Changing Interracial Evaluations and Behavior: The Effects of a Common Group Identity

Abstract

Two studies examined whether developing a common ingroup identity among Blacks and Whites can improve Whites’ interracial evaluations. In Study 1, White participants interacted with a Black or White confederate under conditions designed to produce cognitive representations as fellow group members or as separate individuals. Consistent with the Common Ingroup Identity Model, Whites evaluated Blacks more favorably when they interacted with them as members of the same group than as separate individuals. Study 2, conducted as fans entered a football stadium, revealed that Whites complied more frequently with a Black interviewer’s request to interview them when they shared common university affiliation, relative to when the Black interviewer was affiliated with the opposing team.

Functions of the common ingroup identity model and acculturation strategies in intercultural communication: American host nationals’ communication with Chinese international students

“…Among the research guided by CIIM (e.g., Gaertner et al, 1994;Hornsey & Hogg, 2000), the majority has explored group level consequences (e.g., intergroup attitudes) of various contact conditions (i.e., one group, two sub-groups in one group, two groups, and separate individuals), even though the categorization of contact counterparts has more immediate impact at an interpersonal level than at an intergroup level (e.g., Crisp, Walsh, & Hewstone, 2006;Nier et al, 2001). The importance of interpersonal consequences is generally overridden by the group level outcomes (c.f., Nier et al, 2001).…”

“…The importance of interpersonal consequences is generally overridden by the group level outcomes (c.f., Nier et al, 2001). In addition, limited amount of acculturation research has examined behavioral consequences of cultural adaptation strategies.…”

“…Guided by Allport's (1954) Contact Hypothesis, intergroup research has gone beyond the basic idea that direct contact influences intergroup outcomes (e.g., intergroup attitudes) and has begun to investigate how contact conditions (e.g., quality and quantity of contact) indirectly influence intergroup outcomes through the individual level intervening factors, such as perceptions of communication (e.g., self disclosure, contact counterpart's accommodation, and perceived communication anxiety) and relational ourcomes (e.g., relational solidarity) in various contexts (Harwood, Hewstone, Paolini, & Voci, 2005;Imamura, Zhang, & Harwood, 2011;Nier, Gaertner, Dovidio, Banker, Ward, & Rust, 2001; see also Brown & Hewstone, 2005). The interpersonal and intergroup consequences of the positive contact experiences that individuals have with members of different social groups can be theoretically explained by the Common Ingroup Identity Model (CIIM; Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, & Anastasio, 1994).…”

“…In short, research guided by CIIM has demonstrated that contact conditions which emphasize an inclusive ingroup identity shared with a contact counterpart can improve one's perception of the contact counterpart and consequently one's attitudes toward the contact counterpart's social group Gaertner et al, 1994;Nier et al, 2001).…”

“…Yet, little is known regarding the majority status group members' communicative, psychological, and cognitive responses to individuals who vary in their identification with their home and host cultures. That is to say, previous studies mainly focused on the ascribed identity (i.e., one's perception of the other's group membership) in laboratory experiments (e.g., Eller & Abrams, 2004;Nier et al, 2001) with minimum attention paid to the effect that the avowed identity (i.e., group membership others claim for themselves) has on interpersonal or intergroup outcomes. In this regard, examination of the majority status group's responses to their contact counterparts with different levels of identification with the home and host cultures advances research on CIIM.…”