Membership role and subjective group dynamics: Impact on evaluative intragroup differentiation and commitment to prescriptive norms *

Abstract

Two studies examined participants’ evaluations of ingroup or outgroup normative and deviant members and changes in agreement with a prescriptive norm. In Experiment 1 (N = 51), the normative target was either a full or marginal ingroup or outgroup member, and the deviant was a full member. In Experiment 2 (N = 113), both targets were full or marginal members, or one was a full member and the other was marginal. As predicted, maximal upgrading of normative members and downgrading of deviant members, as well as endorsement of the norm, occurred when both targets were full ingroup members. In contrast, the deviant was derogated least and the deviant’s position was endorsed most when the deviant target was a full ingroup member and the normative target was a marginal ingroup member. Evaluations of normative and deviant ingroup members mediated the effects of their role on participants’ agreement with the norm.

Keywords

black sheep effect intragroup role opinion change prescriptive focus subjective group dynamics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrams

Marques

J. M.

Bown

Dougill

(2002). Anti-norm and pro-norm deviance in the bank and on the campus: Two experiments on subjective group dynamics. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 163–182. doi:10.1177/1368430202005002922

Abrams

Marques

J. M.

Bown

Henson

(2000). Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within and between groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 906–912. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.78.5.906

Abrams

Palmer

S. B.

Rutland

Cameron

van

Vyver

(2013). Evaluations of, and reasoning about, normative and deviant ingroup and outgroup members: Development of the black sheep effect. Developmental Psychology, 32, 257–261. doi:10.1037/a0032461

Abrams

Randsley de Moura

Hutchison

Viki

(2005). When bad becomes good (and vice versa): Why social exclusion is not based on difference. In Abrams

Marques

J. M.

Hogg

M. A.

(Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 161–190). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Abrams

Randsley de Moura

Marques

J. M.

Hutchison

(2008). Innovation credit: When can leaders oppose their groups? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 662–678. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.95.3.662

Bègue

(2001). Judgment of abortion: A black sheep effect in a Catholic sheepfold. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 640–649.

Castano

Paladino

M.-P.

Coull

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

(2002). Protecting the ingroup stereotype: Ingroup identification and the management of deviant ingroup members. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 365–385. doi:10.1348/014466602760344269

Chan

M. K. H.

Louis

W. R.

Jetten

(2010). When groups are wrong and deviants are right. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1103–1109. doi:10.1002/ejsp.760

Coull

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Castano

Paladino

M.-P.

Leemans

(2001). Protecting the ingroup: Motivated allocation of cognitive resources in the presence of threatening in-group members. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 327–339. doi:10.1177/1368430201004004003

10.

Doosje

(2003). Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 235–248. doi:10.1002/ejsp.142

11.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146

12.

Festinger

(1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282. doi:10.1037/h0056932

13.

Frings

Abrams

(2010). The effect of difference orientated communication on the subjective validity of an in-group norm: DOC can treat the group. Group Dynamics, 14, 281–291. doi:10.1037/a0019162

14.

Frings

Abrams

Randsley de Moura

Marques

J. M.

(2010). The effects of cost, normative support and issue importance on motivation to persuade ingroup deviants. Group Dynamics: Research, Theory, and Practice, 14, 80–91. doi:10.1037/a0016092

15.

Goodman

J. A.

Alexander

M. G.

Chizhik

A. W.

Chizhik

E. W.

Eidelman

(2010). Indirect influence and divergent thinking as a function of member role and task structure in small groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1184–1199. doi:10.1002/ejsp.713

16.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

17.

Hogg

M. A.

van Knippenberg

(2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 1–52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

18.

Hogg

M. A.

van Knippenberg

Rast

D. E.

III. (2012). The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 258–304. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.741134

19.

Hollander

E. P.

(1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65, 117–127. doi:10.1037/h0042501

20.

Jetten

Hornsey

M. J.

(2014). Deviance and dissent within groups. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 461–485. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115151

21.

Jetten

Hornsey

M. J.

Spears

Haslam

S. A.

Cowell

(2010). Rule transgressions in groups: The conditional nature of newcomers’ willingness to confront deviance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 338–348. doi:10.1002/ejsp.627

22.

Levine

J. M.

(1989). Reactions to opinion deviance in small groups. In Paulus

P. B.

(Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 187–231). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

23.

Levine

J. M.

Kerr

N. L.

(2007). Inclusion and exclusion: Implications for group processes. In Kruglanski

A. E.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 759–784). New York, NY: Guilford.

24.

Levine

J. M.

Moreland

R. L.

(1985). Innovation and socialization in small groups. In Moscovici

Mugny

van Avermaet

(Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 143–169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Levine

J. M.

Moreland

R. L.

(1994). Group socialization: Theory and research. In Stroebe

Hewstone

(Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 305–336). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

26.

Levine

J. M.

Moreland

R. L.

(2002). Group reactions to loyalty and disloyalty. In Thye

S. R.

Lawer

E. J.

(Eds.), Group cohesion, trust and solidarity: Advances in group processes (Vol. 19, pp. 203–228). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

27.

Levine

J. M.

Moreland

R. L.

Hausmann

L. R. M.

(2005). Managing group composition: Inclusive and exclusive role transitions. In Abrams

Hogg

M. A.

Marques

J. M.

(Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 137–160). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

28.

Levine

J. M.

Saxe

Harris

H. J.

(1976). Reaction to attitudinal deviance: Impact of deviate’s direction and distance of movement. Sociometery, 39, 97–107. doi:10.2307/2786210

29.

Levine

J. M.

Sroka

K. R.

Snyder

H. N.

(1977). Group support and reaction to stable and shifting agreement/disagreement. Sociometry, 40, 214–224.

30.

Levine

J. M.

Tindale

R. S.

(2014). Social influence in groups. In Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 2. Group processes (pp. 3–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

31.

Marques

J. M.

Abrams

Paez

Martinez-Taboada

(1998). The role of categorization and ingroup norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 976–988. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.75.4.976

32.

Marques

J. M.

Abrams

Serôdio

(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. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.81.3.436

33.

Marques

J. M.

Paez

(1994). The black sheep effect: Social categorisation, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. In Stroebe

Hewstone

(Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 37–68). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

34.

Marques

J. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Leyens

J.-P.

(1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members as a function of ingroup identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420180102

35.

Martin

(1998). Majority and minority influence using the afterimage paradigm: A series of attempted replications. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 1–26. doi:10.1006/jesp.1997.1339

36.

Martin

Hewstone

(2008). Majority versus minority influence, message processing and attitude change: The source-context-elaboration model. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 238–316). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

37.

McGarty

Turner

J. C.

Oakes

P. J.

Haslam

S. A.

(1993). The creation of uncertainty in the influence process: The roles of stimulus information and disagreement with similar others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 17–38.

38.

Moreland

R. L.

Levine

J. M.

(1982). Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual–group relations. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 137–192). New York, NY: Academic Press.

39.

Moscovici

(1976). Social influence and social change. London, UK: Academic Press.

40.

Moscovici

(1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209–239). New York, NY: Academic Press.

41.

Moscovici

(1985). Social influence and conformity. In Lindzey

Aronson

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 347–412). New York, NY: Random House.

42.

Moscovici

Personnaz

(1986). Studies on latent influence by the spectrometer method: I. The impact of psychologization in the case of conversion by a minority or a majority. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 345–360. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420160404

43.

Mugny

(1980). The power of minorities. London, UK: Academic Press.

44.

Nemeth

C. J.

(1986). The differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.93.1.23

45.

Papastamou

Mugny

(1985). Rigidity and minority influence: The influence of the social in social influence. In Moscovici

Mugny

van Avermaet

(Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 113–136). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

46.

Pérez

J. A.

Mugny

(1996). The conflict-elaboration theory of social influence. In Witte

E. H.

Davis

(Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 191–210). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

47.

Pinto

I. R.

Marques

J. M.

Levine

J. M.

Abrams

(2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 107–119. doi:10.1037/a0018187

48.

Pinto

I. R.

Marques

J. M.

Paez

(2015). National identification as a function of perceived social control: A subjective group dynamics analysis. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1368430215577225

49.

Prislin

Filson

(2009). Seeking conversion versus advocating tolerance in the pursuit of social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 811–822. doi:10.1037/a0016169

50.

Randsley de Moura

Abrams

Marques

J. M.

Hutchison

(2010). Innovation credit: When and why do group members give their leaders license to deviate from group norms? In Jetten

Hornsey

M. J.

(Eds.), Rebels in groups (pp. 238–258). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

51.

Shin

G.-W.

(1999). The politics of ethnic nationalism in divided Korea. Nations and Nationalism, 5, 465–484.