Intergroup sensitivity Effect

Sarah Esposo of the University of Queen land, asked the Australians to evaluate the Statement “Australians are intolerant towards indigenous people and immigrants”.

Some participants were told that the statement was made by natives Australians (in-group) and other participants were told that the statement comes from foreigners (out-group).

The statement was supported by one of the three arguments:

• A weak argument mainly giving opinions and hearsay.
• Very strong, arguments, quoting research studies and government's statements and policies.
• No arguments at all.

Now here is the findings, when the statement is attributed to native Australians (in-group), strong arguments indeed had convinced the participants more than the weak arguments. and they were expressing the need for changing the policies in favor of migrants and indigenous people. and they expressed solidarity with the migrants and indigenous.  But when the statement is attributed to a foreigner (out-group), whether the argument is strong or weak did not matter at all and the participants remained skeptical about the statement till the end.

Objectivity depends on who says it whether it comes from the friend or the enemy. The group to which we are associated influences our mind to greater extent. If a person is not clear about his or her individual values and convictions, he or she will be easily swayed by the statement coming from the in-group and closed and suspicious to the statements made by out-group.

Being part of a group, clan, caste, religion etc is witnessed from the ancient time. It has served well when we lived in dangerous times - providing safety and support in terms of shelter, food and mating companion. But in today’s context if we derive the personal identity only from the group to which we accidentally belong, we are at the verge of becoming a fanatic. Beware of any isms, including patriotism.