José M. Marques

The ‘Black Sheep Effect’: Social Categorization, Rejection of Ingroup Deviates, and Perception of Group Variability

In this chapter we review evidence on the ‘black sheep effect’: subjects judge likable ingroup members more positively than similar outgroup members, while judging unlikable ingroup members more negatively than similar outgroup members. We attempt to relate these findings to traditional research on group uniformity (Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Festinger, 1950), and to more recent research on social identity (Hogg & Abrams, 1988), and outgroup homogeneity (Park, Judd, & Ryan, 1991). The general idea is that the black sheep effect operates to preserve a positive social identity. It is an outcome of subjective representations of a normative pressure towards ingroup uniformity.

Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined

The authors predicted that derogation of group deviants depends on the extent to which in-group norms or values are validated or undermined in a social context. In Experiment 1 participants were less tolerant and derogated in-group deviants more when other in-group members opposed the norm. In Experiment 2 participants derogated in-group deviants more than out-group deviants and than noncategorized individuals, but only when normative in-group members lacked uniformity. In Experiment 3 participants derogated in-group deviants more when there was uncertainty about in-group superiority. These results are consistent with previous research on the black sheep effect (J. M. Marques, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & J. -P. Leyens, 1988) and with the model of subjective group dynamics (D. Abrams, J. M. Marques, N. J. Bown, & M. Henson, 2000; J. M. Marques, D. Abrams, D. Paez, & C. Martinez-Taboada, 1998).

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.

The role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members

Four minimal group experiments tested the prediction that judgments of groups and their members reflect evaluations made simultaneously but independently at the within-group and intergroup levels. On the basis of self-categorization theory and social identity theory, it was predicted that group members seek both intergroup distinctiveness and legitimization of in-group norms. In Experiments 1-3, membership (in-group, out-group), status of group members (modal, deviant), and either accountability to in-group or to out-group or salience of group norms were varied. Accountability and norm salience increased derogation of out-group normative (in-group deviant, out-group modal) and upgrading of in-group normative (in-group modal, out-group deviant) members. In Experiment 4, within-group differentiation reinforced in-group identification. These findings suggest that subjective group dynamics operate to bolster social identity when people judge modal and deviant in-group and out-group members.

Membership Status and Subjective Group Dynamics: Who Triggers the Black Sheep Effect?

In 3 experiments, participants (Ns = 50, 95, and 75, respectively) judged 2 ingroup or outgroup members who occupied 1 of 3 statuses--new members, full members, or marginal members. In each case, 1 of these members adopted a normative position and another supported a deviant position regarding a relevant issue. Participants upgraded normative ingroup full members and derogated deviant ingroup full members compared with all other members. In addition, derogation of deviant ingroup members was associated with a socializing and a punishing intention toward new members and full members, respectively. These results are discussed in terms of the group socialization model (e.g., Levine & Moreland, 1994) and the subjective group dynamics model (e.g., Marques, Paez, & Abrams, 1998).

The development of subjective group dynamics: When in-group bias gets specific

Children aged 6-7 years and 10-11 years evaluated an in-group or out-group summer school and judged in-group or out-group members whose attitudes towards the summer schools were either normative or anti-normative. According to a subjective group dynamics model of intergroup processes, intergroup differentiation and intragroup differentiation co-occur to bolster the validity of in-group norms. The hypothesis that this process develops later than simple in-group bias was confirmed. All children expressed global in-group bias, but differential reactions to in-group and out-group deviants were stronger among older children. Moreover, the increasing relationship, with age, between in-group bias and evaluative preferences for in-group and out-group members that provide relative support to in-group norms, is mediated by the degree of perceptual differentiation among group members

Innovation credit: When can leaders oppose their group's norms?

Two preliminary studies and 5 experiments examined judgments of leaders who challenge their groups norms. Participants viewed information about group members whose attitudes were normative or deviated in a pronormative or antinormative direction. The antinorm member was identified as (a) either a nonleader or an established leader (Study 1), (b) an ex-leader (Studies 2 and 5), or (c) a future leader (Studies 3, 4, and 5). Antinorm future leaders were judged more positively and were granted greater innovation credit (license to innovate and remuneration) relative to antinorm members, ex-leaders, and established leaders. Results are discussed in terms of the idea that leadership can accrue from prototypicality and can also confer the right to define prescriptive norms. However, innovation credit is only granted in the case of future leaders.

Anti-Norm and Pro-Norm Deviance in the Bank and on the Campus: Two Experiments on Subjective Group Dynamics

In two experiments, participants evaluated other individuals who deviated in either an anti-or pro-normative direction relative to normative members of the same group. We predicted that individuals would prefer group members who contributed to the validity of in-group norms. In Study 1, anti-norm deviants in an organization attracted more negative evaluations than did pro-norm deviants, even though both were dissimilar to the in-group prototype. Consistent with our model of ‘subjective group dynamics’, evaluations of such deviants were related to perceivers’ identification with their own group. In Study 2, British and Overseas students were more positive toward in-group and out-group members who deviated in the in-group normative direction with respect to university policies for Overseas students. These findings complement the results from laboratory experiments by Abrams, Marques, Bown, and Henson (2000). Reactions to deviance reflect more than just the magnitude of deviance; they are also affected by the group membership of the deviant, and the direction in which that person deviates.

A social psychological framework for understanding social inclusion and exclusion

This book draws together social psychological theory and research on social inclusion and exclusion. The rationale for the book is to understand inclusion and exclusion at different levels of explanation, and as involving different types of social psychological process. This chapter describes the central points made by each of the other chapters, and highlights key conclusions from each about evidence and its practical implications. This evidence is drawn together and provides the basis for an integrative conceptual framework that distinguishes features of social inclusion in terms of i) different levels of exclusionary relationship, ii) different modes of exclusion, and iii) different dynamics of exclusion within the relationship.

Control social subjetivo y valores culturales: estudio transcultural experimental sobre el efecto oveja negra y un estudio de campo sobre el 11-M

Resumen Un estudio experimental en seis naciones y regiones confirma la tendencia a sobre-valorar a los miembros del endogrupo que realizan conductas normativas así como la tendencia paralela a devaluar más fuertemente a los miembros del endogrupo nacional que no cumplen con una norma altruista—en comparación con personas de un exogrupo o efecto Oveja Negra (EON). Las personas más en desacuerdo con valores de Poder y creencias de Dominación y más de acuerdo con valores de Benevolencia tienden a mostrar EON debido a que atribuyen más la conducta a causas internas. Sujetos más de acuerdo con valores de Conformidad de Schwartz y creencias autoritarias de la escala RWA de Altmeyer tienden a evaluar mejor al sujeto normativo del endogrupo. El estudio de campo muestra que la tendencia central de los sujetos fue a valorar con la misma negatividad a un colaborador endo que exogrupal con el atentado del 11-M. Las personas que respondieron con un estilo EON se caracterizan por menores creencias de dominación social medidas por la escala SDO de Sidanius et al. y autoritarias (menor RWA) y más valores de Benevolencia. Se concluye que el EON caracteriza a personas igualitarias y cohesivas, individualistas horizontales y cooperativos, mientras que el favoritismo endogrupal caracteriza más a sujetos que viven en contextos culturales colectivistas y jerárquicos, de creencias más conservadoras.