Black sheep effect

Inter-group and intragroup processes have long been a focus of research by social psychologists. Among these processes, the so-called Black Sheep Effect (BSE; e.g. & Paez, 1994) is of particular interest to the present work. According to Marques and colleagues, individuals derogate deviant ingroup members and upgrade normative ingroup members relative to their outgroup counterparts as an emotional reaction to these members. According to Subjective Group Dynamics Theory (e.g. Pinto, Marques, Levine & Abrams, 2010) these reactions ensue from individuals' motivation to uphold a positive social identity. Whereas normative ingroup members sustain such identity and thus yield positive emotional reactions, deviant ingroup members threaten it and thus yield negative emotional reactions. Recently, these processes have drawn the attention of social neuroscience researchers (cf. Amodio, 2008). These researchers demonstrated that displays of ingroup favouritism and ingroup bias are associated with individuals' strong neural responses to the ingroup faces (cf. Ratner & Amodio, 2013). However, although the BSE has been extensively studied, the neural mechanisms involved in the operation of subjective group dynamics and, specifically, in the BSE have not yet been examined. In the present study we explored the ERP correlates of this effect.

The fact that many issues that are not perceived as threatsor risks within the framework of the traditional understanding of security have come to the agenda in different areas under changing world conditions has also affected security approaches. Many issues such as globalisation, the end of the Cold War, developments in technology, new states gaining their freedoms, new types of armament, demographic factors, scarcity of resources, ecological changes have become the subject of study in the field of security. In addition, the problematic of “whose security will be ensured against whom and how” has differed in the approaches and answers of each theory from its own paradigm.

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.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, societies face the formidable challenge of developing sustainable forms of sociability-cumsocial-distancingenduring social life while containing the virus and preventing new outbreaks. Accordant public policies often balance between retributive (punishment-based) and assistance (solidarity-based) measures to foster responsible behaviour. Yet, the uncontrolled spreading of the disease has divided public opinion about which measures are best suited, and it has made salient group disparities in behaviour, potentially straining intergroup relations, elevating heated emotions, and undercutting coordinated international responses. In a 2 9 2 betweensubjects experiment, British citizens (N = 377) read about national ingroup or outgroup members (categorical differentiation), who were either conforming to or deviating from the corona regulations (normative differentiation). Participants then reported moral emotions towards the target national group and indicated support for public policies. In general, support for assistance policies outweighed support for retributive measures. Second, however, norm deviation was associated with less positive and more negative moral emotions, the latter category further relating to more punitiveness and less assistance support. Finally, respondents who read about norm-violating outgroup members especially reported support for retributive measures, indicating that people might use norm deviation to justify outgroup derogation. We discuss implications for policymakers and formulate future research avenues.

Much research has demonstrated the power of social norms to affect proenvironmental behavior and conservation-related attitudes and beliefs in traditional “offline” social contexts. With the emergence of social media and citizen science platforms that allow for socially coordinated conservation efforts at scale comes a need to better understand the influence of social norms in online contexts. The present experiment explored effects of norm violations on impression formation and intergroup judgments within the context of Habitat Network, a socially networked mapping application where users create and share virtual representations (maps) of their properties. Results revealed that when participants viewed a map depicting the violation of a strongly held group norm—namely, the presence of an outdoor (vs. indoor) pet cat—they judged the map owner as significantly less likely to engage in a variety of proenvironmental behaviors. Importantly, this effect emerged despite evidence that the ...

Participants evaluated other individuals who deviated in either an ami-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. Research on group deviance usually focuses on group members whose behavior or characteristics reduce the group's distinctiveness, contradict its stereotype, or threaten its goals (Levine, 1989). According to self-categorization theory, in-group norms embody the behaviors or features that members should adopt and that maintain distinctiveness from the out-group (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). In-group members who do not follow such norms will reduce the clarity of intergroup boundaries and, hence, should attract less positive evaluations than more normative members. However, deviants who are pro-normative should be judged as more prototypical than those who are anti-normative, because the former are more distant from the out-group. Therefore the perceived prototypicality of pro-norm deviants should be heightened when intergroup comparisons are salient.

for their gracious comments, encouragement, and support throughout this process. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, David and Irma Estrada, my sister, Vanessa Estrada, and my partner, Frank Magaña. Thank you for always believing in my abilities, encouraging my goals, and for your endless support.

Participants evaluated other individuals who deviated in either an ami-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. Research on group deviance usually focuses on group members whose behavior or characteristics reduce the group's distinctiveness, contradict its stereotype, or threaten its goals (Levine, 1989). According to self-categorization theory, in-group norms embody the behaviors or features that members should adopt and that maintain distinctiveness from the out-group (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). In-group members who do not follow such norms will reduce the clarity of intergroup boundaries and, hence, should attract less positive evaluations than more normative members. However, deviants who are pro-normative should be judged as more prototypical than those who are anti-normative, because the former are more distant from the out-group. Therefore the perceived prototypicality of pro-norm deviants should be heightened when intergroup comparisons are salient.

This is Study 2 reported in a paper by Abrams, Travaglino et al. on the Deviant Ingroup Protection Effect, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Methods complied with APA ethical standards and were approved by the University of Kent's Psychology ethics board (ID 2011855) The data are in an SPSS .sav file called DIP_Study2_Tax Design Participants viewed and evaluated either six In-Category or six Out-Category groups. Measures for the four 'consolidator'groups were averaged so that data were analysed in a 2 (Category: In-Category vs Out-Category) x 3 (Group: accentuator, consolidator, attenuator) design with repeated measures on the Group factor. Participants One-hundred-and-sixty-five US residents were recruited from the crowdsourcing platform Academic Prolific. To ensure there were equal numbers of participants in our Norm Validity factor (In-Category Valid vs. Out-Category Valid), participants were first pre-screened and answered the subjective validity m...

Intergroup attitudes are shared perceptions that members of one group have for members of another group. The fact that people belong to the same group or are part of a separate and distinct social group often influences perceptions of each other. The social identity approach (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) asserts that social categories provide members with a social identity. It further holds that the process of social comparison in an intergroup setting often leads to intergroup differentiation. The social context in which these groups are placed often governs the nature of stereotypes. This study attempts to explore these dynamics amongst two groups with varying historical experiences. For the study, 150 respondents were taken, with 65 belonging to the Hindu community and 85 from the Muslim community. To assess the manner in which people of one group perceived themselves and members of the other group, they were asked to write five positive and five negative qualities about their group and those associated with the other group. They also rated the ingroup and outgroup on an adjective rating scale. The rating was done on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 "very little" to 5 "very much". The result shows that both Hindus and Muslims rated their groups more positively in comparison to the other groups. However, on the open-ended question, the desire for positive distinctiveness for the ingroup was not very evident.

In the classic black sheep effect (BSE) an ingroup deviant member is usually evaluated more negatively than the corresponding outgroup deviant. This effect is usually obtained by using scenarios and asking people to imagine the situation as vividly as possible. The present study proposes a new method to investigate the BSE by considering the behavioral and physiological reactions to unfair behavior (aggressive game behavior) in a realistic experimental group-setting. The study involved 52 university students in a minimal group setting who performed a modified version of the competitive reaction time (CRT) task adapted to be played in groups of four people. The classic BSE was replicated for evaluation but not for the behavioral reactions (retaliate to aggression) to deviants. More interestingly, a negative relationship emerged in the ingroup deviant condition between the level of behavioral derogation and the systolic blood pressure level.

Two studies explored responses to ingroup deviance. Group-defining opinions of prowar Republicans (Study 1) and prolife Christians (Study 2) were challenged by either an ingroup or outgroup deviate. Participants evaluated the deviate and structured the boundaries of their ingroup in counterbalanced order. Of importance, boundary structuring allowed participants to exclude deviates from the ingroup. Consistent with previous research, ingroup deviates were devalued relative to out-group deviates, but only when target evaluation was participants' first response option. Participants excluded deviates from the boundaries of their ingroup irrespective of measure order, and doing so eliminated differential devaluation when exclusion was participants' first response option. Exclusion decreased liking for outgroup deviates in Study 1 and increased liking for ingroup deviates in Study 2. The findings suggest that devaluation is an attempt to exclude deviates from the ingroup and that ...

This research was designed to gain further insight into the psychological mechanisms underlying the "black sheep effect" (e.g.. Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988) using a paradigm that allowed us to address 2 potential limitations of previous research in this area. First, unlike earlier work, this research varied the group membership of the observer in combination with that of the target (i.e., an Observer x Target design), which is necessary to provide a strict test of the black sheep effect. Second, we relied on a manipulation of group membership that was more subtle than that employed by previous research. This allowed us to test whether participants would spontaneously (i,e., without prompting by the experimenter) use group membership as a basis for derogating dislikeable members ofthe ingroup. These issues were explored using a "get acquainted paradigm" in which male or female participants read transcripts of a conversation between 2 students whose apparent gender was manipulated by varying only their first names (e.g., Jim vs. Ann). The existence of both ingroup favoritism and black sheep effects was successfiilly demonstrated in this paradigm, although the magnitude of these effects was stronger for female than for male participants. Implications of these results for a theoretical framework presented by Marques andhis colleagues as well as recent models of assimilation and contrast are discussed.

According to Scheepers and colleagues (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 & 2). In contrast, when negotiations are identity-related, group members increase their preference for normative (Experiments 1 & 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.

Two studies explored responses to ingroup deviance. Group-defining opinions of prowar Republicans (Study 1) and prolife Christians (Study 2) were challenged by either an ingroup or outgroup deviate. Participants evaluated the deviate and structured the boundaries of their ingroup in counterbalanced order. Of importance, boundary structuring allowed participants to exclude deviates from the ingroup. Consistent with previous research, ingroup deviates were devalued relative to out-group deviates, but only when target evaluation was participants' first response option. Participants excluded deviates from the boundaries of their ingroup irrespective of measure order, and doing so eliminated differential devaluation when exclusion was participants' first response option. Exclusion decreased liking for outgroup deviates in Study 1 and increased liking for ingroup deviates in Study 2. The findings suggest that devaluation is an attempt to exclude deviates from the ingroup and that ...

Extremism can be characterized by extreme attitudes and extreme actions. However, in order to understand extremism one first has to develop a sense of normality and normativity. Social Psychology might contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of why and how people evaluate a person or a certain behavior as either normal or as extreme. According to the ingroup projection model,1 groups provide a frame of reference for the included individuals and subgroups. The ingroup prototype defines what is perceived as normal and what is deviant and extreme within this group. Individuals or groups that are not perceived as fitting the prototypical characteristics will be devalued or even excluded. This process of normative differentiation may be particularly problematic between groups that share a common superordinate group, in which each subgroup tends to generalize and project its attributes onto frames of reference for the common superordinate group. In this way, normative differentia...

This study examined how members of functionally independent work groups (bank employees) evaluated behavioral deviance among in-group and out-group members. Members' behavior was either modal (normative) or deviant in relation to workplace norms, and members were either likeable or unlikeable. Based on social identity theory (Tajfel &Turner, 1979) and on the black-sheep effect (e.g., Marques & Paez, 1994), it was predicted that both unlikeability and deviance would result in more negative evaluations. It was also predicted that behavior that challenged prescriptive in-group standards would result in relative derogation of in-group targets compared to similar out-group targets (the evaluative extremity effect). These hypotheses were supported. Discussion focuses on how evaluations of deviant group members help to preserve a positive sense of social identity. Practical implications of social deviance in the workplace are considered.

The present study examines how metaperceptions can be affected by intergroup processes. Our main goal was to investigate how our expectations for how others see us are affected by the valence of the perception we believe outgroup members have of our group and the extent to which we perceive ourselves to be prototypical members of our group. 800 psychology students indicated how they thought outgroup members perceived their ingroup (metaperception of ingroup) and their self-reported level of prototypicality, in order to test the effects of these variables on how participants expected to be perceived by outgroup members (metaperception of self), their feelings of intergroup anxiety, their interest in contact with the outgroup, and the extent to which they believed outgroup members were interested in contact with them. Participants’ metaperceptions were predicted by beliefs about outgroup members’ perceptions of their groups, and particularly for those who considered themselves to be p...

Leaders often deviate from group norms or social conventions, sometimes innovating and sometimes engaging in serious transgressions or illegality. We propose that group members are prone to be more permissive toward both forms of deviance in the case of ingroup leaders compared to other ingroup members or outgroup members and leaders. This granting of "deviance credit" is hypothesized to be underpinned by perceptions of an ingroup leader's prototypicality of the group ("accrual") and belief that occupancy of the role confers a right to be supported ("conferral"). Analyses of data from four studies demonstrate that both accrual and conferral (1) mediate evaluations, inclusion and punishment of deviant leaders, and (2) they make independent contributions to deviance credit. Implications for leadership, marginalization, corruption, innovation, and transformation are discussed. Social change arises if and when people are persuaded to embrace an alternative to the prevailing social reality, a process often spearheaded by group leaders.