Even in environments offering ample opportunities to interact with people from diverse backgrounds, people differ in their tendency to form intergroup friendships. Whereas some develop intergroup friendships, others prefer befriending ingroup members, contributing to prejudice and polarization. We identify open-mindedness—an inclination to engage with and understand different perspectives—as an individual difference predicting the racial, political, and socioeconomic diversity of real-world friendship networks. In a longitudinal study of 1,423 eighth–ninth graders, more open-minded adolescents developed more racially diverse friendship networks over 2 years. Two additional studies (total N = 1,585 adults) replicated and extended this finding: Open-mindedness predicted greater racial, political, and socioeconomic diversity of friends, and was more consistently associated with friendship diversity than Big Five openness to experience. The associations between open-mindedness and friendship diversity were partly explained by open-minded individuals’ lower avoidance of interaction with outgroup members. Building open-mindedness may be one individual-level approach to promote friendships across divides.
AchenbachT. M.McConaughyS. H.HowellC. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213
2.
AntonioA. L. (2001). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college. The Review of Higher Education, 25(1), 63–89. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2001.0013
3.
AntonoplisS.JohnO. P. (2022). Who has different-race friends, and does it depend on context? Openness (to other), but not agreeableness, predicts lower racial homophily in friendship networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(5), 894–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000413
BoinJ.RuparM.GrafS.NejiS.SpieglerO.SwartH. (2021). The generalization of intergroup contact effects: Emerging research, policy relevance, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12419
7.
BolgerN.LaurenceauJ.-P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford Press.
8.
CareyR. M.StephensN. M.TownsendS. S. M.HamedaniM. G. (2022). Is diversity enough? Cross-race and cross-class interactions in college occur less often than expected, but benefit members of lower status groups when they occur. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(5), 889–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000302
9.
CarterE. R.BradyS. T.Murdock-PerrieraL. A.GilbertsonM. K.AblorhT.MurphyM. C. (2019). The racial composition of students’ friendship networks predicts perceptions of injustice and involvement in collective action. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 3(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.27
10.
ChettyR.JacksonM. O.KuchlerT.StroebelJ.HendrenN.FlueggeR. B.GongS.GonzalezF.GrondinA.JacobM.JohnstonD.KoenenM.Laguna-MuggenburgE.MudekerezaF.RutterT.ThorN.TownsendW.ZhangR.BaileyM.. . . WernerfeltN. (2022). Social capital I: Measurement and associations with economic mobility. Nature, 608(7921), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04996-4
11.
ChristensenA. P.CotterK. N.SilviaP. J. (2019). Reopening openness to experience: A network analysis of four openness to experience inventories. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(6), 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1467428
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103
15.
FischerM. J. (2008). Does campus diversity promote friendship diversity? A look at interracial friendships in college. Social Science Quarterly, 89(3), 631–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00552.x
16.
FlynnF. J. (2005). Having an open mind: The impact of openness to experience on interracial attitudes and impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 816–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.816
17.
HaranU.RitovI.MellersB. A. (2013). The role of actively open-minded thinking in information acquisition, accuracy, and calibration. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500005921
18.
HarrisonD. A.KleinK. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096
19.
JacksonJ. W.PoulsenJ. R. (2005). Contact experiences mediate the relationship between five-factor model personality traits and ethnic prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(4), 667–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02140.x
20.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.
21.
JoynerK.KaoG. (2000). School racial composition and adolescent racial homophily. Social Science Quarterly, 81(3), 810–825. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42864005
22.
KmettyZ.TardosR. (2022). Party Nexus Position Generator: New tool for the measurement of political homophily and political network diversity. Social Networks, 70, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.11.011
23.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.HoffmanJ. M.WestS. G.SheetsV. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83
24.
McCraeR. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258
25.
McdonaldD. G.DimmickJ. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of diversity. Communication Research, 30(1), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202239026
26.
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
27.
MetzE. S.BaelenR. N.YuA. (2020). Actively open-minded thinking in American adolescents. Review of Education, 8(3), 768–799. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3232
28.
MutzD. 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
29.
NeyerF. J. (2006). Informant assessment. In EidM.DienerE. (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 43–59). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11383-004
30.
OrthU.ClarkD. A.DonnellanM. B.RobinsR. W. (2021). Testing prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000358
PaoliniS.WrightS. C.Dys-SteenbergenO.FavaraI. (2016). Self-expansion and intergroup contact: Expectancies and motives to self-expand lead to greater interest in outgroup contact and more positive intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 72(3), 450–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12176
33.
RastogiR.JuvonenJ. (2019). Interminority friendships and intergroup attitudes across middle school: Quantity and stability of Black–Latino ties. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(8), 1619–1630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01044-9
34.
RoetsA.van HielA. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004
35.
RuckD. J.MatthewsL. J.KyritsisT.AtkinsonQ. D.BentleyR. A. (2020). The cultural foundations of modern democracies. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0769-1
36.
SchofieldJ. W.HausmannL. R. M.YeF.WoodsR. L. (2010). Intergroup friendships on campus: Predicting close and casual friendships between White and African American first-year college students. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210362437
37.
SheltonJ. N.TuretskyK. M.ParkY.EikenburgL. (2024). Diverse friendships: Formation, maintenance, and benefits. In HojjatM.MoyerA. (Eds.), Modern relationships: Romance, friendship, and family in the 21st century (pp. 251–269). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197655504.003.0015
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 342–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342
41.
SumaktoyoN. G. (2021). Friends from across the aisle: The effects of partisan bonding, partisan bridging, and network disagreement on outparty attitudes and political engagement. Political Behavior, 43(1), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09552-x
42.
Svedholm-HäkkinenA. M.LindemanM. (2018). Actively open-minded thinking: Development of a shortened scale and disentangling attitudes towards knowledge and people. Thinking & Reasoning, 24(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1378723
43.
TurnerR. N.DhontK.HewstoneM.PrestwichA.VonofakouC. (2014). The role of personality factors in the reduction of intergroup anxiety and amelioration of outgroup attitudes via intergroup contact. European Journal of Personality, 28(2), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1927
44.
UfkesE. G.CalcagnoJ.GlasfordD. E.DovidioJ. F. (2016). Understanding how common ingroup identity undermines collective action among disadvantaged-group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.11.006
45.
Van LaarC.LevinS.SinclairS.SidaniusJ. (2005). The effect of university roommate contact on ethnic attitudes and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(4), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.08.002
46.
VezzaliL.TurnerR.CapozzaD.TrifilettiE. (2018). Does intergroup contact affect personality? A longitudinal study on the bidirectional relationship between intergroup contact and personality traits. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2313
47.
YeomansM.MinsonJ.CollinsH.ChenF.GinoF. (2020). Conversational receptiveness: Improving engagement with opposing views. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.011
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.
