This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Abrams, D. Articles by Dougill, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

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

University of Kent at Canterbury, D.Abrams{at}ukc.ac.ukormarques@psi.up.pt

José Marques

University of Porto

Nicola Bown

University of Leeds

Melanie Dougill

University of Kent

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.

Key Words: deviance • group dynamics • social identity

References

• Abrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. W. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group: Cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers’ turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1027-1039.[Abstract]
• Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 195-228.
• Abrams, D., Marques, J. M, Bown, N. J., & Henson, M. (2000). Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 906-912.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Abrams, D., Marques, J. M., Randsley de Moura, G., Hutchison, P., & Bown, N. J. (in press). The maintenance of entitativity: A subjective group dynamics approach. In V. Y. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Contributions to the study of homogeneity, entitatitivy, and essentialism. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
• Abrams, D., & Randsley de Moura, G. (2001). Organizational identification: Psychological anchorage and turnover. In M. A. Hogg & D. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 131-148). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
• Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97-119.
• Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Berkowitz, L., & Howard, R. (1959). Reaction to opinion deviates as affected by affiliation need and group member interdependence. Sociometry, 22, 81-91.[CrossRef]
• Bown, N. J., & Abrams, D. (2000). Effects of workplace behavioral deviance and social attractiveness on the evaluation of group members. Manuscript submitted for publication.
• Brown, R. J., & Abrams, D. (1986). The effects of intergroup similarity and goal interdependence on intergroup attitudes and task performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 78-92.[CrossRef]
• Castano, E., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1998). The high and lows of group homogeneity. Behavioral Processes, 42, 219-238.[CrossRef]
• Coull, A., Yzerbyt, V. Y., Castano, E., Paladino, M., & Leemans, V. (2001). Protecting the ingroup: Motivated allocation of cognitive resources in the presence of threatening ingroup members. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 327-339.
• Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991) A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 202-234). New York: Academic Press.
• Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlaton analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Erlbaum.
• Doise, W., & Sinclair, A. (1973). The categorization process in intergroup relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 145-157.
• Ellemers, N., de-Gilder, D., & van-den-Heuvel (1998). Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 717-730.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Glick, P., Zion, C., & Nelson, C. (1988). What mediates sex discrimination in hiring decisions?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 178-186.[CrossRef]
• Haslam, A. S. (2001). Psychology in organizations. London: Sage.
• Haslam, A. S., & Oakes, P. J. (1995). How context-independent is the out-group homogeneity effect? A response to Bartsch and Judd. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 469-475.
• Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., & Onorato, R. S. (1995). Contextual changes in the prototypicality of extreme and moderate outgroup members. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 509-530.
• Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1469-1479.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Hewstone, M., & Lord, C. (1998). Changing intergroup cognitions and intergroup behavior: The role of typicality. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior. (pp. 367-392). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. Hemel Hempstead and New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf and New York University Press.
• Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. (Eds.) (2001). Social identity processes in organizational contexts. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
• Hughes, R., & Coakley, J. (1991). Positive deviance among athletes: The implications for overconformity to the sport ethic. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 307-325.
• Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1996). Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination. Distinctive self-categorization and social identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1222-1233.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1997). Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality: Combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 635-657.[CrossRef]
• Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2001). Similarity as a source of differentiation: The role of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 621-640.[CrossRef]
• Jones, E. E., & DeCharms, R. (1957). Changes in social perception as a function of the personal relevance of behavior. Sociometry, 20, 175-185.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Kanter, R. (1977) Men and women of the organization. New York: Basic Books.
• Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K. C. (1997). When exceptions prove the rule: How extremity of deviance determines the impact of deviant examples on stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 965-979.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Levine, J. M. (1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence. (2nd ed., pp. 187-231). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Lindeman, M. (1997). In-group bias, self-enhancement and group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 337-355.[CrossRef]
• Lindsey, A. E., & Zakahi, W. R. (1996). Women who tell and men who ask: Perceptions of men and women departing from gender stereotypes during initial interaction. Sex-Roles, 34, 767-786.
• Marques, J. M. (1990). The black sheep effect: Out-group homogeneity in social comparison settings. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 131-151). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf and New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Paez, D., & Martinez-Taboada, C. (1998a). The role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 976-988.[CrossRef]
• Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., & Serodio, R. (2001). Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 436-447.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Marques, J. M., Cameira, A., Serodio, R. & Abrams, D. (1999). Fanatics, moderates, and traitors: Implications for social attraction and leadership. Paper presented at the XIIth General Meeting of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology. Oxford. July.
• Marques, J., Paez, D., & Abrams, D. (1998b). Social identity and intragroup differentiation as subjective social control. In S. Worchel, J. F. Morales, D. Paez, & J.-C. Deschamps (Eds.), Social identity: International perspectives (pp. 124-141). New York: Sage.
• Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Moreland, R. M., Levine, J., & Cini, M. (1993). Group socialization: The role of commitment. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 105-129). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Moreland, R. L., & McMinn, J. G. (1999). Gone but not forgotten: Loyalty and betrayal among ex-members of small groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1484-1494.
• Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1508-1519.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Sampson, E. E., & Brandon, A. (1959). The effects of role and opinion deviation on small group behavior. Sociometry, 27, 261-281.
• Schachter, S. (1961). Deviation, rejection and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190-207.
• Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2001). The good, the bad, and the manly: Threats to one’s prototypicality and evaluations of fellow in-group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 510-517.[CrossRef]
• Shaw, M. E. (1976). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Sherman, S. J., Hamilton, D. L., & Lewis, A. L. (1999). Perceived entitativity and the social identity value of group memberships. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 80-110). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Skinner, M., & Stephenson, G. M. (1981). The effects of intergroup comparison on the polarization of opinions. Current Psychological Research, 1, 49-61.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
• Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. B. White, M. T. Schmitt, and E. J. Langer Horizontal Hostility: Multiple Minority Groups and Differentiation from the Mainstream Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2006; 9(3): 339 - 358. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. S. Fielding, M. A. Hogg, and N. Annandale Reactions to Positive Deviance: Social Identity and Attribution Dimensions Group Processes Intergroup Relations, April 1, 2006; 9(2): 199 - 218. [Abstract] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Abrams, D. Articles by Dougill, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?