It’s either you or me! Impact of deviations on social exclusion and leaving

Abstract

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.

Keywords

control identity subversion individual mobility norm violation schism social exclusion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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

Randsley de Moura

Travaglino

G. 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

Arrow

McGrath

J. E.

(1993). How member change and continuity affects small group structure, process, and performance. Small Group Research, 24, 334–361. doi:10.1177/1046496493243004

Blanz

Mummendey

Mielke

Klink

(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-#

Eby

L. T.

Meade

A. W.

Parisi

A. G.

Douthitt

S. 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

Eidelman

Biernat

(2003). Derogating black sheep: Individual or group protection? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 602–609. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00042-8

Eidelman

Silvia

P. J.

Biernat

(2006). Responding to deviance: Target exclusion and differential devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1153–1164. doi:10.1177/0146167206288720

Ellemers

Spears

Doosje

(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

Ellemers

Spears

Doosje

(2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161–186. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135228

10.

Euler

(2013, May 26). Schäfer-Gümbel verlässt Bayern München. Frankfurter Allgemeine. Retrieved from http://www.faz.net/-gzg-79ejj

11.

Fennis

B. M.

Aarts

(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.

Fischer

A. H.

Roseman

I. 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.

Frings

Abrams

Randsley de Moura

Marques

(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.

Fritsche

Schubert

T. W.

(2009). Go to hell! Determinants of motivated social exclusion. In Otten

Sassenberg

Kessler

(Eds.), Intergroup relations: The role of motivation and emotion (pp. 121–139). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

15.

Giessner

S. R.

van Knippenberg

(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.

Guinote

Brown

Fiske

(2006). Minority status decreases sense of control and increases interpretive processing. Social Cognition, 24, 169–186. doi:10.1521/soco.2006.24.2.169

17.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). PROCESS macro for SPSS. Retrieved from http://www.processmacro.org/download.html

18.

Hogg

M. A.

Hains

S. 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.

Hogg

M. A.

Hains

S. 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.

Hornsey

M. J.

Jetten

McAuliffe

B. J.

Hogg

M. 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.

Jackson

L. A.

Sullivan

L. A.

Harnish

Hodge

C. 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.

Juvonen

(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.

Leach

C. W.

van Zomeren

Zebel

Vliek

M. L. W.

Pennekamp

S. F.

Doosje

. . . Spears

(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.

Legate

DeHaan

C. R.

Weinstein

Ryan

R. M.

(2013). Hurting you hurts me too: The psychological costs of complying with ostracism. Psychological Science, 24, 583–588. doi:10.1177/0956797612457951

25.

Levine

J. M.

Moreland

R. L.

(1991). Culture and socialization in work groups. In Resnick

L. B.

Levine

J. M.

Teasley

S. D.

(Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 257–279). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

26.

Levine

J. M.

Moreland

R. L.

(1994). Group socialization: Theory and research. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 305–336. doi:10.1080/14792779543000093

27.

Levine

J. M.

Moreland

R. L.

Hausmann

L. M. R.

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

Marques

J. M.

Hogg

M. A.

(Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 137–160). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

28.

Lewis

Belliveau

Herndon

Keller

(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.

Mackie

D. M.

Devos

Smith

E. 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.

Marques

J. M.

Abrams

Paez

Hogg

M. A.

(2001). Social categorization, social identification, and rejection of deviant group members. In Hogg

M. A.

Tindale

(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 400–424). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

31.

Marques

J. M.

Abrams

Paez

Martinez-Taboada

(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.

Marques

J. M.

Abrams

Serôdio

R. 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.

Marques

J. M.

Paez

(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.

Marques

J. M.

Yzerbyt

V. 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.

Marques

J. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Leyens

J.-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.

McGarty

Turner

J. C.

Hogg

M. A.

David

Wetherell

M. 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.

Mummendey

Kessler

Klink

Mielke

(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.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

39.

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

40.

Prislin

Christensen

P. 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 Moura

Abrams

Marques

J. M.

Hutchison

(2010). Innovation credit. In Jetten

Hornsey

M. J.

(Eds.), Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference, and defiance (pp. 238–257). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

42.

Reicher

S. D.

Spears

Postmes

(1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161–198. doi:10.1080/14792779443000049

43.

Richard

F. D.

Bond

C. F.

Stokes-Zoota

J. 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.

Sani

(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.

Sani

Pugliese

A. 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.

Sani

Reicher

(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.

Sani

Todman

(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.

Sassenberg

Boos

(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.

Sassenberg

Postmes

(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.

Schachter

(1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190–207. doi:10.1037/10646-004

51.

Scheepers

Branscombe

N. R.

Spears

Doosje

(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.

Steinel

Utz

Koning

(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.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

54.

Wegge

(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.

Wegge

Haslam

S. A.

(2003). Group goal setting, social identity, and self-categorization: Engaging the collective self to enhance group performance and organizational outcomes. In Haslam

S. A.

van Knippenberg

Platow

M. J.

Ellemers

(Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 43–59). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

56.

Wellen

J. M.

Neal

(2006). Deviance, self-typicality, and group cohesion. Small Group Research, 37, 165–186. doi:10.1177/1046496406286420

57.

Wright

S. C.

Taylor

D. M.

Moghaddam

F. 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.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB