Independence and interdependence of group judgments: Xenophobia and minority influence

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
A first experiment examined the effects of two methods of dividing resources between Swiss nationals and foreign residents in a study involving 118 subjects. Subjects gave judgments involving either interdependent allocation (resources allocated to the outgroup cannot be allocated to the ingroup) or independent allocation. The results indicated that the socio‐cognitive functioning preferred by subjects varies as a function of their view of outsiders. Interdependence of judgments was more characteristic of the most xenophobic subjects, whereas the least xenophobic were more likely to reason in terms of independence. On the other hand, intermediate subjects (those who were clearly neither for nor against outsiders) were sensitive to these modalities of judgment: interdependence engendered an ingroup favoritism, while independence counteracted this bias. A second experiment further analysed the influence of a more or less imperative minority argument on the attitudes of 109 more xenophobic subjects. Independent as compared to interdependent judgment facilitated a latent influence by the source, especially when the source employed a more imperative rhetoric to urge a more favourable attitude to foreigners.