José M. Marques

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) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

We propose that support for group-based hierarchy among members of low-status or subordinate groups may be boosted by beliefs in future ingroup high status. Specifically, the more individuals believe their group may hold a higher status, the more they support hierarchical intergroup relations (i.e., high social dominance orientation; SDO), by boosting ingroup favouritism. In turn, SDO should be positively associated with collective action tendencies by increasing social competition intentions. Using samples from Catalonia (N = 152) and the Basque Country (N = 262), results showed that independence supporters’ beliefs in future ingroup status enhancement reinforced participants’ SDO, through nationalist sentiments (i.e., ingroup bias) but not through patriotism in the Catalan sample, and directly in the Basque sample. In turn, SDO increased collective actions towards independence by reinforcing individuals’ motivation to compete with the opponent dominant outgroup (Madrid region), especially in the Catalan sample. We discuss the implications of considering situational and contextual factors to better understand individuals’ support for group-based hierarchies and inequality.

Pro-independence movements in the Basque Country and in Catalonia have old historical roots. Whereas in Catalonia the pro-independence social mobilization has recently gained energy, in the Basque Country it seems less prominent nowadays. We explore the psychosocial predictors associated with individuals' involvement in collective efforts towards independence in both these contexts. We distributed an online questionnaire among Basque (n=132) and Catalonian (n=152) independence supporters. Among the Basque independence supporters, pro-independence collective action tendencies were negatively predicted by perceived social status and identification with Spain, and positively predicted by patriotism and collective efficacy. Among the pro-independence Catalonians, only identification with Catalonia and collective efficacy beliefs predicted pro-independence collective action tendencies. These results are discussed considering historical, political, and socioeconomic factors.

Literature has shown that citizens’ mistrust in national institutions has a negative impact on their involvement with, and commitment to, their national group. We examine the idea that citizenship efficacy beliefs may revert this process. We propose that facing institutional inefficacy to exert social control, beliefs that civic participation is effective, strengthens individuals’ commitment to the national group. Participants (N = 176) were informed that national institutions were effective (vs. ineffective) in reacting to white-collar crime, and that citizens’ civic/political participation had an effective (vs. ineffective) impact on government’s decisions, the political system and their nation’s future. Results suggest that citizenship efficacy beliefs are crucial to counteract or even revert citizens’ disinvestment in the national group caused by the perception that the social control system is ineffective. We discuss the results in light of the theoretical and empirical framework of social psychology of citizenship and subjective group dynamics theory.

The subjective group dynamics theory posits that individuals derogate ingroup members who deviate from prescriptive moral norms. Research on moral disengagement suggests that deviants may, sometimes, be tolerated. This study’s goal was to test whether leniency towards effective ingroup deviants is accounted for by mechanisms of moral disengagement. Portuguese participants (N = 75) judged a Portuguese (ingroup) or Spanish (outgroup) manager whose deviant conduct was either effective (i.e., had positive consequences) or ineffective (i.e., had negative consequences) for a Portuguese company. As predicted, participants favoured deviant but effective ingroup members. This was mediated by an increase in moral disengagement and a decrease in negative emotional reactions. Results suggest that individuals downplay the importance of moral norms when facing ambiguous ingroup deviants, as a means to protect their social identity. We discuss these results in light of subjective group dynamics theory.

Group researchers have long been interested in how group members respond to deviance, defined as the violation of prescriptive norms about how members should think, feel, or act. Valuable perspectives on reaction to deviance have been offered by scholars in several disciplines, including social psychology, evolutionary psychology, and sociology. Most of the theoretical and empirical work on reaction to deviance assumes that this behavior has negative consequences for group welfare and hence elicits efforts designed to reduce or eliminate it, including the threat or use of punishment. However, there is increasing interest in the other side of the coin, namely cases in which deviance has positive consequences for group welfare and hence is tolerated or even celebrated. In addition, researchers are also devoting increased attention to the causes of deviance, that is, the reasons why some group members choose to violate prescriptive norms even though doing so may elicit punishment. The papers in this Special Issue, which investigate deviance in a wide range of situations, illustrate cutting-edge work on each of these themes.

Two studies examined participants’ evaluations of ingroup or outgroup normative and deviant members and changes in agreement with a prescriptive norm. In Experiment 1 (N = 51), the normative target was either a full or marginal ingroup or outgroup member, and the deviant was a full member. In Experiment 2 (N = 113), both targets were full or marginal members, or one was a full member and the other was marginal. As predicted, maximal upgrading of normative members and downgrading of deviant members, as well as endorsement of the norm, occurred when both targets were full ingroup members. In contrast, the deviant was derogated least and the deviant’s position was endorsed most when the deviant target was a full ingroup member and the normative target was a marginal ingroup member. Evaluations of normative and deviant ingroup members mediated the effects of their role on participants’ agreement with the norm.