Group Membership and Deviance Punishment: Are Deviant Ingroup Members Actually Judged more Negatively than Outgroup Ones?

Deviance Punishment is an important issue for social-psychological research. Group members tend to punish deviance through rejection, ostracism and – more commonly - negative judgments. Subjective Group Dynamics proposes to account for social judgement patterns of deviant and conformist individuals. Relying on a group identity management perspective, one of the model’s core predictions is that the judgment of a deviant target depends on group membership. More specifically, the model predicts that deviant ingroup members should be judged more negatively than outgroup ones. Although this effect has been repeatedly observed over the past decades, there is a current lack of sufficiently powered studies in the literature. For the first time, we conducted tests of Subjective Group Dynamics in France and the US to investigate whether ingroup deviants were judged more harshly than outgroup ones. Across six experiments and an internal mini meta-analysis, we observed no substantial difference in judgment between ingroup and outgroup deviant targets, d = -0.01, 95% CI[-0.07, 0.06]. The findings’ implications for deviance management research are discussed.

[1]  N. Bonnardel,et al.  The Normative Features of Creativity: Creative Individuals are Judged to be Warmer and More Competent , 2020 .

[2]  J. Henrich,et al.  Psychology as a Historical Science. , 2020, Annual review of psychology.

[3]  T. Kessler,et al.  Of deadly beans and risky stocks: Political ideology and attitude formation via exploration depend on the nature of the attitude stimuli. , 2019, British journal of psychology.

[4]  Paul Rock Deviance , 2019, Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine.

[5]  E. Bonetto,et al.  To resist or not to resist? Investigating the normative features of resistance to persuasion , 2019, Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology.

[6]  J. Levine,et al.  Deviance Credit: Tolerance of Deviant Ingroup Leaders is Mediated by Their Accrual of Prototypicality and Conferral of Their Right to Be Supported , 2018 .

[7]  Ken Kelley,et al.  Sample-Size Planning for More Accurate Statistical Power: A Method Adjusting Sample Effect Sizes for Publication Bias and Uncertainty , 2017, Psychological science.

[8]  Joon-ho Kim,et al.  Social Distance Scale , 2017 .

[9]  Neil A. Lewis,et al.  Has Stereotype Threat Dissipated Over Time? A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis , 2017 .

[10]  Jin X. Goh,et al.  Mini Meta-Analysis of Your Own Studies: Some Arguments on Why and a Primer on How , 2016 .

[11]  Jeffrey W. Sherman,et al.  On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress , 2016 .

[12]  Qing-guo Ma,et al.  Ingroup favoritism or the black sheep effect: Perceived intentions modulate subjective responses to aggressive interactions , 2016, Neuroscience Research.

[13]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Promoting an open research culture , 2015, Science.

[14]  D. Trafimow,et al.  Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[15]  S. Livi,et al.  Reactions to Ingroup and Outgroup Deviants: An Experimental Group Paradigm for Black Sheep Effect , 2015, PloS one.

[16]  Axel Cleeremans,et al.  ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MIRROR: PRIMING IN COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY , 2014 .

[17]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience , 2013, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[18]  Peter Filzmoser,et al.  Meta-analysis: Fact or fiction? How to interpret meta-analyses , 2011, The world journal of biological psychiatry : the official journal of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry.

[19]  G. Monaco,et al.  Using the Black Sheep Effect to reveal normative stakes: The example of alcohol drinking contexts , 2011 .

[20]  Dominic Abrams,et al.  Membership status and subjective group dynamics: who triggers the black sheep effect? , 2010, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  Dominic Abrams,et al.  Social Categorization, Social Identification, and Rejection of Deviant Group Members , 2008 .

[22]  F. C. Santos,et al.  The evolution of norms. , 2006, Journal of theoretical biology.

[23]  Jolanda Jetten,et al.  Individuality and the Group: Advances in Social Identity , 2006 .

[24]  M. Hogg,et al.  Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms , 2006 .

[25]  Rajiv N. Rimal,et al.  An Explication of Social Norms , 2005 .

[26]  D. Abrams,et al.  The development of subjective group dynamics: children's judgments of normative and deviant in-group and out-group individuals. , 2003, Child development.

[27]  D. Abrams,et al.  Ingroup identification moderates stereotype change in reaction to ingroup deviance , 2003 .

[28]  Rajiv N. Rimal,et al.  Understanding the Influence of Perceived Norms on Behaviors , 2003 .

[29]  V. Yzerbyt,et al.  Protecting the ingroup stereotype: ingroup identification and the management of deviant ingroup members. , 2002, The British journal of social psychology.

[30]  Vincent Leemans,et al.  Protecting the Ingroup: Motivated Allocation of Cognitive Resources in the Presence of Threatening Ingroup Members , 2001 .

[31]  John C. Turner,et al.  The Role of Personality and Group Factors in Explaining Prejudice , 2001 .

[32]  Richard A. Berk,et al.  Statistical Assumptions as Empirical Commitments , 2001 .

[33]  Gihong Yi,et al.  The Politics of Ethnic Nationalism in Divided Korea , 1999 .

[34]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Stimulus Sampling and Social Psychological Experimentation , 1999 .

[35]  R. Spears,et al.  Framed and misfortuned: identity salience and the whiff of scandal , 1999 .

[36]  A. Lambert,et al.  Ingroup Favoritism Versus Black Sheep Effects in Observations of Informal Conversations , 1998 .

[37]  Nyla R. Branscombe,et al.  In-Group or Out-Group Extemity: Importance of the Threatened Social Identity , 1993 .

[38]  John C. Turner,et al.  Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism , 1979 .

[39]  H. Tajfel,et al.  Social categorization and intergroup behaviour , 1971 .

[40]  D. Campbell,et al.  Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. , 1959, Psychological bulletin.

[41]  Rebecca J. Schlegel,et al.  Explaining Extremity in Evaluation of Group Members: Meta-Analytic Tests of Three Theories , 2016 .

[42]  A. Zangrillo,et al.  Meta-analysis: pitfalls and hints , 2013, Heart, lung and vessels.

[43]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  Life after P-Hacking , 2013 .

[44]  Amy J. C. Cuddy,et al.  Warmth and Competence As Universal Dimensions of Social Perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS Map , 2008 .

[45]  M. Hogg,et al.  A Social Psychological Framework for Understanding Social Inclusion and Exclusion , 2005 .

[46]  Blair T. Johnson,et al.  The Handbook of Attitudes , 2005 .

[47]  Dominic Abrams,et al.  Social identity and intragroup differentiation as subjective social control , 1998 .

[48]  Darío Páez,et al.  The ‘Black Sheep Effect’: Social Categorization, Rejection of Ingroup Deviates, and Perception of Group Variability , 1994 .

[49]  Vincent Yzerbyt,et al.  The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification , 1988 .

[50]  P. Pearson Fads and Fashions , 1978 .