen
Cafe
Restaurant
event? *
Circular room/hall
Any room is ne
Countryside
Central of the city
Anywhere works ne
Forms

Dear Team,
Name: *
Guntasha Sabharwal
Age: *
20
IIT Delhi
1 2 3 4 5
Lending area *
1 2 3 4 5
Return area *
1 2 3 4 5
Book area *
1 2 3 4 5
Printing room *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Stationary *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Reception area *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

to) *
Pantry for staff
Public toilets
Drinking water
Canteen
Cafe
Restaurant
event? *
Circular room/hall
Any room is ne
Countryside
Central of the city
Anywhere works ne
Forms

Dear Team,
Name: *
Geetika Gundhi
Age: *
20
Lady Hardinge Medical College
1 2 3 4 5
Lending area *
1 2 3 4 5
Return area *
1 2 3 4 5
Book area *
1 2 3 4 5
Printing room *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Stationary *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Reception area *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

to) *
Pantry for staff
Public toilets
Drinking water
Canteen
Cafe
Restaurant
event? *
Circular room/hall
Any room is ne
Countryside
Central of the city
Anywhere works ne
Forms

Dear Team,
Name: *
Hayat Amiree
Age: *
25
Gandhi peace foundation
1 2 3 4 5
Lending area *
1 2 3 4 5
Return area *
1 2 3 4 5
Book area *
1 2 3 4 5
Printing room *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Stationary *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Reception area *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

to) *
Pantry for staff
Public toilets
Drinking water
Canteen
Cafe
Restaurant
event? *
Circular room/hall
Any room is ne
Countryside
Central of the city
Anywhere works ne
Forms

Dear Team,
Name: *
Aishwarya Tiwari
Age: *
24
Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts
1 2 3 4 5
Lending area *
1 2 3 4 5
Return area *
1 2 3 4 5
Book area *
1 2 3 4 5
Printing room *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Stationary *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Reception area *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

to) *
Pantry for staff
Public toilets
Drinking water
Canteen
Cafe
Restaurant
event? *
Circular room/hall
Any room is ne
Countryside
Central of the city
Anywhere works ne
Forms

Dear Team,
Name: *
Łukasz
Age: *
25
Gdańsk
1 2 3 4 5
Lending area *
1 2 3 4 5
Return area *
1 2 3 4 5
Book area *
1 2 3 4 5
Printing room *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Stationary *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Reception area *
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

to) *
Pantry for staff
Public toilets
Drinking water
Canteen
Cafe
Restaurant
event? *
Circular room/hall
Any room is ne
Countryside
Central of the city
Anywhere works ne
Forms

Exploring Architectural Strategies For Designing Human Libraries PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Architectural Strategies For Designing Human Libraries PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MKSSS's

DR.BHANUBEN NANAVATI COLLEGE OF

ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT- 1 (DISSERTATION)

EXPLORING ARCHITECTURAL STRATEGIES FOR DESIGNING

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

PROF. KAVITA MURUGKAR

PROF. KAVITA MURUGKAR

SAVITRIBAI PHULE PUNE UNIVERSITY

I, Tanushree Saluja, declare that Architectural Dissertation is carried out

All sources of scholarly information used in this dissertation are duly

S.NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

ABOUT HUMAN LIBRARIES

“A stranger is a friend you haven’t met yet.”

Diversity builds on concepts such as:

4. HISTORY OF HUMAN LIBRARY

Some specific recommendations:

7.2 Research Tools

8.1 Summary of responses received from 11 Books:

Have you been a book in Human Library before?

What is your preference of space for such an event?

If you chose Open space; what space would you prefer?

If you chose Semi-open space; what space would you prefer?

If you chose closed space; what space would you prefer?

What do you prefer more as a book?

If you chose, "one-on-one", what level of privacy/security do you prefer around?

Would you prefer a room filled with natural light?

8.2 Summary of responses received from 10 Readers:

Have you been a reader in Human Library

What is your preference of space for such an event?

If you chose Open space; what space would you prefer?

If you chose Semi-open space; what space would you prefer?

If you chose closed space; what space would you prefer?

What do you prefer more as a reader?

If you chose, "one-on-one", what level of privacy/security do you prefer around?

Would you prefer a room filled with natural light?

8.3 Summary of responses received from 9 Organizing Team members:

What do you think could help in organizing the event better?

What kind of location suits best for the HL events?

1. Both the groups have more The concept of HL continues to -

2. Some of the books prefer - Informal/friendly/casual

3. The percentage for both the - Semi-open space

4. Around 80% from both the - Garden

5. Courtyard is mostly preferred Books just need to connect with Courtyard

7. Books prefer one-on-one It probably becomes tough on One-on-one

9. Major part of the Books - No one watching and no

Readers prefer time from 3pm

AREAS THEY DEMAND FOR IN A PERMANENT LIBRARY

 Display arena of the books of the event

AREAS THEY REQUIRE FOR OPTIMUM FUCTIONING OF THE LIBRARY

AREAS THAT AREN’T REALLY REQUIRED

Brand, J. L. (2017). Physical space and spcoal interactions. Haworth , 19.

Carney, C. (n.d.). The human library as an educational tool .

Facebook. (n.d.). Retrieved 2018, from https://www.facebook.com/humanlibrarorg/

Google. Bilblioteca Vie Human Library .

Handke, A. (2018). Outgroup attitude change at the Human Library.

Rohan Giramkar, K. P. (n.d.). Decongestion of traffic in Pune city. IJARIIE .

Suryawanshi, S. (2013, March). Death on city roads. Times Of India , p. 1.

and social sciences

Don’t judge a book by its cover –

Name and initials: Handke, A.L.

Student number: s2296942

Email address: a.l.handke@gmail.com

Thesis supervisor(s): dr. N. Hansen