Playing the game: when group success is more important than downgrading deviants

Partisan respondents evaluated a potential party leader (Study 1) or an ingroup political candidate (Study 2) who expressed normative or deviant opinions against a backdrop of public opinion that was either supportive of, or hostile toward, the ingroup's traditional beliefs (Study 1) or the normative ingroup position on a specific issue (Study 2). Across both studies, high identifiers gave stronger support to a normative candidate over a deviant candidate when public opinion was with the group, but not when public opinion was against the group. Under the latter conditions, high identifiers instead upgraded the deviant candidate. Additional analyses revealed this pattern of differential support for normative and deviant candidates among high identifiers appeared to be related to strategic considerations - specifically, the candidate's perceived chances of gaining public support and being elected. Among low identifiers, support for normative and deviant candidates was less affected by the broader context of public opinion, and was not related to such strategic considerations. These results demonstrate that responses to deviance depend on the broader context in which deviance occurs. Deviance can, at times, be a way through which groups achieve important goals. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. , 2002, Psychological review.

[2]  F. Sani.  When Subgroups Secede: Extending and Refining the Social Psychological Model of Schism in Groups , 2005, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[3]  Mark Levine,et al.  Deindividuation, power relations between groups and the expression of social identity: The effects of visibility to the out‐group , 1994 .

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

[5]  H. Tajfel.  Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations , 1982 .

[6]  H. Tajfel,et al.  An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. , 1979 .

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

[8]  Mark Levine,et al.  On the consequences of deindividuation manipulations for the strategic communication of self: Identifiability and the presentation of social identity. , 1994 .

[9]  D. Abrams,et al.  Being better by being right: subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

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

[12]  T. Postmes,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication as a Channel for Social Resistance , 2002 .

[13]  Antony Stephen Reid Manstead,et al.  Integrating Identity and Instrumental Approaches to Intergroup Differentiation: Different Contexts, Different Motives , 2002 .

[14]  Jolanda Jetten,et al.  Predicting the Paths of Peripherals: The Interaction of Identification and Future Possibilities , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[15]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  You Can’t Always Do What You Want: Social Identity and Self-Presentational Determinants of the Choice to Work for a Low-Status Group , 2000 .

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

[17]  Georgina Randsley de Moura,et al.  When bad becomes good (and vice versa): Why social exclusion is not based on difference. , 2005 .

[18]  Serge Moscovici,et al.  Toward A Theory of Conversion Behavior , 1980 .

[19]  Barbara Cole,et al.  Dissidence from within: Examining the effects of intergroup context on group members’ reactions to attitudinal opposition , 2003 .

[20]  Bertjan Doosje,et al.  Sticking Together or Falling Apart: In-Group Identification as a Psychological Determinant of Group Commitment Versus Individual Mobility , 1997 .

[21]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[22]  Bertjan Doosje,et al.  Stereotyping under threat: the role of group identification. , 1997 .

[23]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  Intergroup differentiation in Social Context: Identity needs versus Audience constraints , 2000 .

[24]  E P HOLLANDER,et al.  Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. , 1958, Psychological review.

[25]  T. Postmes,et al.  A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena , 1995 .

[26]  K. Mcgraw,et al.  The Pandering Politicians of Suspicious Minds , 2002, The Journal of Politics.

[27]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  The Impact of Anonymity and Group Identification on Progroup Behavior in Computer-Mediated Groups , 2002 .

[28]  Dominic Abrams,et al.  The role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members , 1998 .

[29]  S. Reicher,et al.  More on deindividuation, power relations between groups and the expression of social identity: Three studies on the effects of visibility to the in‐group , 1998 .

[30]  M. Hogg,et al.  The impact of individualist and collectivist group norms on evaluations of dissenting group members , 2006 .

[31]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  A Social Identity Theory of Leadership , 2001 .

[32]  D. Abrams,et al.  Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within and between groups. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  Tom Postmes,et al.  SIDE issues centre stage: Recent developments in studies of de-individuation in groups. , 2000 .