Research on cooperation between groups tends to consider a single social identity at a time. However, individuals naturally share group membership in one social category (e.g., religious belief) while diverging in membership to others (e.g., political ideology). Here, we test the effects of mixed-group membership on actual cooperative behavior relative to completely sharing (in-group) and completely diverging (out-group) group memberships. In three high-powered, preregistered, and incentivized experiments, we found evidence for our hypotheses that cooperation increases with the number of shared memberships in arbitrary (Experiment 1, N = 292) as well as naturally existing social categories such as political orientation and ethnicity (Experiment 2, N = 501) or political orientation and religious affiliation (Experiment 3, N = 292).
AronA.AronE. N.SmollanD. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
2.
BallietD.WuJ.De DreuC. K. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556–1581. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037737
3.
BostynD. H.SevenhantS.RoetsA. (2018). Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1084–1093. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617752640
4.
BrewerM. B. (2017). Intergroup discrimination: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? In SibleyC. G.BarlowF. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 90–110). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.005
5.
BrownR. M.CraigM. A. (2020). Intergroup inequality heightens reports of discrimination along alternative identity dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(6), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219880186
6.
ChuahS. H.HoffmannR.RamasamyB.TanJ. H. (2014). Religion, ethnicity, and cooperation: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 45, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.07.00
7.
CrispR. J.EnsariN.HewstoneM.MillerN. (2003). A dual-route model of crossed categorisation effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1), 35–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280240000091
8.
CrispR. J.HewstoneM. (1999). Differential evaluation of crossed category groups: Patterns, processes, and reducing intergroup bias. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2(4), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430299024001
9.
CrispR. J.HewstoneM. (2000). Crossed categorization and intergroup bias: The moderating roles of intergroup and affective context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(4), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1408
10.
CrispR. J.HewstoneM.RubinM. (2001). Does multiple categorization reduce intergroup bias?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201271007
11.
CrispR. J.WalshJ.HewstoneM. (2006). Crossed categorization in common ingroup contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(9), 1204–1218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206289409
12.
DeschampsJ. C.DoiseW. (1978). Crossed category membership in intergroup relations. In TajfelH. (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 141–158). Academic Press.
13.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
FiedlerS.HellmannD. M.DorroughA. R.GlöcknerA. (2018). Cross-national in-group favoritism in prosocial behavior: Evidence from Latin and North America. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(1), 42–60.
16.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000004
17.
GrigoryanL. (2020). Crossed categorization outside the lab: Findings from a factorial survey experiment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(5), 983–1000. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2656
18.
HallN. R.CrispR. J. (2005). Considering multiple criteria for social categorization can reduce intergroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1435–1444. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672052760
19.
HewstoneM. (1996). Contact and categorization: Social psychological interventions to change intergroup relations. In MacraeC. N.StangorC.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 323–1368). The Guilford Press.
20.
HewstoneM.IslamM. R.JuddC. M. (1993). Models of crossed categorization and intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 779–793. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.779
21.
HewstoneM.RubinM.WillisH. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 575–604.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
24.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 601–625. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033702
25.
KochA.DorroughA. R.GlöcknerA.ImhoffR. (2020). The ABC of society: Perceived similarity in agency/socioeconomic success and conservative-progressive beliefs increases intergroup cooperation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, 103996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103996
26.
KozlowskiA. C. (2021). How conservatives lost confidence in science: The role of ideological alignment in political polarization. Social Forces,100(3), 1415–1443. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soab020
27.
KumarM. M.TsoiL.LeeM. S.ConeJ.McAuliffeK. (2021). Nationality dominates gender in decision-making in the Dictator and Prisoner’s Dilemma Games. PLOS ONE, 16(1), e0244568. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244568
28.
MigdalM. J.HewstoneM.MullenB. (1998). The effects of crossed categorization on intergroup evaluations: A meta-analysis: British Journal of Social Psychology, 37(3), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01174.x
29.
MullenB.MigdalM. J.HewstoneM. (2001). Crossed categorization versus simple categorization and intergroup evaluations: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6), 721–736.
30.
NicolasG.de la FuenteM.FiskeS. T. (2017). Mind the overlap in multiple categorization: A review of crossed categorization, intersectionality, and multiracial perception. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 621–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217708862
31.
PratiF.CrispR. J.RubiniM. (2021). 40 years of multiple social categorization: A tool for social inclusivity. European Review of Social Psychology, 32(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2020.1830612
32.
RayD. G.WayN.HamiltonD. L. (2010). Crossed-categorization, evaluation, and face recognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 449–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.001
33.
SchubertT. W.OttenS. (2002). Overlap of self, ingroup, and outgroup: Pictorial measures of self-categorization. Self and Identity, 1(4), 353–376.
34.
SheeranP.WebbT. L. (2016). The intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265
35.
StarmerC.SugdenR. (1991). Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. American Economic Review, 81(4), 971–978.
36.
TajfelH. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96–103.
37.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
38.
UrbanL. M.MIllerN. (1998). A theoretical analysis of crossed categorization effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 894–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.894
39.
van OudenhovenJ. P.JuddC. M.HewstoneM. (2000). Additive and interactive models of crossed categorization in correlated social categories. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430200033004
40.
VescioT. K.JuddC. M.KwanV. S. (2004). The crossed-categorization hypothesis: Evidence of reductions in the strength of categorization, but not intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 478–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.005
41.
WhittS.YanusA. B.McDonaldB.GraeberJ.SetzlerM.BallingrudG.KiferM. (2020). Tribalism in America: Behavioral experiments on affective polarization in the Trump Era. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2020.29
42.
YamagishiT.JinN.KiyonariT. (1999). Bounded generalized reciprocity: Ingroup boasting and ingroup favoritism. Advances in Group Processes, 16, 161–197.
43.
YamagishiT.KiyonariT. (2000). The group as the container of generalized reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(2), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695887
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.
