http://gpi.sagepub.com/Relations

Group Processes & Intergroup

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/4/4/299The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1368430201004004001

2001 4: 299Group Processes Intergroup RelationsMary C. Rust

Jason A. Nier, Samuel L. Gaertner, John F. Dovidio, Brenda S. Banker, Christine M. Ward andIdentity

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

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsAdditional services and information for     

  http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://gpi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/4/4/299.refs.htmlCitations:  

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Changing InterracialEvaluations and Behavior:The Effects of a CommonGroup Identity

Jason A. NierConnecticut College

Samuel L. GaertnerUniversity of Delaware

John F. DovidioColgate University

Brenda S. Banker and Christine M. WardUniversity of Delaware

Mary C. RustAmerican International College

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

keywords intergroup relations, racial attitudes, reducing intergroup bias

Group Processes &Intergroup Relations

2001 Vol 4(4) 299–316

America is woven of many strands . . . . Our fate is tobecome one and yet many.

- Ralph EllisonThe Invisible Man

FO R O V E R 50 years the Contact Hypothesis(Allport, 1954; Hewstone, 1996; Pettigrew,1998; Williams, 1947), psychology’s traditional

GPIR

Copyright © 2001 SAGE Publications(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)

[1368-4302(200110)4:4; 299–316; 019174]

Author’s noteAddress correspondence to Jason A. Nier,Department of Psychology, Box 5305,Connecticut College, 270 Mohegan Avenue,New London, CT 06320, USA [email:janie@conncoll.edu]

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 299

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

prescription for promoting positive intergroupattitudes, has proposed that contact must occurin the context of certain features, including, forexample, intergroup cooperation, opportunitiesfor self-revealing interaction and equal statusbetween the members of the different groups,and supportive, egalitarian norms endorsed bypertinent authority. Recent approaches haveattempted to extend the Contact Hypothesis byspecifying what common mediating psycho-logical processes these diverse features engageto produce more harmonious intergrouprelations (e.g. Brewer & Miller, 1984; Hewstone,1996). For example, Brewer and Miller (1984)have proposed that the conditions of contactshare the capacity to reduce bias by weakeningthe salience of intergroup boundaries throughdecategorization. Upon decategorization, peopleare conceived of as more differentiated indi-viduals, interactions are personalized, andattraction depends primarily upon personalcharacteristics and actual interpersonal simi-larities rather than upon group membership.The framework that guides the present research,the Common Ingroup Identity Model, proposesan additional process that also influences theperception of group boundaries, recategorization.Upon recategorization, members of separategroups conceive of themselves as belonging to acommon superordinate category, or to the sameteam, inclusive of former ingroup and outgroupmembers (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Gaertner,Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993).

The Common Ingroup Identity Model, whichis based on the social categorization perspectiveof intergroup behavior (Brewer, 1979; Brown &Turner, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Wilder,1986), recognizes the central role of social cat-egorization in creating intergroup bias and pro-poses that the consequences of categorizationcan be redirected toward establishing more har-monious intergroup relations through theprocess of recategorization. Categorization of aperson as an ingroup member rather than as anoutgroup member has, for example beendemonstrated to produce more positive evalu-ations (Brewer, 1979; Messick & Mackie, 1989;Tajfel, 1969; Wilder, 1986) and perceptions ofshared beliefs and values (Brown, 1984; Brown &

Abrams, 1986; Hogg & Turner, 1985; Stein,Hardyck, & Smith, 1965; Wilder, 1984), toenhance memory for positive information aboutothers (Howard & Rothbart, 1980), and toreduce blame for an accident or other negativeoutcomes (Hewstone, Bond, & Wan, 1983; Wang& McKillip, 1978). Thus, with a revised, moreinclusive common ingroup identity, the cogni-tive and motivational processes that initially con-tribute to intergroup bias may be redirected toinclude former outgroup members. Hewstone(1996), however, questions whether thisapproach is realistic when recategorization pro-cesses need to overcome powerful ethnic andracial differences between groups.

It is important to note that the development ofa common ingroup identity does not necessarilyrequire each group to forsake its less inclusivegroup identity completely. For example, webelieve that people can conceive of two groups asdistinct units within the context of a super-ordinate identity (e.g. offensive and defensivesquads on the same football team). That is, it ispossible for members to maintain a dual identity.When group identities and their associated cul-tural values are central to members’ functioningor when they are associated with highly visiblecues to group membership, it would be un-desirable or impossible for people to relinquishthese group identities or, as perceivers, to be‘color-blind’. If, however, people continue toregard themselves as members of different groupsbut all playing on the same team (i.e. with a dualidentity) or as part of the same superordinateentity, intergroup relations between these ‘sub-groups’ would be more positive than if membersonly considered themselves as ‘separate groups’(see Brewer & Schneider, 1990). This idea of adual identity is also compatible with a MutualIntergroup Differentiation Model (Hewstone,1996; Hewstone & Brown, 1986), which proposesthat introducing a cooperative relationshipbetween groups without degrading the originalingroup–outgroup categorization scheme is aneffective way to change intergroup attitudes andto have these attitudes generalize to additionaloutgroup members (see Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).

Consistent with the Common Ingroup IdentityModel, we have found evidence that aspects of

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(4)

300

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 300

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

intergroup contact that are designed topromote an inclusive one-group or dual identityrepresentation, rather than a separate-groupsrepresentation, decrease intergroup bias. Forexample, in laboratory experiments, interven-tions such as spatially integrated seating (Gaert-ner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989),cooperation with and without interaction(Gaertner, Mann, Dovidio, Murrell, & Pomare,1990; Gaertner et al., 1999), and complemen-tary areas of expertise (Dovidio, Gaertner, &Validzic, 1998) induced participants to conceiveof themselves more as one group (or two sub-groups within a larger group) and less as twogroups, and consequently to exhibit more posi-tive intergroup attitudes. Also, three surveystudies conducted in natural settings across verydifferent intergroup contexts (students in amulti-ethnic high school: Gaertner, Rust,Dovidio, Bachman, & Anastasio, 1994, 1996;banking executives involved in corporatemergers: Bachman, 1993; Gaertner, Dovidio, &Bachman, 1996; members of blended families:Banker & Gaertner, 1998) offered convergingsupport for the proposal that the featuresspecified by the Contact Hypothesis reduceintergroup bias by changing members’ rep-resentations of the memberships from twoseparate groups to one group.

Despite the evidence for the CommonIngroup Identity Model, the support thus far isfrom correlational field studies or experimentsinvolving laboratory groups (e.g. overestimatorsand underestimators; Dovidio et al., 1998) orreal groups, that may involve less powerfulforms of categorization (e.g. Democrats andRepublicans; Gaertner et al., 1999) than thosebased on race or ethnicity. Indeed, racial cat-egorization is established early in life (Aboud,1984), is automatically activated (Dovidio &Gaertner, 1993) and often reflects historical orcontemporary conflict. It is possible, therefore,that perceptions of group boundaries based onracial or ethnic categorization may prove moredifficult to modify than the categories used inmany laboratory studies.

However, the work we have conducted thusfar involving racial and ethnic categorizations(Gaertner et al., 1994, 1996) leads us to be

optimistic about the potential benefits of recate-gorization. In a survey study conducted within amulti-ethnic high school, we examined theintergroup perceptions among African-Ameri-can, Chinese, Hispanic, Japanese, Jewish,Korean, Vietnamese, and Caucasian students.The results of the study indicated that studentswho perceived the student body as ‘one group’or ‘different groups playing on the same team’(i.e. a dual identity) were more likely to displaypositive affect toward other ethnic groups. Thusthe presence of a superordinate identity (i.e.‘our school’) in the context of a multi-ethnicaggregate was related to more positive affectivereactions to students of different ethnicities. Inthis context, more individualized represen-tations of the members (specifically the extentto which the memberships felt like ‘separateindividuals’), which is related to other strategiesfor reducing bias (e.g. decategorization andindividuation; see Wilder, 1986) did not signifi-cantly mediate reductions in bias. Furthermore,for ethnic minority students the salience of aneven broader superordinate identity—identityas an American—along with their ethnic groupidentities (e.g. Korean American) was alsorelated to higher levels of positive affect towardother ethnic groups. Thus, the results of thissurvey study suggest that the presence of a super-ordinate identity in a multi-ethnic context pro-vides the same beneficial effects demonstratedin other intergroup contexts.

While these data that support the role ofrecategorization in reducing interracial biasesare promising, the direction of causalitybetween the students’ superordinate represen-tations and positive outgroup attitudes wasambiguous because of Gaertner et al.’s (1994,1996) correlational design. The current ex-periments were thus designed to determineexperimentally whether the benefits of recate-gorization can extend across racial groupboundaries. That is, is it possible to demonstratea causal relationship between the salience ofcommon identity and improved evaluations ofracial outgroup members? By conductingexperiments in both laboratory (Study 1) andfield (Study 2) settings, we hope to clarify theproposed causal relationship between common

Nier et al. changing interracial evaluations and behavior

301

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 301

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

ingroup identity and more positive reactions toracial outgroup members.

Study 1

To test the ability of a common group identity toimprove interracial evaluations, White partici-pants interacted with either a Black or Whiteconfederate. During the session the confederateexecuted a scripted role to standardize the infor-mation exchanged. The two independent vari-ables of interest were the race of the partner(Black or White) and the nature of relationshipto the partner (independent co-participants ormembers of the same team).

Whereas previous experiments testing theimplications of the Common Ingroup IdentityModel have often primarily focused on com-parisons between a condition in which acommon group identity (recategorization) or acondition in which different group identities(categorization) is emphasized, the presentstudy examined the relative effectiveness ofrecategorization and decategorization strat-egies. That is, participants interacted with aWhite or a Black confederate under circum-stances that emphasized either individual orcommon group identity. The study was designednot necessarily as a test of recategorizationversus decategorization strategies, for whichrelative effectiveness may be moderated by thenature of the intergroup context (Gaertner etal., 2000). Instead, the design represented arelatively conservative test of the role of acommon group identity for promoting positiveintergroup attitudes when, for example, groupidentities are visually inescapable and there islittle opportunity for the exchange of personal-ized information (see Brewer & Miller, 1984).Because the scripted nature of the interactionwith the confederate limited the exchange ofself-relevant, intimate information, our Inde-pendent Participants condition reflected con-ditions of individuation (Wilder, 1986) ratherthan personalization (Brewer & Miller, 1984).The study therefore, involved a 2 (Race of Con-federate: Black or White) � 2 (Categorization:Independent Participants or Team) design.

We hypothesized that the nature of the

relationship between the participant and thepartner (i.e. as independent participants ormembers of the same team) would moderateinterracial biases in evaluations. In particular,we expected that participants would be likely torespond particularly favorably to the Black con-federate when they shared common teammembership—and that this effect would bestronger than for the White confederate.Because we anticipated that White participantswould already perceive some degree of commongroup membership with the White confederatesby virtue of their shared racial group member-ship regardless of the common group identitymanipulation, we expected that the positiveeffects of this manipulation on evaluationswould be stronger for the Black than for theWhite confederate. Moreland and Levine(1982), for example, reported that people whoare perceived as entirely new members of theirgroup are often responded to, at least initially,more favorably than people who are already per-ceived to be part of the group. Thus, a Race ofConfederate � Categorization interaction wasexpected for participants’ self-reported evalu-ations of the confederate.

MethodParticipants Fifty-three White female studentsenrolled in a General Psychology course at theUniversity of Delaware participated as partialfulfillment of course requirements.1 These par-ticipants were randomly assigned to experi-mental condition.

Procedure In each session a White participantwas present along with a Black or a White femaleconfederate as well as an additional Whitefemale student who was actually a participant ina different but related study. Two differentBlack female students and two different Whitefemale students occupied the role of our experi-mental confederate.

The Categorization manipulation involvedvarying participants’ perceptions that they wereinteracting with the Black or White confederateand another White participant either as amember of the same work group or as separateindividuals. We used the same type of compound

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(4)

302

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 302

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

manipulation used in some of our earlier studies(Gaertner et al., 1989, 1990). In the Team con-dition, the three group members reached con-sensus on the solution to the Winter SurvivalProblem ( Johnson & Johnson, 1975) as they satat the same table, wore identical University ofDelaware t-shirts, and were assigned a groupname (as in Dovidio et al., 1997 and Gaertner etal., 1989, 1990). The Winter Survival Problem isengaging and requires participants to imaginethat their plane has crash-landed in the woods ofnorthern Minnesota in mid-January and to rank-order 10 items salvaged from the plane (e.g. agun, newspaper, a can of shortening) in terms oftheir importance for the group’s survival. Par-ticipants were instructed that their consensussolution would be compared to one developedby an outgroup team at the University of Mary-land. While arriving at the group consensus theBlack and White confederates contributed iden-tical scripted information to the group’s solu-tion. Upon reaching consensus, the group’ssolution was read aloud by the participant whilethe entire group was facing a video camera.

The different elements of this compoundmanipulation can each contribute to thestrength of a common ingroup identity. Forexample, reaching consensus involves inter-action and cooperative interdependence, bothof which have been shown independently toincrease common group identity (Gaertner etal., 1999, 1990, respectively). Common dress(Dovidio, Gaertner, Isen, & Lowrance, 1995)and integrated seating (Gaertner & Dovidio,1986b) can increase the strength of commongroup representations by creating a sense ofentitativity (Campbell, 1958). In addition,emphasizing a common group name (Gaertner& Drout, 1984) and identifying a delineated out-group (Wilder & Shapiro, 1984) can enhancethe sense of common group membership.Finally, we suspected that there may be somepotential for being photographed together toimpart a common ingroup identity (cf. Burgess,Enzle, & Morry, 2000).

In the Individual Participants condition, thethree people in the laboratory sat at separatetables dispersed around the perimeter of theroom, were not given University of Delaware

logo t-shirts to wear, and they solved the WinterSurvival Problem individually (see Gaertner etal., 1989). At the end of the work period eachperson verbally identified herself and then readher solution to the problem aloud, ostensibly forthe video camera that was focused uniquely onher during this individual presentation. Thus, asin the Team condition, participants heard theideas provided by the confederate.

Dependent measuresCognitive representations After the Cat-egorization manipulation and once again inthe post-experimental questionnaire (about 20minutes later), participants reported theextent (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) to whichthey perceived the three people in the labora-tory as a group (‘it felt as though we were allmembers of a group’), and as a team (‘it felt asthough we were all on the same team’). Theaverage of these responses across both time-periods (alpha = .96 at time 1; alpha = .93 attime 2) constituted the measure of partici-pants’ cognitive representation of the aggre-gate as one group. We also asked participants asingle item regarding how much they perceivedthe three people in the laboratory to be ‘sepa-rate individuals’.

Evaluative and affective responses Followingthe laboratory interaction, participants com-pleted a post-experimental questionnaire thatincluded items regarding their ‘impressions’ ofeach of the other two people present. One ofthese individuals was a naive participant and theother was either the Black or White confederate.Specifically, participants were asked to rate theextent to which (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) 13traits described each individual (likable, respons-ible, reliable, foolish, wise, cooperative, hard-working, valuable, intelligent, good, creative,bad, trustworthy). After reverse scoring ‘bad’and ‘foolish’, these responses constituted par-ticipants’ positive evaluation of each person.Also, participants were asked to express theirdegree of agreement (1–7) with eight itemsregarding how each of the other people ‘madethem feel’. These items were accepted, awkward,self-conscious, confident, happy, irritated,

Nier et al. changing interracial evaluations and behavior

303

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 303

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

defensive and impatient. After reverse scoringthe responses to the negative feelings (e.g.awkward), these responses constituted a measureof participants’ positive affective reactions toeach person. Since these two sets of items werehighly intercorrelated (r = .79), we created anaverage of all 21 items, reflecting the overallevaluation of each individual (alpha = .95 for theconfederate, and .93 for the other participant).

ResultsManipulation checks Supportive of the effi-cacy of the Categorization manipulation, par-ticipants in the Team condition, relative to thosein the Individual Participants condition,reported that the three laboratory participantsfelt more like one group (Ms = 5.36 vs. 2.73)(F(1,49) = 66.22, p < .001). Those in the Indi-vidual Participants condition, compared to par-ticipants in the Team condition, reportedfeeling more like separate individuals (Ms = 5.52vs. 3.59) (F(1,49) = 28.35, p < .001). Also, par-ticipants who interacted with the Black confed-

erate relative to a White confederate rated theaggregate more strongly as one group (Ms =4.45 vs. 3.65) (F(1, 49) = 6.82, p < .05). Therewere no Categorization � Race interactioneffects on these measures to qualify the maineffect for the Categorization manipulation.

Evaluation of the confederate To test theefficacy of a common ingroup identity toincrease positive evaluations of fellow teammembers, we conducted a 2 (Categorization) �2 (Race of Confederate) analysis of variance(ANOVA) on the evaluation measure.

The ANOVA revealed a main effect for cat-egorization (F(1, 49) = 5.23, p < .05); participantsin the Team condition, as expected, rated theconfederates more positively (M = 4.71) thanthose in the Individual Participants condition (M= 4.05). Furthermore, this main effect was quali-fied by the predicted Categorization � Raceinteraction (F(1, 49) = 4.85, p < .05). In terms ofsimple effects (see Figure 1), participants whoshared a common team membership with the

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(4)

304

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

Individual

Participants

Team

Black

White

Race ofConfederate

EvaluationofConfederate(1-7)

Categorization

Manipulation

Figure 1. Evaluation of the Confederate as a Function of the Categorization Manipulation.

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 304

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Black confederate rated her more positively (M= 5.07) than those in the Individual Participantscondition (M = 3.80) (t(26) = 3.67, p < .001),whereas this manipulation had no effect onevaluations of the White confederate (Ms = 4.33and 4.34) (t(23) = 0.03, p = .98). Also, contraryto expectations, in the Individual Participantcondition, Black confederates were not evalu-ated reliably less favorably (M = 3.80) than Whiteconfederates (M = 4.34) (t(24) = 1.66, p > .10).2

Did perceptions of common group membershipmediate the improved perceptions of the Blackconfederate? The multiple regression media-tion approach described by Baron and Kenny(1986) enabled us to address whether percep-tions of common group membership mediatedthe improved perceptions of the Black confeder-ate. Because the team manipulation did notinfluence the evaluation of the White confeder-ate, the mediation analyses that are most centralto testing the model are those involving the Blackconfederate. To determine the pattern of medi-ation a series of regression equations were esti-mated that included the independent variable(the Categorization manipulation), the media-tor (perceptions of common group member-ship), and the dependent measure (the overallpositivity of evaluation of the Black confederate).

Mediation is established by the co-occurrenceof a series of effects. First, when the dependent

variable (Evaluation of Confederate) isregressed on the independent variable (Cat-egorization manipulation), it should be shownthat the independent variable predicts thedependent variable. Second, the independentvariable should predict the potential mediator(i.e. perceptions of common group member-ship). Third, when the dependent variable(Evaluation of Confederate) is regressed on theindependent variable simultaneously with thepotential mediator, the potential mediatorshould relate to the dependent variable. Also, inthis last equation, the effect of the independentvariable on the dependent variable should beweaker than in the first equation and ideally bereduced to zero.

As illustrated in Figure 2, in the first equationthe Categorization manipulation significantlypredicted the positivity of the evaluation of theBlack confederate (beta = .59, p < .001). Second,with respect to the potential mediator, theCategorization manipulation significantly pre-dicted perceptions of common group member-ship (beta = .79, p < .001). Third, in the lastequation where the independent variable andpotential mediator were entered simul-taneously, higher common group membershipratings predicted more positive evaluations ofthe confederate (beta = .44, p < .05, one-tailed),over and above the Categorization manipu-lation. Also, the Categorization manipulation,

Nier et al. changing interracial evaluations and behavior

305

0 = Individuals

1 = Team

.79* .44*

.59* .23

Salience of

Common

Group

Membership

Categorization

ManipulationPerceived

Positivity

of the Black

Confederate

Figure 2. A mediation analysis of the beneficial effects of the Categorization Manipulation on overall positivereactions to the Black confederate. Bold path and asterisks denote statistically significant relationships(p < .05; one-tailed).

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 305

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

which was a reliable predictor of evaluation ofthe Black confederate in the first equation, nolonger significantly predicted evaluations of theBlack confederate (beta = .23, p = .36). Anadditional analysis (Sobel, 1982) revealed thatthis change in beta was reliable (z = 1.71, p < .05,one-tailed). Overall, the results suggest that therelation between the same team manipulationand the evaluation of the Black confederate waspartially mediated through perceptions ofgroup membership.3

DiscussionStudy 1 offered support for the hypothesesderived from the Common Ingroup IdentityModel. As expected, inducing cognitive rep-resentations of shared team membershipappears to be an effective strategy for increasingthe positivity of Whites’ evaluations of Blacks.Participants who shared same team membershipwith the Black confederate rated her more posi-tively, relative to participants who interactedwith her only as individuals. It is important tonote, however, that we did not examine whetherthis increased positivity toward a Black confed-erate reflected an improvement in attitudestoward Black Americans in general.

Additionally, there was no racial bias in theIndividual Participant condition and the cat-egorization manipulation had no effect onevaluations of the White confederate. Althoughthese finding may appear to be inconsistent withprevious research on the Common IngroupIdentity Model, there are important conceptualand procedural differences between the presentresearch and most of the previous relatedresearch. In the previous studies (e.g. Dovidio etal., 1997; Gaertner et al., 1989), the primarytests involved comparisons between conditionsdesigned to induce a one-group representationand those intended to produce a two-groupsrepresentation. However, in the presentresearch, the alternative to the one-group rep-resentation condition was one that fostered aseparate-individuals representation. Indeed,although the Individual Participants conditionhad lower ratings on the one-group represen-tation than the Team condition, it also hadsignificantly higher ratings on the separate-

individuals representation. Furthermore, indi-vidualized (Wilder, 1986) or personalized(Brewer & Miller, 1984) representations canreduce bias relative to a condition that makesseparate group identities salient. For example,in one of our previous studies involving raciallyhomogeneous (White) laboratory groups(Gaertner et al., 1989), we found that a con-dition designed to produce a one-group rep-resentation and a condition intended toproduce a separate-individuals representationboth reduced intergroup bias relative to thecondition designed to emphasize differentgroup memberships. The one-group conditionhad slightly, but not significantly, lower levels ofbias than did the separate-individuals con-dition—a finding that parallels the results of thepresent study. Thus, the lack of racial bias in theIndependent Participants condition is notinconsistent with earlier work.

What is less clear in the present study is whythe impact of the Categorization manipulation,which was equivalently effective in producingdifferential one-group and separate-individualsrepresentations for participants with Black andWhite confederates, had weaker effects than weexpected on the evaluation of White confeder-ates but strong effects on the evaluation of Blackconfederates. The weak effect for the evaluationof White confederates in the present study alsocontrasts with some of our earlier work. Inprevious research using two distinct three-person laboratory groups composed only ofWhites (e.g. Gaertner et al., 1989), we foundthat interventions designed to enhance rep-resentations of one group tended to increasefavorability of former outgroup members. Onepossible explanation for these discrepant find-ings involves the bases of categorization thatparticipants used initially in the studies. Ingroup–outgroup categorization involving race tendsto be automatic (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1993) andtherefore, unless some other group category isespecially salient, White participants wouldlikely categorize other Whites as within theirown racial group and categorize Blacks as out-group members. In our earlier research, webegan the procedures with interventionsdesigned to create bases for different-group

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(4)

306

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 306

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

categorizations initially (e.g. groups workingseparately on a task), which undermines thestrong tendency to categorize other White par-ticipants as members of the same (racial) group.These participants were then brought togetherunder conditions intended to change categoriz-ation from two groups to one group. Conse-quently, in this earlier study, the effect of theone-group manipulation would likely be sub-stantial and clearly observable.

In the current study, however, there was noinitial division of the White participant and theWhite confederate into different groups. Thus,at the beginning of the study for the White con-federate conditions, the categorization for par-ticipants would likely be one of a commongroup, based on automatic racial categorization.Therefore, upon the manipulation of SameTeam membership, the White confederate maynot have been regarded truly as a new ingroupmember. Rather, the confederate would con-tinue to be categorized as an ingroup member,but simply on another dimension (i.e. fromracial similarity to Same Team, which was theimplied focus of the group representationmeasure). Because only the nature of theircommon category, and not the type of cat-egorization (i.e. two groups to one group), evalu-ations might be expected to be similar across thetwo conditions. In contrast, when the confeder-ate was Black, the manipulation of commonteam membership changed the status of the con-federate’s membership from that of an outgroupmember to that of a new ingroup member, achange analogous to what occurred in ourearlier research (Gaertner et al., 1989), anddifferences in evaluations between conditionswere thus obtained. This reasoning is, of course,speculative. Nevertheless, these findings rein-force the importance of considering differencesbetween temporary manipulations of group cat-egories and chronic and historically importantgroup memberships (see also Mullen, Brown &Smith, 1992), which was one of the issues ourresearch was initially designed to explore.

Alternatively, rather than asking why theeffect of the Categorization manipulation was somodest for Whites, one might ask why it wasso robust for Black partners. One possible

explanation for the stronger effect of themanipulation for Black than for White partnersresides in the work on criss-crossed categoriz-ation (see Crisp & Hewstone, 1999; Urban &Miller, 1998). Although there is substantialsupport for an additive pattern whereby doubleingroup members are evaluated more positivelythan those who are ingroup members on onedimension and an outgroup on the other who,in turn, are evaluated more positively thandouble outgroup members, there is also sub-stantial support for the social inclusion pattern.With the social inclusion pattern, individualswho are ingroup members along just onedimension (in–out) are evaluated as positively asthose who are ingroup members on both dimen-sions (in–in)—and in both cases these peopleare evaluated more positively than those who areoutgroup members on both dimensions. Interms of the present study, White confederateswho are racial ingroup members with our Whiteparticipants were evaluated positively whetheror not they also shared common team member-ship. In contrast, Black confederates in the teamcondition who shared common membershipwith these White participants were evaluatedmore positively than when they shared neitherracial nor common team identity (i.e. in the sep-arate individuals condition).

Although the social inclusion patterninterpretation provides a coherent explanationfor the stronger impact of the team manipu-lation for Black than for White partners, thereare other explanations to consider. Forexample, previous research on racial ambiva-lence (Katz, 1981) and schema complexity(Linville & Jones, 1980) has demonstrated thatWhites’ favorable responses to positive actionsby Blacks are amplified relative to theirresponses to the same behavior by Whites. Inaddition, work by Moreland and Levine (1982)suggests that voluntarily entering a group mayrepresent one type of positive action. In general,being a ‘newcomer’ to a group may representone such positive action; newcomers to a groupare often greeted with particularly favorableresponses. To the extent that Blacks arenormally viewed, often automatically andunconsciously (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1993), as

Nier et al. changing interracial evaluations and behavior

307

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 307

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

members of a different group by Whites, theymay be seen more as ‘newcomers’ in the teamcondition. The presence of these ‘newcomers’may create stronger perceptions of commongroup membership, and the Black confederatemay therefore receive amplified positiveresponses—in ways that would not be producedfor White partners. The finding that thecommon group identity condition improvedevaluations for Black, but not for White confed-erates also reveals that within the context of acommon superordinate identity our participantswere not ‘color blind’ and thus likely regardedthe Black confederate with a ‘dual identity’involving both race and team membership.

Study 1 thus demonstrated the beneficialimpact of common group membership on inter-racial evaluations. In addition, despite the rela-tively obvious nature of the manipulations, theinteractive pattern of results for evaluations sug-gests that the findings are not simply the result of demand characteristics. If participantsresponded to the Same Team manipulation as adirect cue for more favorable responses to theconfederate, a significant difference as a func-tion of the Categorization manipulation wouldhave been expected for the White confederate,but one was not obtained. Similarly, if the merepresence of a Black confederate cued partici-pants to appear nonprejudiced, then either nodifference in evaluations between Black andWhite confederates would be expected for bothIndividual Team and Individual Participants con-ditions or Blacks would be expected to be ratedconsistently more favorably across the two con-ditions. We found that Black and White confed-erates were responded to equally favorably in theIndividual Participants condition, but Black con-federates were responded to more favorably thanWhite confederates in the Same Team condition.Still, a demand characteristics argument mightsuggest that the Same Team and IndependentParticipants interventions might operate differ-entially as cues when the confederate is Blackthan when the confederate is White. However,given the tradition in the United States of beingcolor-blind and either treating others as indi-viduals rather than as members of their races oras members of one nation (see Dovidio &

Gaertner, 1986), it is not clear why Blacks shouldbe rated much more favorably than Whites in theSame team condition but similarly to Whites inthe Individual Participants condition, or whyratings of common group membership shouldnot show the same interactive pattern as evalu-ation. Nevertheless, because of the laboratorynature of the study we cannot discount a demandcharacteristic explanation entirely. Thus, oursecond study was designed to extend this work,empirically and conceptually, by focusing on thepotential of a common ingroup membership topromote prosocial interracial behavior in anatural rather than laboratory setting.

Study 2

The second study explored whether the ben-eficial effects of common identity from Study 1,obtained on self-report measures in a laboratorycontext, may generalize to interracial behaviorsobserved outside of the laboratory. This is afundamental conceptual as well as practicalissue, because the relationship between inter-group behavior and evaluative bias appears to beweak in general. For example, a recent review ofthe literature (Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, &Gaertner, 1996) regarding the relationshipbetween racial prejudice and racial discrimi-nation among Whites found that the correlationwas significant but relatively modest in magni-tude (r = .32). In addition, Struch and Schwartz(1989) demonstrated that intergroup bias andintergroup aggression were virtually unrelated(r = .07) and had different antecedents. Thevariables that predicted intergroup aggressionstrongly, such as perceived conflict, predictedintergroup bias only weakly. Struch andSchwartz (1989) concluded, ‘these results makeclear the danger of generalizing from researchon in-group favoritism to intergroup aggression’(p. 371). We have found initial evidence that thedevelopment of a common ingroup identity canpromote more positive intergroup behaviors,such as helping and self-disclosure, as well asevaluations—at least with laboratory groups(Dovidio et al., 1997). The present researchextends the examination of the attitudinal andbehavioral consequences of promoting a

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(4)

308

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 308

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

common ingroup identity to interracial inter-actions—involving more powerful forms of cat-egorization with a history of conflict, distrustand tension.

Another purpose of the second study was todemonstrate the effectiveness of common groupmembership in improving interracial behavior inthe absence of explicit cooperative interdepen-dence. Common categorization membership inStudy 1 was accompanied by increased interde-pendence and cooperation among the partici-pants. That is, team members supposedly hadpartial control over each other’s outcomesbecause each had to rely on the other to con-tribute to the team’s success. Thus, it may nothave been the case that common categorizationmembership per se facilitated the developmentof more positive attitudes toward the Blackpartner. Rather, the positive effects of the teammanipulation may have been due to theincreased cooperative interaction (i.e. ‘workingtogether’) that accompanied the manipulationof common team membership. Althoughcommon team identity and cooperative interde-pendence usually co-occur in naturalisticcircumstances, our previous research (Gaertneret al., 1990, 1999) has disentangled these con-structs and demonstrated that common teamidentity in the absence of interdependence issufficient to reduce bias. For example, when two3-person groups were induced to conceive ofthemselves as one group rather than two groupsby factors that were unrelated to cooperation orinterdependence (e.g. seating arrangement, orthe utilization of a new group name to representthe six-person group) and without the oppor-tunity for communication between the groups,perceptions of the aggregate as one groupincreased and bias in evaluative ratings wasreduced (Gaertner et al., 1990). Similarly, inanother laboratory study (Gaertner et al., 1999)where two groups briefly communicated witheach other in the absence of intergroup inter-dependence, perceptions of common identityand evaluation of outgroup members wereincreased, relative to groups that did not com-municate with each other at all. Thus, commonidentity, even in the absence of interdepen-dence, cooperative reward structure, or self-

revealing interaction is capable of reducingintergroup bias. Despite these earlier studies, itremains an empirical question as to whetherthese findings will generalize to contexts involv-ing racial and ethnic categorizations. As a result,the second purpose of the present study was todemonstrate that Whites will respond morefavorably to a Black person with whom theyshare common group membership, even in theabsence of cooperative interaction and interde-pendence.

This field experiment was conducted on aSaturday afternoon in September at the Uni-versity of Delaware football stadium just prior toa game with West Chester State University, aneighboring school and long time rival. Thisgame has traditionally attracted a relatively largenumber of fans from both universities and weassumed that the salience of the fans’ universityidentities would be especially high at that time.

To examine the potential of common groupmembership to promote prosocial behavior inthe absence of cooperative interdependence,fans were approached shortly before they wereabout to enter the stadium by either a Black orWhite research assistant who asked if they wouldagree to complete at this time a brief interviewabout their food preferences. The Black andWhite interviewers systematically varied whetherthey wore a University of Delaware or WestChester State University logo hat so as to varytheir apparent University affiliation. By select-ing fans who similarly wore clothing that identi-fied their university affiliation, we couldsystematically vary whether these fans receivedthe request for assistance from a Black or Whiteinterviewer with the same or different universityaffiliation than themselves. Among the Whitefans, we expected that the beneficial effect ofcommon university affiliation would be strongerfor the Black than for the White interviewers.Similar to the rationale for Study 1, we expectedthat White fans would be more likely to cat-egorize the White interviewers as ingroupmembers regardless of the university affiliationmanipulation, whereas Black interviewers,would be regarded as ingroup members onlywhen they were affiliated with the same uni-versity as the participants.

Nier et al. changing interracial evaluations and behavior

309

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 309

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

MethodParticipants Participants were 183 White spec-tators (73 men and 110 women) who were aboutto enter the University of Delaware footballstadium to attend the University of Delaware–West Chester State University football game.4

Procedure and design Twelve interviewersarrived at the University of Delaware footballstadium an hour and 15 minutes prior to thestart of the University of Delaware vs. WestChester State University football game. Genderand race were equally represented amonginterviewers: three Black females, three Blackmales, three White females, and three Whitemales. Interviewers solicited requests for helpat six locations spread evenly around theperimeter of the stadium. At each location,there were two interviewers of the same uni-versity affiliation and gender, one of whom wasBlack and one who was White. The universityaffiliation of the interviewers was systematicallymanipulated by varying whether they wore Uni-versity of Delaware or West Chester State Uni-versity logo hats. The other clothing worn bythe interviewers did not match the respectiveuniversity colors or include any clue aboutother group memberships. Interviewers alteredtheir university affiliation (by switching hats)and location around the stadium every fifteenminutes. Interviewers only approached fanswhose University of Delaware or West ChesterState University affiliation could similarly beidentified by their clothing. This procedureresulted in a 2 (Race of Interviewer: Black orWhite) � 2 (Categorization: Same University orDifferent University) between-subjects factorialdesign. Additionally, to minimize alternativemotives for compliance, interviewers onlyapproached fans of the same gender as them-selves. Fans were approached by interviewerswho asked, ‘Hello . . . would you have a fewminutes to complete a survey about your foodpreferences?’ When fans complied, they wereasked questions regarding their food prefer-ences (e.g. How frequently do you eat red meateach week?) and school affiliation.

ResultsSupportive of the Common Ingroup IdentityModel, fans solicited by interviewers affiliatedwith the same university as themselves compliedsignificantly more frequently (52.5% vs. 36.5%)with the request to be interviewed relative tofans solicited by an interviewer affiliated withthe opposing school (�2(1, N = 183) = 4.76, p <.05). This effect for university affiliation,however, was significant only among fansapproached by the Black interviewers (seeFigure 3). Specifically, Black interviewerselicited compliance significantly more fre-quently when they were affiliated with the sameuniversity as the fan (58.9%) relative to whenthey were affiliated with the opposing university(35.7%) (�2(1, N = 98) = 5.17, p < .05). A similareffect for same vs. different university affiliationwas not observed among the fans who wereapproached by White interviewers (44.1% vs.37.2%, respectively) (�2(1, N = 86) = 0. 43, p =.51).5 Thus, similar to the patterns observed inStudy 1, the common group affiliation manipu-lation only affected the reactions to the Blackinterviewers. Also, there were no effects involv-ing gender or the fan’s university (Delaware orWest Chester State) affiliation.

DiscussionThe results of Study 2 revealed that White par-ticipants were more likely to extend prosocialbehavior to Black interviewers with the sameuniversity affiliation as themselves compared toBlack interviewers affiliated with the opposinguniversity. This finding suggests that a commoningroup identity does indeed have positiveeffects on behavior directed toward members ofa racial outgroup.

In addition, as in Study 1, there were no sig-nificant effects of common team affiliation forparticipants with White interviewers. Thus,although the procedure for Study 2 differedfundamentally from Study 1, a very similarpattern of results emerged—and probably forsimilar reasons. Participants were presented inStudy 2 with a face-to-face interaction with asingle person requesting an interview. Such inter-actions, in which even limited individualizedinformation is presented, can create more

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(4)

310

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 310

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

individualized impressions (Locksley, Borgida,Brekke, & Hepburn, 1980) and substantiallyreduce different group representations (Gaert-ner et al., 1999) such as those associated withracial group membership. Perhaps as a conse-quence, discrimination by Whites toward Blacksis much less likely to occur in face-to-faceencounters than in more remote and deper-sonalized situations (Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe,1980). Thus, the primary conceptual compari-son in Study 2, as in Study 1, was likely betweena separate individuals condition and a one-group condition. Again, however, consistentwith the work of Moreland and Levine (1982),the modest benefit of the common group iden-tity for White partners becomes substantiallymore pronounced for Black partners—cultural‘newcomers’ to the common group member-ship created by our manipulation. These resultsindicate that the beneficial effects of recat-egorization may indeed generalize to interra-cial behavior. Further, the positive impact ofrecategorization occurred in the absence ofexplicit cooperative interdependence among

the participant and the person requestingassistance.

General discussion

It was hypothesized that sharing a commoningroup identity with a racial outgroup memberwould result in more positive evaluations andbehaviors. The results from both studies pre-sented here support this hypothesis. Study 1demonstrated the beneficial effect of acommon identity on Whites’ evaluation of aBlack confederate; Blacks were evaluated morepositively when interacting with Whites as amember of a common work team, relative towhen they interacted only as individuals. Study2, conducted in a field setting, demonstratedthat a common ingroup identity has positiveeffects on behavior as well and that these posi-tive behavioral reactions may occur withoutcooperative interdependence. Black inter-viewers were helped more frequently when theywere affiliated with the same school as the par-ticipant, relative to when they were associated

Nier et al. changing interracial evaluations and behavior

311

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

Different University Same University

Black

White

Race of

InterviewerPercentageofparticipants

complyingwithsurveyrequest

Categorization

Manipulation

Figure 3. Percentage of participants complying with the survey request as a Function of the CategorizationManipulation and the Interviewer’s Race.

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 311

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

with the opposing school. Note that this study isa conceptual replication of an earlier labora-tory study of the effects of recategorization onhelping, (Dovidio et al., 1997) and despite thesubstantial differences in the setting (thepresent study was a field study while theprevious study was a laboratory experiment)and the nature of the intergroup boundary (thepresent study used racial groups whereasDovidio et al. used minimal groups), the twostudies yielded similar results.

Furthermore, the differences in behaviortoward Blacks with and without common teamaffiliations, across both studies, suggest that thecommon team affiliation conditions increasedpositive reactions to Blacks, rather than thatdifferent team affiliations decreased thesebehaviors. In both studies, the reactions of ourparticipants to Blacks in the different group (i.e.different team or university) conditions wereroughly equivalent to their reactions to Whites.That is, relative to the other conditions, Blackswho were portrayed as sharing common identitywith our participants were treated particularlypositively relative to each of the other conditions.This particularly positive behavior elicited byracial outgroup members in the commoningroup condition mirrors the pattern obtainedfor self-disclosure and helping racially similaroutgroup members in Dovidio et al. (1997).

One alternative explanation for the especiallypositive reaction to racial outgroup members inthe common group conditions of these last twostudies involves aversive racism. The aversiveracism perspective suggests that bias by Whitesagainst Blacks occurs primarily when it can berationalized on the basis of some factor otherthan race (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986a). Identifi-cation with an opposing team may serve as onesuch factor. For example, a White fan who wasapproached by a Black interviewer affiliatedwith the opposing team’s university could refusethe request on the basis of the person’s uni-versity affiliation rather than on his or her race.That is, the respondent may reason, ‘I refuse tobe interviewed by someone from the opposingteam’s school; it has nothing to do with thatperson’s race’. In the Common University con-dition, in which the interviewer is from the

respondent’s own institution, this nonracialrationalization for refusing to participate isunavailable. Moreover, in the absence of thisnonrace-related justification, respondents in theCommon University condition may be especiallylikely to comply with a Black interviewer’srequest to avoid acting in a way that could beattributed to racial prejudice. However, the dataare not entirely consistent with this interpre-tation. For example, if different universityaffiliations provided a sufficient nonracialjustification for refusing the interviewer’srequest, Black interviewers would be expectedto receive less assistance than White interviewersin the Different University condition. This wasnot the case, however: White fans compliedequally often with these requests.

There remains another possible explanationfor the very positive treatment of Blacks whoshare identity with White respondents, which ismore consistent with the common ingroup iden-tity model. Perhaps, similar to Study 1, the Blackinterviewers who shared identity with the Whiterespondents were regarded as ‘new’ ingroupmembers who may be afforded special treatmentby group members (Moreland & Levine, 1982).In both studies, respondents may not have pre-viously shared a sense of common groupmembership or closeness with a Black person.The salience of being on the same team (Study1) or common university identification (Study 2)in this context may have produced recategoriza-tion in which Blacks were now conceived as ‘new’ingroup members, thus producing an amplifiedpositive responses to Black partners or inter-viewers. Clearly, additional research that teasesapart these alternative explanations would bevery valuable. In general, however, we areencouraged by the results of these studies for thevalue of emphasizing common group member-ship for addressing traditional racial biases.

Another notable aspect of this finding was lackof discrimination by Whites against Blacks. Whiteparticipants simply did not respond more nega-tively to Black confederates than White confed-erates in any of our experimental conditions.Although this pattern of results may seem at oddswith the literature examining contemporaryforms of racism, we believe the results are largely

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(4)

312

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 312

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

consistent with the findings of earlier research.In particular, Whites tend to discriminate againstBlacks in contexts where the interracial contact is‘remote’ (Crosby et al., 1980), or when nonracialfactors can be used to rationalize unfavorableresponses to Blacks (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986a).In both of the studies reported here, Whites andBlacks interacted under conditions that wouldnot be considered remote, particularly in Study 2where the request for assistance was face-to-face.Thus, while the lack of discrimination was some-what unexpected, it is consistent with previouswork examining contemporary forms of racism.

The present studies suggest that recatego-rization processes are capable of overcomingpowerful ethnic and racial differences betweengroups. The findings that the common identitymanipulation largely influenced reactions toBlacks but not to Whites suggest that White par-ticipants were capable of maintaining a ‘dualidentity’ representation for Blacks in which bothrace and same team identity were salient.Indeed, participants were not color-blind whentheir superordinate connection to racial out-group members was salient. Furthermore,although in the current studies the absence ofcommon identity did not result in racially dis-criminatory behaviors, it is clear that consistentwith the dual identity representation within ourmodel, the presence of a common identityincreased the occurrence of positive attitudesand behaviors toward Blacks. As Smith and Tyler(1996) suggest, these more positive behaviors,which can be rooted in the development of acommon group identity, may be critical for pro-viding the sharing of resources (see Kramer &Brewer, 1984) and the special assistance thatmay be important for combating historicalracial disadvantage.

Notes1. Constraints of the participant pool and

confederate availability limited this study to onlyfemale participants. Previous work on theCommon Ingroup Identity Model (see Gaertner& Dovidio, 2000) has not revealed evidence ofsystematic sex differences in this area.

2. Our analyses have focused on evaluations of the

confederate rather than the third group memberbecause the third group member was a naiveparticipant and did not contribute identical,scripted information across experimentalconditions as our confederate did. Additionally, toensure that participants’ evaluation of this naiveparticipant did not influence evaluations of theconfederate, we performed a set of supplementaryanalyses. Specifically, we performed an analysis ofcovariance (ANCOVA) on evaluations of theconfederate, while statistically controlling forratings of the naive participant. This analysisproduced similar, but slightly weaker results,relative to the analysis of variance reported in thebody of the results section. The Categorization �Race of Confederate interaction was marginallysignificant (F(1, 48) = 3.13, p = .08). Mostimportantly, as with the analysis of variance, theCategorization manipulation still significantlyaffected ratings of the Black confederate (t(25) =1.98, p < .03, one-tailed), but had no impact onratings of the White confederate (t(23) = 0.27, p =ns). Overall, these findings suggest that ratings ofthe naive participant had little influence on theparticipants’ perceptions of the confederate.

3. We also performed a second analysis, in which weexamined the pattern of mediation for allparticipants (regardless of the race of theconfederate). In this mediation analysis, weobtained similar, albeit somewhat weaker effects.The group manipulation has a significant effecton the positivity of the confederate (beta = .30, p <.05). The manipulation also had a significantimpact on the common identity (beta = .73, p <.001). In the final regression equation, the effectof common identity representation on positivity ofthe confederate was marginally significant (beta =.30, p < .06; one-tailed) and the impact of themanipulation on the positivity of the confederatewas no longer significant (beta = .07, p = ns).

4. We attempted to over-sample Black fans, butbecause so few attended the game our sample wastoo small (n = 11) to present meaningfulcomparisons. Thus, our analyses are restricted toWhite participants only.

5. The corresponding interaction effect in logisticregression was not statistically significant at the .05level.

AcknowledgmentsPreparation of this research facilitated by NIMHGrant MH 48721. We would like to thank the

Nier et al. changing interracial evaluations and behavior

313

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 313

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

University of Delaware Athletic Department forallowing us the opportunity to collect the data forStudy 2.

ReferencesAboud, F. E. (1984). Social and cognitive based

identity constancy. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 145,217–230.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice.Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bachman, B. A. (1993). An intergroup model oforganizational mergers. Unpublished PhDdissertation, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.

Banker, B. S., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). Achievingstepfamily harmony: An intergroup-relationsapproach. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 310–325.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). Themoderator–mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic, andstatistical considerations. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimalintergroup situation: A cognitive–motivationalanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.

Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond thecontact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives ondesegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.),Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp.281–302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Brewer, M. B., & Schneider, S. (1990). Social identityand social dilemmas: A double-edged sword. InD. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory:Constructive and critical advances (pp. 169–184).London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

Brown, R. J. (1984). The effects of intergroupsimilarity and cooperative vs. competitiveorientation on intergroup discrimination. BritishJournal of Social Psychology, 23, 21–33.

Brown, R. J., & Abrams, D. (1986). The effects ofintergroup similarity and goal interdependence onintergroup attitudes and task performance. Journalof Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 78–92.

Brown, R. J., & Turner, J. C. (1979). The criss-crosscategorization effect in intergroup discrimination.British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18,371–383.

Brown, R. J., & Turner, J. C. (1981). Interpersonaland intergroup behavior. In J. C. Turner & H.Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 33–65).Oxford: Blackwell.

Burgess, M., Enzle, M. E., & Morry, M. (2000). Thesocial psychological power of photography: Can

the image-freezing machine make something ofnothing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30,613–630.

Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity andother indices of the status of aggregates of personsas social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25.

Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (1999). Differentialevaluation of crossed category groups: Patterns,processes, and reducing intergroup bias. GroupProcesses & Intergroup Relations, 2, 307–333.

Crosby, F., Bromley, S., & Saxe, L. (1980). Recentunobtrusive studies of Black and Whitediscrimination and prejudice: A literature review.Psychological Bulletin, 87, 546–563.

Dechamps, J. C., & Doise, W. (1978). Crossedcategory memberships in intergroup relations. InH. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups(pp. 141–158). London: Academic Press.

Doise, W. (1978). Groups and individuals: Explanationsin social psychology. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Dovidio, J. F., Brigham, J., Johnson, B. T., &Gaertner, S. L. (1996). Stereotyping, prejudice,and discrimination. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, &M. Hewstone (Eds.), Foundations of stereotypes andstereotyping (pp. 337–366). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Prejudice,discrimination and racism. New York: AcademicPress.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1993). Stereotypesand evaluative intergroup bias. In D. Mackie & D.L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, andstereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception(pp. 167–194) . San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Isen, A. M., &Lowrance, R. (1995). Group representations andintergroup bias: Positive affect, similarity, andgroup size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,8, 856–865.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998).Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and acommon ingroup identity. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 75, 109–120.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka,K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. (1997). Extendingthe benefits of re-categorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 22, 401–420.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986a). The aversiveform of racism. In J. F. Dovidio and S. L. Gaertner(Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp.61–89). New York: Academic Press.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986b). Prejudice,discrimination, and racism: Problems, progress

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(4)

314

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 314

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

and promise. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner(Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp.315–332). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducingintergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model.Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A.,Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). Thecommon ingroup identity model: Recategorizationand the reduction of intergroup bias. In W.Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review ofsocial psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–26). New York:Wiley.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Bachman, B. A.(1996). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: Theinduction of a common ingroup identity.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3&4), 271–290.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Rust, M.C., Nier, J. A., Mottola, G. R., & Ward, C. M.(1997). Does White racism necessarily meanantiblackness? Aversive racism and prowhiteness.In M. Fine, L. Weis, L. C. Powell, & L. M. Wong(Eds.), Off white: Readings on race, power, and society(pp. 167–178). New York: Routledge.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A.,Banker, B., Ward, C. M., Mottola, G. R., &Houlette, M. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias:Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76, 388–402.

Gaertner, S. L., & Drout, C. E. (1984, April). Whengroups merge: The effects of prior territorial occupancy.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theEastern Psychological Association, Baltimore, MD.

Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Murrell, A.J., & Pomare, M. (1990). How does cooperationreduce intergroup bias? Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 59, 692–704.

Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Murrell, A. J., & Dovidio,J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: Thebenefits of recategorization. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 57, 239–249.

Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman,B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1994). The ContactHypothesis: The role of a common ingroupidentity on reducing intergroup bias. Small GroupsResearch, 25, 224–249.

Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman,B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1996). The ContactHypothesis: The role of a common ingroupidentity on reducing intergroup bias amongmajority and minority group members. In J. L.Nye & A. M. Bower (Eds.), What’s social about socialcognition? Research on socially shared cognition in

small groups (pp. 230–260). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Hewstone, M. (1996). Contact and categorization:Social psychological interventions to changeintergroup relations. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor,& M. Hewstone (Eds.), Foundations of stereotypes andstereotyping (pp. 323–368). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hewstone, M., Bond, M. H., & Wan, K. C. (1983).Social facts and social attributions: Theexplanation of intergroup differences in HongKong. Social Cognition, 2, 142–157.

Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1985). Interpersonalattraction, social identification, and psychologicalgroup formation. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 15, 51–66.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Sub-grouprelations: Two experiments comparing SubgroupDifferentiation and Common Ingroup IdentityModels of prejudice reduction. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 28, 242–256.

Howard, J. W., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Socialcategorization and memory for in-group andout-group behavior. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 38, 301–310.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1975). Joiningtogether: Group theory and group skills. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Katz, I. (1981). Stigma: A modern social psychologicalanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects ofgroup identity on resource utilization in asimulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 46, 1044–1057.

Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarizedappraisals of outgroup members. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 38, 689–703.

Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C.(1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 821–831.

Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergrouprelations. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter(Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 40,pp. 45-81). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socializationin small groups: Temporal changes inindividual–group relations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 15,pp. 137–192). New York: Academic Press.

Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroupbias as a function of salience, relevance, and status:An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology,22, 103–122.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup Contact Theory.Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.

Nier et al. changing interracial evaluations and behavior

315

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 315

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Schofield, J. W. (1986). Causes and consequences ofthe colorblind perspective. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L.Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism(pp. 231–254). New York: Academic Press.

Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Justice and power:When will justice concerns encourage theadvantaged to support policies which redistributeeconomic resources and the disadvantaged towillingly obey the law? European Journal of SocialPsychology, 26, 171–200.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervalsfor indirect effects in structural equation models.In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982(pp. 290–312). Washington, DC.: AmericanSociological Association.

Stein, D. D., Hardyck, J. A., & Smith, M. B. (1965).Race and belief: An open and shut case. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1, 281–289.

Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroupaggression: Its predictors and distinctness fromin-group bias. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 56, 364–373.

Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice.Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79–97.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrativetheory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S.Worchel (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 66–101).Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Urban, L. M., & Miller, N. (1998). A theoreticalanalysis of crossed categorization effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 894–908.

Wang, G., & McKillip, J. (1978). Ethnic identificationand judgements of an accident. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 4, 296–299.

Wilder, D. A. (1984). Prediction of beliefhomogeneity and similarity following socialcategorization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23,323–333.

Wilder, D. A. (1986). Social categorization:Implications for creation and reduction ofintergroup bias. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 291–355).New York: Academic Press.

Wilder, D. A., & Shapiro, P. N. (1984). Role of

out-group cues in determining social identity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47,342–348.

Williams, R. M. (1947). The reduction of intergrouptensions (Bulletin 57). New York: Social SciencesResearch Council.

Paper received 14 August 2000; revised version accepted 10January 2001.

Biographical notesJ A S O N A. N I E R is an assistant professor of

psychology at Connecticut College. His researchexamines the assessment of intergroup attitudes,reducing intergroup bias, and the socialpsychology of collective action.

S A M U E L L. G A E RT N E R is professor of psychology atthe University of Delaware. His research interestsfocus primarily on subtle forms of racism and onidentifying strategies for producing moreharmonious intergroup attitudes.

J O H N F. D O V I D I O is professor of psychology atColgate University. His current research interestsare prejudice, stereotyping, and intergroupbehavior, helping and altruism, and nonverbalcommunication.

B R E N D A S. B A N K E R is currently a doctoral candidatein the social psychology program at the Universityof Delaware. Her current research utilizes anintergroup perspective to examine thedevelopment of family harmony within stepfamilyunits in which both adults arrived with childrenfrom previous relationships.

C H R I S T I N E M. WA R D is a senior market analyst atAdvanced Analytics, Incorporated.

M A R Y C. R U S T is an assistant professor of psychologyat American International College. Her researchinterests focus on the developments of stereotypesand strategies for stereotype change.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(4)

316

01 Nier (bc/d) 23/8/01 12:17 pm Page 316

at CONNECTICUT COLLEGE on March 30, 2011gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from