Article Title: Can Cross-Group Friendships Influence Minority Students' Well-Being at Historically White Universities?

Research Article

Can Cross-Group Friendships Influence Minority Students’ Well-Being at Historically White Universities? Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton and Elizabeth Page-Gould

University of California, Berkeley

ABSTRACT—Past research has demonstrated the negative

impact of race-based rejection sensitivity (RS-race) on

institutional belonging and satisfaction among minority-

group students in predominantly White universities. Given

research documenting the benefits of cross-group friend-

ship for intergroup attitudes, we tested whether friend-

ships with majority-group peers would attenuate the

effects of RS-race within these contexts. In a longitudinal

study of African American students (Study 1), cross-group

friendships with majority-group peers buffered students

high in RS-race from lack of belonging and dissatisfaction

at their university. An experimental intervention (Study 2)

that induced cross-group friendship replicated the findings

and established their specificity for minority-group stu-

dents. We discuss implications for efforts toward diversi-

fying educational settings.

In recent decades, strides have been made toward ensuring

equal access to institutions of higher education (Hurtado,

Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998). This goal has been

particularly important for universities that have historically

denied access to individuals on the basis of status characteris-

tics, such as race or gender (Bowen & Bok, 1998). As univer-

sities successfully recruit members of groups they previously

marginalized, new challenges arise. One central challenge in-

volves moving from numerical diversity—ensuring that different

groups are represented within the institution—toward relational

or interactional diversity—ensuring that once together, people

from different groups reach out across group boundaries, and

that members of all groups feel equally welcome and accepted

within the institution (Fine, Weis, & Powell, 1997; Gurin, Dey,

Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002).

Research suggests that a principal vehicle through which

relational diversity can be achieved is interpersonal relation-

ships across group boundaries (Levin, van Laar, & Sidanius,

2003; McLaughlin-Volpe, Mendoza-Denton, & Shelton, 2005;

Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, & Voci, 2004). Drawing on this re-

search, we focus here on the implications of friendships with

majority-group peers for institutional belonging and satisfaction

among minority students at elite, historically White universities.

Members of historically marginalized groups may be especially

likely to question their acceptance within such settings and feel

mistrustful toward university representatives and authorities

(Bowen & Bok, 1998; Stewart & Dottolo, 2005). Nonetheless,

there is significant within-group variability in the experience of

such concerns. Specifically, higher levels of race-based rejec-

tion sensitivity (RS-race; Mendoza-Denton, Downey, Purdie,

Davis, & Pietrzak, 2002) have been directly linked to reduced

belonging and adjustment among minority students at histori-

cally White universities (Aronson & Inzlicht, 2004; Mendoza-

Denton et al., 2002; Walton & Cohen, 2007).

At least three lines of research provide reason to believe

that cross-group friendships can positively influence institu-

tional attitudes among students concerned about their belong-

ing in such educational settings. First, we have shown that

minority students’ attitudes toward the university covary with

their attitudes toward representatives of the institutional in-

group—professors, administrators, and majority-group peers

Elizabeth Page-Gould is now at Harvard University. Address cor- respondence to Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, Department of Psychol- ogy, University of California, 3210 Tolman Hall #1650, Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, e-mail: [email protected], or to Elizabeth Page-Gould, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, William James Hall, 33 Kirkland St., Cambridge, MA 02138, e-mail: lpgould @wjh.harvard.edu.

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Volume 19—Number 9 933Copyright r 2008 Association for Psychological Science at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on June 12, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

(Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002). Second, having greater numbers

of majority-group members in one’s high school and home

neighborhood has been linked to better adjustment among mi-

nority-group students within predominantly White college set-

tings (Chavous, Rivas, Green, & Helaire, 2002; Graham, Baker,

& Wapner, 1985). Third, research suggests that the positive

effects of close interpersonal relationships across group boun-

daries generalize to new out-group members (Paolini, Hewstone,

Rubin, & Pay, 2004; Wright, Aron, & Tropp, 2002).

Given these converging lines of research, we tested whether

friendships with majority-group peers would buffer minority

students who are high in RS-race from feelings of alienation and

discomfort in historically White university settings. In Study 1,

African American students’ belonging and satisfaction in a

historically White educational institution were tracked over 3

years as they developed friendships with White peers. In Study

2, to more directly test the causal role of friendship, we exam-

ined whether an experimental intervention that induced cross-

group friendship had a similar influence on satisfaction in an-

other historically White university.

STUDY 1

Study 1 was a 3-year longitudinal study of two cohorts of African

American college students at a university where African Amer-

icans represented less than 10%, and Whites represented more

than 50%, of the student body over the course of data collection

(see Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002). We specifically addressed the

question of whether friendships developed with majority-group

peers over the 1st year of college predicted feelings of belonging

in the university 1 to 2 years later, as well as change in satis-

faction with the university over this time period.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Over the course of 2 years, research assistants invited incoming

1st-year students to partake in a study on adjustment to student

life. Before classes began, interested students filled out ques-

tionnaires assessing their sensitivity to rejection based on their

race and their personal characteristics. At the end of each co-

hort’s 1st year (Follow-Up 1), participants were invited to

complete a questionnaire that included questions about the

friends they had made during the school year and their satis-

faction at the university. At the end of the second cohort’s

sophomore year (the first cohort’s junior year), participants from

both cohorts were contacted simultaneously. At this second

follow-up (Follow-Up 2), they completed an assessment of in-

stitutional belonging and the same measure of institutional

satisfaction from Follow-Up 1. RS-race was not systematically

related to attrition from the study at either follow-up.

We focus here on the 42 participants (27 women, 15 men;

mean age at entry 5 17.81 years, SD 5 0.55) who had complete

data on the key measures of interest. This gender breakdown

reflects the proportion of men and women among African

American students at the university (see Mendoza-Denton et al.,

2002). Gender and cohort were not associated with significant

differences in the outcome variables reported; therefore, these

factors are not discussed further.

Predictor Measures

RS-Race. The RS-Race Questionnaire (Mendoza-Denton et al.,

2002), which was administered prior to the study, measures

anxious expectations of race-based rejection in situations in

which discrimination is applicable and possible, such as an in-

person job interview (see Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002, for val-

idation data for this questionnaire). For the 42 African American

participants in this study, the mean RS-race score was 12.51

(SD 5 7.10, a 5 .92).

Friendships. To guard against self-presentation concerns and

experimenter demand, we asked participants to list their friends

before they told us the group memberships of these friends.

Thus, at Follow-Up 1, participants first listed the first names of

up to 10 friends that they had made over their 1st year of college

(M 5 8.36, SD 5 2.12). They then completed the rest of the

follow-up questionnaire. Finally, the last page of the question-

naire directed participants to return to the first section, where

they had listed their friends’ names, and to provide the age,

gender, and race of each friend. Participants reported greater

numbers of Black friends (M 5 5.8, SD 5 2.90) than White

friends (M 5 1.14, SD 5 1.52). To ensure that any observed

effects on belonging and satisfaction were specific to having

White friends, we controlled for number of Black friends in our

analyses. 1 RS-race scores were not significantly related to

number of Black friends, r(40) 5 .23, p 5 .15, but were sig-

nificantly related negatively to number of White friends, r(40) 5

�.33, p < .04.

Covariates

Rejection Sensitivity-Personal (RS-Personal). The RS-Personal

Questionnaire (Downey & Feldman, 1996), also administered

prior to the study, assesses anxious expectations of rejection by

significant others due to one’s personal, unique characteristics.

Validation data for this measure are available in Downey and

Feldman (1996). We included RS-personal as a measure of

discrimination-irrelevant anxious expectations in interpersonal

interactions (M 5 8.92, SD 5 3.77, a 5 .81).

Grade Point Average (GPA). To ensure that any observed effects

on institutional attitudes were independent of students’ aca-

demic performance (cf. Mendoza-Denton, Pietrzak, & Downey,

1 Parallel analyses controlling for the number of White friends revealed that

the number of Black friends was not related to institutional belonging or change in university satisfaction, either in interactions with RS-race or as a main effect (all Fs < 1).

934 Volume 19—Number 9

Cross-Group Friendship and Institutional Well-Being

at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on June 12, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2008), we controlled for cumulative GPA at Follow-Up 2. These

data were obtained from participants’ academic records with

their permission (M 5 2.94, SD 5 0.39).

Outcome Measures

Sense of belonging at the university was assessed only at Follow-

Up 2. Participants rated their agreement with six items indexing

institutional belonging: for example, ‘‘I belong at Columbia’’ and

‘‘I feel alienated from Columbia’’ (reverse-scored). Ratings were

made on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree;

M 5 3.50, SD 5 0.84, a 5 .86). University satisfaction was assessed both at Follow-Up 1 and

at Follow-Up 2 with two items (‘‘If a friend of yours were ac-

cepted to the university, how much would you encourage [him or

her] to come?’’ and ‘‘Overall, how satisfied are you with your

experience at the university?’’). The response scale ranged from

1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). These items correlated

highly both at Follow-Up 1 (r 5 .64, p < .001) and at Follow-Up

2 (r 5 .70, p < .0001) and were therefore combined to arrive at a

unitary index of satisfaction (Follow-Up 1: M 5 5.49, SD 5

1.30; Follow-Up 2: M 5 5.58, SD 5 1.17).

Results and Discussion

Belonging and satisfaction at the university were each regressed

on RS-race (continuous), number of White friends (continuous),

and their interaction, controlling for RS-personal, number of

Black friends, and GPA. The analyses also controlled for sat-

isfaction at Follow-Up 1 to assess change. Predictor variables

were first standardized; significant interactions were then plot-

ted graphically using predicted values for individuals 1 stan-

dard deviation above and below the mean on the predictor

variables.

Belonging

The analysis for belonging revealed a significant main effect of

RS-race, b 5 �0.25, F(1, 34) 5 6.17, p < .02. This main effect was qualified by the expected interaction between number of

majority-group friends and RS-race, b 5 0.41, F(1, 34) 5 7.63,

p < .01. As Figure 1 shows, among participants with fewer

majority-group friends, RS-race and institutional belonging

were significantly negatively related, b 5 �0.66, F(1, 34) 5 16.73, p < .0002. This result is consistent with prior research

linking RS-race to reduced institutional belonging, particularly

given that higher levels of RS-race have been shown to be

negatively correlated with number of White friends (Mendoza-

Denton et al., 2002). Among students with more majority-group

friends, however, RS-race and institutional belonging were not

significantly related, b 5 0.16, F(1, 34) 5 0.69, p 5 .41. As

expected, among participants high in RS-race, having a greater

number of majority-group friends was positively and signifi-

cantly associated with greater institutional belonging, b 5 0.60,

F(1, 34) 5 5.57, p < .03. For participants low in RS-race, the

number of majority-group friends was not significantly related to

institutional belonging, b 5 �0.22, F(1, 34) 5 1.80, p 5 .19. Even though this analysis controlled for satisfaction at Fol-

low-Up 1, it is nevertheless possible that this pattern does not

reliably reflect change because the outcome measure was

different (i.e., belonging, rather than satisfaction). It was

therefore important to determine whether analyses of university

satisfaction at Follow-Up 2, controlling for the identical mea-

sure at Follow-Up 1, would show the same pattern.

University Satisfaction

The model for university satisfaction revealed a significant in-

teraction between number of majority-group friends and RS-

race, b 5 0.46, F(1, 34) 5 7.19, p 5 .01. As Figure 2 illustrates,

among participants with fewer majority-group friends, RS-race

and university satisfaction were significantly negatively related,

Fig. 1. Results from Study 1: institutional belonging among African American students as a function of race-based rejection sensitivity (RS-race) and friendship with majority-group peers. The graph shows predicted values for individuals 1 standard deviation above and below the mean of the RS-race distribution and the mean of the friendship distribution.

Fig. 2. Results from Study 1: university satisfaction among African American students as a function of race-based rejection sensitivity (RS- race) and friendship with majority-group peers. The graph shows predicted values for individuals 1 standard deviation above and below the mean of the RS-race distribution and the mean of the friendship distribution.

Volume 19—Number 9 935

Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton and Elizabeth Page-Gould

at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on June 12, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

b 5 �0.54, F(1, 34) 5 8.53, p < .007, whereas among partic- ipants with more majority-group friends, RS-race and university

satisfaction were not significantly related, b 5 0.38, F(1, 34) 5

2.80, p 5 .10. Among participants high in RS-race, number of

majority-group friends was positively associated with university

satisfaction, b 5 0.70, F(1, 34) 5 5.86, p 5 .02. For individuals

low in RS-race, the number of majority-group friends was not

related to university satisfaction, b 5 �0.21, F(1, 34) 5 1.21, p 5 .28.

The fact that our analyses controlled for the previous level of

university satisfaction increased our confidence that there was a

causal effect such that friendship with majority-group peers

attenuated the link between RS-race and negative institutional

outcomes (see Bolger, Rafaeli, & Davis, 2003). Nevertheless, it

was possible that among participants high in RS-race, those who

developed close cross-group friendships were fundamentally

different from those who did not. Furthermore, we did not di-

rectly test the assumption that the effects of cross-group

friendship on institutional outcomes are unique to minority-

group members. We addressed these issues through an experi-

mental intervention in Study 2.

STUDY 2

In Study 2, we conducted an experimental intervention in which

Latino 2 and White participants at a historically White yet cur-

rently diverse university were randomly assigned to either a

cross-group friendship induction or a same-group friendship

induction. The friendship induction was based on procedures

developed by Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, and Bator (1997)

and first adapted to the intergroup context by Wright and his

colleagues (see Wright et al., 2002). We focused on Latinos and

Whites in this study because of recruitment access within stu-

dent organizations, as well as the long-standing interest in re-

lations between these two groups (Stephan & Stephan, 2000).

The same-group condition allowed us to compare the effects of

making a new cross-group friend with the effects of forming a

new friendship more generally. Background measures were

collected prior to the study, and university satisfaction was as-

sessed at the conclusion of the final intervention session. The

procedure is described in more detail elsewhere (Page-Gould,

Mendoza-Denton, & Tropp, in press).

Method

Setting and Participants

Participants were 144 undergraduate students attending the

University of California, Berkeley. Of this group, 135 (74% fe-

male; mean age 5 19.37 years, SD 5 1.51) had complete data

for the analyses reported here. Over the course of data collec-

tion, the ethnic composition of the undergraduate population at

the university was, on average, 34.4% White and 12.0% Latino.

Our sample consisted of 76 White participants and 59 Latino

participants. Among White participants, 53 were in the same-

group condition and 23 were in the cross-group condition;

among Latino participants, 35 were in the same-group condition

and 24 were in the cross-group condition.

Procedure

Participants were recruited for a study ‘‘examining the effects of

friendship on adjustment to college.’’ Although participants

were aware that the study involved making a friend, they were

not privy to our interest in cross- versus same-group friendship

formation. Interested participants attended an information ses-

sion in groups of 1 to 8. At this session, they provided informed

consent and completed the background measures, including the

measures of RS-race and RS-personal. Within 2 weeks of the

information session, participants were randomly assigned to a

same- or cross-group partner, with the restriction that partners

needed to have compatible schedules. Participants did not know

each other prior to the experimental sessions. To further mini-

mize the possibility of contact between partners prior to the

study, we did not pair participants who had attended the same

information session.

Partners attended three friendship-intervention sessions

specifically designed to build interpersonal closeness. The

sessions were held on consecutive weeks. We adapted the one-

session ‘‘fast friends’’ procedure (Aron et al., 1997) for a three-

session format. At each of the first two sessions, the partners

answered 36 questions that required escalating levels of self-

disclosure over a 45-min period. At the third session, the part-

ners played a game of Hasbro’s Jenga, in which they took turns

removing blocks from a stacked tower, trying not to make the

tower fall (Wright & van der Zande, 1999). The partners played

Jenga for 30 min and then completed a final, postfriendship

questionnaire that included our measure of university satisfac-

tion. (See Page-Gould et al., in press, for validation data relevant

to this procedure for inducing closeness between participants.)

Materials

RS-Race. In this study, we used a six-item version of the RS-Race

Questionnaire (MLatino 5 7.51, SD 5 6.77, a 5 .85; MWhite 5 3.34, SD 5 2.49, a 5 .80). Both the means, t(133) 5 4.96, p < .0001, and the variances, folded F(58, 75) 5 7.08, p < .0001,

differed significantly between the two groups. Therefore, we

standardized RS-race scores within ethnicity to unconfound these

scores from group membership.

RS-Personal. In this study, we also used a shortened six-item

version of the RS-Personal Questionnaire (MLatino 5 10.18,

SD 5 3.95, a 5 .63; MWhite 5 9.48, SD 5 4.06, a 5 .75). Means and variances did not differ between the two groups.

2 For ease of exposition, and in keeping with this journal’s style, we use

‘‘Latino’’ to refer to both male and female participants.

936 Volume 19—Number 9

Cross-Group Friendship and Institutional Well-Being

at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on June 12, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

University Satisfaction. University satisfaction was assessed

using the same two items as in Study 1. Ratings for the two items

were correlated for both Whites, r(74) 5 .64, p < .0001, and

Latinos, r(57) 5 .64, p < .0001, and were thus collapsed to form

a single index of university satisfaction (MWhite 5 6.14, SD 5

0.86; MLatino 5 6.08, SD 5 1.04). We did not measure university

belonging in this study because of space constraints in the

questionnaire packet.

Results

We followed the analytic and graphing strategy of Study 1. Uni-

versity satisfaction was regressed on condition (same-group 5 0;

cross-group 5 1), ethnicity (White 5 0, Latino 5 1), and RS-race

(continuous), with all interaction terms included in the model.

RS-personal scores were included as a covariate. This analysis

revealed the predicted three-way interaction, b 5 0.80, F(1, 126)

5 6.10, p < .02. We examined the lower-order interactions of

interest in the context of this higher-order interaction (Aiken &

West, 1991). As expected, the model revealed no significant main

effects or interactions for White participants (all Fs < 1.37, ps >

.24). Among Latino participants, however, we observed a main

effect of RS-race, b 5 �0.54, F(1, 126) 5 8.75, p < .005, such that participants higher in RS-race tended to feel less satisfac-

tion at the university overall. This main effect was qualified

by the predicted Condition � RS-Race interaction, b 5 0.55, F(1, 126) 5 5.11, p < .03.

The interaction among Latino students is illustrated in Figure

3. Whereas in the same-group condition, RS-race was negatively

related to institutional satisfaction, b 5 �0.54, F(1, 126) 5 8.75, p < .004, this effect all but disappeared in the cross-group

condition, b 5 0.008, F(1, 126) 5 0.03, n.s. The effect of con-

dition was positive and approached significance for Latinos high

in RS-race, b 5 0.60, F(1, 126) 5 3.15, p 5 .08, but, as ex-

pected, was not significant among Latinos low in RS-race, b 5

�0.51, F(1, 126) 5 1.97, p 5 .16.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

There is widespread recognition that universities, as principal

gateways to the attainment of personally engaging and societally

valued career paths, have a responsibility to serve and be

equally accessible to all members of society. This recognition is

particularly relevant for universities that remain largely homo-

geneous because of a historical legacy of limiting access to

certain students on the basis of categorical features such as

gender or race (Bowen & Bok, 1998). Our research underscores

the importance of the interpersonal climate for addressing issues

of access and diversity within such institutions, and shows that

the development of affiliative ties across group boundaries

provides an important vehicle for achieving relational diversity.

Drawing on past research documenting the benefits of cross-

group friendship for intergroup attitudes, we hypothesized that

cross-group friendships would enhance institutional belonging

and satisfaction among individuals most susceptible to experi-

encing a lack of belonging in the university context—minority

students high in RS-race. We found empirical support for this

hypothesis in a longitudinal data set (Study 1). We then con-

ducted a friendship intervention (Study 2) that provided causal

evidence for the buffering influence of cross-group friendships

on the institutional satisfaction of minority students at histori-

cally White institutions. Thus, our research contributes to a

burgeoning literature on cross-group friendships by showing

that the positive effects of friendship can extend beyond inter-

group attitudes per se to institutional attitudes, and by directly

testing causal links from cross-race friendships to positive

intergroup outcomes (cf. Pettigrew, 1998).

We did not expect (and did not find) systematic effects for

White students. Compared with minority-group students, they

have less reason to doubt their acceptance in such institutions

and are less likely to see minority-group friends as representa-

tive of the institution. We emphasize that friendships with

members of the majority group have positive effects on institu-

tional attitudes of minority-group students in the specific con-

text of the historically White institution, where the suspicion of

lack of belonging is likely to be high. Friendships with majority-

group peers are less likely to have effects on institutional atti-

tudes in contexts where these peers’ group memberships do not

hold similar symbolic or historical import.

Importance of Fostering Out-Group and In-Group

Affiliations Simultaneously

Although the research reported here was specifically focused on

the impact of out-group friendships for minority-group students’

sense of belonging, we note that efforts to foster out-group

contact need not come at the expense of promoting the benefits of

in-group contact. For example, in a previous study, we (Men-

doza-Denton et al., 2002) demonstrated that on days following

attendance at ethnically centered events (e.g., attendance at a

meeting of the Black Students’ Organization), minority students’

Fig. 3. Results from Study 2: university satisfaction among Latino stu- dents as a function of race-based rejection sensitivity (RS-race) and ex- perimental condition (cross-group vs. same-group friendship). For each condition, the graph shows predicted values for individuals 1 standard deviation above and below the mean of the RS-race distribution.

Volume 19—Number 9 937

Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton and Elizabeth Page-Gould

at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on June 12, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

sense of belonging at the university increased. Together, the

findings of these studies suggest that efforts to increase cross-

group friendship are not incompatible with institutional efforts

to clearly communicate acceptance of the minority group by

supporting organizations or activities centered on the ethnic or

racial background of that group. This recognition is important

because the effects of same-group friendship—much like the

effects of cross-group friendship, as we have shown here—are

likely to vary across members of minority groups and may prove

particularly beneficial for some individuals. For example, in

each of our outcome measures, there was a nonsignificant but

consistent trend for same-group friendship to be more beneficial

than cross-group friendship for participants low in RS-race. To

the degree that minority-group students may differentially ben-

efit from same- and cross-group affiliations, interventions or

programs that foster both may ultimately achieve the widest

reach.

Underlying Mechanisms

The results presented here raise interesting questions about the

mechanisms underlying the effect of cross-group friendships on

institutional attitudes. Pettigrew (2006) identified three poten-

tial mechanisms through which intergroup contact might reduce

prejudice: decreases in anxiety, increases in empathy, and in-

creased knowledge about the out-group. We did not measure

empathy or out-group knowledge in either of the studies reported

here. Nevertheless, although we did measure participants’ cor-

tisol reactivity (a physiological correlate of stress) in Study 2

(see Page-Gould et al., in press), such reactivity was unrelated to

attitudes toward the university among Latino participants (F 5

0.01, n.s.). Thus, the effect of cross-group friendship on insti-

tutional well-being among students high in RS-race does not

appear to be explained by decreases in cortisol reactivity.

Though initially surprising, this pattern suggests that inter-

group contact may not affect prejudice reduction and institu-

tional well-being in the same way. What mechanisms might

account for the effect of cross-group friendship on institutional

attitudes? One promising possibility lies in self-expansion

processes (Aron et al., 2004), whereby people grow to incorpo-

rate their partner’s knowledge, experiences, and identities into

their own self-concept as interpersonal closeness develops. In a

study consistent with this notion (Page-Gould, Mendoza-Den-

ton, & Alegre, 2008), we found that people’s speed in catego-

rizing a cross-group friend’s ethnic group as ‘‘not me’’ was

inversely related to the quality of their friendships with members

of that friend’s group. To the extent that a friend’s perceived

membership in the university in-group is salient, cross-group

friendship may increase the likelihood that minority-group

students will eventually incorporate a university identity as part

of themselves.

Another possible mechanism is suggested by research show-

ing that emphasizing a common in-group identity (e.g., as uni-

versity students), despite other dimensions of difference,

provides benefits such as reduced intergroup bias (Gaertner,

Dovidio, Nier, Ward, & Banker, 1999) and greater institutional

belonging and commitment among minority-group members

(Dovidio, Gaertner, Flores Niemann, & Snider, 2001; see

Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005). As several researchers have noted

(Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Gaertner et al., 1999; Gonzalez &

Brown, 2006), the benefits of fostering the superordinate iden-

tity are seen when minority-group members’ subordinate group

identity is not threatened (i.e., when they can have a dual

identity). We propose that in the context of friendship, subor-

dinate identities may not be threatened as superordinate iden-

tities are strengthened. Therefore, friendships with majority-

group peers may be key in the development of dual identity

among minority-group students, and may provide a route toward

relational diversity within institutions of higher education.

Acknowledgments—This research was supported by grants

from the Russell Sage Foundation and the Greater Good Sci-

ence Center at the University of California, Berkeley. Elizabeth

Page-Gould was additionally supported by a National Science

Foundation Graduate Fellowship. Parts of this research were

presented at the Science of Diversity Symposium, Columbia

University, New York, NY, November 2006, as well as at the

annual convention of the American Psychological Association,

San Francisco, CA, August 2007.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and in- terpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Mashek, D., Lewandowski, G.,

Wright, S.C., & Aron, E.N. (2004). Including others in the self.

European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 101–132. Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E.N., Vallone, R., & Bator, R. (1997). The

experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure

and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychol- ogy Bulletin, 23, 363–377.

Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2004). The ups and downs of attributional

ambiguity: Stereotype vulnerability and the academic self-

knowledge of African American college students. Psychological Science, 15, 829–836.

Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616.

Bowen, W.G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university ad- missions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Brown, R.J., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of inter-

group contact. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). New York: Elsevier.

Chavous, T., Rivas, D., Green, L., & Helaire, L. (2002). Role of student

background, perceptions of ethnic fit, and racial identification in

the academic adjustment of African American students at a

predominantly White university. Journal of Black Psychology, 28, 234–260.

938 Volume 19—Number 9

Cross-Group Friendship and Institutional Well-Being

at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on June 12, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., Flores Niemann, Y., & Snider, K. (2001).

Racial, ethnic, and cultural differences in responding to dis-

tinctiveness and discrimination on campus: Stigma and common

group identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 167–188. Downey, G., & Feldman, S. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity

for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343.

Fine, M., Weis, L., & Powell, L.C. (1997). Communities of difference:

A critical look at desegregated spaces created for and by youth.

Harvard Educational Review, 67, 247–284. Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. (2005). Understanding and addressing

contemporary racism: From aversive racism to the common in-

group identity model. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 615–639. Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J.F., Nier, J.A., Ward, C.M., & Banker, B.S.

(1999). Across cultural divides: The value of a superordinate

identity. In D. Prentice & D. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp. 173–212). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gonzalez, R., & Brown, R. (2006). Dual identities in intergroup con-

tact: Group status and size moderate the generalization of positive

attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 753–767.

Graham, C., Baker, R.W., & Wapner, S. (1985). Prior interracial ex-

perience and Black student transition into predominantly White

colleges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1146– 1154.

Gurin, P., Dey, E.L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and

higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes.

Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330–366. Hurtado, S., Milem, J.F., Clayton-Pedersen, A.R., & Allen, W.R.

(1998). Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity:

Educational policy and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 279–302.

Levin, S., van Laar, C.Y., & Sidanius, J.H. (2003). The effects of ingroup

and outgroup friendships on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitu-

dinal study. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 76–92. McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Shelton, N. (2005).

Including out-group others in the self: Implications for coping

with race-based rejection and alienation among minority stu-

dents. In G. Downey, J.S. Eccles, & C.M. Chatman (Eds.), Nav- igating the future: Social identity, coping and life tasks (pp. 191– 209). New York: Russell Sage.

Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V., Davis, A., & Pietrzak, J.

(2002). Sensitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for

African-American students’ college experience. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 83, 896–918.

Mendoza-Denton, R., Pietrzak, J., & Downey, G. (2008). Distin-

guishing institutional identification from academic goal pursuit:

Interactive effects of ethnic identification and race-based rejec-

tion sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 338–351.

Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Alegre, J.M. (2008, Febru-

ary). Why does cross-group friendship improve interactions with novel outgroup members? Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology,

Albuquerque, NM.

Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. (in press). With a

little help from my cross-group friends: Reducing intergroup

anxiety through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of

direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of

Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediation role

of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 30, 770–786.

Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Pay, H. (2004). Increased

group dispersion after exposure to one deviant group member:

Testing Hamburger’s model of member-to-group generalization.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 569–585. Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of

Psychology, 49, 65–85. Pettigrew, T.F. (2006, June). How does contact reduce prejudice?: Meta-

analytic tests of three mediators. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Is-

sues, Long Beach, CA.

Stephan, W.G., & Stephan, C.W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of

prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimi- nation: The Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 23–45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stewart, A.J., & Dottolo, A.L. (2005). Socialization to the academy:

Coping with competing social identities. In G. Downey, J.S.

Eccles, & C.M. Chatman (Eds.), Navigating the future: Social identity, coping and life tasks (pp. 167–187). New York: Russell Sage.

Walton, G., & Cohen, G.J. (2007). A question of belonging: Race,

social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 82–96.

Wright, S.C., Aron, A., & Tropp, L.R. (2002). Including others (and

groups) in the self: Self-expansion and intergroup relations. In

J.P. Forgas & K.D. Williams (Eds.), The social self: Cognitive, interpersonal, and intergroup perspectives (pp. 343–363). Phila- delphia: Psychology Press.

Wright, S.C., & van der Zande, C.C. (1999, October). Bicultural friends: When cross-group friendships cause improved intergroup attitudes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology, St. Louis, MO.

(RECEIVED 11/10/07; REVISION ACCEPTED 3/20/08)

Volume 19—Number 9 939

Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton and Elizabeth Page-Gould

at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on June 12, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from