Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-10
They did it again! Social control responses to repeated incidences of deviance in small groups / ¡Lo han vuelto a hacer! Respuestas de control social a la incidencia repetida de la desviación en grupos pequeños
Deviant group members who break group norms often challenge social validity and group locomotion, invoking varying types of social control responses. The current study (N = 95) investigated changes over time in the use of four social control responses of varying severity (persuasion, embarrassment, temporary exclusion and permanent exclusion) employed in response to deviance. It also tested the roles that perceived effectiveness of and social support for various responses play in response selection. Findings show severity of social control response selection is driven by both pragmatic and identity-based concerns: Over time, responses become more severe, driven in part by effectiveness and social support.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsD.FringsD.Randsley de MouraG. (2005). Group identity and self-definition. In WheelanS. A. (Ed.), Handbook of group research and practice (pp. 329–350). London: Sage.
2.
AbramsD.MarquesJ.Randsley de MouraG.HutchisonP.BownN. J. (2004). The maintenance of entitativity: A subjective group dynamics approach. In CorneilleO.Yzerbyt.V.Judd.C. M. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 361–379). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
3.
AbramsD.MarquesJ. M.BownN.HensonM. (2000). Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within and between groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 906–912.
4.
AbramsD.RutlandA.CameronL.MarquesJ. (2003). The development of subjective group dynamics: When in-group bias gets specific. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 155–176.
5.
AschS. E. (1952). Group forces in the modification and distortion of judgments. In AschS. E. (Eds.), Social psychology (pp. 450–501). New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
BegueL. (2001). Social judgment of abortion: A black-sheep effect in a Catholic sheepfold. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 640–649.
7.
BraithwaiteJ. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BranscombeN. R.WannD. L.NoelJ. G.ColemanJ. (1993). In-group or out-group extremity: Importance of the threatened social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 381–388.
9.
CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A.RenoR. R. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.
10.
DeutschM.GerardH. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.
11.
FehrE.FischbacherU. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 25, 63–87.
12.
FehrE.FischbacherU.GachterS. (2002). Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms. Human Nature, 13, 1–25.
13.
FestingerL. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.
14.
FestingerL.GerardH. B.HymovitchB.KelleyH.RavenB. H. (1952). The influence process in the presence of extreme deviates. Human Relations, 5, 327–345.
15.
FestingerL.ThibautJ. (1951). Interpersonal communication in small groups. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 92.
16.
ForsythD. (1990). Group dynamics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
17.
FringsD.AbramsD. (2010). The effect of Difference Oriented Communication on the subjective validity of an in-group norm: DOC can treat the group. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research & Practice, 14, 281–291.
18.
FringsD.AbramsD.Randsley de MouraG.MarquesJ. (2010). The effects of cost, normative support, and issue importance on motivation to persuade in-group deviants. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 14, 80–91.
19.
FringsD.HurstJ.ClevelandC.BlascovichJ.AbramsD. (2012). Challenge, threat and subjective group dynamics: Reactions to normative and deviant group members. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research & Practice, 16, 105–121.
20.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
HorneC.CutlipA. (2002). Sanctioning costs and norm enforcement: An experimental test. Rationality and Society, 14, 285–307.
22.
IsraelJ. (1956). Self-evaluation and rejection in groups: Three experimental studies and a conceptual outline. Oxford: Almqvist & Wiksell.
23.
JacobsD.KentS. L. (2007). The determinants of executions since 1951: How politics, protests, public opinion, and social divisions shape capital punishment. Social Problems, 54, 297–318.
24.
JettenJ.HoggM. A.MullinB. A. (2000). In-group variability and motivation to reduce subjective uncertainty. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 4, 184–198.
25.
JettenJ.HornseyM. J. (Eds.). (2010). Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference, and defiance. Chichester: Wiley.
26.
JettenJ.HornseyM. J. (2014). Deviance and dissent in groups. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 461–485.
27.
Jiménez-MoyaG.Rodríguez-BailónR.SpearsR.de LemusS. (2017). Collective resistance despite complicity: High identifiers rise above the legitimization of disadvantage by the in-group. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 103–124.
28.
JonesE. E.GerardH. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. Oxford: Wiley.
29.
KerrN. (1992). Efficacy as a causal and moderating variable in social dilemmas. In Wilke.H. A.Liebrand.W. B. G.MessickD. M. (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 59–80). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
30.
KerrN.LevineJ. M. (2007). Inclusion and exclusion: Implications for group processes. In KA. E.HiggingsT. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford.
31.
KurzbanR.LearyM. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187–208.
32.
LatanéB. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.
33.
LeachC. W.Van ZomerenM.ZebelS.VliekM. L.PennekampS. F.DoosjeB.SpearsR. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 144.
34.
LeeS. J.TedeschiJ. T. (1996). Effects of norms and norm-violations on inhibition and instigation of aggression. Aggressive Behaviour, 22, 17–25.
35.
LevineJ. M.MorelandR. L.HausmannL. R. M. (2005). Managing group composition: Inclusive and exclusive role transitions. In MarquesJ.AbramsD.HoggM. (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 137–160). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
36.
MarquesJ.AbramsD.SerôdioR. G. (2001). Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 436–447.
37.
MarquesJ. M.YzerbytV. Y.LeyensJ. P. (1988). The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.
38.
MorelandR. L.LevineJ. M. (1982). Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 137–192.
39.
MorelandR. L.LevineJ. M. (1988). Group dynamics over time: Development and socialization in small groups. In McGrathJ. (Ed.), The social psychology of time: New perspectives (pp. 151–181). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
40.
MorelandR. L.LevineJ. M.CiniM. A. (1993). Group socialization: The role of commitment. In HoggM.AbramsD. (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 105–129). Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
41.
NewcombT. M. (1956). The prediction of interpersonal attraction. American Psychologist, 11, 575–586.
42.
OrcuttJ. D. (1973). Societal reaction and the response to deviation in small groups. Social Forces, 52, 259–267.
43.
PackerD. J. (2008). On being both with us and against us: A normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 50–72.
44.
PackerD. J.FujitaK.ChasteenA. L. (2014). The motivational dynamics of dissent decisions: A goal-conflict approach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 27–34.
45.
PackerD. J.MinersC. T. (2014). Tough love: The normative conflict model and a goal system approach to dissent decisions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 354–373.
46.
PenningtonD. C. (2002). The social psychology of behaviour in small groups. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
47.
PintoI. R.MarquesJ. M.LevineJ. M.AbramsD. (2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 107–119.
48.
PintoI. R.MarquesJ. M.LevineJ. M.AbramsD. (2016). Membership role and subjective group dynamics: Impact on evaluative intragroup differentiation and commitment to prescriptive norms. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19, 570–590.
49.
SchachterS. (1951). Deviation, rejection and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 190–207.
50.
SherifM. (1966). The psychology of social norms. Oxford: Harper.
51.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey: Brooks/Cole.
52.
TajfelH. E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Oxford: Academic Press.
53.
ThibautJ. W.KelleyH. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Oxford: Wiley.
54.
TurnerJ. C. (1991). Social influence. Belmont: US. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
55.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
56.
van ProoijenJ. W. (2009). Procedural justice as autonomy regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1166–1180.
57.
WesselmannE. D.WilliamsK. D.WirthJ. H. (2014). Ostracizing group members who can (or cannot) control being burdensome. Human Ethology Bulletin, 29, 82–103.
58.
WilliamsK. D. (2007). Ostracism. Psychology, 58, 425–452.
