Shelton Trail West Bergsieker 2010
Shelton Trail West Bergsieker 2010
Shelton Trail West Bergsieker 2010
net/publication/240707151
CITATIONS READS
40 251
4 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Hilary Bergsieker on 12 September 2014.
Tessa V. West
New York University, USA
Hilary B. Bergsieker
Princeton University, USA
ABSTRACT
We examine the processes involved in the development of
interracial friendships. Using Reis and Shaver’s intimacy model,
we explore the extent to which disclosure and perceived
partner responsiveness influence intimacy levels in develop-
ing interracial and intraracial friendships. White and ethnic
minority participants completed diary measures of self and
partner disclosure and partner responsiveness every two weeks
for 10 weeks about an in-group and an out-group person whom
they thought they would befriend over time. The results
revealed that perceived partner responsiveness mediated the
relationships between both self and partner disclosure and
intimacy in interracial and intraracial relationships. The impli-
cations of these results for intergroup relations are discussed.
This research was supported by the Russell Sage Foundation. All correspondence concerning
this article should be addressed to J. Nicole Shelton, Department of Psychology, Green Hall,
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA [e-mail: [email protected]]. Sandra
Metts was the Action Editor on this article.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships © The Author(s), 2010. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav, Vol. 27(1): 71–90.
DOI: 10.1177/0265407509346422
72 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(1)
According to Reis and Shaver (1988; see Reis & Patrick, 1996, for an expan-
sion), intimacy is a transactional process whereby two key components –
self disclosure and perceived responsiveness – facilitate or hinder a close
connection between people. Specifically, the intimacy process is initiated
when a person (speaker) discloses personal information and feelings to a
partner (listener). The listener responds by also disclosing personal infor-
mation and feelings. More importantly, for the interaction to be perceived
as intimate, the speaker must interpret the listener’s response as under-
standing, validating, and caring. In fact, Reis and Patrick (1996) suggest
than the interpretation of the listener’s response is more important for
developing intimacy than the speaker’s actual disclosure. Thus, according
to the model, self disclosure and partner disclosure both predict intimacy,
with perceived partner responsiveness as the key mediating factor in the
model.
Shelton et al.: Intimacy in interracial friendships 73
Self disclosure
Self disclosure refers to revealing personal facts, thoughts, and emotions to
a partner (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Disclosure between two people in an
interaction is often reciprocal; people are more likely to disclose to others
who disclose to them (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). As long
as people’s level of self disclosure does not exceed social norms (i.e., by
disclosing too much too soon), self disclosure is positively related to liking
(Collins & Miller, 1994). Specifically, people tend to disclose more to partners
whom they like, and partners tend to like people as a result of having been
disclosed to during interactions. These patterns have been demonstrated in
intragroup and intergroup contexts. With respect to an intergroup context,
for example, black interviewees disclosed more information to a white
interviewer who disclosed (versus did not disclose) personal information to
them; the black interviewees also liked the white interviewer who disclosed
information more than the one who did not (Berg & Wright-Buckley,
1988). In addition, out-group members who reveal self-disclosing informa-
tion are perceived as more trustworthy and desirable as friends (Ensari &
Miller, 2002).
As most of the research on self disclosure in an intergroup setting manip-
ulates disclosure, we know very little about the extent to which people
spontaneously reveal personal information in interracial interactions. We
do know that when asked to imagine having a discussion with a partner,
whites are less willing to discuss intimate topics with a black partner than
with a white partner (Johnson, Olson, & Fazio, 2009), undermining their
potential to enhance affinity. Moreover, although whites are willing to discuss
controversial, race-related topics with a black partner, they are most willing
74 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(1)
Method
Participants
We recruited 50 white and 24 black students to participate in a study on
friendship development for $50 and a chance to win additional monetary
prizes in a drawing. The sample consisted of 42 females (14 black and 28
white) and 32 males (10 black and 22 white).
Procedures
Upon agreeing to participate in the study, all participants attended an
orientation session where they were told that they would select two people
of their same sex whom they did not know very well at that time but might
become good friends with as the semester progressed. We required the
participants to select a white and a black potential friend. In addition, we
told the participants that they would complete a questionnaire about each
of the potential friends every two weeks for the next 10 weeks. We emailed
reminders to all participants on the day the questionnaires needed to be
completed. The participants completed the questionnaires online or in
pencil-and-paper format. We gave participants who completed the ques-
tionnaire via hardcopy a campus mail envelope to return the questionnaires
as soon as they completed them every two weeks. At the end of the 10-week
period, the participants attended a post-study session where they completed
a final questionnaire, were informed of the purpose of the study, and
received their payment.
Measurement
At the beginning of the study, participants indicated their friends’ race and
gender. Every two weeks, we instructed participants to reflect upon the
interactions they had with each friend over the previous two weeks.
Self disclosure. Participants rated the degree to which they disclosed their
feelings (“How much of your feelings did you express to your friend?”) and
personal information (“How much personal information [e.g., information
about you personally and your views] did you disclose to this friend during
your interactions?”) to their two friends, using a 7-point scale (1 = very
little, 7 = very much). We combined both items to form two self-disclosure
composites: a white friend self-disclosure composite (Cronbach’s α = .81 at
Time 1) and a black friend self-disclosure composite (Cronbach’s α = .88
at Time 1).
Intimacy. Participants indicated how close they felt to each friend (“Rela-
tive to all your other relationships, how would you characterize your rela-
tionship with your friend?”), using a 7-point scale (1 = not at all close, 7 =
extremely close). Similar to Laurenceau et al. (2005), we used the word
closeness, rather than intimacy, to capture psychological closeness instead
of sexual closeness/intimacy. In addition, participants indicated how much
they liked each friend (“Compared to other friends you have, how much do
you like this friend?”), using a 7-point scale (1= not at all, 7 = a great deal).
We combined the items to form an intimacy with white friend composite
(Cronbach’s α = .70 at Time 1) and an intimacy with black friend compos-
ite (Cronbach’s α = .80 at Time 1).
Analytic strategy
In the present data, there are three factors: time, partner (in-group or out-
group friend), and participant race (white or black). Our data conform to
a two-level multilevel structure, with Level 1 being time and Level 2 being
participant race, and because the level of time is the same for the ratings
of the two partners for each participant, the data are crossed (i.e., the data
are not a 3-level model where time points are nested within partners, and
partners are nested within participants). Level 1 data were measured for
each partner at each time point, and include self disclosure, perceived
partner disclosure, perceived partner responsiveness, and intimacy. The
Level 2 data unit was the participant; at Level 2, participant race and friend
race were included. Given the multilevel structure of the data, the data
must be analyzed using a multilevel modeling procedure to control for the
non-independence of responses. Our model is an elaboration of Kenny,
Kashy, and Cook’s (2006) one-with-many model, which is estimated using
the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS. Data are considered one-with-many
because the participant (i.e., the one) reported on two friends (i.e., the
many). The analysis strategy used allows us to simultaneously examine
within-subject and between-subject variation.
Two sets of models are reported. In the first set of models, linear changes
across time in self disclosure, perceived partner disclosure, perceived partner
responsiveness, and intimacy were examined. In addition, participant race,
78 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(1)
friend race, and the participant race by friend race interaction (which com-
pares same-race to mixed-race pairs) were examined as moderators of the
overall effects of the friendship variables, and as moderators of the inter-
actions between the friendship variables and time. That is, we examined
whether the race variables moderated the linear trajectories of the friend-
ship variables. At the level of the random effects, we estimated the variance
of the intercept, time, and the covariance between the intercept and time.
Only results of the fixed effects are reported.
In the second set of models, we tested the hypothesis that the relation-
ship between disclosure (for self and partner) and intimacy was mediated
by perceived partner responsiveness, and that the process of mediation
differed by participant race, friend race, and their interaction. The results
from the first set of models revealed little evidence for linear changes in the
friendship variables across time (i.e., perceptions of disclosure, perceived
partner responsiveness, and intimacy did not increase or decrease across
time). Thus, to examine the mediation models depicted in Figures 1(b) and
2(b), we dropped time as a parameter in the mediation models. The results
therefore refer to the effects of mediation over the five time-point sampling
period.
Results
FIGURE 1
Models predicting intimacy in intraracial friendships from (a) self- and friend
disclosure, and (b) disclosure mediated by perceived friend responsiveness
(a)
Self-Disclosure
.52/.40
.87/.82 I n t i m a cy
.03/.12
Friend Disclosure
(b) S e l f - D is c l o s u r e
.31/.23
.39/.40
.09/.17
– .03/.03
Friend
Disclosure
Note. The slope for Black participants with Black friends appears first, followed by the slope for
White participants with White friends.
FIGURE 2
Models predicting intimacy in interracial friendships from (a) self- and friend
disclosure, and (b) disclosure mediated by perceived friend responsiveness
(a)
Self-Disclosure
.35/.45
.74/.80 Intimacy
.21/.11
Friend Disclosure
(b) Self-Disclosure
.26/.26
.26/.37
.26/.26
.08/ – .03
Friend
Disclosure
Note. The slope for Black participants with White friends appears first, followed by the slope
for White participants with Black friends.
TABLE 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations between measures across all time points
Correlations
Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4
TABLE 2
Mean ratings of in-group and out-group relationships across time
Time
1 2 3 4 5
experienced similar levels of self and friend disclosure with black and white
friends, but they reported feeling less intimate with their black friends than
their white friends.
Discussion
Limitations
Although our findings are insightful, our methodology raises concerns about
how to interpret our findings. First, the interpretation of our findings is
constrained by the correlational nature of the data. The relationships be-
tween the components in the model are likely reciprocal – for instance,
intimacy causes more disclosure. Second, participants made their ratings
once every two weeks, reflecting back upon the past two weeks. Therefore,
we were unable to examine the interaction-by-interaction exchanges that
Reis and Shaver (1988) posited in their theoretical model. Our methodol-
ogy, however, is similar to that of other researchers who have examined
interactions at the daily level (Laurenceau et al., 2005). Finally, it is feasible
that the process of reporting on their relationship made the relationship
more salient to participants on a regular basis and caused them to put more
86 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(1)
Future directions
Because we were interested in examining the basic processes associated with
interracial friendship development, we did not explore individual differ-
ences that may moderate the processes in the intimacy model. Cross and
her colleagues (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000; Gore et al., 2006) showed that
relational self construal influences the interpersonal process model among
predominately same-race strangers and roommates. Similarly, it is feasible
that concerns with prejudice and racial attitudes may influence the pro-
cesses discussed here in interracial friendships. Indeed, previous research
has shown that both concerns with prejudice and racial attitudes influence
the extent to which ethnic minorities self disclose to whites. Specifically,
results from a daily diary study of roommate relationships revealed that
among ethnic minorities who had a white roommate, the more they expect
to be the target of prejudice, the greater their tendency to self disclose to
their roommate (Shelton, Richeson, & Salvatore, 2005). Among ethnic
minorities who had an ethnic minority roommate, however, prejudice expec-
tations were unrelated to self disclosure. In addition, results from a study
on interracial friendships revealed that the more negative ethnic minori-
ties’ attitudes toward whites, the less comfortable they felt disclosing infor-
mation to a white friend (Shelton & Richeson, 2006). By contrast, among
the students reflecting about a black friend, there was no relationship be-
tween racial attitudes and self disclosure. These racial factors may not only
influence the extent of self disclosure, but may also influence the entire
interpersonal intimacy process. Future research is needed to address this
issue. Nevertheless, we believe our research is an important first step
toward revealing the processes that are important for the development of
intimate interracial friendships.
Another important consideration for future research is to examine the
actual content of disclosure between potential out-group friends. Prior
work has established that objectively observed partner responsiveness is
associated with greater relationship satisfaction in romantic relationships
(Collins & Feeney, 2000), and objective measures of partner responsiveness
could provide valuable insights about the development of satisfaction and
intimacy in interracial friendships. The distinction between race-related
content and more intimate but non-race-related content is likely to influ-
ence the amount of disclosure, as well as people’s interpretation of their
partner’s responsiveness to the disclosure. Similarly, it would be useful to
explore the extent to which the stereotypicality of the disclosed informa-
tion influences the intimacy process. A black male who discloses that he has
a relative in prison may feel less intimate with a white partner if this disclo-
Shelton et al.: Intimacy in interracial friendships 87
sure makes their differences salient rather than reinforcing their common-
alities. Similarly, a white female may perceive her black partner as distant,
as opposed to validating and understanding, if she discloses that she would
never date black men because she thinks they are criminals. Thus, addi-
tional work that begins to address disclosure content may enable better
understanding of the path to meaningful interracial friendships.
Finally, in future research it would be useful to include both people in a
potential friendship dyad in order to examine projection and accuracy of
perceived responsiveness. As in romantic relationships (Lemay et al., 2007),
it is possible that same-race friends project their own motivation to be
responsive onto their friends’ motivation to be responsive to them. In the
case of developing interracial friendships, however, we suspect that this is
less likely to occur. Whites and ethnic minorities report that they are inter-
ested in intergroup contact, but that out-group members are not (Shelton
& Richeson, 2005), and they see their overtures as signaling interest in
intergroup friendship, but are less likely to see out-group members’ over-
tures as doing so (Vorauer, 2005). Thus, it is likely that people who think they
are responsive to a potential out-group friend assume (often erroneously)
that this person will not be responsive to them, setting the stage for misun-
derstandings that undermine friendship development.
Conclusion
People like to interact with, become friends with, and date people who are
similar to them, especially those who are racially similar (Levin, Taylor, &
Caudle, 2007; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). In this research, we
have provided a window into the interpersonal processes involved in moving
people out of their comfort zones and establishing friendships across racial
lines (see also Shelton, Richeson, & Bergsieker, 2009). Although whites
and blacks are less likely to become friends (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and
Cook, 2001), the road to such friendships is paved the same way it is for
intraracial friendships, namely, with revealing information about oneself
and accepting the other person for who that person is.
REFERENCES
Altman, L., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relation-
ships. New York: Rinehart & Winston.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Berg, J., & Wright-Buckley, C. (1988). Effects of racial similarity and interviewer intimacy in
a peer counseling analogue. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 377–384.
Bergsieker, H., Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (in press). To be liked or respected: Whites’
and Minorities’ divergent goals during interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology.
88 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(1)
Blieszner, R., & Adams, R. (1992). Adult friendships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Butz, D. A., & Plant, E. A. (2006). Perceiving outgroup members as unresponsive: Implications
for approach-related emotions, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 1066–1079.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on
support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 1053–1073.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 116, 457–475.
Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O’Brien, L. T. (2002). Social norms and the expression and
suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 359–378.
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal
and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791–808.
Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Marguilis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2007). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority
group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. In W. Stoebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.),
European review of social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 296–330). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion
recognition: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 203–235.
Emerson, M. O., Kimbro, R. T., & Yancey, G. (2002). Contact theory extended: The effects of
prior racial contact. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 745–761.
Ensari, N., & Miller, N. (2002). The out-group must not be so bad after all: The effects of dis-
closure, typicality, and salience on intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 83, 313–329.
Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gore, J. S., Cross, S. E., & Morris, M. L. (2006). Let’s be friends: Relational self-construal and
the development of intimacy. Personal Relationships, 13, 83–102.
Gray, H. M., Mendes, W. B., & Denny-Brown, C. (2008). An in-group advantage in detecting
intergroup anxiety. Psychological Science, 19, 1233–1237.
Hays, R. (1985). A longitudinal study of friendship development. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 48, 909–924.
Johnson, C. S., Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2009). Getting acquainted in interracial interac-
tions: Disclosing and seeking the personal and controversial. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 35, 557–571.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Cook,W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Laurenceau, J-P., Feldman-Barrett, L., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interper-
sonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner
responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
1238–1251.
Laurenceau, J.-P., Feldman-Barrett, L., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process
model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of
Family Psychology, 19, 314–323.
Lemay, E. P., Clark, M. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2007). Projection of responsiveness to needs and
the construction of satisfying communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 834–853.
Levin, S., Taylor, P. L., & Caudle, E. (2007). Interethnic and interracial dating in college: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 323–341.
Levin, S., van Laar, C., & Sidanius, J. (2003). The effects of ingroup and outgroup friendships
on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Processes and Intergroup Rela-
tions, 6, 76–92.
Lippert, T., & Prager, K. J. (2001). Daily experiences of intimacy: A study of couples. Personal
Relationships, 8, 283–298.
Shelton et al.: Intimacy in interracial friendships 89
Mallet, R. K., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). Expect the unexpected: Failure to antici-
pate similarities leads to an intergroup forecasting error. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94, 265–277.
Manne, S., Ostroff, J., Rini, C., Fox, K., Goldstein, L., & Grana, G. (2004). The interpersonal
process model of intimacy: The role of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and partner
responsiveness in interactions between breast cancer patients and their partners. Journal of
Family Psychology, 18, 589–599.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social
networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Mendes, W. B., Blascovich, J., Hunter, S., Lickel, B., & Jost, J. (2007). Threatened by the un-
expected: Challenge and threat during inter-ethnic interactions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 92, 698–716.
Mendoza-Denton, R., & Page-Gould, E. (2008). Can cross-group friendships influence minority
students’ well-being at historically White universities? Psychological Science, 19, 933–939.
Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-
group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1080–1094.
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Harwood, J., & Cairns, E. (2006). Intergroup contact and
the promotion of intergroup harmony: The influence of intergroup emotions. In R. Brown
& D. Capozza (Eds.), Social identities: Motivational, emotional, and cultural influences
(pp. 209–238). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Pearson, A. R., West, T. V., Dovidio, J. F., Powers, S., Buck, R., & Henning, R. (2008). The
fragility of intergroup relations: Divergent effects of delayed audio-visual feedback in inter-
group and intragroup interactions. Psychological Science, 19, 1272–1279.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (2003). The antecedents and implications of interracial anxiety.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 790–801.
Reis, H. T. (2007). Steps toward the ripening of relationship science. Personal Relationships,
14, 1–23.
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organ-
izing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.),
Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In
E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (eds), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles
(pp. 523–563). New York: Guilford.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck (Ed.),
Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). New York: Wiley.
Shelton, J. N., & Bergsieker, H. B. (2010). Thinking about race (or not): Implications for inter-
group friendships. Manuscript in progress.
Shelton, J. N., Dovidio, J. F., Hebl, M., & Richeson, J. A. (2009). Prejudice and intergroup inter-
action. In S. Demoulin, J. P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings:
Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 21–38). New York: Psychology Press.
Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 91–107.
Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2006). Ethnic minorities’ racial attitudes and contact experi-
ences with White people. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 149–164.
Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., & Bergsieker, H. (2009). Interracial friendship development and
attributional biases. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 179–193.
Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., & Salvatore, J. (2005). Expecting to be the target of prejudice:
Implications for interethnic interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31,
1189–1202.
Trail, T. E., Shelton, J. N., & West, T. V. (2009). Daily interracial interactions and interpersonal
behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 671–684.
90 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(1)