Acceso usuarios
Dominic Abrams, Giovanni A. Travaglino, José M. Marques, Ben Davies, Georgina Randsley de Moura
Six experiments examined responses to groups whose attitudes deviated from wider social norms about asylum and immigration (in the United Kingdom), or about taxation levels (in the U.S.). Subjective group dynamics (SGD) theory states that people derogate in-group individuals who deviate from prescriptive in-group norms. This enables members to sustain the subjective validity of those norms and, hence, a positive social identity. Research also shows that in-group deviants who accentuate the difference between the in-group and out-group norm (e.g., extremists) are derogated less than deviants who attenuate that difference (e.g., a member who veers toward the outgroup’s norm; Abrams et al., 2000). We hypothesize that these effects and the associated group dynamics should scale up when people evaluate deviant groups that are part of larger in-categories. Consistent with SGD theory, participants in Experiments 1, 2, and 3 derogated an in-category attenuating deviant group and upgraded an out-category attenuating deviant group relative to groups that consolidated or accentuated the respective norms of those categories—thereby reinforcing in-category norms relative to out-category norms. Across all experiments, this pattern of differential evaluation was associated with greater subjective validity of the in-category norm. We also hypothesized a novel Deviant Ingroup Protection (DIP) effect, wherein people should curtail derogation of an in-category deviant group when that group is their own. Consistent with this hypothesis, participants in Experiments 4, 5, and 6 evaluated an accentuating in-group, or an attenuating in-group, equally to or more positively than other in-category groups. Implications for political and organizational entrenchment are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
