Whereas much social psychological research has focused on the conditions that lead to political conservatism, the current research suggests that instilling a sense of intergroup interdependence can increase political liberalism and, in turn, foster concern for universal welfare. Using both correlational (Study 1) and experimental (Study 2) methodologies, we find convergent support for the novel hypothesis that perceived interdependence between groups in society increases people’s support for human rights because it increases liberalism. In addition to establishing the hypothesized effect, we empirically distinguished the effect of intergroup interdependence from that of intragroup (or “interpersonal”) interdependence, which was related to conservatism. This research presents a novel demonstration of the effect of intergroup interdependence on political attitudes and fills a gap in the literature on the conditions that lead to liberalism.
AltermanE. (2008). Why we're liberals. New York, NY: Viking Adult.
2.
BrewerM. B.GardnerW. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.
3.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (2010). Intergroup bias. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 5th ed., pp. 1084–1121). New York, NY: Wiley.
4.
GabrielS.GardnerW. L. (1999). Are there “his” and “hers” types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 642–655.
5.
GaertnerL.IuzziniJ.WittM. G.OriñaM. M. (2006). Us without them: Evidence for an intragroup origin of positive in-group regard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 426–439.
6.
GardnerW.GabrielS.LeeA. (1999). “I” value freedom but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10, 321–326.
7.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.
8.
HaddockG.ZannaM. P.EssesV. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1105–1118.
9.
Janoff-BulmanR. (2009). To provide or protect: Motivational bases of political liberalism and conservatism. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 120–128.
10.
Janoff-BulmanR.CarnesN. C. (2013). Surveying the moral landscape: Moral motives and group-based moralities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 219–236.
11.
Janoff-BulmanR.SheikhS.BaldacciK. (2008). Mapping moral motives: Approach, avoidance, and political orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1091–1099.
12.
JostJ. T.FedericoC. M.NapierJ. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–333.
13.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
14.
KemmelmeierM.BurnsteinE.KrumovK.GenkovaP.KanagawaC.HirshbergM. S.NoelsK. A. (2003). Individualism, collectivism, and authoritarianism in seven societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 304–322.
15.
LandauM. J.SolomonS.GreenbergJ.CohenF.PyszczynskiT.ArndtJ.CookA. (2004). Deliver us from evil: The effects of mortality salience and reminders of 9/11 on support for President George W. Bush. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1136–1150.
16.
LuL.GilmoreR. (2007). Developing a new measure of independent and interdependent views of the self. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 249–257.
17.
MagstadtT. M. (2010). Understanding politics: Ideas, institutions, and issues. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
18.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 20, 568–579.
19.
MilkisS. M.MileurJ. M. (2005). The great society and the high tide of liberalism. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
20.
MonaghanR. R. (1984). Political communication. Etc, 41, 416–422.
21.
NailP. R.McGregorI.DrinkwaterA.SteeleG.ThompsonA. (2009). Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 901–907.
22.
OysermanD.CoonH. M.KemmelmeierM. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.
23.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.
24.
RockM.Janoff-BulmanR. (2010). Where do we draw our lines? Politics, rigidity, and the role of self-regulation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 26–33.
25.
ShawG. K. (1988). Keynesian economics: The permanent revolution. Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar.
26.
SherifM.HarveyO. J.WhiteB. J.HoodW. R.SherifC. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
27.
Son HingL. S.LiW.ZannaM. P. (2002). Inducing hypocrisy to reduce prejudicial responses among aversive racists. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 71–78.
28.
StelM. A.HarinckF. (2011). Being mimicked makes you a prosocial voter. Experimental Psychology, 58, 79–84.
29.
ThorisdottirH.JostJ. T. (2011). Motivated closed-mindedness mediates the effect of threat on political conservatism. Political Psychology, 32, 785–811.
30.
TrafimowD.TriandisH. C.GotoS. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649–655.
31.
WatkinsD.MortazaviS.TrofimovaI. (2000). Independent and interdependent conceptions of self: An investigation of age, gender, and culture differences in importance and satisfaction ratings. Cross-Cultural Research, 34, 113–134.
