Drawing on self-categorization theory, this article examines the indirect effects of gender salience and prototypicality on friendship potential through increasing liking of a female interlocutor. We manipulated biographies of the fictitious interlocutor to change perceptions of prototypicality. For women, gender salience interacted with prototypicality to directly predict liking and the desire to become friends with the interlocutor indirectly through liking. Specifically, there was an interaction between prototypicality and gender salience, such that as gender salience increased, the prototypical interlocutor was liked significantly more and had higher friendship potential. For men, the same relationships did not appear. We discuss the implications of our study as well as directions for future research on intragroup communication and intergroup contexts with regard to power asymmetry.
AbramsD.HoggM. A. (2010). Social identity and self-categorization. In DovidioJ. F.HewstonM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 179–193). London, England: SAGE.
2.
BukowskiW. M.MotzoiC.MeyerF. (2009). Friendship as process, function, and outcome. In RubinK. H.BukowskiW. M.LaursenB. (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 217–231). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
3.
ByrneD. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
4.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
FelmleeD. H. (1999). Social norms in same- and cross-gender friendships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 53–67. doi:10.2307/2695825
6.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
7.
GalloisC.OgayT.GilesH. (2005). Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In GudykunstW. B. (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.56.2.109
9.
GoldmanJ. A.RosenzweigC. M.LutterA. D. (1980). Effect of similarity of ego identity status on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9, 153–162. doi:10.1007/bf02087933
10.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
11.
HoggM. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In HoggM. A.TindaleR. S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 56–85). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
12.
HoggM. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In BurkeP. J. (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111–136). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13.
HoggM. A.HainsS. C. (1996). Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 295–309. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.295
14.
HoggM. A.HardieE. A. (1992). Prototypicality, conformity and depersonalized attraction: A self-categorization analysis of group cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 41–56. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00954.x
15.
HoggM. A.HardieE. A.ReynoldsK. J. (1995). Prototypical similarity, self-categorization, and depersonalized attraction: A perspective on group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 159–177. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250204
16.
HoggM. A.TerryD. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140. doi:10.2307/259266
17.
JayantiR. K.WhippleT. W. (2008). Like me…like me not: The role of physician likability on service evaluations. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16, 79–86. doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679160106
18.
KawaiY. (2005). Stereotyping Asian Americans: The dialectic of the model minority and the yellow peril. Howard Journal of Communications, 16, 109–130. doi:10.1080/10646170590948974
19.
MarquesJ. M.AbramsD.PaezD.Martinez-TaboadaC. (1998). The role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 976–988. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.976
20.
MarquesJ. M.PaezD. (1994). The black sheep effect: Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 37–68. doi:10.1080/14792779543000011
21.
MastroD. E.Atwell SeateA.BlechaE.GallegosM. (2012). The wide world of sports reporting: The influence of gender-and race-based expectations on evaluations of sports reporters. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 458–474. doi:10.1177/1077699012447922
22.
MastroD. E.TamboriniR.HullettC. R. (2005). Linking media to prototype activation and subsequent celebrity attraction: An application of self-categorization theory. Communication Research, 32, 323–348. doi:10.1177/0093650205275383
23.
McCroskeyL. L.McCroskeyJ. C.RichmondV. P. (2006). Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication Quarterly, 54, 1–31. doi:10.1080/01463370500270322
24.
McIntoshP. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women’s studies (Working Paper 189). Wellesley, MA: Wellesley Centers for Women.
25.
MoodyJ. (2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 679–716. doi:10.1086/338954
26.
MullenB.BrownR.SmithC. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103–122. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420220202
27.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
28.
PalomaresN. A. (2009). Women are sort of more tentative than men, aren’t they? How men and women use tentative language differently, similarly, and counterstereotypically as a function of gender salience. Communication Research, 36, 538–560. doi:10.1177/0093650209333034
29.
PalomaresN. A. (2012). Gender and intergroup communication. In GilesH. (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 197–210). New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
ReidS. A.HoggM. A. (2005). Uncertainty reduction, self-enhancement, and ingroup identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 804–817. doi:10.1177/ 0146167204271708
31.
ReidS. A.KeerieN.PalomaresN. A. (2003). Language, gender salience, and social influence. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 210–233. doi:10.1177/0261927X03252281
32.
SchmittM. T.BranscombeN. R. (2001). The good, the bad, and the manly: Threats to one’s prototypicality and evaluations of fellow in-group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 510–517. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1476
SinghR.HoS. Y. (2000). Attitudes and attraction: A new test of the attraction, repulsion and similarity-dissimilarity asymmetry hypotheses. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 197–211. doi:10.1348/014466600164426
35.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelWSAustinG. . (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
36.
TurnerJ. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In LawlerE. J (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
