Reactions to an admitted charade of bogus self-presentation within an online community were examined over time for themes of support, condemnation, and interactivity. Evidence for the subjective group dynamics account of intragroup reactions to perceived deviance was observed in that support was modeled by a cubic function over time, whereas condemnation remained prominent. The community eventually expelled the deceptive member, supporting the black sheep effect. Natural groups, including those situated in cyberspace, may rely on inductive categorization when faced with ambiguous threats to group uniformity. The expected role of referent informational influence in determining normatively negative group reactions was challenged by evidence that support for the deception was initially more likely to be expressed by high-status members. In addition, low-status members expressed their condemnation with greater conviction, overall. Members may have been referring to different group prototypes in seeking validation for their feelings aboutambiguously deviant members.
Bettenhausen, K. L.,& Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The development of an intragroup norm and the effects of interpersonal and structural challenges. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350-372.
2.
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K.,& Billings, L. S. (1999). Black sheep and expectancy violation: Integrating two models of social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(4), 523-542.
3.
Branscombe, N. R., Wann, D., Noel, J. G., & Coleman, J. (1993). In-group and out-group extremity: Importance of the threatened social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 381-388.
4.
Codol, J. (1975). On the so-called “superior conformity of the self” behavior: Twenty experimental investigations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(4), 457-501.
5.
DeCremer, D., & Vanbeselaere, N. (1999). I am deviant, because...: The impact of situational factors upon the black sheep effect. Psychologica Belgica, 39, 71-79.
6.
Dietz-Uhler, B. (1996). The escalation of commitment in political decision-making groups: A social identity approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 611-629.
7.
Dietz-Uhler, B. (1999). Defensive reactions to group-relevant information. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 17-29.
8.
Dietz-Uhler, B., Bishop-Clark, C., Howard, E.,& Fisher, A. (2003, April). The formation of and adherence to a selfdisclosure norm in an online discussion. Manuscript in preparation.
9.
Haythornthwaite, C., Wellman, B.,& Garton, L. (1998). Work and community via computer-mediated communication. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications(pp. 29-42). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
10.
Henri, F. (1994). Distance learning and computer-mediated communication: Interactive, quasi-interactive or monologue? In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning(pp. 145-161). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
11.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions andfiascoes(2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
12.
Joinson, A. (2003). Understanding the psychology of Internet behaviour. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan.
13.
Joinson, A. N., & Dietz-Uhler, B. (2002). Explanations for the perpetration and reactions to deception in a virtual community. Social Science Computer Review, 20(3), 275-289.
14.
Kaplan, M. F.,& Miller, C. E. (1983). Group discussion and judgment. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 64-94). New York: Springer-Verlag.
15.
Marques, J. M. (1990). The black sheep effect: Outgroup homogeneity in social comparisons settings. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Critical and constructive advances(pp. 131-151). New York: Springer-Verlag.
16.
Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Paez, D.,& Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, social identification, and rejection of deviant group members. In M. A. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes(pp. 400-424). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
17.
Marques, J. M., Robalo, E. M., & Rocha, S. A. (1992). Ingroup bias and the “black sheep” effect: Assessing the impact of social identification and perceived variability on group judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 331-352.
18.
Marques, J. M.,& Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity in inter-and intra-group situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 287-292.
19.
Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments toward ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1-16.
20.
Matthews, D., & Dietz-Uhler, B. (1998). The black sheep effect: How positive and negative advertisements affect voters'perceptions of the sponsor of the advertisement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1902-1914.
21.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26(3), 341-371.
22.
Reicher, S. D. (1987). Crowd behavior as social action. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory(pp. 171-202). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
23.
Tajfel, H. (1959). Quantitative judgment in social perception. British Journal of Psychology, 50, 16-29.
24.
Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English MS. of La Catégorisation sociale. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction à la psychologie sociale(Vol. 1). Paris: Larousse.
25.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worschel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations(2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.
27.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.
28.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
29.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations(pp. 15-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Turner, J. C. (1987). The analysis of social influence. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher,& M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory(pp. 68-88). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
31.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
32.
Weisband, S. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 352-380.
33.
Utz, S. (2005). Types of deception and underlying motivation: What people think. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1),108-121.
