See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275593295

We the People

Article in Social Psychological and Personality Science June 2013

DOI: 10.1177/1948550613512511

CITATIONS READS

2 546

3 authors, including:

Jojanneke van der Toorn Jaime Napier

Utrecht University New York University Abu Dhabi
19 PUBLICATIONS 472 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 1,477 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jaime Napier on 03 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Social Psychological and Personality Science
http://spp.sagepub.com/

We the People: Intergroup Interdependence Breeds Liberalism

Jojanneke van der Toorn, Jaime L. Napier and John F. Dovidio
Social Psychological and Personality Science 2014 5: 616 originally published online 5 December 2013
DOI: 10.1177/1948550613512511

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://spp.sagepub.com/content/5/5/616

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Society for Personality and Social Psychology

Association for Research in Personality

European Association of Social Psychology

Society of Experimental and Social Psychology

Additional services and information for Social Psychological and Personality Science can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://spp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://spp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jun 2, 2014

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 5, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on June 2, 2014

Article
Social Psychological and
Personality Science
We the People: Intergroup 2014, Vol. 5(5) 616622
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
Interdependence Breeds Liberalism sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1948550613512511
spps.sagepub.com

Jojanneke van der Toorn1, Jaime L. Napier2, and John F. Dovidio2

Abstract
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 peoples 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.

Keywords
intergroup interdependence, liberalism, human rights, ideological shift, policy support

The basic thought that guides these specific means of national
recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first
consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in
all parts of the United States. (U.S. President Franklin D. Roose-
velt, First Inaugural Address, 1933)
There is no issue of States rights or National rights. There is only
the struggle for human rights. (U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson,
Voting Rights Act Address, 1965)
The policies adopted during the emergence of modern liberal-
ism in the United Statesstarting with Roosevelts New
Deal and peaking under the Johnson administrations Great
Societynow form the foundations of American civil liber-
ties (Alterman, 2008; Milkis & Mileur, 2005; Shaw, 1988).
As illustrated in the above quotations, both of these leaders
appealed to Americans sense of societal interdependence to
promote domestic agendas that protected the rights of all
citizens. In the current work, we empirically examine the rela-
tionships between societal (or intergroup) interdependence
and political policy support. We propose a causal model that
might account, at least in part, for why these unprecedented
(and since unrivaled) human rights policies were successfully
implemented during times when diverse groups of Americans
might have felt especially interconnectedon the heels of the
Great Depression or after the loss of a President. Specifically,
we hypothesize that an increased salience of the dependency
between various groups in society will lead people to embrace
liberal viewpoints that, in turn, increase support for human
rights.
The notion that peoples support for political policies
reflects underlying psychological needs has garnered consider-
able empirical support (see Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009).
The majority of this work has been inspired by a motivated
social-cognition account of political ideology and has focused
on how adverse environmental factors, such as threat or uncer-
tainty, lead individuals to adopt more politically conservative
beliefs (e.g., Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003;
Landau et al., 2004; Nail, McGregor, Drinkwater, Steele, &
Thompson, 2009; Thorisdottir & Jost, 2011), presumably
because these beliefs provide a sense of security, order, and
certainty. Less is known, however, about what conditions
might foster more liberal attitudes.
Recent theoretical perspectives on the moral values of liberals
and conservatives have extended this model of ideological differ-
ences in ways that could offer intriguing insights into the motiva-
tional underpinnings of liberalism. Specifically, Janoff-Bulman
and colleagues (Janoff-Bulman, 2009; Janoff-Bulman & Carnes,
2013; Janoff-Bulman, Sheikh, & Baldacci, 2008) have proposed
an approach/avoidance model to illuminate ideological divisions
in moral concern: Conservative values tend to be based in
1
Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
2
Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jojanneke van der Toorn, Department of Psychology, Leiden University,
PO Box 9555, Leiden, 2300 RB, The Netherlands.
Email: j.m.van.der.toorn@fsw.leidenuniv.nl

Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on June 2, 2014

van der Toorn et al.
avoidance-type motivations, and thus focus on protection,
whereas liberal values are based in approach-type motivations
and focus on providing. On the collective (or societal) level, con-
servatives concerns center on protection from threat. Toward that
end, they value social order and promote notions of in-group
loyalty and cohesion (see also Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009).
Liberals, by contrast, are concerned about providing for the col-
lective; in turn, they value social justice and promote notions
of intergroup interdependence and shared responsibility
(Janoff-Bulman & Carnes, 2013).
This model highlights one important (yet understudied) dif-
ference between liberals and conservativestheir divergent
conceptions of group interdependence. Conservatives tend to
focus on interdependence within their own groups as well as
the boundaries between groups, whereas liberals focus on col-
lectivism and interdependence within (constellations of)
groups (Janoff-Bulman, 2009; Janoff-Bulman, Sheikh, &
Baldacci, 2008). In line with this, research has demonstrated
that there are ideological differences in the perceived scope
of category memberships, such that liberals have a more inclu-
sive conception of group (e.g., society) as compared to conser-
vatives (e.g., my ethnic group; Rock & Janoff-Bulman, 2010).
The notion that intergroup interdependence is an important
ideological construct is in line with work in political science,
which highlights the fact that left-wing (vs. right wing) ideologies
tend to espouse a general view that human beings should live
together cooperatively without social distinctions (Magstadt,
2010) and emphasize interdependence between groups and
nations (Monaghan, 1984). Consistent with this position, Stel and
Harinck (2011) found that a manipulation of interdependence (vs.
independence) led to leftist voting behavior. Conservative ideol-
ogies, by contrast, tend to emphasize either individualism or a dif-
ferent type of interdependenceinterdependence on others
within ones group. Moral foundations theory (Graham et al.,
2009) proposes that conservatives, to a greater extent than liber-
als, possess the binding moral value of community, referring
to ones perception of connectedness to other in-group members.
In the present research, we examined how the nature of inter-
dependence affects political orientations and ultimately support
for human rights. In social psychological research, much of the
research on interdependence has been in the context of work on
the relational self, with a focus on how people define themselves
in terms of their social relationships, group memberships, and
social roles (Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999; Markus & Kitayama,
1991; Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991; see Oyserman, Coon, &
Kemmelmeier, 2002 for an overview). However, research in the
area of intergroup relations demonstrates the importance of
whether such feelings of connectedness occur within or across
group boundaries: Whereas perceptions of intergroup interdepen-
dence reduce bias (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010; Sherif, Harvey,
White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961), perceptions of greater interdepen-
dence on others within ones group promote intergroup bias
(Gaertner, Iuzzini, Witt, & Orina, 2006). In addition, in the cul-
tural psychology literature, greater horizontal collectivism, which
emphasizes greater cooperation with others generally, predicts
greater liberalism, whereas greater vertical collectivism, which
Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on June 2, 2014
617
emphasizes hierarchy and distinctive roles, predicts greater con-
servatism (Janoff-Bulman & Carnes, 2013). Vertical collectivism
is also positively related to authoritarianism (Kemmelmeier et al.,
2003).
We posit that intergroup interdependence will be related to
political liberalism insofar as liberal policies promote well-
being for all groups in society (see Janoff-Bulman, 2009;
Janoff-Bulman & Carnes, 2013), but that conservatives will
be more inclined toward interpersonal (or intragroup) interde-
pendence (see Graham et al., 2009). In two studies, we tested
the possibility that liberalism and, in turn, support for policies
promoting human rights, would be enhanced when people
perceive intergroup (but not interpersonal) interdependence.
To our knowledge, no research has directly examined how
interdependence potentially affects political ideology nor stud-
ied the implications of this relationship for policy support. In
Study 1, we conducted a survey to test the mediation hypothesis
that perceived intergroup interdependence (but not interperso-
nal interdependence) is positively related to participants
liberalism scores and, consequently, with support for universal
welfare. In Study 2, we used an experimental paradigm to
establish causality.
Study 1
Method
Participants. Eighty-seven White American Mechanical Turk
participants (age, mean [M] 30.17, standard deviation
[SD] 11.17; 67.8% male) completed an online survey in
exchange for monetary compensation.
Procedure. Participants first rated their political orientation on a
scale ranging from 1 (extremely liberal) to 7 (extremely conser-
vative), which was reverse coded so that higher scores indicate
greater liberalism (Jost et al., 2009). Participants perceived
intergroup interdependence was then assessed with the follow-
ing statement: Different groups are needed for society to
work (1 extremely disagree; 7 extremely agree). To
measure participants sense of interpersonal interdependence,
we used Lu and Gilmours (2007) 21-item interdependence
scale (1 extremely disagree; 7 extremely agree; a
.86). This scale was designed to measure constructs at the
individual level to correspond to individualism-collectivism
(IC) at the cultural level (p. 249) and includes items that
reflect various aspects of this distinction, including conformity
(e.g., I believe that people should behave appropriately
according to their different social status and roles), cohesion
(e.g., I have a strong identification with people close to
me), and identification with various in-groups (e.g., I
believe that family is the source of our self). Finally, to assess
support for universal welfare, we adapted the fixed resource
distribution task employed by Son Hing, Li, and Zanna
(2002; see also Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993), which is
designed to reduce the influence of social desirability respond-
ing by requiring participants to allocate limited funds between
618
Table 1. Descriptives and Intercorrelations (Study 1).
Variable M (SD)
1. Intergroup interdependence 5.41 (1.31)
2. Interpersonal interdependence 4.43 (0.74)
3. Liberalism 5.07 (1.60)
4. Support for human rights 45.25 (19.34)
5. Gender 0.36 (0.94)
6. Age 30.17 (11.17)
Note. Gender was effect-coded (women 1; men 1).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
desirable alternatives. Specifically, we told participants: the
government is currently making its annual budget and has set
aside a certain amount of money to be split between Human
Rights Advocate groups and Road Maintenance. Last year, this
money was split 50/50. We selected road maintenance as the
alternative to human rights because it is ideologically neutral
and considered generally valuable. Participants then indicated
on slider scales (which added up to 100%), what percentage the
government should allocate for each issue this year.1
Results and Discussion
Table 1 lists the variable Ms, SDs, and intercorrelations.
Intergroup interdependence was not significantly related to inter-
personal interdependence, r(85) .03, p .782, suggesting that
the two types of interdependence are independent constructs.
To test our central hypothesis that concern for universal
welfare would be predicted by intergroup interdependence and
liberalism, we conducted two linear multiple regression analy-
ses with intergroup interdependence and interpersonal interde-
pendence predicting (1) liberalism and (2) support for human
2
rights. As hypothesized, perceived intergroup interdependence
significantly predicted political orientation, b .29, standard
error (SE) 0.13, p .022: The more participants believed
different groups are needed for society to work, the more they
identified as liberal. Perceived interpersonal interdependence
also significantly predicted political orientation, but in the
opposite direction, b .56, SE 0.22, p .014: As pre-
dicted, the more participants reported valuing conformity,
cohesion, and identification with their in-group, the more con-
servative they were. A separate analysis predicting support for
human rights from intergroup and interpersonal interdepen-
dence yielded a significant positive association between
perceived intergroup interdependence and support for human
rights, b 3.43, SE 1.56, p .030, such that the more inter-
group interdependence participants perceived, the more funds
they allocated to human rights advocacy groups. Although the
zero-order correlation between perceived interpersonal interde-
pendence and support for human rights was not significant (see
Table 1), the regression analysis that adjusted for intergroup
interdependence yielded a marginally significant association
between perceived interpersonal interdependence and support
for human rights, b 2.67, SE 2.77, p .073.
Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on June 2, 2014
Social Psychological and Personality Science 5(5)
1 2 3 4 5
.03
.23* .25*
.24* .11 .48***
.16 .22* .08 .11
.00 .25* .12 .08 .26*
To examine whether the effect of intergroup interdependence
on support for human rights was mediated by liberalism, we con-
ducted bootstrapping analyses based on 1,000 bootstrap resam-
ples, adjusting for interpersonal interdependence (Preacher &
Hayes, 2004). As predicted, liberalism significantly predicted
support for human rights, b 6.18, SE 1.19, p < .001. In addi-
tion, with liberalism in the model, the direct effect of intergroup
interdependence on support for human rights was no longer sig-
nificant, b 1.63, SE 1.41, p .250, suggesting mediation
(see Figure 1). The bias-corrected confidence interval did not
include zero [0.57; 4.26], confirming that the indirect path was
significant.
Because these data were correlational, we were also able to
test the competing hypothesis that perceived intergroup inter-
dependence would mediate the relationship between liberalism
and support for universal welfare. This indirect effect was not
significant [lower bound 0.16, upper bound 1.40]. In
summary, these findings are consistent with our hypothesis that
intergroup interdependence uniquely predicts greater support
for human rights through liberalism. Although no support was
obtained for the opposite mediation pattern, experimental evi-
dence is required to definitively establish a causal relationship.
This was done in Study 2.
Study 2
In this study, we used a word search task to prime either the indi-
vidual or the collective and then measured peoples political
ideology and support for universal welfare. Based on our findings
from Study 1, we predicted that a collective (vs. self-) focused
mind-set would lead to an increase in liberalism and that this
effect would be mediated by increased intergroup interdepen-
dence. Because it is conceivable that the collective (vs. self)
focused prime might also increase interpersonal interdependence
(cf. Gardner et al., 1999), in which case we would expect to
observe an increase in conservatism (as opposed to liberalism),
we also included a measure of interpersonal interdependence.
Method
Participants. We recruited 223 White Americans from an online
subject pool in exchange for entry into a cash prize lottery.
Thirteen participants did not complete the manipulation and
van der Toorn et al.
Liberalism
0.29* (0.13) 6.18*** (1.19)
Intergroup Support for
Interdependence Human Rights
Figure 1. Mediation model for Study 1 testing the indirect effect of
intergroup interdependence on support for human rights through
liberalism.
Note. All path coefficients represent unstandardized regression
weights; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
were excluded from analysis, yielding a final sample of 210
(age, M 37.59, SD 14.02; 71.4% female).
Procedure. Participants were randomly assigned to a prime that
activated either the self (independent) or the collective (inter-
dependent), adapted from Brewer and Gardner (1996). They
read a short paragraph describing a trip to the city and copied
all the pronouns below it. The self-focused prime included
first-person singular pronouns (e.g., I, me, my), while the
collective-focused prime included first-person plural pronouns
(e.g., we, us, our). The paragraphs were otherwise identical.
After rating the pleasantness of the paragraph (1 very unplea-
sant, 5 very pleasant), participants responded to the exact
same measures of perceived intergroup interdependence, polit-
ical orientation, and universal welfare support as in Study 1.
They also rated their interdependence with the in-group by
using 1 item from the interpersonal interdependence scale used
in Study 1 (Belonging to a group is important to my self-
identity, or sense of myself) on a 7-point scale.
Results and Discussion
Table 2 lists the variable Ms, SDs, and inter-correlations. There
were no differences in the pleasantness ratings of the para-
graph between the two priming conditions, t(208) .54,
p .591. As predicted, t-tests revealed that participants
primed with interdependence scored higher on liberalism
(M 4.65, SD 1.62) than participants primed with inde-
pendence (M 4.15, SD 1.42), t(191) 2.35, p .020.
In addition, participants in the interdependence condition
scored higher on support for human rights (M 49.01,
SD 18.66) than participants in the independence condition
(M 43.39, SD 20.67), t(207) 2.07, p .040.3
As expected, participants endorsed intergroup interde-
pendence to a greater degree when primed with interdepen-
dence (M 5.49, SD 1.31) than independence (M 5.01,
SD 1.48), t(208) 2.48, p .014; the manipulation did not
affect participants ratings of interpersonal interdependence,
t(208) .39, p .698.
Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on June 2, 2014
619
As in Study 1, we conducted follow-up bootstrapping anal-
yses to test for mediation. As hypothesized, liberalism signifi-
cantly predicted support for human rights, b 3.42, SE 0.88,
p < .001. In addition, with liberalism in the model, the direct
effect of the prime on support for human rights was no longer
significant, b 3.91, SE 2.69, p .146, suggesting
mediation (Figure 2). Bootstrapping results yielded a signifi-
cant indirect effect [lower bound 0.38, upper bound
4.11], indicating that the interdependence prime indeed causes
greater support for universal welfare through increased
liberalism.
Separate additional bootstrapping analyses demonstrated
that perceived intergroup interdependence (the manipulation
check) mediated the relationship between the prime and liber-
alism [lower bound 0.03, upper bound 0.26], and between
the prime and support for human rights [lower bound 0.13,
upper bound 3.99]. Finally, liberalism mediated the relation-
ship between perceived intergroup interdependence and
support for universal welfare [lower bound 0.28, upper
bound 1.82]. These findings provide further support for our
contention that it is the perception that different groups are
needed for society to work that increases policy support
through liberalism.
General Discussion
We now realize, as we have never realized before, our interdepen-
dence on each other. (Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural
Address, March 1933)
As Roosevelt began his first term as President of the United
States during the depth of the Great Depression, lines between
groups in society were blurred. This heightened sense of
interdependence among Americans might have been the ideal
climate to promote Roosevelts liberal policies that established
rights for diverse groups in society. Whereas previous research-
ers have speculated that people who are more liberal generally
see groups in society as more positively interdependent
(Janoff-Bulman, 2009; Monaghan, 1984), the present research
investigated the surprisingly understudied possibility that per-
ceptions of interdependence between groups produce stronger
liberal orientations. Indeed, the current research suggests that
instilling a sense of intergroup interdependence (even through
as simple a prime as copying pronouns) 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 intergroup interdependence increases
peoples support for human rights because it increases liberal-
ism. Of course, our findings do not preclude the possibility of
bidirectionality in which we acknowledge that increases in lib-
eralism may also produce stronger feelings of intergroup
interdependence.
In addition to establishing the hypothesized effect, we build
on moral foundations theory (Graham et al., 2009) and the
approach/avoidance model of morality (Janoff-Bulman,
620
Table 2. Descriptives and Intercorrelations (Study 2).
Variable M (SD)
1. Interdependence manipulation 0.46 (0.50)
2. Intergroup interdependence 5.23 (1.42)
3. Liberalism 4.38 (1.53)
4. Support for human rights 45.96 (19.92)
5. Gender 0.43 (0.91)
6. Age 37.59 (14.02)
Note. Interdependence manipulation was coded 0 for independence and 1 for interdependence. Gender was effect-coded (women 1; men 1). *p < .05,
**p < .01, ***p < .001.
Liberalism
0.50* (0.21) 3.42*** (.88)
Intergroup Support for
Interdependence Human Rights
Figure 2. Mediation model for Study 2 testing the indirect effect of
intergroup interdependence on support for human rights through
liberalism.
2009) by empirically distinguishing the effect of intergroup
interdependence from that of interpersonal interdependence,
which instead was related to conservatism (Study 1). In Study
2, we used a simple we versus I prime to induce inter-
group interdependence versus independence. We confirmed
that the prime uniquely affected intergroup interdependence
and did not affect interpersonal interdependence, in our study.
It should be noted, however, that this might not always be
the case. Research by Brewer and Gardner (1996) showed that
priming of we versus priming of they or it led partici-
pants to have more inclusive self-concepts and to generate
more interpersonal and collective self-descriptions. No com-
parison was made to an I condition. However, although the
authors did not test it for significance, participants in the we
condition generated more collective (18%) than interpersonal
(7%) self-descriptions (Brewer & Gardner, 1996, Study 3).
Gardner, Gabriel, and Lee (1999) found that priming we
(vs. I) led to greater interdependent self-construals and
social values, but they did not distinguish between interperso-
nal versus collective self-construals.
One limitation of Study 2 is that we did not have a neutral
control condition and thus cannot conclusively say whether
participants are in fact becoming more liberal in the interdepen-
dent condition, or whether they are becoming more conserva-
tive in the independent condition. However, the fact that
participants independent self-concept scores were unrelated
to their political orientation, as found in Study 1 (see Note
1), is in line with the assumption that it is the interdependent
Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on June 2, 2014
Social Psychological and Personality Science 5(5)
1 2 3 4 5
.17*
.16* .24***
.14* .23*** .28***
.03 .01 .04 .15*
.03 .01 .09 .17* .12
condition that moved people in a liberal direction. Regardless
of the direction of the effect, the mediation analysis does con-
firm that greater perceived intergroup interdependence leads to
liberalism (vs. conservatism), which is an important and novel
contribution to our understanding of the underpinnings of polit-
ical ideology.
It is conceivable that priming the collective we could
have differential effects depending on the contextfor
instance, it might be the case that if ideology (or some other
group) is first made salient, conservatives will think more
about their interdependence on an interpersonal level,
whereas liberals will think more about their collective, inter-
group interdependence. Although more work is needed to
fully understand how intergroup interdependence can be con-
sistently evoked, our studies show that to the extent that peo-
ple do hold an appreciation for a diverse, multigroup society,
the more they will lean toward political liberalism and con-
cern for human rights.
Although a sense of interdependence may be elicited under
various conditions, our work demonstrates the importance of
more specifically examining peoples responses in times of
societal upheaval. While the conservative shift observed
following 9/11 was likely due to the immense sense of threat
that was associated with it, our findings suggest that we may
well have seen increased liberalism should intergroup interde-
pendence have been activated instead. It remains an open ques-
tion whether priming of intergroup interdependence makes one
generally open-minded or whether its effects are restricted to
facilitating liberal attitudes in areas related to human welfare.
Future research might examine its effects on other attitudes and
in situations where concern for human welfare is at odds with
other liberal stances (e.g., when protecting the environment is
at odds with more immediate human welfare concerns).
In conclusion, the current research is scientifically innova-
tive in that it fills a gap in the literature on political attitude for-
mation. Whereas previous research has mainly focused on the
circumstances that lead individuals to adopt more politically
conservative beliefs, the current work offers a novel perspec-
tive by demonstrating the effect of intergroup interdependence
on liberal attitudes. Beyond its theoretical contribution, the cur-
rent research is of practical significance as well. One intriguing
implication of these findings is that leveraging peoples sense
of intergroup interdependence could impact social and political
attitudes. Framing a message that highlights the shared
van der Toorn et al.
responsibility of the many diverse groups in society should
enhance support for human rights and related liberal policies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. We also included an item asking endorsement of the statement, I
feel dependent on other groups in society. This measure, which
focuses on an individuals personal connection to other groups was
moderately correlated with the measure of perceived interdepen-
dence between groups in society, r(85) .43, p < .001, and not
correlated with participants political orientation, r(85) .12,
p .282, nor with their support for human rights, r(85) .11,
p .327. Because this measure focused more on perceptions of
personal dependence on other groups rather than on the interdepen-
dence between groups, we did not combine it with our item asses-
sing intergroup interdependence. Using the mean of this item and
our intergroup interdependence item slightly weakens the results;
for example, its bivariate relationships with liberalism and support
for human rights are marginally significant, r(85) .20, p .070
and r(85) .20, p .078, respectively. We also collected partici-
pants personal independence ratings using Lu and Gilmours
(2007) 21-item scale (a .82), but had no specific predictions for
them. Personal independence did not significantly correlate with
any of the other variables, all rs < .15. These analyses suggest that
intergroup interdependence, our variable of primary interest, is
conceptually distinct from forms of personal (in)dependence.
2. As previous research indicated gender and age differences in inter-
dependent self-construal (e.g., Gabriel & Gardner, 1999; Watkins,
Mortazavi, & Trofimova, 2000), we also ran our analyses adjusting
for participant gender and age. The pattern of results for intergroup
and interpersonal interdependence is nearly identical when adjusting
for these demographics, and the focal effects remain significant;
gender only marginally significantly predicted support for human
rights, b 4.17, SE 2.29, p .073, suggesting that women were
somewhat more in favor of human rights advocacy than men were.
All other ts < 1. We also tested whether gender interacted with inter-
group and interpersonal interdependence in predicting liberalism and
support for human rights, but it did not, all ts < 1.
3. Both tests had significant Levenes tests for variance equality, so
degrees of freedom were downward adjusted.
References
Alterman, E. (2008). Why were liberals. New York, NY: Viking
Adult.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this we? Levels of
collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, 8393.
Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on June 2, 2014
621
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2010). Intergroup bias. In S. T. Fiske,
D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology
(Vol. 2, 5th ed., pp. 10841121). New York, NY: Wiley.
Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. 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,
642655.
Gaertner, L., Iuzzini, J., Witt, M. G., & Orina, M. M. (2006). Us with-
out them: Evidence for an intragroup origin of positive in-group
regard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90,
426439.
Gardner, W., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. (1999). I value freedom but
we value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural
differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10, 321326.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conserva-
tives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 96, 10291046.
Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P., & Esses, V. M. (1993). Assessing the
structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward
homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
11051118.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (2009). To provide or protect: Motivational bases
of political liberalism and conservatism. Psychological Inquiry,
20, 120128.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Carnes, N. C. (2013). Surveying the moral land-
scape: Moral motives and group-based moralities. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 17, 219236.
Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Baldacci, K. (2008). Mapping moral
motives: Approach, avoidance, and political orientation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 10911099.
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology:
Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of
Psychology, 60, 307333.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003). Polit-
ical conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological
Bulletin, 129, 339375.
Kemmelmeier, M., Burnstein, E., Krumov, K., Genkova, P.,
Kanagawa, C., Hirshberg, M. S., . . . Noels, K. A. (2003). Indi-
vidualism, collectivism, and authoritarianism in seven societ-
ies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 304322.
Landau, M. J., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Cohen, F., Pyszczynski, T.,
Arndt, J., . . . Cook, A. (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, 11361150.
Lu, L., & Gilmore, R. (2007). Developing a new measure of indepen-
dent and interdependent views of the self. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 249257.
Magstadt, T. M. (2010). Understanding politics: Ideas, institutions,
and issues. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implica-
tions for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological
Review, 20, 568579.
Milkis, S. M., & Mileur, J. M. (2005). The great society and the high
tide of liberalism. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
622
Monaghan, R. R. (1984). Political communication. Etc, 41, 416422.
Nail, P. R., McGregor, I., Drinkwater, A., Steele, G., & Thompson, A.
(2009). Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 901907.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking
individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assump-
tions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 372.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures
for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36,
717731.
Rock, M., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2010). Where do we draw our lines?
Politics, rigidity, and the role of self-regulation. Social Psychologi-
cal and Personality Science, 1, 2633.
Shaw, G. K. (1988). Keynesian economics: The permanent revolution.
Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W.
(1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave
experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
Son Hing, L. S., Li, W., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Inducing hypocrisy to
reduce prejudicial responses among aversive racists. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 7178.
Stel, M. A., & Harinck, F. (2011). Being mimicked makes you a pro-
social voter. Experimental Psychology, 58, 7984.
Downloaded from spp.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on June 2, 2014
View publication stats
Social Psychological and Personality Science 5(5)
Thorisdottir, H., & Jost, J. T. (2011). Motivated closed-mindedness
mediates the effect of threat on political conservatism. Political
Psychology, 32, 785811.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the
distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649655.
Watkins, D., Mortazavi, S., & Trofimova, I. (2000). Independent and
interdependent conceptions of self: An investigation of age,
gender, and culture differences in importance and satisfaction rat-
ings. Cross-Cultural Research, 34, 113134.
Author Biographies
Jojanneke van der Toorn is an assistant professor in the Department of
Psychology at Leiden University. Her research focuses on the social psy-
chological mechanisms implicated in social change and resistance to it.
Jaime L. Napier is an assistant professor in the Department of
Psychology at Yale University. Her research examines the social and
psychological antecedents and consequences of societal inequality.
John F. Dovidio is a professor in the Department of Psychology at
Yale University. His research interests are in stereotyping, prejudice,
and discrimination; social power and nonverbal communication; and
altruism and helping.