Republican or Democrat participants imagined how they would respond upon learning about the political group membership of a potential or established friend. Four vignettes (friend political in-group; friend political out-group; potential friend political in-group; potential friend political out-group) were presented in a random order. After each, participants provided expected reactions. Overall, reactions (e.g., hope of the relationship lasting, intentions to engage in friendship maintenance behaviors, trust) were most positive toward the established in-group friend, followed by potential in-group friend, then the established out-group friend, and lastly the potential out-group friend. That is, participants expected to be more positive toward a person they just met than an established close friend, simply due to knowing these individuals’ political group memberships. Some of these differences were moderated by intergroup attitudes or political identification. Discoveries of political group membership may influence the development or maintenance of friendships.
AdamsG. A.WebsterJ. R. (2017). When leaders are not who they appear: The effects of leader disclosure of a concealable stigma on follower reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(12), 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12467
ArmitageC. J.ConnerM. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
7.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
8.
Ben-NerA.McCallB. P.StephaneM.WangH. (2009). Identity and in-group/out-group differentiation in work and giving behaviors: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72(1), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEBO.2009.05.007
9.
BradyW. J.WillsJ. A.JostJ. T.TuckerJ. A.Van BavelJ. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(28), 7313–7318. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114
BrandtM. J.ReynaC.ChambersJ. R.CrawfordJ. T.WetherellG. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413510932
12.
BuckD. M.PlantE. A. (2011). Interorientation interactions and impressions: Does the timing of disclosure of sexual orientation matter?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JESP.2010.10.016
13.
ByrneD. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised ed.) Academic Press.
16.
DaneS. K.MasserB. M.MacDonaldG.DuckJ. M. (2015). When “in your face” is not out of place: The effect of timing of disclosure of a same-sex dating partner under conditions of contact. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0135023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135023
17.
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, 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103
18.
DerlegaV. J.WinsteadB. A.MathewsA.BraitmanA. L. (2008). Why does someone reveal highly personal information? Attributions for and against self-disclosure in close relationships. Communication Research Reports, 25(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090802021756
19.
DruckmanJ. N.LevenduskyM. S. (2019). What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003
FestingerL. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
22.
FioriK. L.DencklaC. A. (2015). Friendship and happiness among middle-aged adults. In Friendship and Happiness (pp. 137–154). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9603-3_8
23.
FrimerJ. A.SkitkaL. J.MotylM. (2017). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another’s opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.003
24.
GentzkowM.ShapiroJ. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1799–1839. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr044
25.
GoelS.MasonW.WattsD. J. (2010). Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 611–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020697
26.
GoldbergM.van der LindenD. S. (2020). The importance of heterogeneity in large-scale replications. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 8(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.31219/OSF.IO/8CGV9
27.
HaddockG.ZannaM. P.EssesV. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 65(6), 1105–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1105
28.
HartlA. C.LaursenB.CillessenA. H. N. (2015). A survival analysis of adolescent friendships: The downside of dissimilarity. Psychological Science, 26(8), 1304–1315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615588751
29.
HeblM. R.SkorinkoJ. L. (2005). Acknowledging one’s physical disability in the interview: Does “when” make a difference?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(12), 2477–2492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02111.x
30.
HeineS. J.FosterJ.-A. B.SpinaR. (2009). Do birds of a feather universally flock together? Cultural variation in the similarity-attraction effect. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12(4), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2009.01289.x
31.
HodsonG.HarryH.MitchellA. (2009). Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.558
32.
HuxholdO.MicheM.SchuzB. (2014). Benefits of having friends in older ages: Differential effects of informal social activities on well-being in middle-aged and older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69(3), 366–375. doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbt029
33.
IyengarS.KrupenkinM. (2018). The strengthening of partisan affect. Political Psychology, 39, 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12487
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
38.
JostJ. T.NosekB. A.GoslingS. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x
39.
KahnemanD.KruegerA. B.SchkadeD. A.SchwarzN.StoneA. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702), 1776–1780. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103572
40.
Keith ChenM.RohlaR. (2018). The effect of partisanship and political advertising on close family ties. Science, 360(6392), 1020–1024. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq1433
41.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.439
42.
KingE. B.ReillyC.HeblM. (2008). The best of times, the worst of times. Group & Organization Management, 33(5), 566–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108321834
43.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
LandyJ. F.JiaM.DingI. L.ViganolaD.TierneyW.DreberA.JohannessonM.PfeifferT.EbersoleC. R.GronauQ. F.LyA.van den BerghD.MarsmanM.DerksK.WagenmakersE. J.ProctorA.BartelsD. M.BaumanC. W.BradyW. J.,…Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests Collaboration. (in press). Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000220
46.
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2017). Acquaintanceship and self/observer agreement in personality judgment. Journal of Research in Personality, 70, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRP.2017.05.001
47.
LelkesY.WestwoodS. J. (2017). The limits of partisan prejudice. Journal of Politics, 79(2), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1086/688223
48.
LevenduskyM. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became republicans. University of Chicago Press.
49.
LitmanL.RobinsonJ.AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z
50.
LupoA. K.ZárateM. A. (2019). When “they” become “us”: The effect of time and ingroup identity on perceptions of gay and lesbian group members. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(6), 780–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1484232
51.
MacInnisC. C.HodsonG. (2015). The development of online cross-group relationships among university students. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(6), 788–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514548394
52.
MacInnisC. C.Page-GouldE. (2015). How can intergroup interaction be bad if intergroup contact is good? Exploring and reconciling an apparent paradox in the science of intergroup relations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568482
53.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
NicolaisenM.ThorsenK. (2017). What are friends for? Friendships and loneliness over the lifespan—from 18 to 79 years. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 84(2), 126–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091415016655166
OswaldD. L.ClarkE. M.KellyC. M. (2004). Friendship Maintenance: An Analysis of Individual and Dyad Behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(3), 413–441. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.3.413.35460
58.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
59.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
60.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R.WagnerU.ChristO. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001
PoteatV. P.MereishE. H.LiuM. L.NamJ. S. (2011). Can friendships be bipartisan? The effects of political ideology on peer relationships. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(6), 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211401048
64.
RamseyM. A.GentzlerA. L. (2015). An upward spiral: Bidirectional associations between positive affect and positive aspects of close relationships across the life span. Developmental Review, 36, 58–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DR.2015.01.003
RichardF. D.BondC. F.Stokes-ZootaJ. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331
67.
RusbultC. E.AgnewC. R.ArriagaX. B. (2012). The investment model of commitment processes. In Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 218–231). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n37
68.
SiasP.BartooH. (2007). Friendship, social support, and health. In Low-cost approaches to promote physical and mental health (pp. 455–472). Springer.
69.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W.SargisE. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 895–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895
70.
SkitkaL. J.MullenE.GriffinT.HutchinsonS.ChamberlinB. (2002). Dispositions, scripts, or motivated correction? Understanding ideological differences in explanations for social problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 470–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.470
71.
SominI. (2016). Democracy and political ignorance: Why smaller government is smarter (2nd ed.). Stanford University Press.
72.
SunsteinC. R. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press.
73.
TwengeJ. M.HoneycuttN.PrislinR.ShermanR. A. (2016). More polarized but more independent. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(10), 1364–1383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216660058
WestwoodS. J.IyengarS.WalgraveS.LeonisioR.MillerL.StrijbisO. (2018). The tie that divides: Cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. European Journal of Political Research, 57(2), 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12228
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.
