Integrating theory on interpersonal relationships and intergroup relations, this research examined the role of common ingroup recategorization (i.e., perceiving outgroup members as belonging to the same superordinate group as oneself) in fostering communal interracial relationships. A cross-sectional study (Study 1) and a short-term intensive longitudinal study (Study 2) involving Black and White friendship and romantic dyads suggested that recategorization predicted greater communal motivation and security via perceived similarity. These effects were found in terms of both enduring characteristics and changes over time. In turn, communal motivation and security predicted greater self-reported prosocial behavior and relationship satisfaction, suggesting that they are beneficial to interracial relationship quality. Communal motivation also predicted increases over time in recategorization and perceived similarity, suggesting bidirectional effects. Taken together, these results suggest a reciprocal process in which common ingroup recategorization and perceptions of similarity promote and derive from the communal nature of interracial relationships.
BallietD.WuJ.De DreuC. K. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556–1581.
2.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
3.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444.
4.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.
5.
ByrneD. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 713–715.
6.
ChenF. F.KenrickD. T. (2002). Repulsion or attraction? Group membership and assumed attitude similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 111–125.
7.
ClarkM. S. (1986). Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulations of communal and exchange relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(4), 414–425.
8.
ClarkM. S.LemayE. P.GrahamS. M.PatakiS. P.FinkelE. J. (2010). Ways of giving benefits in marriage: Norm use, relationship satisfaction, and attachment-related variability. Psychological Science, 21(7), 944–951.
9.
ClarkM. S.MillsJ. R. (2011). A theory of communal (and exchange) relationships. In LangeP. A. M. V.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 232–250). SAGE.
10.
DaviesK.TroppL. R.AronA.PettigrewT. F.WrightS. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351.
11.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.UfkesE. G.SaguyT.PearsonA. R. (2016). Included but invisible? Subtle bias, common identity, and the darker side of “we.”Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 6–46.
12.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.ValidzicA.MatokaK.JohnsonB.FrazierS. (1997). Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(4), 401–420.
13.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2012). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. In LangeP. A. M. V.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 439–457). SAGE.
14.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.AnastasioP. A.BachmanB. A.RustM. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26.
15.
GaertnerS. L.MannJ. A.DovidioJ. F.MurrellA. J.PomareM. (1990). How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 692–704.
16.
GaertnerS. L.MannJ.MurrellA.DovidioJ. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 239–249.
17.
HuL.-t.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
18.
InskoC. A.NacosteR. W.MoeJ. L. (1983). Belief congruence and racial discrimination: Review of the evidence and critical evaluation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13(2), 153–174.
19.
KaoG.JoynerK. (2004). Do race and ethnicity matter among friends?Sociological Quarterly, 45(3), 557–573.
20.
KarylowskiJ. (1976). Self-esteem, similarity, liking and helping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2(1), 71–74.
21.
KennyD. A.AcitelliL. K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in the perception of the partner in a close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 439–448.
22.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.
23.
KlineR. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
24.
KroegerR. A.WilliamsK. (2011). Consequences of Black exceptionalism? Interracial unions with Blacks, depressive symptoms, and relationship satisfaction. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(3), 400–420.
25.
LeB. M.ImpettE. A.LemayE. P.Jr.MuiseA.TskhayK. O. (2018). Communal motivation and well-being in interpersonal relationships: An integrative review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 1–25.
26.
LedermannT.MachoS.KennyD. A. (2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(4), 595–612.
27.
LemayE. P.Jr.ClarkM. S. (2008a). How the head liberates the heart: Projection of communal responsiveness guides relationship promotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 647–671.
28.
LemayE. P.Jr.ClarkM. S. (2008b). “Walking on eggshells”: How expressing relationship insecurities perpetuates them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 420–441.
29.
LemayE. P.Jr.ClarkM. S.FeeneyB. C. (2007). Projection of responsiveness to needs and the construction of satisfying communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 834–853.
30.
MillsJ.ClarkM. S.FordT. E.JohnsonM. (2004). Measurement of communal strength. Personal Relationships, 11(2), 213–230.
31.
MontoyaR. M.HortonR. S.KirchnerJ. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889–922.
32.
MorryM. M.KitoM. I. E.OrtizL. (2011). The attraction–similarity model and dating couples: Projection, perceived similarity, and psychological benefits. Personal Relationships, 18(1), 125–143.
33.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.BellaviaG.GriffinD. W.DoldermanD. (2002). Kindred spirits? The benefits of egocentrism in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 563–581.
34.
MuthenL. K.MuthenB. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.).
35.
NierJ. A.GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.BankerB. S.WardC. M.RustM. C. (2001). Changing interracial evaluations and behavior: The effects of a common group identity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(4), 299–316.
36.
OveisC.HorbergE. J.KeltnerD. (2010). Compassion, pride, and social intuitions of self-other similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 618–630.
37.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.
38.
PreacherK. J.ZhangZ.ZyphurM. J. (2011). Alternative methods for assessing mediation in multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(2), 161–182.
39.
PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J.ZhangZ. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233.
40.
PrisbellM.AndersenJ. F. (1980). The importance of perceived homophily, level of uncertainty, feeling good, safety, and self-disclosure in interpersonal relationships. Communication Quarterly, 28(3), 22–33.
41.
RichardsonG. P. (1999). Feedback thought in social science and systems theory. Pegasus Communications.
42.
RobbinsJ. M.KruegerJ. I. (2005). Social projection to ingroups and outgroups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1), 32–47.
43.
RokeachM.SmithP. W.EvansR. I. (1960). Two kinds of prejudice or one? In RokeachM. (Ed.), The open and closed mind (pp. 132–168). Basic Books.
44.
RusbultC. E.MartzJ. M.AgnewC. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–391.
45.
SanchezD. T.FetterolfJ. C.RudmanL. A. (2012). Eroticizing inequality in the United States: The consequences and determinants of traditional gender role adherence in intimate relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49(2–3), 168–183.
46.
SelfhoutM.DenissenJ.BranjeS.MeeusW. (2009). In the eye of the beholder: Perceived, actual, and peer-rated similarity in personality, communication, and friendship intensity during the acquaintanceship process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1152–1165.
47.
SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A. (2006). Interracial interactions: A relational approach. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 121–181). Elsevier Academic Press.
48.
SherifM.SherifC. W. (1969). Social psychology. Harper & Row.
49.
ShookN. J.FazioR. H. (2008). Interracial roommate relationships: An experimental field test of the contact hypothesis. Psychological Science, 19(7), 717–723.
50.
SinghR.WegenerD. T.SankaranK.BhullarN.AngK. Q.ChiaP. J.CheongX.ChenF. (2017). Attitude similarity and attraction: Validation, positive affect, and trust as sequential mediators. Personal Relationships, 24(1), 203–222.
51.
StermanJ. D. (2006). Learning from evidence in a complex world. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 505–514.
52.
TajfelH. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.
53.
ToosiN. R.BabbittL. G.AmbadyN.SommersS. R. (2012). Dyadic interracial interactions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(1), 1–27.
54.
TrailT. E.SheltonJ. N.WestT. V. (2009). Interracial roommate relationships: Negotiating daily interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 671–684.
55.
TrawalterS.RichesonJ. A.SheltonJ. N. (2009). Predicting behavior during interracial interactions: A stress and coping approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(4), 243–268.
56.
ValdesoloP.DeStenoD. (2011). Synchrony and the social tuning of compassion. Emotion, 11(2), 262–266.
57.
Van de SchootR.KaplanD.DenissenJ.AsendorpfJ. B.NeyerF. J.van AkenM. A. (2014). A gentle introduction to Bayesian analysis: Applications to developmental research. Child Development, 85(3), 842–860.
58.
WestT. V.MageeJ. C.GordonS. H.GullettL. (2014). A little similarity goes a long way: The effects of peripheral but self-revealing similarities on improving and sustaining interracial relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1), 81–100.
59.
WestT. V.PearsonA. R.DovidioJ. F.SheltonJ. N.TrailT. E. (2009). Superordinate identity and intergroup roommate friendship development. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1266–1272.
60.
WieselquistJ.RusbultC. E.FosterC. A.AgnewC. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 942–966.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
