Pronorm and antinorm deviants: a test of the subjective group dynamics model

The authors replicated the study by D. Abrams, J. M. Marques, N. Bown, and M. Henson (2000, Study 2), performed to test the subjective group dynamics model (J. M. Marques, D. Abrams, D. Paez, & C. Martinez-Taboada, 1998). Participants were students enrolled in the psychology department at an Italian university. The present study considered the relationship between students and professors, and the attitude object was limited enrollment for admission to the department. Participants evaluated either in-group or out-group members. Findings replicated those of Abrams et al., except the in-group pronorm deviant was perceived to be less typical and evaluated less positively than the normative members. This finding suggests that, during an intergroup conflict, perception of the typicality of deviants exaggerating the in-group norms--and thus their evaluations--may increase as long as deviance is not perceived to be too accentuated.     

Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within and between groups

Participants evaluated other individuals who deviated in either an anti- or pro-normative direction relative to normative members. In Study 1, in-group gender-normative members were rated more positively than deviant members. The pro-norm deviant was viewed as more attractive than the anti-norm deviant. In Study 2 anti-norm in-group deviants were evaluated more negatively than anti-norm out-group deviants even though both held identical attitudes. In both studies, despite objective equivalence, pro-norm deviance was perceived as less "atypical" than anti-norm deviance. Judgments and reactions to deviance depend on group membership and the direction of deviance, not just its magnitude. Evaluations of deviants are also related to perceivers' identification with their own group. These findings are consistent with our model of subjective group dynamics.     

Contagion or restitution? When bad apples can motivate ethical behavior

When there is a “bad apple” in the group, are we more likely to follow the example or compensate for their sins? Three experiments showed that whether a group member’s unethical actions lead to contagion or restitution depends on the presence of out-group observers. In Experiment 1, participants were more likely to compensate for the transgression of an in-group member than an out-group member when there were out-group observers. Experiment 2 varied the presence of out-group observers and showed that such compensatory behaviors occur only in the presence of out-group members. We suggest that the presence of out-group observers trigger a self-categorization process that induces guilt in individuals for their group members’ transgressions. Indeed, associated guilt mediated the relationship between in-group member’s unethical behavior and participants’ compensatory behavior (Experiment 3). These results suggest that norms implied by others’ behavior and group categorization are important determinants of ethical behavior.     

Reactions to Intragroup Deviance: Does Disidentification Have a Role?

In this study, we address previous evidence about the interchangeable use of derogation and disidentification in protecting the self from intragroup deviance. We argue that when the in-group stands for a valued social identity, members may disidentify from the group, but only if the immediate context provides no opportunity to derogate. In the present experiments (n = 80 and n = 79), we provided or did not provide participants with the opportunity to recommend a punishment for an in-group or an out-group deviant. We also measured in-group identification before and after exposure to deviant behavior and after judgment. The results show that participants first disidentified from the in-group but, when presented with an opportunity to judge the deviant, also derogated. Importantly, participants who could judge the deviant also recovered their initial in-group identification level. Participants’ reactions to the out-group deviant suggest they used an intergroup rather than intragroup strategy.     

The emergence and effects of deviants in low and high status groups

We test the proposition, derived from social identity theory and the subjective group dynamics model, that a group member who undermines the in-group’s quest for positive status will be perceived as a “deviant.” Using a minimal group paradigm, participants (N=104) were assigned to either a high or a low status group. They were then confronted with an in-group member who claimed that the status differentials were either legitimate or illegitimate. We found that a group member who claimed that the status differences were legitimate in a low status group, or illegitimate in a high status group, was seen as less valuable to the in-group than a more neutral in-group member. Furthermore, such deviants were less likely to be selected for group leadership than neutral group members. Finally, the presence of a deviant undermined the cohesion of the group. The results are discussed in terms of the social functions of deviant rejection for obtaining or preserving positive group distinctiveness.     

Group-Based Trust in Strangers: The Role of Stereotypes and Expectations

ABSTRACT— Across two studies, we provide evidence for group-based trust in strangers. Specifically, when we offered participants a choice between an unknown monetary allocation made by an in-group (university or major) or an out-group allocator, both of whom had total control over the distribution of an identical sum of money, participants strongly preferred the in-group allocator. This preference occurred regardless of whether the stereotype of the in-group was relatively more positive or more negative than that of the out-group. However, this preference did not persist when participants believed that the allocator was unaware of their group membership. Measures of expected share of the allocator's funds support our hypothesis that differential trust of in-group members results from expectations of altruistic and fair behavior toward fellow in-group members rather than from positive stereotypes of the in-group.     

公共资源困境中领导对群体成员合作行为的影响

过去社会困境的领导研究大多都以被试作为领导, 发现贴上领导标签后, 被试倾向于拿取更多的公共资源, 从而有碍公共利益的实现。本研究指出, 如果领导的背叛行为能够使群体成员表现出自我节制行为的话, 那么设置领导则有可能促进公共利益的实现。研究通过三个实验, 考察领导与普通群体成员不同的行为方式以及领导的产生方式对群体成员行为的影响, 并检验公平理论和社会认同理论的解释力。研究结果表明, 领导表现出背叛行为时, 被试表现出更多的自我节制行为; 指派领导及外群体选举领导背叛时, 被试表现出更多的自我节制行为, 验证了社会认同理论的正确性。     

Is future self-relevance necessary to increase saving for retirement? A replication study

Insufficient saving for retirement is one consequence of excessive discounting of the future but attempts to mitigate it often involve costly or time-intensive personalized interventions. Marques, Mariano, Lima, and Abrams, by contrast, found that using a generic Future Time Perspective questionnaire to increase future “self-relevance” was an effective method to increase money allocation to retirement when the salience of future aging was also higher. Originally conducted in Portugal, the present study aimed to replicate Marques et al’s findings in the UK context. In the present study (n = 219), participants were shown a website advertising a financial product. The results support Marques and colleagues’ assertion that, alone, a website priming future aging was insufficient to increase retirement savings in a money allocation task. However, in contrast to Marques et al’s original findings, we find no evidence that future self-relevance moderates the effect such that priming future aging becomes effective when individuals have higher future self-relevance. Instead, we find that aging primes are ineffective at increasing retirement saving regardless of whether individuals are high or low in future self-relevance. Possible explanations for this discrepancy in findings, including methodological and cultural differences, are explored as well as directions for future research.     

The Influence of Legitimacy Appraisals on the Determinants of Entitlement Beliefs

We conducted a laboratory experiment to determine whether legitimacy appraisals (i.e., the extent to which an outcome distribution is thought to be fair and just) would influence the extent to which entitlement beliefs about wages were based on in-group wage comparison information and perceptions of one's own performance. To manipulate legitimacy appraisals, participants were led to believe that the wage allocation procedure was unbiased, potentially biased, or biased. In addition, they were exposed to wage comparison information, indicating that in-group members had earned more than out-group members in the past or vice versa. Results show that, when procedures were thought to be unbiased, participants' beliefs about the amounts they deserved to be paid were influenced more by in-group wage comparison information than perceptions of their own performance. In contrast, when participants perceived allocation procedures to be biased, entitlement beliefs were influenced more by perceptions of their own performance than by in-group wage comparison information. These findings are presented in terms of the paradoxical contentment often observed among members of objectively disadvantaged groups.     

Individual versus collective responses to membership in a low-status group: the effects of stability and individual ability

To test predictions of social identity theory (SIT; M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams, 1988; H. Tajfel & J. C. Turner, 1979) and the 5-stage model (FSM; D. M. Taylor & D. J. McKirnan, 1984) concerning reactions to membership in a low-status group, the authors led 112 pupils to believe that another (anonymous) class outperformed their class. In an overall permeable and legitimate intergroup context, the authors manipulated the stability of the low group status and the individual ability of the group members. Contrary to SIT and FSM, the pupils generally favored collective normative action. Individual mobility was preferred only by group members, especially boys, with high individual ability who thought that the low status of their group was stable. The results support FSM assumptions (a) that individual ability is a powerful determinant of intergroup behavior but (b) that one should consider its impact in combination with perceived stability.     

Implicit associations as the seeds of intergroup bias: how easily do they take root?

Three experiments provided evidence that intergroup bias occurs automatically under minimal conditions, using the Implicit Association Test (IAT). In Experiment 1, participants more readily paired in-group names with pleasant words and out-group names with unpleasant words, even when they were experienced only with the in-group and had no preconceptions about the out-group. Participants in Experiment 2 likewise showed an automatic bias favoring the in-group, even when in-group/out-group exemplars were completely unfamiliar and identifiable only with the use of a heuristic. In Experiment 3, participants displayed a pro-in-group IAT bias following a minimal group manipulation. Taken together, the results demonstrate the ease with which intergroup bias emerges even in unlikely conditions.     

Selective Self-Categorization: Meaningful Categorization and the In-Group Persuasion Effect

ABSTRACT

Research stemming from self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987 Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. and Wetherell, M. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory, Oxford, , England: Basil Blackwell. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) has demonstrated that individuals are typically more persuaded by messages from their in‐group than by messages from the out-group. The present research investigated the role of issue relevance in moderating these effects. In particular, it was predicted that in-groups would only be more persuasive when the dimension on which group membership was defined was meaningful or relevant to the attitude issue. In two studies, participants were presented with persuasive arguments from either an in-group source or an out-group source, where the basis of the in-group/out-group distinction was either relevant or irrelevant to the attitude issue. Participants' attitudes toward the issue were then measured. The results supported the predictions: Participants were more persuaded by in-group sources than out-group sources when the basis for defining the group was relevant to the attitude issue. However, when the defining characteristic of the group was irrelevant to the attitude issue, participants were equally persuaded by in-group and out-group sources. These results support the hypothesis that the fit between group membership and domain is an important moderator of self-categorization effects.     

Choosing the best means to an end: The influence of ingroup goals on the selection of representatives in intergroup negotiations

According to Scheepers, Spears, Doosje, & Manstead (2006), instrumental goals refer to the maximization of profit whereas identity goals are associated with the attainment of a positive social identity. In two experiments, we show that when negotiations are purely instrumental individuals prefer pro-outgroup deviants as representatives (Experiments 1 and 2). In contrast, when negotiations are identity-related, group members increase their preference for normative (Experiments 1 and 2) and pro-ingroup deviants (Experiment 1). Furthermore, these goals also impact perceptions of typicality of group members. Taken together, these results suggest strategic acceptance of deviance when the goal is to bring the other party to concede and increased preference for normativity when identity is the group's main preoccupation. We discuss implications of these results for research on negotiation as well as on the influence of the intergroup context on intragroup dynamics.     

Individual Versus Collective Responses to Membership in a Low-Status Group: The Effects of Stability and Individual Ability

Abstract

To test predictions of social identity theory (SIT; M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams, 1988; H. Tajfel & J. C. Turner, 1979) and the 5-stage model (FSM; D. M. Taylor & D. J. McKirnan, 1984) concerning reactions to membership in a low-status group, the authors led 112 pupils to believe that another (anonymous) class outperformed their class. In an overall permeable and legitimate intergroup context, the authors manipulated the stability of the low group status and the individual ability of the group members. Contrary to SIT and FSM, the pupils generally favored collective normative action. Individual mobility was preferred only by group members, especially boys, with high individual ability who thought that the low status of their group was stable. The results support FSM assumptions (a) that individual ability is a powerful determinant of intergroup behavior but (b) that one should consider its impact in combination with perceived stability.     

Memory for in-group and out-group information in a minimal group context: the self as an informational base

The authors argue that persons derive in-group expectancies from self-knowledge. This implies that perceivers process information about novel in-groups on the basis of the self-congruency of this information and not simply its valence. In Experiment 1, participants recalled more negative self-discrepant behaviors about an in-group than about an out-group. Experiment 2 replicated this effect under low cognitive load but not under high load. Experiment 3 replicated the effect using an idiographic procedure. These findings suggest that perceivers engage in elaborative inconsistency processing when they encounter negative self-discrepant information about an in-group but not when they encounter negative self-congruent information. Participants were also more likely to attribute self-congruent information to the in-group than to the out-group, regardless of information valence. Implications for models of social memory and self-categorization theory are discussed.     

What Is Social about Justice? Inclusive Identity and Group Values as the Basis of the Justice Motive

Three studies tested the claim that the justice motive is based on commitment to the perceived values of the “primary category” of potential recipients of an allocation. In Study 1, participants who identified more strongly with their group regarded a member who represented the group's strengths as more entitled to a common profit. In Study 2, participants judged their own entitlement versus that of a member who represented the group's strengths. Members who identified more strongly with their group were less likely to display self-interest in their judgments. In Study 3, participants judged the entitlement of an in-group member representing out-group strengths versus an out-group member representing in-group strengths. When identification with the primary category (including in-group and out-group) was strong, members who identified more strongly with their in-group viewed the out-group member representing in-group values as more deserving.     

Relations of self-esteem concerns, group identification, and self-stereotyping to in-group favoritism

In 2 studies, the author examined the effect of collective self-esteem (CSE; J. Crocker & R. Luhtanen, 1993) on people's willingness to display in-group favoritism. To test that self-esteem hypothesis, he measured public CSE, rather than private CSE, because the former parallels a threat to social identity, a state believed to motivate in-group favoritism. Furthermore, the author explored whether group identification and self-stereotyping moderated the effect of public CSE on in-group favoritism. The participants were 92 British and Dutch university employees. As expected, participants high in public CSE displayed more in-group favoritism than did those low in public CSE. Moreover, group identification and self-stereotyping appeared to moderate the effect of CSE.     

Forming implicit and explicit attitudes toward individuals: social group association cues

The authors explored how social group cues (e.g., obesity, physical attractiveness) strongly associated with valence affect the formation of attitudes toward individuals. Although explicit attitude formation has been examined in much past research (e.g., S. T. Fiske & S. L. Neuberg, 1990), in the current work, the authors considered how implicit as well as explicit attitudes toward individuals are influenced by these cues. On the basis of a systems of evaluation perspective (e.g., R. J. Rydell & A. R. McConnell, 2006; R. J. Rydell, A. R. McConnell, D. M. Mackie, & L. M. Strain, 2006), the authors anticipated and found that social group cues had a strong impact on implicit attitude formation in all cases and on explicit attitude formation when behavioral information about the target was ambiguous. These findings obtained for cues related to obesity (Experiments 1 and 4) and physical attractiveness (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, parallel findings were observed for race, and participants holding greater implicit racial prejudice against African Americans formed more negative implicit attitudes toward a novel African American target person than did participants with less implicit racial prejudice. Implications for research on attitudes, impression formation, and stigma are discussed.     

Social dominance orientation and group context in implicit group prejudice

We tested the joint influence of individual difference and situational factors on implicit group prejudice. Participants in Experiments 1 and 2 were briefly shown in-group or out-group pronouns prior to evaluating good or bad trait adjectives. Under standard conditions (Experiment 1), there was no difference between participants with high and low social dominance orientation (SDO), but when the intergroup context was made more salient (Experiment 2), high-SDO participants alone showed implicit group prejudice. Implications for the malleability and consensuality of implicit prejudice are discussed.