Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Extended contact (i.e., knowledge that an ingroup member has a close relationship with an outgroup member) often improves relations between groups. In the current research, we argue that such contact can also undermine relations within groups. Specifically, we propose a “fraternizing with the enemy” effect in which the fraternizer is viewed negatively by other ingroup members. In five preregistered experiments (N = 2,035), we tested this effect in the context of political conflict using both real-world (Study 1) and fictitious (Studies 2–5) ingroup and outgroup members. Our results indicated that the fraternizer (vs. nonfraternizer) was viewed as less ideologically aligned with the ingroup, which in turn led to perceptions of this person as ambiguous and disloyal to the ingroup, and thereby elicited negative attitudes toward the fraternizer. We also found that, besides producing these negative effects, fraternizing with the enemy also produced the positive intergroup effects typically elicited by extended contact. We discuss the potential implications of our results for the effectiveness of extended contact in bridging political divides.

Keywords

extended contact intergroup relations intragroup processes political hostility political orientation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Balduzzi

Rücker

Schwarzer

(2019). How to perform a meta-analysis with R: A practical tutorial. BMJ Mental Health, 22(4), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117

Beer

Watson

(2009). The Individual and Group Loyalty scales (IGLS): Construction and preliminary validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902794341

Boutyline

Willer

(2017). The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology, 38(3), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12337

Brambilla

Hewstone

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212471737

Buliga

MacInnis

(2020). “How do you like them now?” Expected reactions upon discovering that a friend is a political out-group member. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(10–11), 2779–2801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520939191

Campbell

J. D.

Trapnell

P. D.

Heine

S. J.

Katz

I. M.

Lavallee

L. F.

Lehman

D. R.

(1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141

Casey

J. P.

Vanman

E. J.

Barlow

F. K.

(2023). Empathic conservatives and moralizing liberals: Political intergroup empathy varies by political ideology and is explained by moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231198001

Chen

J. M.

Hamilton

D. L.

(2012). Natural ambiguities: Racial categorization of multiracial individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.005

10.

Chiu

(2019, October 8). “I’m friends with George Bush”: Ellen DeGeneres defends sitting with George W. Bush at Cowboys game. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/08/ellen-degeneres-defends-watching-football-with-president-george-w-bush/

11.

Crawford

J. T.

Brandt

M. J.

(2020). Ideological (a)symmetries in prejudice and intergroup bias. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.11.007

12.

Ditto

P. H.

Koleva

S. P.

(2011). Moral empathy gaps and the American culture war. Emotion Review, 3(3), 331–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911402393

13.

Dovidio

J. F.

Gaertner

S. L.

Kawakami

(2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001009

14.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

15.

Festinger

(1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57(5), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056932

16.

Festinger

(1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

17.

Fiedler

Schott

Meiser

(2011). What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231–1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.007

18.

Gaither

S. E.

Babbitt

L. G.

Sommers

S. R.

(2018). Resolving racial ambiguity in social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.003

19.

Goh

J. X.

Hall

J. A.

Rosenthal

(2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267

20.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

21.

Healy

(2021, January 11). These are the 5 people who died in the capitol riot. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.html

22.

Heltzel

Laurin

(2021). Seek and ye shall be fine: Attitudes toward political-perspective seekers. Psychological Science, 32(11), 1782–1800. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211011969

23.

Hornsey

M. J.

(2016). Dissent and deviance in intergroup contexts. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.006

24.

Huber

G. A.

Malhotra

(2017). Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence from online dating behavior. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1086/687533

25.

Husnu

Crisp

R. J.

(2010). Elaboration enhances the imagined contact effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 943–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014

26.

Jetten

Hornsey

M. J.

(2014). Deviance and dissent in groups. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 461–485. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115151

27.

Kilgore

(2021, March 20). George W. Bush is too liberal for the Republican Party. New York Magazine. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/george-w-bush-is-too-liberal-for-the-republican-party.html

28.

Kunst

J. R.

Thomsen

Dovidio

J. F.

(2019). Divided loyalties: Perceptions of disloyalty underpin bias toward dually-identified minority-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(4), 807–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000168

29.

LaChance

(2019, October 8). Ellen DeGeneres defends her friendship with George W. Bush. Splinter. https://splinternews.com/ellen-staunchly-defends-her-nauseating-friendship-with-1838864797

30.

Levine

J. M.

(2017). Factional conflict in groups: How majorities and minorities relate to one another. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 644–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217702726

31.

Levine

J. M.

Moreland

R. L.

(2002). Group reactions to loyalty and disloyalty. In Thye

S. R.

Lawler

E. J.

(Eds.), Group cohesion, trust and solidarity: Advances in group processes (Vol. 19, pp. 203–228). Elsevier Science.

32.

Mannetti

Levine

J. M.

Pierro

Kruglanski

A. W.

(2010). Group reaction to defection: The impact of shared reality. Social Cognition, 28(3), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2010.28.3.447

33.

Marques

J. M.

Abrams

Paez

Hogg

M. A.

(2001). Social categorization, social identification, and rejection of deviant group members. In Hogg

M. A.

Tindale

R. S.

(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (Vol. 3, pp. 400–424). Blackwell.

34.

Marques

J. M.

Paez

(1994). The “black sheep effect”: Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1479277954300001

35.

Marques

J. M.

Pinto

I. R.

(2023). Inclusion, exclusion, and marginalization of group deviants. In M. Hogg (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Psychology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.261

36.

Motyl

Iyer

Oishi

Trawalter

Nosek

B. A.

(2014). How ideological migration geographically segregates groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.010

37.

Mutz

D. C.

(2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004264

38.

O’Reilly

Robinson

S. L.

Berdahl

J. L.

Banki

(2014). Is negative attention better than no attention? The comparative effects of ostracism and harassment at work. Organization Science, 26(3), 774–793. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0900

39.

Paluck

E. L.

Porat

Clark

C. S.

Green

D. P.

(2020). Prejudice reduction: Progress and challenges. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 533–560. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619

40.

Pettigrew

T. F.

(1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65

41.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9 0(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

42.

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(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504

43.

Pinto

I. R.

Marques

J. M.

Levine

J. M.

Abrams

(2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018187

44.

Pinto

I. R.

Marques

J. M.

Levine

J. M.

Abrams

(2016). Membership role and subjective group dynamics: Impact on evaluative intragroup differentiation and commitment to prescriptive norms. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(5), 570–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216638531

45.

Rosenau

Espach

Ortiz

R. D.

Herrera

(2014). Why they join, why they fight, and why they leave: Learning from Colombia’s database of demobilized militants. Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(2), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2012.700658

46.

Rosenfeld

M. J.

Thomas

R. J.

Falcon

(2011). How couples meet and stay together, Waves 1, 2, and 3: Public Version 3.04, plus Wave 4 supplement Version 1.02 [Computer files]. Stanford University Libraries.

47.

Shrout

P. E.

Bolger

(2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

48.

Stern

Crawford

J. T.

(2021). Ideological conflict and prejudice: An adversarial collaboration examining correlates and ideological (a)symmetries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620904275

49.

Travaglino

G. A.

Abrams

de Moura

G. R.

Marques

J. M.

Pinto

I. R.

(2014). How groups react to disloyalty in the context of intergroup competition: Evaluations of group deserters and defectors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.05.006

50.

Wetherell

G. A.

Brandt

M. J.

Reyna

(2013). Discrimination across the ideological divide: The role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(6), 658–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613476096

51.

Wojcieszak

Warner

B. R.

(2020). Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Political Communication, 37(6), 789–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1760406

52.

Wright

S. C.

Aron

McLaughlin-Volpe

Ropp

S. A.

(1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73

53.

Yamada

Itsukushima

(2013). The effects of schema on recognition memories and subjective experiences for actions and objects. Japanese Psychological Research, 55(4), 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12016

54.

Yandoli

K. L.

(2020, July 16). Former employees say Ellen’s “be kind” talk show mantra masks a toxic work culture. BuzzFeed News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krystieyandoli/ellen-employees-allege-toxic-workplace-culture

55.

Zhou

Page-Gould

Aron

Moyer

Hewstone

(2019). The extended contact hypothesis: A meta-analysis on 20 years of research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 132–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318762647

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.

0.00 MB

1.62 MB

Fraternizing with the enemy: Intragroup effects of extended contact

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material