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.     

Hypocrites or maligned cooperative participants? Experimenter induced normative conflict in zero-sum situations

The failure to recognize the influence of two distinct forms of moral norms can lead to the misattribution of moral behavior to egoistic motives. This is illustrated in the research of Batson and his colleagues (e.g., Batson, Kobrynowicz, Dinnerstein, Kampf, & Wilson, 1997). They reported the appearance of moral failure and hypocrisy motivation in several experiments employing essentially the same “zero-sum” experimental situation. They cited as evidence the discrepancy between participants’ apparently self-serving private acts and their subsequent public ratings of the morality of what they had done as well as their recognition of the “most” moral way to behave. The research reported here supported an alternative explanation that located the experimenter’s implicit and explicit instructions as the source of the discrepancy between the participants’ private acts and their public ratings. The findings confirmed the hypothesis that Batson and his colleagues had not merely made moral norms “salient”. They had actually presented their participants with contradictory “demands”: explicitly inviting them to meet the norm of justified self-interest in private but then give public lip-service to the experimenter’s instructions as to a supererogatory way to behave. When either of the demands was removed, the “hypocrisy” no longer occurred.     

A Mind of Her Own: Effects of Need for Closure and Gender on Reactions to Nonconformity

Research on opinion deviance suggests thatconformity and agreement with the established majorityis generally valued in groups. The present studyexamines how motivations for cognitive closure mayinfluence reactions to conforming and deviating membersbased on accessible gender role expectations. Caucasianmales and females participated in a group discussionwith confederates who either conformed or deviated from the majority opinion. Results showed thatgroup members motivated to reach cognitive closurenegatively evaluated female opinion deviants relative toconformists. However, contrary to previous research findings, they did not derogate male deviants.Motivation to avoid closure led to different evaluativepatterns by male and female evaluators. In addition toimportantly modifying results obtained by Kruglanski and Webster (1991) regarding closure motivationand conformity versus deviance, the current results arealso informative regarding gender role expectations andintra-group interactions. Limitations and implications of these results are alsodiscussed.     

The unpacking effect in allocations of responsibility for group tasks

Individuals tend to overestimate their relative contributions to collaborative endeavors. Thus, the sum of group members’ estimates of the percentage they each contributed to a joint task typically exceeds the logically allowable 100%. We suggest that this tendency stems partly from individuals’ inclination to regard their fellow group members as a collective rather than as individuals, and that leading people to think about their collaborators as individuals should therefore reduce the perceived relative magnitude of their own contributions. Consistent with this thesis, four experiments demonstrate that people’s tendency to claim more than their fair share of the credit for a group task is attenuated when they “unpack” their collaborators, conceptualizing them as separate individuals, rather than as “the rest of the group.”     

“How many bad apples does it take to spoil the whole barrel?”: Social exclusion and toleration for bad apples

In social dilemmas, where personal welfare is in conflict with collective welfare, there are inherent incentives to act non-cooperatively. Moreover, there is evidence that the example of a few uncooperative group members (“bad apples”) is more influential than the example of comparable numbers of cooperative members (a bad apple effect). Two studies are reported that examine the functional relationship between the number of likely bad apples and individual cooperation, and whether and when the threat of social exclusion for uncooperative behavior may effectively counter the temptation to follow the example of such “bad apples”. It is shown that (a) the threat of exclusion is sufficient to counter the temptation to follow a few bad apples’ example, (b) such threats cannot, however, overcome the cooperation-degrading effects of large numbers (e.g., a majority) of bad apples, and (c) the effectiveness of such threats may be greater in relatively smaller groups.     

Loyal peripherals? The interactive effects of identification and peripheral group membership on deviance from non-beneficial ingroup norms

For ensuring the well-being of groups, people are needed who deviate from ingroup norms that harm the group (“loyal deviance”). Qualifying previous results that loyal deviants have to be highly identified with the group, we hypothesize and show that this is only true when group members at the same time feel that they are highly prototypical for the group. No such effects occurred for peripheral members. In all three studies (N1 = 207, N2 = 115, N3 = 107), we measured people's intention to conform to a non-beneficial (vs. beneficial; Study 1) ingroup norm, self-investment in the group, and perceived (manipulated in Study 3) marginalization. Obviously, dissent from non-beneficial norms requires both a deep psychological investment in the group as well as secure ingroup membership. Implications are discussed.     

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.     

In matters of opinion, what matters is the group: Minority group members’ emotional reactions to messages about identity expression

Two studies investigated the reactions of minority group members to messages about identity expression by ingroup and outgroup sources. Our main hypothesis was that compared to ingroup sources, outgroup sources arouse more anger when they argue for identity suppression. In the first study homosexuals evaluated an outgroup source arguing for identity suppression more negatively than an ingroup source, felt more threatened by this source and as a result, experienced stronger feelings of anger towards this source. The second study among members of a language-based minority replicated and extended these findings. Furthermore we showed that the anger that is experienced towards an outgroup source causes a willingness to change the opinion of this source. When ingroup or outgroup sources supported identity expression, evaluations and experience of anger did not differ in both studies. The importance of a source’s group membership in reactions to opinions about one’s group is discussed.     

Minority Opinions: Antecedents and Benefits of Expression

A great deal of social psychological research has focused on antecedents of conformity to the majority. The present article, however, reviews the various conditions under which people express minority opinions. First, minority opinion expression is especially pronounced among individuals who hold either strong attitudes or attitudes that deviate from the majority in a direction consistent with the desirable group attitude. Second, minority opinion expression increases to the extent that highly‐identified group members believe that expressing minority opinions will promote their group’s welfare, or to the extent that one’s membership in a particular social category entitles him/her to speak up. Third, minority opinion expression increases when people’s motives to have a unique or clearly defined sense of self are salient. It is argued that these sources of minority opinion expression can help shed light on the functional value of such opinions for individuals.     

The closeness-communication bias: Increased egocentrism among friends versus strangers

People commonly believe that they communicate better with close friends than with strangers. We propose, however, that closeness can lead people to overestimate how well they communicate, a phenomenon we term the closeness-communication bias. In one experiment, participants who followed direction of a friend were more likely to make egocentric errors—look at and reach for an object only they could see—than were those who followed direction of a stranger. In two additional experiments, participants who attempted to convey particular meanings with ambiguous phrases overestimated their success more when communicating with a friend or spouse than with strangers. We argue that people engage in active monitoring of strangers’ divergent perspectives because they know they must, but that they “let down their guard” and rely more on their own perspective when they communicate with a friend.     

Gender,residual deviance,and social control

Focusing on gendered aspects of informal social control, we use a societal reaction approach to examine 15 years of students’ gender norm violation projects. Three predictions regarding differential reaction to women's and men's residual deviance are (a) that there will be no gender differences, (b) that those with less power and status (women) will be sanctioned more or (c) that those with more status resources (men) will be monitored and reacted to more. We discuss methodological advantages of using norm violations to study informal social control. Findings contribute to a more complete theory of how societal reactions to residual deviance are mediated by gender. There were large gender differences in what students chose to do regarding norm violations and little change over time. Male “deviants” were censured more in terms of negativity, strength of reaction, laughter, and homophobia; female “deviants” were censured more as targets of verbal and sexual remarks. We discuss the need for more attention to gender‐specific types of reaction and the role of homophobia in informal social control of men.     

Was It One of Us? How People Cope with Misconduct by Fellow Ingroup Members

How do group members cope with misconduct by members of their own group? Strong evidence for a positive bias in people's evaluations of their own group and its members suggests that an ingroup perpetrator is likely to be treated more leniently than an outgroup perpetrator. However, research has also demonstrated a “Black Sheep‐Effect”, such that ingroup members who deviate negatively from relevant ingroup norms are evaluated and punished even more harshly than outgroup deviants. Both reactions – positive ingroup bias and the Black Sheep Effect – may serve the same goal, namely maintaining positive regard for the ingroup. In this paper, we present several moderators that have been shown to affect responses to negative ingroup deviance. We propose a model that incorporates and organizes these moderators in order to predict whether negatively deviant ingroup members will receive especially lenient or rather harsh and negative evaluations from their fellow ingroup members.     

A license to speak up: Outgroup minorities and opinion expression

Four studies examined the relationship between outgroup minority status, defined as both belonging to a different social category and holding a different opinion than other group members, and opinion expression. Specifically, it was hypothesized - and results confirmed - that outgroup minorities would be more willing to express their opinions on an issue when their social category membership granted them psychological standing (i.e., a subjective sense of entitlement to act) than when it did not. Implications for the roles of social category membership and psychological standing in opinion expression, and for how to encourage diverse viewpoints to emerge in group contexts, are discussed.     

Unrelated look-alikes: Replicated study of personality similarity and qualitative findings on social relatedness

Twin research critics assert that similar treatment of monozygotic (MZ) twins results from their matched physical appearance, and that their similar treatment explains their within-pair behavioral similarities. A genetic explanation of MZ twins’ resemblance is, thereby, dismissed. To address this challenge, Segal (2013) found a lack of similarity in personality and self-esteem in pairs of unrelated look-alike individuals. The present study describes a constructive replication of that work, confirming these findings. It also presents an analysis of social relatedness within U-LA pairs. Most participants expressed moderate to little social closeness and familiarity, upon meeting and subsequently, over an average 8.98 year period (SD = 7.82). A qualitative analysis of U-LAs’ responses to unstructured social relationship questions further explored their perceptions of, and responses to, their physical resemblance. Participants were generally divided as to perceptions of “some” physical resemblance and “no” physical resemblance upon meeting; two-thirds indicated “some” resemblance at the time of the study. Reactions to their physical resemblance were distributed among positive reactions, negative reactions and within-pair contrasts. Theories addressing the bases of social relatedness provide context for these findings.     

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.     

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.     

In search of the “Rescue Personality”. A questionnaire study with emergency medical services personnel

The construct of the “Rescue Personality” as claimed by Mitchell (1983) in the course of Critical Incident Stress Debriefing was investigated in a sample of 173 Emergency Medical Services (EMSs) personnel. As hypothesized EMS personnel scored lower on neuroticism and openness but higher on conscientiousness and risk and competition seeking compared with a norm sample. By contrast, EMS personnel showed lower scores for agreeableness and no differences for extraversion. Duration of EMS service was not associated with personality except for extraversion preliminarily supporting a predisposition model. Furthermore, EMS volunteers did not differ from EMS professionals regarding personality, again except for extraversion. These results provide first evidence for most of Mitchell’s assumptions concerning the “Rescue Personality”. Implications for vocational choice, prevention and crisis intervention are discussed.