Perceived Entitativity and the Black-Sheep Effect: When Will We Denigrate Negative Ingroup Members?

Lewis, Amy C.; Sherman, Steven J.

doi:10.1080/00224540903366388

Cited by 53 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, ‘ingroup homogeneity’, a main factor of ingroup identification (Leach et al ., ), might be especially relevant to black sheep reactions against deviant ingroup members. Prior research, for example, has indicated that perceived entitativity (i.e., the degree to which a group appears to be a unified social entity) which is tightly related to the concept of ingroup homogeneity (Hamilton, Sherman, & Rodgers, ) may help explain ingroup derogation (Lewis & Sherman, ; Yzerbyt, Castano, Leyens, & Paladino, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justice reactions to deviant ingroup members: Ingroup identity threat motivates utilitarian punishments

Fousiani

Yzerbyt

Kteily

et al. 2019

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To maintain a positive overall view of their group, people judge likeable ingroup members more favourably and deviant ingroup members more harshly than comparable outgroup members. Research suggests that such derogation of deviant ingroup members aims to restore the image of the group by symbolically excluding so‐called ‘black sheeps’. We hypothesized that information about a harm‐doer's group membership influences observers’ justice‐seeking reactions. Motives for punishment vary based on whether the goal is to punish past harm‐doing (i.e., retributive motives), help harm‐doers recognize the harm inflicted and reintegrate into society (i.e., restorative motives), or control harm‐doer's future behaviour through incapacitating practices and exclusion from society (i.e., utilitarian motives). We hypothesized that immoral behaviours by ingroup rather than outgroup members jeopardize the group's reputation and therefore activate utilitarian (i.e., exclusion‐oriented) motives for punishment. Study 1 (N = 187) confirmed that people displayed more utilitarian motives and less restorative motives when sanctioning an ingroup as opposed to an outgroup harm‐doer. Study 2 (N = 122) manipulated typicality to the ingroup. Participants displayed stronger utilitarian (i.e., exclusion‐oriented) punishment motives when the harm‐doer was presented as a typical ingroup rather than an outgroup member. Study 3 (N = 292) replicated the findings of Studies 1 and 2 and further showed that people displayed stronger utilitarian punishments against an ingroup offender through the experience of increased identity threat. Contrary to our expectations, observers’ ingroup identification did not moderate the effect of group membership or typicality to the ingroup on justice reactions. Yet, ingroup identification influenced both experienced identity threat (i.e., mediator) and utilitarian motives for punishment with high identifiers experiencing higher threat and displaying stronger utilitarian punishment motive. We discuss the results in terms of people's concern for the protection of their group identity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justice reactions to deviant ingroup members: Ingroup identity threat motivates utilitarian punishments

Fousiani

Yzerbyt

Kteily

et al. 2019

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The BSE (see Marques & Paez, 1994, for a review) was replicated in various intergroup contexts with a broad range of dependent variables (e.g., Bègue, 2001;Chekroun & Nugier, 2005;DeCremer & Vanbeselaere, 1999;Marques et al, 2001;Matthews & Dietz-Uhler, 1998;Oishi & Yoshida, 2002), and supported the social identity perspective on the BSE (for a review, see Marques & Paez, 1994). It is moderated by ingroup identification (Branscombe, Wann, Noel, & Coleman, 1993) and other group-based factors such as group members' status (Pinto et al, 2010), accountability (Abrams, Rutland, Cameron, & Ferrell, 2007), or perceived entitativity of the ingroup (Lewis & Sherman, 2010). Additional research suggested that the BSE may also result from an ingroup member's personal distancing from the norm deviant (Eidelman & Biernat, 2003), or the violation of expected behavior (Biernat, Vescio, & Billings, 1999).…”

Section: Responses To Intergroup Norm Deviancementioning

confidence: 93%

When Black Sheep Make us Think: Information Processing and Devaluation of In- and Outgroup Norm Deviants

Reese

Steffens²,

Jonas

2013

Social Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

since group membership is central for a person's identity, providing norms, values, and beliefs, people devalue ingroup deviants more than outgroup deviants. This so-called black-sheep effect (Bse) seems primarily driven by group-based motivational concerns. given prior evidence that information about ingroup, in comparison to outgroup members, is processed more systematically, we propose that more systematic processing of ingroup information predicts more ingroup deviant devaluation. Thus differences in individual information processing underlie the Bse, too. Four experiments support this idea: Ingroup deviance is processed more systematically than outgroup deviance, mediating the Bse (experiments 1 and 2). consequently, responses to an ingroup deviant were more positive when systematic processing is hindered (experiment 3). conversely, outgroup, but not ingroup deviant devaluation, increased when systematic processing is triggered (experiment 4). These findings reveal that responses to norm deviance depend on group members' information processing depth, suggesting a Bse explanation that goes beyond motivational strategies.

show abstract

“…In support, a number of studies across a variety of contexts reveal that majority/non-stigmatized group members show no in-group bias whereas minority/stigmatized group members show an in-group favorability bias (e.g., Knobloch-Westerwick, Appiah, & Alter, 2008). These findings are not surprising given in-group preference and out-group discrimination are more likely to occur when people highly identify with their in-group and the in-group holds significant importance in defining their self-concept (Lewis & Sherman, 2010;Vanhoomissen & Van Overwalle, 2010).…”

Section: Social Identity Theory and In-group Preferencementioning

confidence: 71%

“…This is to say that two people may be members of numerous groups but their memberships to only a few groups hold any significance. The more identification and pride people hold for their in-group the more likely they will express in-group favoritism (Lewis & Sherman, 2010) and negative feelings toward relevant out-groups (Vanhoomissen & Van Overwalle, 2010).…”

Section: Social Identity Theory and In-group Preferencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawing on social identity theory, when a person believes there is a significant threat to their self-concept, they will respond in a manner that helps maintain a positive identity such as engaging in in-group favoritism or emphasizing or seeking negative information concerning members of relevant out-groups (Lewis & Sherman, 2010). In the context of domestic abuse, in which the threat to women is not merely over resources, but literally their own lives and well-being, women will be more attuned to the role of the female as the non-aggressor (not guilty of the crime) and will seek out c ues and information that portray men in a negative light and conclude that men are more deserving of stiffer sentences than women.…”

Section: Social Identity Theory and In-group Preferencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sugar and Spice, and Everything Nice: Do Female Stereotypes Supersede In-group Favoritism Among Men When Evaluating Female Criminal Suspects in News Stories?

Appiah¹,

Holt²,

Dale³

et al. 2017

JMC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some scholars argue that stereotypes of women as docile and non-violent result in women receiving leniency from the public compared to men who commit identical crimes. However, others assert that women who commit violent crimes violate traditional gender roles, which can lead the public to evaluate them more harshly than their male counterparts. M ore than 900 adults read news stories about either a woman abusing a man or a man abusing a woman before evaluating the criminal suspect. Female participants showed in-group favoritism towards criminal suspects that matched their gender. Conversely, male participants did not show a preference for their in-group.Overall, both male and female participants were more likely to believe the crime was justified, have more sympathy for the criminal suspect, assign less jail time, and have a more positive attitude towards the suspect when the criminal suspect was female vis-à-vis male. These findings were more pronounced when there was a non-fatal crime compared to a crime involving a fatality. Chivalry hypothesis and social identity theory are discussed.

show abstract

Perceived Entitativity and the Black-Sheep Effect: When Will We Denigrate Negative Ingroup Members?

Cited by 53 publications

References 30 publications

Justice reactions to deviant ingroup members: Ingroup identity threat motivates utilitarian punishments

Justice reactions to deviant ingroup members: Ingroup identity threat motivates utilitarian punishments

When Black Sheep Make us Think: Information Processing and Devaluation of In- and Outgroup Norm Deviants

Sugar and Spice, and Everything Nice: Do Female Stereotypes Supersede In-group Favoritism Among Men When Evaluating Female Criminal Suspects in News Stories?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About