JSPPJ Soc Polit Psych Journal of Social and Political PsychologyJ. Soc. Polit. Psych. 2195-3325 PsychOpen jspp.15851 10.5964/jspp.15851 Original Research Reports Data Code Materials Superordinate Identities and Minority Solidarity: Contrasting Person of Color and American Identification Superordinate Identities and Minority Solidarity Superordinate identities and minority solidarity: Contrasting person of color and American identification BuWen*1 Penic Sandra Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland School of Health, Science, & Sustainability, Roanoke College, 221 College Lane, Salem, VA, USA. wbu@roanoke.edu 18082026 2026 14 2 330 358 15 10 2024 06 02 2026 2026Buhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Can common ingroup identification predict intra-minority solidarity? Common ingroup identification reduces prejudice but could have an “ironic” effect of reducing minority group members’ support for political change. But do ironic effects apply to all common ingroup identities? Using two 3-wave panel studies, I examined whether identification with a common ingroup that includes Whites (American) and with a common ingroup that does not include Whites (person of color) have different relationships with Asian (Study 1), Black (Study 2), and Latino (Study 2) Americans’ attitudes toward policies that benefit minority groups (immigration, criminal justice reform, and affirmative action). American identification was inconsistently negatively associated with attitudes toward these policies, and POC identification was positively associated with attitudes toward these policies, though identification did not consistently predict attitudes later in time. These results suggest inclusion of the majority group matters for how common ingroup identification relates to intra-minority solidarity.

 Background

Identifying with a common ingroup (that includes one’s own group as well as groups one does not belong to) has been shown to reduce prejudice against groups included in the common ingroup. Existing research also suggests that common ingroup identification may increase solidarity among members of different minoritized or marginalized groups. However, identifying with a common ingroup shared with the dominant or majority group may have an “ironic” effect of reducing minority or subordinate group members’ support for political change that would benefit their group. But do ironic effects occur when minority group members identify with a common ingroup that includes other minority groups but excludes the majority group (i.e., when the common ingroup identity can still be compared with the majority group)?

 Why was this study done?

The present studies examine whether, for members of 3 racial/ethnic minority groups in the United States (Black, Asian, and Latino), identification with a common ingroup that includes Whites (American identity) and identification with a common ingroup that does not include Whites (person of color, or POC, identity) relate differently with attitudes toward policies that benefit minority groups. I expected to find ironic effects of identification as American (i.e., less support for policies generally seen as benefitting minority groups), but I did not expect to find these effects with POC identification (because the status of POC can still be compared with the status of White Americans). This finding would suggest that increasing POC identification could increase solidarity among racial/ethnic minority groups without politically pacifying group members.

 What did the researchers do and find?

I used two 3-wave panel studies to examine the relationship over time between identification as POC and American and attitudes toward 3 sets of policies associated with racial/ethnic minority groups (immigration, criminal justice reform, and affirmative action). Identification as American was inconsistently associated with less support for policies that benefit minority groups (inconsistent evidence of ironic effects), while identification as POC was associated with more support for these policies. However, identification earlier in time did not consistently predict policy attitudes later in time.

 What do these findings mean?

There is a different relationship with policy attitudes between identification as American and identification as POC, with identification as POC being consistently positively associated with support for policies that benefit minority groups—the opposite of an ironic effect. However, the lack of consistent effects over time does not provide evidence that identification with either group causes changes in policy attitudes for typical American adults.

 person of color (POC) identityAmerican identitycommon ingroup identitycollective actionintra-minority solidarityironic effects of prejudice reduction

Although many White Americans believe racial minorities act as a cohesive group socially and politically (Knowles et al., 2022), dynamics among minority groups are more complex. A growing body of literature finds members of marginalized groups often show solidarity with other marginalized groups (e.g., Craig & Richeson, 2012; Dixon et al., 2015; Klavina & van Zomeren, 2020; Pérez et al., 2023; Starzyk et al., 2019) but not always (e.g., Capers & Smith, 2016; Craig & Richeson, 2016; McClain et al., 2006; Ramakrishnan et al., 2009).

The common ingroup identity model provides a potential mechanism for intra-minority solidarity. Identification with a common ingroup can improve attitudes toward (Gaertner et al., 1989) and increase willingness to help (Dovidio et al., 1997) former outgroup members included in the common ingroup. Many of the intra-minority solidarity findings suggest common ingroup identification could be the underlying mechanism (Burson & Godfrey, 2020; Craig & Richeson, 2012; Dixon et al., 2015; Glasford & Calcagno, 2012; Pérez et al., 2023).

But as a form of prejudice reduction between majority and minority groups, common ingroup identification could have an unintended consequence of reducing minority group members’ support for collective action or policies that would improve their group’s situation (e.g., Dixon et al., 2010; Ufkes et al., 2016). Whether this “ironic effect” could impact intra-minority solidarity largely remains to be explored.

Additionally, minority groups can share common ingroup identities excluding the majority group (e.g., POC identity; Pérez, 2020) and identities including the majority group. Yet research to date has not explicitly explored this distinction.

The present research uses two 3-wave panel studies to examine how common ingroup identities in the United States that do and do not include the dominant racial group (American identity, and person of color or POC identity, respectively) relate to Asian, Black, and Hispanic/Latino Americans’ political solidarity with their own and other racial minority groups, operationalized as attitudes toward policies associated with these groups. While identification as American might reduce support for policies that benefit racial minority groups, POC identification could increase support.

Intra-Minority Solidarity

The intra-minority solidarity research to date indicates that shared experiences of stigma increase solidarity (Cortland et al., 2017; Craig & Richeson, 2012, 2016; Pérez et al., 2023). However, priming shared values (Burson & Godfrey, 2018) or shared contributions to American culture (Pérez et al., 2022) can also increase solidarity, suggesting that shared identity, not stigma, might be key. But this research does not test identification directly, leaving open whether participants in fact saw themselves as part of a common ingroup with the target groups and whether this common ingroup identification drove solidarity.

What common ingroup identity might drive intra-minority solidarity in the United States? Many Americans who are members of racial minority groups identify as people of color (POC; Pérez, 2020; see also descriptive statistics from Results, below). The term POC was first used by African American activists and later adopted by other activists as a collective identity for Black, indigenous, Latino, Asian, and other minority groups in the United States, though some debate remains about the utility and boundaries of the label (Pérez, 2020; Starr, 2023). Although this history might lead one to expect differences in the degree of POC identification (between and within groups), POC is a readily available collective identity that includes many racial/ethnic minority groups in the U.S. (Starr, 2023).

Empirical evidence suggests something like POC identity contributes to intra-minority solidarity. Among Asian Americans, linked fate with people of color predicted support for the Black Lives Matter movement (Merseth, 2018), and perceived commonality with Black and Latino Americans predicted support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants (Samson, 2015). Although distinct from identification, linked fate and perceived commonality capture the idea that one’s group has something in common with other marginalized groups. Furthermore, Pérez (2020) found a correlation between POC identification itself and support for Black Lives Matter among Black, Latino, and Asian Americans. However, that study did not examine common ingroup identities that include the dominant group.

 Ironic Effects vs. Collective Action

The “ironic effects” literature suggests that intergroup contact and common ingroup identity involving the dominant group can reduce subordinate group members’ recognition of inequality (e.g., Dixon et al., 2010; Tropp et al., 2012; Ufkes et al., 2016) and, consequently, their support for collective action or policies that could improve their own group’s status (Carter et al., 2019; Dixon et al., 2010; Saguy et al., 2009; Ufkes et al., 2016).

This contrasts with the role of (sub)group identity in collective action. Under the social identity model of collective action (SIMCA), identification with a disadvantaged group predicts collective action directly and indirectly via injustice (perceptions of unfairness or discrimination and group-based anger) and efficacy (van Zomeren et al., 2008).1

The present studies also examined racial identification. For the sake of brevity, those results are reported in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S5, S12).

Parts of SIMCA appear as mechanisms in the ironic effects literature. Lower group-based anger and efficacy (Ufkes et al., 2015, 2016), perceptions of ingroup disadvantage/injustice (Cakal et al., 2011; Saguy et al., 2009), and perceived ethnic discrimination (Carter et al., 2019; Tropp et al., 2012) were found to mediate ironic effects of prejudice reduction. These effects could stem from lower identification with the subgroup (Ufkes et al., 2016). But social identity theory suggests collective action also depends on perceiving the dominant group as a relevant outgroup for comparisons (Tajfel & Turner, 1979); common ingroup identification could suppress collective action by removing the dominant group as a comparison outgroup. Empirically, Ufkes et al. (2015) found that both subgroup and superordinate group identification predicted own-group collective action tendencies, in opposite directions. Separately, research on the group-value model of justice suggests that high superordinate group (e.g., American) identification could pacify members of disadvantaged subgroups (e.g., African Americans) even when paired with high subgroup identification (Huo et al., 1996; Smith & Tyler, 1996). Thus, superordinate group identification itself could produce ironic effects.

Hypothesis 1: Identification as American will predict less support for policies or groups that benefit racial minorities.2

Alternatively, American identification specifically might not relate to intra-minority solidarity (Pérez et al., 2022), though this is an open question because Pérez et al. examined Americanness of another racial minority group, not participants’ American identification.

Although existing literature demonstrates ironic effects on support for policies benefitting one’s own group, effects may extend to policies benefitting other minority groups, as American identification could also reduce recognition of these groups’ disadvantages compared to the White majority.

But what about a common ingroup that does not include the dominant group? POC identity could fit into SIMCA (van Zomeren et al., 2008) as a disadvantaged group identity that draws attention to POC’s disadvantages compared to Whites. Furthermore, as a shared identity, POC identification could draw attention to not only one’s own group’s disadvantages but also other minority groups’ disadvantages, increasing support for policies benefitting other minority groups. Thus, SIMCA and the intra-minority solidarity literature suggest:

Hypothesis 2: POC identification will predict more support for policies or groups that benefit racial minorities.

 Panel Study Design

Although some research has experimentally primed the salience of existing superordinate identities (e.g., Górska & Bilewicz, 2015; Ufkes et al., 2016), most ironic effects research (Reimer & Sengupta, 2021) and much of the collective action and group consciousness literatures (e.g., Cakal et al., 2011; Kessler & Mummendey, 2002; Merseth, 2018; Samson, 2015) have been correlational. Correlational studies on common ingroup identity and intergroup contact tend to be cross-sectional (see Reimer & Sengupta, 2021), with rare (though increasing) exceptions (e.g., Górska & Tausch, 2023; Kotzur & Wagner, 2021). Thus, it is unclear whether group identification precedes attitude change—a key assumption underlying the common ingroup identity and intra-minority solidarity literatures, which suggest that identity causes attitude change. Accordingly, I used 3-wave panel studies to clarify the time-order dynamic of identity and solidarity.

However, identity has been treated as a stable individual difference in parts of the literature (see Huddy, 2001). When variables show trait-like stability, it can be difficult to establish direction of effects (cf. Kessler & Mummendey, 2002), and effect estimates in traditional cross-lagged panel models (CLPM) can be biased because they confound between-person and within-person effects (Hamaker et al., 2015). Hamaker et al. (2015) recommend random-intercepts cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPM) to distinguish stable, between-person relationships from cross-lagged within-person relationships. But CLPM and RI-CLPM answer somewhat different questions (Orth et al., 2021). The present studies use CLPM and RI-CLPM to answer two questions: 1) Do individual differences in group identification predict changes in policy attitudes (CLPM)? 2) Do shifts in individuals’ group identification predict changes in the individuals’ policy attitudes (RI-CLPM)? The latter is especially important because the intra-minority solidarity and ironic effects literatures theorize that increasing individuals’ common ingroup identification will impact solidarity. Figure 1 illustrates these models for Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 2 in a Cross-Lagged Panel Model (CLPM; A) and Random-Intercepts Cross-Lagged Panel Model (RI-CLPM; B)

Note. Hypothesized paths are in bold.

 Study 1

Study 13

Data collection for Study 2 occurred before Study 1. However, as Study 2 was a secondary data analysis done after Study 1 as a follow-up, this paper describes Study 1 first.

focuses on Asian Americans, whose political attitudes are relatively understudied (see, e.g., Tran & Curtin, 2017). Asian Americans have historically been “triangulated” with respect to other minority groups and Whites (i.e., their status in society is defined in comparison to both Whites and Blacks; Kim, 1999) and portrayed as opposing policies like affirmative action that benefit minority groups (see, e.g., Wu, 2014). Yet they have also engaged in activism on behalf of Asian Americans (Lee, 2015; Wu, 2014) and in solidarity with other racial minority groups (e.g., Lee, 2015). As a result of this history, Asian Americans may vary greatly in POC identification and support for policies benefitting other racial minorities.

This study examined three issue areas associated with other minority groups: immigration, criminal justice reform, and affirmative action. Although immigration could be an own-group issue for Asian Americans, anti-immigration rhetoric in the U.S. since 2016 has focused primarily on people from Latin America (e.g., the border wall and migrants from Central America). Criminal justice reform has been linked to the Black Lives Matter movement (e.g., Ghandnoosh, 2015), and the death of George Floyd in 2020 would plausibly have made this connection salient. Affirmative action has been portrayed as benefitting other minority groups at the expense of Asian Americans (Wu, 2014), notably in a high-profile lawsuit against Harvard (Students for Fair Admissions, 2019).

Method

Study 1 was administered online through Qualtrics from November 9-11, 2020 (Wave 1), November 30 to December 4, 2020 (Wave 2), and December 28, 2020, to January 2, 2021 (Wave 3). This study was determined to be exempt by the University of Minnesota IRB. The design and analyses were not preregistered.

Participants

Participants were Asian American adults recruited through Prolific (prolific.co). Power analyses for RI-CLPM using Monte Carlo simulation in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2019, 2002) indicated a target sample size of 500-600 completing all three waves. Allowing for 25% attrition across successive waves, Wave 1 target sample size was set at 1000 (see Supplementary Materials and Table S20).

Of the 1006 participants who consented to take part in the study, 17 were excluded from analysis because they did not self-identify as Asian. Excluding an additional underage participant left a final Wave 1 sample size of 988 (488 male, 480 female, 20 nonbinary), of whom 787 returned for Wave 2 (20% attrition) and 651 returned for Wave 3 (17% attrition from Wave 2; 34% overall). See Figure S1.

Most participants self-identified only as Asian, though a small minority (35) identified as Asian and another race/ethnicity. The most common subgroups were Chinese (N = 409), Vietnamese (N = 155), Indian (N = 113), Filipino (N = 109), and Korean (N = 106). Most (98%) were U.S. citizens, and the majority (77%) were born in the U.S. Participants were well-educated (60% had at least a 4-year college degree), with relatively high incomes (median = $70,000-79,000). See Table S21 for additional demographics.

 Measures

The study measured 1) identification as Asian American, person of color (POC), and American and 2) attitudes toward immigration, criminal justice reform, and affirmative action.4

Additional items were included that do not relate to the present hypotheses, measuring racial attitudes, linked fate, perceived discrimination/deprivation, group-based political efficacy, and concern about being a target of discrimination because of COVID.

Measure order was counterbalanced within each wave.

Identity

Group identification was assessed using the 4-item Huddy, Mason, and Aarøe (2015) scale (e.g., “How important is being [identity] to you?”) adapted for each identity of interest (α = .84-.92).5

The survey included two other types of identity measures. However, confirmatory factor analyses showed poor fit when combining all identity items. Because the Huddy et al. scales were based on an existing validated measure and had the best psychometric properties (multiple items and good internal consistency), only these items were analyzed further.

 Policy Attitudes

Immigration attitudes were assessed using three items (α = .73-.74): 1) whether the participant thinks the number of immigrants allowed into the U.S. should be (1 = decreased a lot; 5 = increased a lot); 2) support for deporting undocumented immigrants versus allowing them to stay (1 = strongly favor deportation; 4 = strongly favor allowing them to stay); and 3) attitude toward detaining undocumented migrants (1 = strongly oppose; 5 = strongly favor; reverse-coded).

Criminal justice reform attitudes were measured using three items (α = .67-.74): 1) whether the participant thinks there are too few (1), about the right number (2), or too many people (3) in prison in the U.S.; 2) attitude toward defunding police and redirecting funds to alternative first-responder services (1 = strongly oppose, 5 = strongly favor); and 3) attitude toward eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes (1 = strongly oppose, 5 = strongly favor).

Affirmative action attitudes were measured using two items (Ramakrishnan et al., 2018) addressing employment and higher education (1 = strongly oppose, 5 = strongly favor; α = .85-.88).

 Demographics

Finally, the Wave 1 survey asked participants to self-report their race/ethnicity, specific Asian ethnic group, gender, age, education level, family income, whether they are a U.S. citizen, whether they were born in the U.S. and if not, in what year they came to live in the U.S., and preference for speaking English versus another language. Participants were asked if they are registered to vote; whether they voted in any past U.S. election; and their political ideology (1 = Extremely liberal, 7 = Extremely conservative) and party affiliation (branching items, collapsed into a 7-point scale; 1 = strong Democrat, 7 = strong Republican).

Exact wording and response options for all items in both studies are in the Supplementary Materials.

 Analyses

All items were recoded to range from 0-1. Composite scores were created by averaging the items for each construct in each wave.

For each identity-attitude pair, CLPM and RI-CLPM were fit with and without stationarity of lagged and cross-lagged effects (constraining the path coefficients from Wave 1-2 and their corresponding path coefficients from Wave 2-3 to equality). If stationarity significantly worsened fit, results are reported from the model without stationarity; otherwise, results are reported from the model with stationarity. As robustness checks, additional CLPM were fit with paths from each demographic and political covariate described above to the Wave 2 and 3 identity and attitude variables. See Supplementary Materials (Part 3 and Tables S6-S11) for further details, fit statistics, and results from CLPM with covariates.

Data were analyzed using R, version 4.3.1 (R Core Team, 2023) and the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012) v0.6-15. Model parameters were estimated using full-information maximum likelihood estimation, with pairwise deletion for missing data.

The anonymized data and analysis code are at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7JDXF

 Results Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics, correlations, and α for the identity and policy attitude variables are in Tables S1-S2. Average American identification was above the midpoint (M = .589-.606), and average POC identification was around the midpoint (M = .490-.504), with some variability in both (SD = .207-.263). POC and American identification were moderately correlated with Asian American identification (POC: r = .35-.39, American: r = .23-.26). Identities (r = .76-.81) and policy attitudes (r = .80-.84) were highly stable.

 Hypothesis 1: American Identification

Parameter estimates and fit statistics are in Table 1. For all analyses in both studies, RI-CLPM showed good model fit; CLPM did not.

American Identification Panel Model Results (Study 1)
Immigration
 Criminal Justice
 Affirmative Action
CLPM RI-CLPM CLPM RI-CLPM CLPM RI-CLPM
T1 ID → T2 ID .783*** (.017).773 .058 (.116).061 .786*** (.017).776 -.050 (.143)-.049 .788*** (.017).777 .118 (.100).115
T1 attitude → T2 ID -.039* (.017)-.038 .071 (.090).066 -.022 (.016)-.023 .212 (.163).188 -.017 (.012)-.022 .077 (.065).094
T1 ID → T2 attitude -.031* (.015)-.031 .047 (.073).053 -.019 (.016)-.017 .088 (.142).089 -.006 (.020)-.005 .184† (.098).165
T1 attitude → T2 attitude .809*** (.015).811 .047 (.100).048 .838*** (.016).806 -.193 (.223)-.176 .819*** (.015).803 -.028 (.116)-.032
T2 ID → T3 ID .783*** (.017).786 .058 (.116).059 .786*** (.017).789 .134 (.098).126 .788*** (.017).792 .118 (.100).123
T2 attitude → T3 ID -.039* (.017)-.038 .071 (.090).066 -.022 (.016)-.024 -.023 (.092)-.021 -.017 (.012)-.022 .077 (.065).087
T2 ID → T3 attitude -.031* (.015)-.032 .047 (.073).056 -.019 (.016)-.018 .065 (.089).059 -.006 (.020)-.005 .184† (.098).175
T2 attitude → T3 attitude .809*** (.015).826 .047 (.100).052 .838*** (.016).840 .288** (.089).253 .819*** (.015).837 -.028 (.116)-.029
ID-attitude trait covariance -.008*** (.001)-.232 -.007*** (.001)-.186 -.005** (.002)-.121 
CFI .923 1.000 .934 1.000 .921 .999
RMSEA .178 .000 .163 .000 .179 .028
SRMR .041 .011 .041 .000 .043 .017

Note. Table reports lagged and cross-lagged coefficients, RI-CLPM identity-attitude trait-level covariance, and model fit statistics. Unstandardized coefficients are reported with standard errors in parentheses and standardized coefficients in italics. All models except RI-CLPM for criminal justice assume stationarity of lagged/cross-lagged effects. N = 988.

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

American identification showed no significant within-person cross-lagged effects in the RI-CLPM but had a significant, negative cross-lagged effect on immigration attitudes (b = -.031, SE = .015, p = .038, β = -.031 and -.032), and vice versa, in the CLPM.

RI-CLPM trait-level covariances were negative and significant for American identification and immigration (c = -.008, SE = .001, p < .001, r = -.232), criminal justice (c = -.007, SE = .001, p < .001, r = -.186), and affirmative action attitudes (c = -.005, SE = .002, p = .002, r = -.121), indicating that those who identified more strongly as American tended to hold less racially liberal attitudes.

 Hypothesis 2: POC Identification

Parameter estimates and fit statistics are in Table 2.

POC Identification Panel Model Results (Study 1)
Immigration
 Criminal Justice
 Affirmative Action
CLPM RI-CLPM CLPM RI-CLPM CLPM RI-CLPM
T1 ID → T2 ID .788*** (.016).793 .147 (.111).153 .805*** (.016).809 .122 (.129).126 .760*** (.022).768 .105 (.089).112
T1 attitude → T2 ID .080*** (.021).063 -.003 (.098)-.002 .032† (.019).027 .027 (.172).021 .110*** (.021).115 .109 (.071).120
T1 ID → T2 attitude .073*** (.012).093 .002 (.059).002 .051*** (.013).059 .007 (.105).009 .106*** (.024).102 .177* (.079).196
T1 attitude → T2 attitude .782*** (.016).783 .043 (.095).044 .827*** (.016).794 -.125 (.190)-.116 .751*** (.023).754 -.056 (.108)-.063
T2 ID → T3 ID .788*** (.016).791 .147 (.111).142 .805*** (.016).807 .175 (.110).165 .799*** (.025).796 .105 (.089).098
T2 attitude → T3 ID .080*** (.021).064 -.003 (.098)-.002 .032† (.019).028 -.039 (.114)-.030 .041† (.024).043 .109 (.071).099
T2 ID → T3 attitude .073*** (.012).095 .002 (.059).003 .051*** (.013).059 .043 (.079).048 .042† (.025).040 .177* (.079).185
T2 attitude → T3 attitude .782*** (.016).800 .043 (.095).048 .827*** (.016).829 .269** (.089).243 .832*** (.023).824 -.056 (.108)-.056
ID-attitude trait covariance .019*** (.002).446 .014*** (.002).295 .027*** (.002).472 
CFI .942 1.000 .946 .999 .939 .999
RMSEA .161 .009 .152 .063 .237 .022
SRMR .035 .012 .035 .013 .036 .012

Note. Table reports lagged and cross-lagged coefficients, RI-CLPM identity-attitude trait-level covariance, and model fit statistics. Unstandardized coefficients are reported with standard errors in parentheses and standardized coefficients in italics. All models except criminal justice RI-CLPM and affirmative action CLPM assume stationarity. N = 988.

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

POC identification had a significant positive cross-lagged effect on affirmative action support in the RI-CLPM (b = .177, SE = .079, p = .026, β = .196 and .185).

In the CLPM, POC identification had significant positive cross-lagged effects on immigration attitudes (b = .073, SE = .012, p < .001, β = .093 and .095) and vice versa; criminal justice attitudes (b = .051, SE = .013, p < .001, β = .059); and affirmative action attitudes (b = .106, SE = .024, p < .001, β = .102), and vice versa, from Wave 1-2. Effects remained significant for immigration and affirmative action but not criminal justice when covariates were added (Table S11).

Trait-level covariances were positive and significant for POC identification and immigration (c = .019, SE = .002, p < .001, r = .446), criminal justice (c = .014, SE = .002, p < .001, r = .295), and affirmative action (c = .027, SE = .002, p < .001, r = .472). Figure 2 illustrates the POC identification-affirmative action attitude models.

CLPM (A) and RI-CLPM (B) for POC Identification and Affirmative Action Attitudes (Study 1)

Note. Unstandardized and standardized (β or r) coefficients are provided with standard errors in parentheses. Dotted lines represent nonsignificant effects.

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

 Discussion

Study 1 results were consistent with both hypotheses at the level of trait covariances. American identification was associated with less liberal immigration attitudes and less support for criminal justice reform and affirmative action (Hypothesis 1); POC identification was associated with more liberal immigration attitudes and more support for criminal justice reform and affirmative action (Hypothesis 2).

However, Study 1 provides inconsistent evidence of group identification predicting changes in policy attitudes. Hypothesis-consistent within-person effects were only found for POC identification predicting affirmative action attitudes (Hypothesis 2). Otherwise, significant cross-lagged effects were found only in the CLPM, inconsistently across policy areas.

The CLPM results should be interpreted with caution as those models fit poorly, perhaps because the variables were highly stable, leaving little variance to be explained by cross-lagged effects. Stability in the identity variables was anticipated, as those have been treated as stable, endogenous variables in existing literature; however, stable policy attitudes were unexpected, given extensive literature on political non-attitudes among the general public (e.g., Converse, 1964; Zaller, 1992). Perhaps participants in this study, who tended toward high incomes and educational attainment, were unusually politically sophisticated and held stable political attitudes typically found among elites.6

Pilot data with the same Prolific participant pool support this explanation: Participants scored extremely high on a political knowledge battery (median = 4 out of 5 correct).

Additionally, by being stereotyped as a “model minority” (Wu, 2014) and contrasted (i.e., triangulated) with both White and Black Americans (Kim, 1999), Asian Americans have been put in a position of non-solidarity with other racial minority groups. Study 1’s findings might not extend to racial minority populations with different histories. Thus, Study 2 attempted to replicate Study 1 in a nationally representative sample of Black and Hispanic/Latino Americans.

 Study 2

This study used data from a large, multi-investigator study on the 2020 U.S. Presidential election (University of Minnesota, 2020). I focused on responses from Black and Latino participants, as two racial/ethnic minority groups with distinct histories and experiences.

The data included questions about immigration attitudes and support for Black Lives Matter and the protests after George Floyd’s death. As immigration policy in the U.S. tends to be associated with Latinos (see Study 1) and not African Americans, a largely non-immigrant group (Capers & Smith, 2016), this was expected to be an own-group issue for Latino participants and a common ingroup issue for Black participants. Black Lives Matter and protests support was expected to be an own-group issue for Black participants and a common ingroup issue for Latino participants.

Method

The study was administered online by YouGov, in 3 waves: October 6-14, October 25 to November 3 (Election Day), and November 9-16, 2020. It was determined to be exempt by the University of Minnesota IRB. The design and analyses were not pre-registered.

Participants

Participants consisted of a nationally representative sample of adult United States citizens, plus an oversample of African Americans. This study focuses on 658 participants who self-identified as Black (38% male) and 272 participants who self-identified as Hispanic/Latino (57% male). Of the Black participants, 531 responded to Wave 2 (19% attrition), and 441 responded to Wave 3 (17% attrition from Wave 2; 33% overall). Of the Latino participants, 146 responded to Wave 2 (46% attrition), and 120 responded to Wave 3 (18% attrition from Wave 2; 56% overall). See Figure S2 and Supplementary Materials for additional attrition information.

Participants had lower median incomes (Black participants: $30,000-39,999; Latino participants: $40,000-49,999) and more typical education levels (19% of Black participants and 16% of Latino participants had at least a 4-year college degree) than the Study 1 participants. Most were born in the U.S (Black participants: 9% immigrant citizens; Latino participants: 18% immigrant citizens). See Table S22 for additional demographics.

 Measures

The Wave 1 survey asked participants to select racial/ethnic categories that describe them. Participants were also asked their gender, ideology, and party affiliation.

Included in all waves were two items measuring immigration attitudes: the number of immigrants item from Study 1 (1 = increased a lot; 7 = decreased a lot) and an item on ending criminal penalties for crossing the border illegally (1 = strongly oppose; 7 = strongly support). Because these items showed poor internal consistency (Black participants: α = .08-.12; Latino participants: α = .28-.52), they were analyzed separately.

Although this study did not explicitly measure criminal justice attitudes, it asked about attitudes toward Black Lives Matter (1 = very positive; 5 = very negative) and the protests after George Floyd’s death (1 = strongly support; 7 = strongly oppose). Responses to these items were averaged (after 0-1 coding) to form a composite score in each wave (Black participants: α = .75-.82; Latino participants: α = .89-.96).

Racial, POC, and American identification (and identification with groups unrelated to this study) were measured using 2-item versions of the Huddy et al. (2015) scale. Responses were averaged to form a composite score in each wave for POC (Black participants: α = .85-.87; Latino participants: α = .78-.85) and American identification (Black participants: α = .87-.88; Latino participants: α = .87-.90).

Additional information was provided by YouGov, including participants’ birth year, education level, immigrant background, family income, and whether they voted in the 2016 Presidential election.

 Analyses

All variables were recoded to range from 0-1, with higher scores indicating stronger group identification or more racially liberal policy attitudes. Data from Black and Latino participants were analyzed separately. CLPM and RI-CLPM were fit with and without stationarity. As a robustness check, additional CLPM were fit with age, gender, education, income, immigrant status, political ideology, and party affiliation as covariates. Data were analyzed using R, version 4.3.1 (R Core Team, 2023) and the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012) v0.6-15, with full-information maximum likelihood estimation and pairwise deletion. See Supplementary Materials (Part 4 and Tables S14-S19) for additional details, fit statistics, and results from CLPM with covariates.

Analysis code is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7JDXF. Data access can be requested from the University of Minnesota Center for the Study of Political Psychology.

 Results Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics, correlations, and α for the identity and policy attitude variables are in Tables S3-S4. Black participants reported high POC (M = .804-.820) and American identification (M = .697-.722); Latino participants reported similarly high American identification (M = .705-.723) and POC identification around the midpoint (M = .471-.523). Racial identification was highly correlated with POC identification (Black participants: r = .83-.88; Latino participants: r = .52-.66) and moderately correlated with American identification (Black participants: r = .29-.32; Latino participants: r = .24-.28). The identity variables were highly stable (Black participants: r = .74-.83; Latino participants: r = .73-.89), as was the BLM/protests variable (Black participants: r = .86-.90; Latino participants: r = .93-.97). The number of immigrants item was also quite stable (Black participants: r = .67-.69; Latino participants: r = .67-.84), and the remaining immigration item was less stable (r = .27-.40).

 Hypothesis 1: American Identification

Fit statistics and parameter estimates are in Tables 3 (Latino participants) and S13 (Black participants).

American Identification Panel Model Results, Latino Participants (Study 2)
Number of immigrants
 Decriminalizing immigration
 BLM/ protests
CLPM RI-CLPM CLPM RI-CLPM CLPM RI-CLPMa
T1 ID → T2 ID .736*** (.045).803 -.220 (.211)-.602 .839*** (.033).845 -.354* (.169)-.696 .719*** (.043).781 -.230 (.172)-.407
T1 attitude → T2 ID -.080† (.047)-.082 .230 (.236).555 -.025 (.027)-.028 -.015 (.049)-.064 -.120** (.036)-.158 -.056 (.189)-.069
T1 ID → T2 attitude -.003 (.062)-.003 .528 (.404).538 -.199** (.070)-.173 -.118 (.306)-.052 -.096** (.036)-.082 -.030 (.097)-.084
T1 attitude → T2 attitude .673*** (.065).664 -.747 (.512)-.673 .363*** (.059).349 .045 (.150).044 .875*** (.031).905 -.506*** (.069)-.972
T2 ID → T3 ID .923*** (.049).868 -1.019 (1.165)-.456 .839*** (.033).867 -.354* (.169)-.190 .918*** (.050).864 -.230 (.172)-.153
T2 attitude → T3 ID -.050 (.046)-.049 .056 (.373).067 -.025 (.027)-.030 -.015 (.049)-.035 -.044 (.037)-.052 -.056 (.189)-.024
T2 ID → T3 attitude -.124* (.054)-.124 -.698 (.644)-.319 -.199** (.070)-.161 -.118 (.306)-.024 .045 (.036).034 -.030 (.097)-.027
T2 attitude → T3 attitude .764*** (.051).790 .093 (.191).115 .363*** (.059).339 .045 (.150).041 1.022*** (.027).977 -.506*** (.069)-.285
ID-attitude trait cov -.023*** (.005)-.379 -.013* (.005)-.260 -.033*** (.006)-.387 
CFI .895 1.000 .913 1.000 .923 1.000
RMSEA .257 .000 .131 .001 .276 .000
SRMR .053 .012 .064 .039 .027 .019

Note. Table reports lagged and cross-lagged coefficients, RI-CLPM identity-attitude trait-level covariance, and model fit statistics. Unstandardized coefficients are reported with standard errors in parentheses and standardized coefficients in italics. Models for ending criminal penalties for immigration and the BLM/protests RI-CLPM assume stationarity. N = 292.

aRI-CLPM initially had a non-significant negative residual variance for Wave 2 BLM/protests. The reported model constrains that variance to 0.

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

No cross-lagged effects of American identification were significant for Black participants. American identification had a significant, negative trait-level covariance with support for ending criminal penalties for immigration (c = -.006, SE = .003, p = .043, r = -.131).

For Latino participants, no RI-CLPM within-person cross-lagged effects were significant. In the CLPM, American identification had significant, negative cross-lagged effects on both immigration items (criminal penalties: b = -.199, SE = .070, p = .005, β = -.173 and -.161; number of immigrants Wave 2-3: b = -.124, SE = .054, p = .021, β = -.124) and on BLM/protest support (b = -.096, SE = .036, p = .008, β = -.082), and vice versa, across the first time lag. The effect for ending criminal penalties for immigration was not robust to covariates (Table S18). American identification had a significant, negative trait-level covariance with both immigration items (number of immigrants: c = -.023, SE = .005, p < .001, r = -.379; criminal penalties: c = -.013, SE = .005, p = .014, r = -.260) and BLM/protests support (c = -.033, SE = .006, p < .001, r = -.387), indicating that more American-identified participants were less supportive of policies benefitting their own and another racial minority group.

 Hypothesis 2: POC Identification

Fit statistics and parameter estimates are in Table 4.

POC Identification Panel Model Results (Study 2)
Black Participants
Number of immigrants
 Decriminalizing immigration
 BLM/ protests
CLPM RI-CLPM CLPM RI-CLPM CLPM RI-CLPM
T1 ID → T2 ID .786*** (.021).771 .207 (.127).205 .795*** (.021).779 .221 (.139).218 .735*** (.023).728 .132 (.100).133
T1 attitude → T2 ID .065** (.022).059 .079 (.077).076 .020 (.018).021 .010 (.034).017 .136*** (.024).122 .260* (.106).178
T1 ID → T2 attitude .072** (.023).077 .158† (.093).150 .051 (.036).045 -.029 (.132)-.016 .064*** (.017).069 .115* (.056).130
T1 attitude → T2 attitude .669*** (.024).658 .017 (.101).016 .284*** (.032).271 -.020 (.069)-.019 .865*** (.018).834 .396*** (.091).304
T2 ID → T3 ID .786*** (.021).792 .207 (.127).220 .795*** (.021).805 .221 (.139).240 .735*** (.023).740 .132 (.100).131
T2 attitude → T3 ID .065** (.022).060 .079 (.077).087 .020 (.018).022 .010 (.034).020 .136*** (.024).127 .260* (.106).230
T2 ID → T3 attitude .072** (.023).080 .158† (.093).168 .051 (.036).047 -.029 (.132)-.017 .064*** (.017).069 .115* (.056).144
T2 attitude → T3 attitude .669*** (.024).682 .017 (.101).019 .284*** (.032).290 -.020 (.069)-.021 .865*** (.018).864 .396*** (.091).440
ID-attitude trait cov .014*** (.003).273 .006* (.003).151 .030*** (.003).540 
CFI .919 .998 .933 1.000 .958 1.000
RMSEA .161 .031 .116 .000 .146 .010
SRMR .053 .023 .050 .013 .031 .015
Latino Participants
Number of immigrants
 Decriminalizing immigration
 BLM/ protests
CLPM RI-CLPM CLPM RI-CLPM CLPM RI-CLPMa
T1 ID → T2 ID .674*** (.044).720 -.405** (.156)-.554 .714*** (.042).756 -.363* (.172)-.462 .608*** (.057).675 -.463** (.157)-.732
T1 attitude → T2 ID .152** (.052).127 .158 (.134).207 .028 (.042).027 .099 (.078)-.207 .116* (.057).130 -.236 (.257)-.199
T1 ID → T2 attitude .051 (.035).061 .038 (.095).059 .117* (.059).120 .430* (.198).244 -.009 (.034)-.009 -.079 (.058)-.268
T1 attitude → T2 attitude .736*** (.041).688 -.320* (.128)-.473 .384*** (.059).365 .070 (.142).065 .902*** (.034).933 -.509*** (.068)-.915
T2 ID → T3 ID .674*** (.044).657 -.405** (.156)-.253 .714*** (.042).697 -.363* (.172)-.254 .793*** (.080).710 -.463** (.157)-.232
T2 attitude → T3 ID .152** (.052).132 .158 (.134).087 .028 (.042).028 .099 (.078).156 .054 (.069).052 -.236 (.257)-.055
T2 ID → T3 attitude .051 (.035).063 .038 (.095).043 .117* (.059).110 .430* (.198).188 .081** (.031).071 -.079 (.058)-.098
T2 attitude → T3 attitude .736*** (.041).808 -.320* (.128)-.321 .384*** (.059).371 .070 (.142).069 .974*** (.027).933 -.509*** (.068)-.294
ID-attitude trait cov .027*** (.005).390 .008 (.007).144 .048*** (.007).480 
CFI .843 .994 .806 1.000 .903 1.000
RMSEA .200 .050 .165 .000 .295 .000
SRMR .077 .041 .075 .034 .050 .034

Note. Table reports lagged and cross-lagged coefficients, RI-CLPM identity-attitude trait-level covariance, and model fit statistics. Unstandardized coefficients are reported with standard errors in parentheses and standardized coefficients in italics. All models except Latino participants’ BLM/protests CLPM assume stationarity. Black participants’ N = 658; Latino participants’ N = 292.

aLatino participants’ RI-CLPM initially had a non-significant negative residual variance for Wave 2 BLM/protests. The reported model constrains that variance to 0.

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Black participants’ POC identification had a significant, positive cross-lagged effect on BLM/protest support in the RI-CLPM (b = .115, SE = .056, p = .039, β = .130 and .144) and CLPM (b = .064, SE = .017, p < .001, β = .069), though the reverse effects were also significant. POC identification had a significant, positive cross-lagged effect in the CLPM on allowing more immigrants (b = .072, SE = .023, p = .002, β = .077 and .080), and vice versa. Cross-lagged effects were not significant for the other immigration item. Trait-level covariances between POC identification and all policy attitudes were significant and positive (number of immigrants: c = .014, SE = .003, p < .001, r = .273; immigration criminal penalties: c = .006, SE = .003, p = .048, r = .151; BLM/protests: c = .030, SE = .003, p < .001, r = .540).

Latino participants’ POC identification had a significant, positive cross-lagged effect on support for ending criminal penalties for immigration, (RI-CLPM: b = .430, SE = .198, p = .030, β = .244 and .188; CLPM: b = .117, SE = .059, p = .047, β = .120 and .110). POC identification and BLM/protest attitudes had inconsistently significant, positive cross-lagged effects on each other in the CLPM that were not robust to covariates (Table S19). POC identification had a significant, positive trait-level covariance with number of immigrants (c = .027, SE = .005, p < .001, r = .390) and BLM/protest support (c = .048, SE = .007, p < .001, r = .480).

 Discussion

Study 2 provides inconsistent evidence that identification predicts changes in policy attitudes. Within-person cross-lagged effects of American identification (Hypothesis 1) were not significant, though Latino participants showed significant, negative cross-lagged effects in the CLPM. POC identification (Hypothesis 2) predicted support for own-group issues in the RI-CLPM, but significant cross-lagged effects on other-group issues were found only in the CLPM.

Results were more consistent with both hypotheses at the trait covariance level. Stronger American identification was associated with less liberal immigration attitudes and less support for criminal justice reform (Hypothesis 1) among Latino participants, though only one immigration item showed this association among Black participants. Stronger POC identification was associated with more liberal immigration attitudes and more support for criminal justice reform (Hypothesis 2) among Black participants; among Latino participants, this covariance was significant for one immigration item (interestingly, not the item with significant cross-lagged effects) and BLM/protests support.

A limitation is the smaller sample size of Latino participants. RI-CLPM was likely underpowered for detecting cross-lagged effects, and CLPM could have been as well, given the stability of many of the variables.

 General Discussion

Evidence from two 3-wave panel studies indicates that, for members of racial minority groups in the United States, identification with a common ingroup that excludes the dominant group (POC) and identification with a common ingroup that includes the dominant group (American) relate differently to support for policies benefitting racial minorities, a form of solidarity with one’s own and/or other minority groups.

Limited evidence was found for ironic effects of American identification (Hypothesis 1). American identification did not significantly predict policy attitude change among African Americans or Asian Americans. Among Latinos, individual differences (but not within-person changes) in American identification predicted less support for an own-group issue (immigration) and an other-group issue (BLM/protests). Trait-level American identification was negatively correlated with trait-level support for policies benefitting minorities among Asian Americans (Study 1) and Latinos (Study 2), indicating the expected association exists for these groups but may not reflect the theorized ironic effect of common ingroup identity.

POC identification predicted increased support for policies benefitting minorities (Hypothesis 2), as expected from a shared identity in the intra-minority solidarity literature or disadvantaged identity in the collective action literature. Within-person increases in POC identification predicted increased support for affirmative action among Asian Americans (Study 1) and increased support for Black Lives Matter and the George Floyd protests (albeit an own-group issue) among African Americans (Study 2). Individual differences in POC identification predicted increased support for affirmative action and more liberal immigration attitudes among Asian Americans (Study 1), allowing more immigrants among African Americans (Study 2), and increased support for own-group issues among Latino and African Americans (Study 2). Trait-level POC identification was positively correlated with support for policies benefitting minorities across all three participant groups. The overall pattern indicates solidarity, not ironic effects.

These results might partly predict nonwhite Americans’ voting patterns. When anti-immigrant rhetoric and racialized policy issues are prevalent, as in the 2020 and 2024 Presidential elections, individuals/groups who identify more strongly as POC may be more likely to vote against the party or candidate using such rhetoric or advocating such policies. Those who identify more strongly as American might vote for such a party or candidate.

A limitation across studies is that the models included only one identity at a time. Thus, effects of POC identification might be confounded with those of racial identification, particularly among Black participants, for whom these identities were highly correlated, though this correlation was lower among Asian participants. The effects of POC and American identities were unlikely to be confounded, however, especially for Asian and Latino participants, for whom POC-American identity correlations were small and statistically insignificant. Future research could include multiple identities in the same model, though this could require very large sample sizes.

It is also possible that policy attitudes in these studies reflect ideology rather than solidarity, i.e., POC identification predicts progressive policy attitudes, and American identification predicts conservative policy attitudes. Perhaps participants interpreted the issues in such a non-racialized left-right manner. However, one might expect widespread racialized interpretations in the United States in late 2020—the Trump campaign actively linked immigration to Latin America, racial disparities in criminal justice were discussed widely on social media after George Floyd’s death, and the Harvard affirmative action case was moving through the courts. Empirically, controlling for political ideology and party affiliation in the CLPM did not substantially change results, though I could not control for these variables in the RI-CLPM. The present findings regarding POC identity are also consistent with findings from intra-minority solidarity research using other solidarity measures (e.g., Burson & Godfrey, 2018; Craig & Richeson, 2012; Pérez et al., 2023).

More importantly, inconsistent cross-lagged effects do not establish whether group identification precedes political attitudes. Although trait-level correlations were consistently significant, they do not speak to directionality. This pattern of effects could stem from group identification and policy attitudes being stable in adults over short time frames. (Stability may also account for poor CLPM fit.) However, the present findings are consistent with intergroup contact research failing to find significant cross-lagged effects on attitudes (Bohrer et al., 2019), especially within-person (Sengupta et al., 2020), across time lags of up to a year. Taken together, these studies hint that the relationships between contact or common ingroup identification and intergroup attitudes might not be causal for adults under normal circumstances. Identity salience may be a more promising target than identification strength for changing adults’ intergroup attitudes.

Additionally, American identity could have ironic effects not because it includes the dominant group but because it is uniquely associated with the dominant group. Perhaps Latino and Asian Americans associate American with White (cf. Devos & Banaji, 2005), and this explains negative relationships between American identification and support for policies benefitting minorities. American identity might also predict immigration attitudes because immigrants are excluded from the American ingroup, though negative relationships extended beyond immigration policies in the present studies. Alternatively, American identification may predict less support for policies that benefit minorities because American identity is shared with authority (Subašić et al., 2008). Future research could explore these alternative explanations for the effects of American identification.

Finally, this research was done in the United States, using identity labels that are meaningful in the U.S. and policy areas that were racialized in the U.S. While the principles should generalize, different identities and policies may be needed to replicate the findings elsewhere. For example, minority group members in other parts of the world may not identify as POC but may share other identity labels. Similarly, different issues may be associated with minority groups outside the U.S.

The present studies suggest the composition of common ingroup identities matters. For members of racial/ethnic minority groups, identification with a common ingroup that includes the dominant group (American) might be associated with less support for policies benefitting minority groups, but identification with a common ingroup that excludes the dominant group (POC) is associated with more support for these policies. These findings corroborate existing research on intra-minority solidarity and support the common ingroup identity model as a mechanism, while offering the boundary condition that an identity shared with the majority group may not promote solidarity (though it also may not have the ironic effects suggested in previous literature).

 Related Versions

The research described in this article was conducted for the author’s PhD dissertation submitted to the University of Minnesota: Bu, W. (2022). Common ingroup identity and racial minority political solidarity [ProQuest Information & Learning]. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering (Vol. 83, Issue 5–B).

The research described in this article was partially funded through a Grant-in-Aid from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI).

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Acknowledgements

The research described in this article was conducted for the author’s PhD dissertation submitted to the University of Minnesota. The author would like to thank her dissertation committee, especially her advisors Dr. Gene Borgida and Dr. Christopher Federico, for their advice and feedback during the design, analysis, and initial writing stages of this project.

 References Bohrer, B., Friehs, M.-T., Schmidt, P., & Weick, S. (2019). Contacts between natives and migrants in Germany: Perceptions of the native population since 1980 and an examination of the contact hypotheses. Social Inclusion, 7(4), 320–331. 10.17645/si.v7i4.2429 Burson, E., & Godfrey, E. B. (2018). The State of the Union: Contemporary interminority attitudes in the United States. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 40(6), 396–413. 10.1080/01973533.2018.1520106 Burson, E., & Godfrey, E. B. (2020). Intraminority solidarity: The role of critical consciousness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1362–1377. 10.1002/ejsp.2679 Cakal, H., Hewstone, M., Schwär, G., & Heath, A. (2011). An investigation of the social identity model of collective action and the ‘sedative’ effect of intergroup contact among Black and White students in South Africa. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 606–627. 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02075.x22122025 Capers, K. J., & Smith, C. W. (2016). Straddling identities: Identity cross-pressures on Black immigrants’ policy preferences. Politics, Groups & Identities, 4(3), 393–424. 10.1080/21565503.2015.1112823 Carter, E. R., Brady, S. T., Murdock-Perriera, L. A., Gilbertson, M. K., Ablorh, T., & Murphy, M. C. (2019). The racial composition of students’ friendship networks predicts perceptions of injustice and involvement in collective action. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 3(1), 49–61. 10.1002/jts5.27 Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and its discontents. The Free Press of Glencoe. Cortland, C. I., Craig, M. A., Shapiro, J. R., Richeson, J. A., Neel, R., & Goldstein, N. J. (2017). Solidarity through shared disadvantage: Highlighting shared experiences of discrimination improves relations between stigmatized groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), 547–567. 10.1037/pspi000010028581301 Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2012). Coalition or derogation? How perceived discrimination influences intraminority intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 759–777. 10.1037/a002648122141393 Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2016). Stigma-based solidarity: Understanding the psychological foundations of conflict and coalition among members of different stigmatized groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 21–27. 10.1177/0963721415611252 Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 447–466. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.44715740439 Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., Thomae, M., Tredoux, C., Kerr, P., & Quayle, M. (2015). Divide and rule, unite and resist: Contact, collective action and policy attitudes among historically disadvantaged groups. Journal of Social Issues, 71(3), 576–596. 10.1111/josi.12129 Dixon, J., Tropp, L. R., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2010). “Let them eat harmony”: Prejudice-reduction strategies and attitudes of historically disadvantaged groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(2), 76–80. 10.1177/0963721410363366 Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. (1997). Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(4), 401–420. 10.1006/jesp.1997.13279247370 Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 239–249. 10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.239 Ghandnoosh, N. (2015). Black lives matter: Eliminating racial inequality in the criminal justice system. Washington, DC, USA: The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/black-lives-matter-eliminating-racial-inequity-in-the-criminal-justice-system/ Glasford, D. E., & Calcagno, J. (2012). The conflict of harmony: Intergroup contact, commonality and political solidarity between minority groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 323–328. 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.001 Górska, P., & Bilewicz, M. (2015). When “a group in itself” becomes “a group for itself”: Overcoming inhibitory effects of superordinate categorization on LGBTQ individuals. Journal of Social Issues, 71(3), 554–575. 10.1111/josi.12128 Górska, P., & Tausch, N. (2023). Dynamic, yet stable: Separating within- and between-person components of collective action in support of a disadvantaged outgroup and its antecedents. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 14(7), 875–887. 10.1177/19485506221133882 Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102–116. 10.1037/a003888925822208 Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156. 10.1111/0162-895X.00230 Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17. 10.1017/S0003055414000604 Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7(1), 40–45. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00664.x Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2002). Sequential or parallel processes? A longitudinal field study concerning determinants of identity-management strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 75–88. 10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.7511811637 Kim, C. J. (1999). The racial triangulation of Asian Americans. Politics & Society, 27(1), 105–138. 10.1177/0032329299027001005 Klavina, L., & van Zomeren, M. (2020). Protesting to protect “us” and/or “them”? Explaining why members of third groups are willing to engage in collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(1), 140–160. 10.1177/1368430218796930 Knowles, E. D., Tropp, L. R., & Mogami, M. (2022). When White Americans see “non-Whites” as a group: Belief in minority collusion and support for White identity politics. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(3), 768–790. 10.1177/13684302211030009 Kotzur, P. F., & Wagner, U. (2021). The dynamic relationship between contact opportunities, positive and negative intergroup contact, and prejudice: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 418–442. 10.1037/pspi000025832700961 Lee, E. (2015). The making of Asian America: A history. Simon & Schuster. McClain, P. D., Carter, N. M., DeFrancesco Soto, V. M., Lyle, M. L., Grynaviski, J. D., Nunnally, S. C., Scotto, T. J., Kendrick, J. A., Lackey, G. F., & Cotton, K. D. (2006). Racial distancing in a Southern city: Latino immigrants’ views of Black Americans. Journal of Politics, 68(3), 571–584. 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00446.x Merseth, J. L. (2018). Race-ing solidarity: Asian Americans and support for Black Lives Matter. Politics, Groups & Identities, 6(3), 337–356. 10.1080/21565503.2018.1494015 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2019). Mplus User’s Guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA, USA: Muthén & Muthén. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 599–620. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8 Orth, U., Clark, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2021). Testing prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 1013–1034. 10.1037/pspp000035832730068 Pérez, E. (2020, July 2). ‘People of color’ are protesting. Here’s what you need to know about this new identity. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/02/people-color-are-protesting-heres-what-you-need-know-about-this-new-identity/ Pérez, E. O., Ramos, A., & Vicuña, B. V. (2022). Does affirming Black and Latino people as American weaken racial solidarity? A surprising “no” from two pre-registered experiments. Research & Politics, 9(4), 1–8. 10.1177/20531680221130695 Pérez, E., Vicuña, B. V., Ramos, A., Phan, K., Solano, M., & Tillett, E. (2023). Bridging the gaps between us: Explaining when and why people of color express shared political views. Political Behavior, 45(4), 1813–1835. 10.1007/s11109-022-09797-z Ramakrishnan, S. K., Lee, J., Lee, T., & Wong, J. (2018). National Asian American Survey (NAAS) 2016 Post-Election Survey. Riverside, CA, USA: National Asian American Survey. Ramakrishnan, S. K., Wong, J., Lee, T., & Junn, J. (2009). Race-based considerations and the Obama vote: Evidence from the 2008 National Asian American Survey. Du Bois Review, 6(1), 219–238. 10.1017/S1742058X09090079 R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ Reimer, N. K., & Sengupta, N. K. (2021). Meta-analysis of the “ironic” effects of intergroup contact [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. 10.31234/osf.io/vrsqe Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/ 10.18637/jss.v048.i02 Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20(1), 114–121. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x19152543 Samson, F. L. (2015). Asian American attitudes towards a US citizenship path for illegal immigrants: Immigration reform as racialised politics. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(1), 117–137. 10.1080/1369183X.2014.917044 Sengupta, N., Reimer, N. K., Sibley, C. G., & Barlow, F. K. (2020, February 28). Can intergroup contact promote social equality? In New developments in intergroup harmony and social change [Symposium session]. Society for Personality and Social Psychology Convention, New Orleans, LA, USA. Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Justice and power: When will justice concerns encourage the advantaged to support policies which redistribute economic resources and the disadvantaged to willingly obey the law? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(2), 171–200. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199603)26:2<171::AID-EJSP742>3.0.CO;2-8 Starr, P. (2023). The re-emergence of “People of Color”. Du Bois Review, 20(1), 1–20. 10.1017/S1742058X22000145 Starzyk, K. B., Neufeld, K. H. S., El-Gabalawy, R. M., & Boese, G. D. B. (2019). The case for and causes of intraminority solidarity in support for reparations: Evidence from community and student samples in Canada. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 7(1), 620–650. 10.5964/jspp.v7i1.673 Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 397 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D. Mass. 2019), affirmed 980 F.3d 157 (1st Cir. 2020), overruled 600 U.S. __ (2023). Subašić, E., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (2008). The political solidarity model of social change: Dynamics of self-categorization in intergroup power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(4), 330–352. 10.1177/108886830832322318927471 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA, USA: Brooks/Cole. Tran, J., & Curtin, N. (2017). Not your model minority: Own-group activism among Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23(4), 499–507. 10.1037/cdp000014528263621 Tropp, L. R., Hawi, D. R., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2012). Cross-ethnic friendships, perceived discrimination, and their effects on ethnic activism over time: A longitudinal investigation of three ethnic minority groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 257–272. 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02050.x21895704 Ufkes, E. G., Calcagno, J., Glasford, D. E., & Dovidio, J. F. (2016). Understanding how common ingroup identity undermines collective action among disadvantaged-group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63(Supplement C), 26–35. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.11.006 Ufkes, E. G., Dovidio, J. F., & Tel, G. (2015). Identity and collective action among European Kurds. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 176–186. 10.1111/bjso.1208425257157 University of Minnesota (2020). Presidential Election Panel Study. van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535. 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.50418605818 Wu, E. D. (2014). The color of success: Asian Americans and the origins of the model minority. Princeton University Press. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press. Data Availability

The anonymized data and analysis code for Study 1 are available at the OSF (Bu, 2026S-a). Analysis code for Study 2 is at the OSF (Bu, 2026S-a). Access to Study 2 data can be requested from the University of Minnesota Center for the Study of Political Psychology.

 Supplementary Materials

The Supplementary Materials contain the following items:

Supplementary Materials published in PsychArchives (PDF file) (Bu, 2026S-b)

Item and response option wording

Key variable descriptive statistics (Tables S1–S4)

Study 1 additional model information, fit statistics, and results (Tables S5–S11)

Study 2 additional model information, fit statistics, and results (Tables S12–S19)

Power analysis and sample size planning (Table S20)

Additional information about participants (Figures S1–S2; Tables S21–S22; Study 2 attrition information)

Study 1 confirmatory factor analyses (Tables S23–S24; Figures S3–S5)

Supplementary Materials available through OSF (Bu, 2026S-a)

Study 1 anonymized data (CSV file)

Study 1 analysis code (R script)

Study 2 analysis code (R script)

 Bu W. (2026S-a). Common ingroup identity data & code [Research data and code]. OSF. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7JDXF Bu W. (2026S-b). Supplementary materials to "Superordinate identities and minority solidarity: Contrasting person of color and American identification" [Additional information]. PsychOpen GOLD. 10.23668/psycharchives.22191