When detecting deviations from group norms, observers often respond by attempting to exclude the deviates or by leaving the group. Despite the commonalities between these two impactful responses, they have rarely been addressed simultaneously. Therefore, three experiments investigated how deviant behavior in small groups relates to observers’ intentions to exclude the deviate from the in-group and to leave that group themselves. Exclusion intentions are evoked by severe deviations from core elements of the group norm, mediated by heightened identity subversion (Studies 1–3). Study 3 demonstrated that leaving becomes more likely when perceived situational control is low—here evoked by acceptance of the deviant behavior by other in-group members, suggesting that aggravating conditions must be present for this response. Observing deviations seems to trigger leaving and exclusion intentions, yet they result from two distinct processes. We discuss our results in relation to work on group schism and literature on social exclusion.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.906
2.
AbramsD.Randsley de MouraG.TravaglinoG. A. (2013). A double standard when group members behave badly: Transgression credit to ingroup leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 799–815. doi:10.1037/a0033600
3.
ArrowH.McGrathJ. E. (1993). How member change and continuity affects small group structure, process, and performance. Small Group Research, 24, 334–361. doi:10.1177/1046496493243004
4.
BlanzM.MummendeyA.MielkeR.KlinkA. (1998). Responding to negative social identity: A taxonomy of identity management strategies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 634–667. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199809/10)28:5<697::AID-EJSP889>3.0.CO;2-#
5.
EbyL. T.MeadeA. W.ParisiA. G.DouthittS. S. (1999). The development of an individual-level teamwork expectations measure and the application of a within-group agreement statistic to assess shared expectations for teamwork. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 366–394. doi:10.1177/109442819924003
6.
EidelmanS.BiernatM. (2003). Derogating black sheep: Individual or group protection?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 602–609. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00042-8
7.
EidelmanS.SilviaP. J.BiernatM. (2006). Responding to deviance: Target exclusion and differential devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1153–1164. doi:10.1177/0146167206288720
8.
EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (1997). Sticking together of falling apart: In-group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617–626. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.72.3.617
9.
EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161–186. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135228
FennisB. M.AartsH. (2012). Revisiting the agentic shift: Weakening personal control increases susceptibility to social influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 824–831. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1887
12.
FischerA. H.RosemanI. J. (2007). Beat them or ban them: The characteristics and social functions of anger and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 103–115. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.103
13.
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. doi:10.1037/a0016092
14.
FritscheI.SchubertT. W. (2009). Go to hell! Determinants of motivated social exclusion. In OttenS.SassenbergK.KesslerT. (Eds.), Intergroup relations: The role of motivation and emotion (pp. 121–139). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
15.
GiessnerS. R.van KnippenbergD. (2008). “License to fail”: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 14–35. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.04.002
16.
GuinoteA.BrownM.FiskeS. (2006). Minority status decreases sense of control and increases interpretive processing. Social Cognition, 24, 169–186. doi:10.1521/soco.2006.24.2.169
HoggM. A.HainsS. C. (1996). Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 295–309. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.2.295
19.
HoggM. A.HainsS. C. (1998). Friendship and group identification: A new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 323–341. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199805/06)28:3<323::AID-EJSP854>3.0.CO;2-Y
20.
HornseyM. J.JettenJ.McAuliffeB. J.HoggM. A. (2006). The impact of individualist and collectivist group norms on evaluations of dissenting group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 57–68. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.01.006
21.
JacksonL. A.SullivanL. A.HarnishR.HodgeC. N. (1996). Achieving positive social identity: Social mobility, social creativity, and permeability of group boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 241–254. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.241
22.
JuvonenJ. (1992). Negative peer reactions from the perspective of the reactor. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 314–321. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.84.3.314
23.
LeachC. W.van ZomerenM.ZebelS.VliekM. L. W.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, 144–165. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
24.
LegateN.DeHaanC. R.WeinsteinN.RyanR. M. (2013). Hurting you hurts me too: The psychological costs of complying with ostracism. Psychological Science, 24, 583–588. doi:10.1177/0956797612457951
25.
LevineJ. M.MorelandR. L. (1991). Culture and socialization in work groups. In ResnickL. B.LevineJ. M.TeasleyS. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 257–279). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
26.
LevineJ. M.MorelandR. L. (1994). Group socialization: Theory and research. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 305–336. doi:10.1080/14792779543000093
27.
LevineJ. M.MorelandR. L.HausmannL. M. R. (2005). Managing group composition: Inclusive and exclusive role transitions. In AbramsD.MarquesJ. M.HoggM. A. (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 137–160). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
28.
LewisK.BelliveauM.HerndonB.KellerJ. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 159–178. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.01.005
29.
MackieD. M.DevosT.SmithE. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 602–616. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.602
30.
MarquesJ. M.AbramsD.PaezD.HoggM. A. (2001). Social categorization, social identification, and rejection of deviant group members. In HoggM. A.TindaleS. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 400–424). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
31.
MarquesJ. M.AbramsD.PaezD.Martinez-TaboadaC. (1998). The role of categorization and in-group 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.
MarquesJ. M.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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.436
33.
MarquesJ. M.PaezD. (1994). The “black sheep effect”: Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 37–68. doi:10.1080/14792779543000011
34.
MarquesJ. M.YzerbytV. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members in inter- and intra-group situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 287–292. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420180308
35.
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. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420180102
36.
McGartyC.TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.DavidB.WetherellM. S. (1992). Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 1–19. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00952.x
37.
MummendeyA.KesslerT.KlinkA.MielkeR. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 229–245. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.229
38.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
39.
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. doi:10.1037/a0018187
40.
PrislinR.ChristensenP. N. (2005). The effects of social change within a group on membership preferences: To leave or not to leave?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 595–609. doi:10.1177/0146167204271564
41.
Randsley de MouraG.AbramsD.MarquesJ. M.HutchisonP. (2010). Innovation credit. In JettenJ.HornseyM. J. (Eds.), Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference, and defiance (pp. 238–257). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
42.
ReicherS. D.SpearsR.PostmesT. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161–198. doi:10.1080/14792779443000049
43.
RichardF. D.BondC. F.Stokes-ZootaJ. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331
44.
SaniF. (2008). Schism in groups: A social psychological account. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 718–732. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00073.x
45.
SaniF.PuglieseA. C. (2008). In the name of Mussolini: Explaining the schism in an Italian right-wing political party. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 242–253. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.12.3.242
46.
SaniF.ReicherS. (1999). Identity, argument and schism: Two longitudinal studies of the split in the Church of England over the ordination of women to the priesthood. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 279–300. doi:10.1177/1368430299023005
47.
SaniF.TodmanJ. (2002). Should we stay or should we go? A social psychological model of schisms in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1647–1655. doi:10.1177/014616702237646
48.
SassenbergK.BoosM. (2003). Attitude change in computer-mediated communication: Effects of anonymity and category norms. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 405–422. doi:10.1177/13684302030064006
49.
SassenbergK.PostmesT. (2002), Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: Effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 463–480. doi:10.1348/014466602760344313
50.
SchachterS. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190–207. doi:10.1037/10646-004
51.
ScheepersD.BranscombeN. R.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (2002). The emergence and effects of deviants in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 611–617. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00506-1
52.
SteinelW.UtzS.KoningL. (2010). The good, the bad and the ugly thing to do when sharing information: Revealing, concealing and lying depend on social motivation, distribution and importance of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 85–96. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.07.001
53.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
54.
WeggeJ. (2000). Participation in group goal setting: Some novel findings and a comprehensive model as a new ending to an old story. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 498–516. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00028
55.
WeggeJ.HaslamS. A. (2003). Group goal setting, social identity, and self-categorization: Engaging the collective self to enhance group performance and organizational outcomes. In HaslamS. A.van KnippenbergD.PlatowM. J.EllemersN. (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 43–59). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
56.
WellenJ. M.NealM. (2006). Deviance, self-typicality, and group cohesion. Small Group Research, 37, 165–186. doi:10.1177/1046496406286420
57.
WrightS. C.TaylorD. M.MoghaddamF. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 994–1003. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.994
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
