More About When I's Meet: The Intergroup Ramifications of I-Sharing, Part II.

Previous research on I-sharing (the belief that one has shared the same, in-the-moment subjective experience with another person) revealed its promise for improving intergroup relations. We expand on this research by (a) pursuing the mechanism underlying I-sharing's effects; (b) asking whether I-sharing promotes positive, behavioral intergroup outcomes; and (c) asking whether the effects of I-sharing generalize to the outgroup at large. Study 1 rules out the possibility that I-sharing promotes liking for an outgroup member via a process of subtyping. Study 2 shows that I-sharing promotes liking for an outgroup member because it promotes a general feeling of subjective connection to the I-sharer. Study 3 provides evidence that I-sharing promotes helping across intergroup lines, and Study 4 shows that I-sharing with one outgroup member reduces infrahumanization of the outgroup more generally. These four studies contribute to our growing understanding of the unique impact that I-sharing has on intergroup outcomes.

Human like me: Evidence that I-sharing humanizes the otherwise dehumanized.

People persistently undermine the humanness of outgroup members, leaving researchers perplexed as to how to address this problem of 'dehumanization' (Haslam & Loughnan, , Ann Rev of Psychol, 65, 399; Leyens, , Group Process Intergroup Relat, 12, 807). Here, we test whether I-sharing (i.e., sharing a subjective experience) counters this tendency by promoting the humanization of outgroup members. In Study 1, White participants had a face-to-face meeting with a White or Black confederate and either did or did not I-share with this confederate. The extent to which participants humanized the outgroup member depended on whether or not they I-shared with her. Study 2 tested the effect of I-sharing on the two distinct dimensions of dehumanization (Haslam, , Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 10, 252). Conceptually replicating the results of Study 1, participants who I-shared with a social class ingroup or outgroup member rated their partner as higher in human nature than those who did not I-share with their partner. These results add to the growing literature on I-sharing's implications for intergroup processes and suggest effective ways of tackling a persistent problem.

When shared group membership signifies shared subjective experience: I-sharing and the minimal group paradigm.

Ingroup favoritism is pervasive. It emerges even in the minimal group paradigm, where participants are assigned to novel groups based on seemingly insignificant characteristics. Yet many of the grouping schemes used in minimal group research may imply something significant: namely, that ingroup members will share in-the-moment subjective experience, or I-share. Two studies examine the role of inferred I-sharing in the minimal group paradigm. We found that (1) people inferred that they would I-share with ingroup members more than outgroup members; (2) inferred I-sharing increased ingroup favoritism; and (3) inferred I-sharing accounted for this ingroup favoritism. Moreover, expecting to I-share with the outgroup improved participants' attitudes toward the outgroup. These results converge with other research suggesting that people favor ingroup members, in part, because they expect to I-share with them.