Journal uf Personality and Social PsychologyI<»8, Vol. 75, No. 4, 976 -988

Copyright i998 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0022- 3514/98/$ 3.00

The Role of Categorization and In-Group Normsin Judgments of Groups and Their Members

Jose M. MarquesUniversity of Porto

Dominic AbramsUniversity of Kent at Canterbury

Dario Paez and Cristina Martinez-TaboadaUniversity of the Basque Country

Four minima! group experiments tested the prediction that judgments of groups and then- membersreflect 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 groupmembers seek both intergroup distinctiveness and legitimization of in-group norms. In Experiments1-3, membership (in-group, out-group), status of group members (modal, deviant), and eitheraccountability to in-group or to out-group or salience of group norms were varied. Accountabilityand 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 Experiment4, within-group differentiation reinforced in-group identification. These findings suggest that subjec-tive group dynamics operate to bolster social identity when people judge modal and deviant in-groupand out-group members.

Historical and sociological research suggests detection andpunishment of deviant group members, such as occurs in witch-hunting or political purges, helps define the group and delimitthe behavior and the beliefs of its members (Hamilton & Rauma,1995; Yamagishi, 1995). Differentiation among group membersas a function of their level of conformity to in-group normshas long been recognized in the context of small groups (cf.Cartwright & Zander, 1968). However, it may be less obvioushow intragroup normative differentiation functions operate inthe context of larger social categories. Research using the mini-mal group paradigm and recent research examining self-catego-rization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell,1987) has focused on the cognitive bases of membership of suchcategories. This research typically shows that social categoriza-tion is sufficient to result in perceptions of substantial intragroupsimilarity and intergroup difference, even when judges have nodirect information about individual group members. People also

Jose M. Marques, Department of Psychology and Educational Sci-ences, University of Porto. Porto, Portugal; Dominic Abrams, Depart-ment of Psychology, University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, UnitedKingdom; Dario Paez and Cristina Martinez-Taboada, Department ofPsychology, University of the Basque Country, San Sebastian, Spain.

We are grateful to Marilyn Brewer for valuable comments on anearlier version of this article and to Lome Hulbert, Barbara Masser, PamMaras, and David Vernon for their assistance with Experiment 3.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to JoseM. Marques, FPCE-UP, R. do Campo Alegre, 1055, P-4150 Porto, Portu-gal; to Dominic Abrams, Department of Psychology, University of Kentat Canterbury, CT2 7NP, United Kingdom; or to Dario Paez, De-partamento de Psicologia Social y Metodologia, Universidad delPais Vasco, Avda. Tolosa 70, San Sebastian 20009, Spain. Electronicmail may be sent to marques@psi.up.pt, d.abrams@ukc.ac.uk, orpspparod@ss.ehu.cs.

show evaluative bias in favor of in-group members even whenthere is no information about the behavior of in-group and out-group members. On balance, findings are also consistent withthe conclusion that one function of social category differentia-tion is to maintain and to enhance social identity (Abrams &Hogg, 1990; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

There has been debate over the extent to which social identityis maintained principally through cognitive differentiation alone(e.g., Doise & Sinclair, 1973; Hogg & Abrams, 1993; McGarty,Turner, Oakes, & Haslam, 1993) and the relative importance ofemotional and evaluative factors (e.g., Crocker, Blaine, &Luhtanen, 1993; Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990; Levine & More-land, 1994). The conformity literature and the social identityliterature suggest that normative differentiation among individu-als (with respect to an in-group norm) or category differentia-tion among individuals (with respect to their category member-ship) can both affect evaluations of group members (Hogg,1992, 1996).

In this article, we consider the situation in which members'category membership and behavior are consistent or inconsistentwith one another. We explore the idea that people subjectivelyexert control over the evaluative implications of their groupmemberships by maintaining differentiation both between andwithin groups. Specifically, we propose that these "subjectivegroup dynamics" involve the simultaneous operation of cate-gory differentiation and normative differentiation. We believethat even when participants have no interpersonal relationshipwith any individual group members, they are motivated to sus-tain a psychological representation of a cohesive, well-defined,and normatively legitimated group. In doing so, they may beable to bolster their own sense of subjective reality and self-worth. In this vein, category differentiation and normative differ-entiation operate jointly. The former establishes the category

976

CATEGORY AND NORMATIVE DIFFERENTIATION 977

membership of group members (e.g., male or female), whereasthe latter establishes the extent to which individual group mem-bers adhere to category norms (e.g., masculine and femininetraits or behaviors).

In general, category membership and behavior tend to bepositively correlated (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). For example, inEurope, Catholic parties are likely to vote against abortion.However, there are also many circumstances in which people'sactions are inconsistent with the behavioral standards of theirgroup. For instance, a member of a Catholic party may supportthe legalization of abortion, against the party's policy or ideol-ogy, and in line with that of an opposing party. One aim ofthe present research is to investigate how perceivers react toinconsistencies between category membership and normativebehavior. Our general assumption is that perceivers will attemptsimultaneously to sustain category differentiation and to seeklegitimacy for in-group norms. As a result of these dynamics,they will make derogatory judgments of in-group deviants andpositive judgments of out-group members who endorse in-groupnorms. That is, as Billig (1985) proposed, perceivers make par-ticularistic judgments about individual category members thatmay contrast with judgments about the categories as a whole.

The Development of Intergroup- andIntragroup -Level Judgments

Despite the empirical reliability of in-group bias and in-tergroup differentiation processes (e.g., Mullen, Brown, &Smith, 1992), research on long-standing and natural groupsindicates that intergroup differentiation is moderated by otherfactors (e.g., Brown et al., 1992; Levine & Moreland, 1994).For example, previous research has shown that individualsdowngrade unlikable in-group members more strongly than out-group members sharing the same (unlikable) characteristics.This pattern of responses arises in parallel with in-group bias,in both intergroup and intragroup comparison settings, whencomparison dimensions are relevant to social identity or to in-tergroup differentiation (Marques, 1990; Marques, Yzerbyt, &Leyens, 1988) and when participants identify with their in-group, but not otherwise (e.g., Branscombe, Wann, & Noel,1994; see also Marques & Paez, 1994, for a review).

The experiments reported in the present article explore theidea that judgments and evaluations of group members serveboth a category differentiation and a normative function. Inline with self-categorization theory, category differentiation isoriented towards clear-cut intergroup differentiation. The nor-mative function is closer to a process of social control that isintended to establish the legitimacy of valued in-groupstandards.

Overview of Experiments and Hypotheses

We examined category and normative differentiation in fourexperiments using a minimal groups procedure. Participantscompleted a task that was ostensibly diagnostic of differentjudgment styles. They made decisions, one of which involvedrank ordering the responsibility of six characters in a murdercase. They then wrote down justifications for these decisions.

In the second phase of the experiments, some days later, we

orthogonally manipulated category membership and normativeposition of the five group members. Participants were catego-rized into one of two groups, ostensibly on the basis of whichof two justification styles they had used in the first phase. Theythen received individualized feedback about the responsibilityrankings (but not justifications) made by five other individualsfrom the in-group or the out-group. It was made explicit thatall five members clearly belonged to their group on the basis ofthe way they had justified their decisions in the first phase ofthe study. The feedback indicated that four of these individualshad made normative decisions (i.e., they rank ordered the char-acters in line with the norm of their group) and the other individ-ual ranked the characters in a way that deviated toward thenorm of the opposing group. The analysis of evaluations ofgroup members was conducted by means of a Group Presented(in-group vs. out-group) X Member (modal vs. deviant) designin which group presented was a between-subjects factor andmember was a within-subjects factor. All participants madejudgments about the in-group and out-group as a whole. Theseresponses were analyzed according to a group rated (in-grouprated vs. out-group rated) within-subjects factor.

Because we were interested in the normative component ofjudgments about modal and deviant group members, in Experi-ment 2 we manipulated whether participants would be account-able to in-group or out-group members when making these judg-ments. Accountability (in-group accountability vs. out-groupaccountability) was a between-subjects factor. In Experiment 3,we varied the salience of norms directly, prior to participants'judging group members. Salience (high vs. low) was a between-subjects factor. In Experiment 4, we examined the impact ofjudgments of group members on changes in group identification.

Our interest in these experiments was to find evidence fordistinct effects of judgments based on category differentiationand normative differentiation. We examined four hypotheses. Ac-cording to social identity theory, a basic process underlying judg-ments of in-group and out-group categories is the establishmentof positive distinctiveness for the in-group (Hogg, 1992; Hogg &Abrams, 1988, 1993). Therefore, regardless of additional manip-ulations, participants should evaluate the whole in-group morefavorably than the whole out-group (Hypothesis 1).

A complementary process is protection of positive socialidentity from threats from inside the in-group. This normativedifferentiation process, whereby people discriminate against in-group members who threaten in-group norms, has been observedin studies on the "black sheep effect" (Marques, 1990). Ifpeople derogate in-group deviates because these membersthreaten in-group norms, they should, concomitantly, upgradeout-group deviant members who adhere to in-group norms, be-cause these members legitimize in-group norms. In line withthis reasoning, we predicted deviant in-group members shouldbe derogated relative to modal in-group members, whereas devi-ant out-group members should be upgraded relative to modalout-group members (Hypothesis 2) . This effect should be largerto the extent that attention is focused more closely on in-groupnorms. When attention is focused only on the intergroup com-parative context, as is the case in traditional intergroup studies,normative differentiation should not emerge or, at least, shouldstrongly decrease. Therefore, as a corollary of Hypothesis 2, weexpected normative differentiation to be elevated by in-group

978 MARQUES, ABRAMS, PAEZ, AND MARTINEZ-TABOADA

accountability (Experiment 2) and to depend on the salience ofthe in-group norm (Experiment 3).

Also, in line with our view that normative differentiationmaintains and increases participants' identification with theirgroup, we predicted that favoring of in-group-normative overout-group-normative members (regardless of whether thesemembers belong to the in-group or the out-group) will be posi-tively correlated with participants' identification with the in-group (Hypothesis 3). In Experiment 4, we examined the propo-sition that favoring in-group-normative over out-group-norma-tive members actually reinforces identification with the in-group(Hypothesis 4) .

Experiment 1

Method

Participants. Twenty female and 6 male high school students (N =26), ages 15 to 18 years, volunteered to participate in this experiment.Sixteen participants were in the in-group presented condition and 10were in the out-group presented condition.

Design. The design consisted of one between-subjects (group pre-sented) and one within-subjects variable (member). Group presentedwas manipulated by presenting participants with responses given eitherby in-group or out-group members. Member was varied in terms of thedecision pattern of the members whose responses were presented (modalvs. deviant as compared with their group's response pattern).

Procedure. We informed participants that the study was about jurydecision making. In the first session, we presented participants with amurder case involving six persons and asked them to rank these personsaccording to their responsibility for the death of the victim. We alsotold participants that the goal of the study was to validate the existenceof two decision-making patterns (X and Y). They were asked to justifytheir ranking of characters and were informed that their justificationwould allow the experimenters to determine their membership to onedecision-making pattern.1 Two days later, the experimenter returned par-ticipants' response sheets from Session I, together with a "personalfile."' This tile provided the following information about the intergroupcategorization (the criteria defining membership to each pattern):

From the answers collected in the first phase of this study, we wereable to identify two opposed patterns of judgment: Pattern X andPattern Y. According to the way you justified your ranking of thecharacters, you undoubtedly belong to Pattern X (vs. Pattern Y).That is, you belong to the group of people who appraise this kindof event such that you tend to assign responsibility more accordingto the person's objective involvement in the crime than accordingto other factors that may have caused it indirectly. Those who,contrary to you, belong to Pattern Y (vs. Pattern X) appraise eventssuch that they tend to assign responsibility more according to factorsthat may have caused the crime indirectly rather than according tothe objective components of the situation.

At this point, participants were provided with a first set of questions tocheck for their identification with their group. Pattern information andpattern membership were counterbalanced within conditions.

Participants were then provided with information that defined thetypical (thus normative) ranking given by in-group or out-group mem-bers. Information about the group norm was as follows:

Although it is not necessary for belonging to Pattern [X or YJ, ingeneral, people who belong to Pattern [X or Y] should order thecharacters of the story, from most responsible to least responsible,in the following way [example shown], whereas those who belong

to the other pattern [Y or X], should rank the characters in thefollowing way [example shown].

All participants received a printed page showing an in-group norm (pat-tern) corresponding exactly to their own ranking of responsibility of thesix characters and an out-group norm corresponding to the oppositesequence. Finally, participants read the answers given by five groupmembers. These were all either in-group members or out-group members(depending on group presented condition). Four members appeared asmodal and normative. Their answers matched their group norm. Theother member was deviant; that member's answer was constructed byreversing the order of modal members' responses and, within this order,by reversing the order of the first and second, and of the sixth and fifthcharacters.

Dependent measures. Immediately following the description ofjudgmental criteria for both patterns, participants were asked four ques-tions to check for social identification; these questions concerned agree-ment with in-group criteria ("To what extent do you agree with thecriteria of judgment followed by people belonging to your pattern?"),agreement with out-group criteria ("To what extent do you agree withthe criteria of judgment followed by people belonging to the judgmentpattern opposed to yours?''), in-group belongingness ( ' 'To what extentdo you like belonging to your pattern?"), and out-group belongingness("To what extent would you like to belong to the pattern opposed toyours?"). Participants answered these agreement and belonging ques-tions on 7-point scales ranging, respectively, from 1 (fully disagree, notat all) to 7 (fully agree, very much). Participants also gave their impres-sion about the overall pattern (X or Y) by answering the followingquestion: ' 'What is your global impression of this group?'' Ratings weregiven on 7-point scales (1 = very unfavorable, 1 ~ very favorable).

After receiving the information about group members' rank orderings,participants were instructed to give their impressions of each groupmember by answering the following question: "We now ask you toevaluate each of the persons whose answers you just read. What is yourglobal impression about each of these persons?" The evaluations of thefour modal members were collapsed into a single score (Cronbach's a= .91).

Results

Social identification. The correlation between agreementwith and belongingness to the in-group (r = .70, p < .001) andagreement with and belongingness to the out-group (r = .56, p

1 The case was as follows: "A young wife, forsaken by her husband,whose work often kept him away from home, was seduced by anotherman. That night, she slept with him at his house across the river. Sheknew that she had to be back home early in the morning, because herhusband would come back from a 2-week business journey, and shewanted to conceal her affair. At dawn, she quietly left her lovers housewhile he was still asleep. But, when she got to the bridge, a fool satthere, gazing at her with a threatening eye. She was afraid and decidedto ask the skipper of the ferryboat to shuttle her to the other side of theriver. The skipper agreed and asked her for the fare money. She had nomoney, however. The skipper explained to her that, in order to feed hiswife and children, he would not work for free. In despair, she went backto her lover's house to ask him for help, but he was angry at her forleaving without warning. He simply did not want to listen to her. Shethen decided to ask an old friend for help. For a long time in the past,this friend had entertained a platonic attraction to her, but she had alwaysrefused to marry him. On listening to her story, the friend was verydisappointed with her behavior and refused any help. After another vainattempt with the skipper, she desperately hastened toward the bridge.The fool stabbed her with a knife and killed her."

CATEGORY AND NORMATIVE DIFFERENTIATION 979

— .003) allowed us to collapse the scores, respectively, of agree-ment with and belongingness to in order to create an in-groupand an out-group identification score. We performed a GroupPresented (information about in-group vs. out-group members)X Group Rated (in-group vs. out-group identification) analysisof variance (ANOVA). Group presented was a between-subjectsfactor, and group rated was a within-subjects factor. This analysissupported the effectiveness of social categorization in generatingin-group identification. As indicated by a significant main effectof group rated, participants identified significantly more with thein-group than with the out-group (Ms = 5.75 and 3.08, respec-tively), F ( l , 24) = 40.32,/? < .001 (remaining Fs < 1).

Evaluations of in-group and out-group as a whole. In thein-group presented condition, participants evaluated the in-group as a whole, whereas in the out-group presented condition,participants evaluated the out-group as a whole. Participantsrated the in-group more favorably than the out-group as a whole,consistent with Hypothesis 1 (Ms = 5.44 and 4.10, respec-tively), F ( l , 25) = 4.08, p < .06.

Evaluations of modal and deviant members. Hypothesis 2was supported by a significant Group Presented X Member inter-action on evaluations of group members, F(l, 24) = 35.3 \,p <.001 (remaining F& < 1). Simple effects analyses revealed thatmodal in-group members were judged more favorably than devi-ant in-group members (Ms = 5.44 and 3.00, respectively), F( 1,24) = 21.93, p < .001. In turn, modal out-group members werejudged more unfavorably than deviant out-group members (Ms= 2.95 and 5.50, respectively), F ( l , 24) - 15.00, p < .01.

In-group identification and evaluations of modal and deviantmembers. To examine Hypothesis 3, we constructed a norma-tive differentiation index. For participants in the in-group pre-sented condition, we subtracted the evaluation of the deviatefrom the averaged evaluations of the modal members. For parti-cipants in the out-group presented condition, we subtracted theaverage evaluation of modal members from the evaluation ofthe deviate. Thus, a higher score represents a more positiveevaluation of the member(s) closer to the in-group norm. Wealso computed an identification index by subtracting in-groupfrom out-group identification scores. The significant correlationbetween the identification and the normative differentiation in-dex (r = .33, p < .01) supports the hypothesis that differentialidentification with the in-group is associated with favoringgroup members who endorse in-group-normative positions.

Discussion

The present results demonstrate that category and normativedifferentiation may operate simultaneously even in a minimalgroup context. The antagonistic interaction between group pre-sented and member shows that deviant in-group members andmodal out-group members are derogated relative to modal in-group members and deviant out-group members. The results alsouphold the idea that such derogation is based on participants'commitment to in-group norms. A simple category differentia-tion process might lead participants to prefer those group mem-bers who contribute to the clarification of intergroup boundaries.If this were the case, deviates in both the in-group and theout-group would have received negative evaluations relative tomodal members. However, our experimental procedure held con-

stant the extent of deviation from in-group and out-group norms.Therefore, it can be inferred that judgments of group deviatesreflect the direction {toward or away from in-group norms) andnot just the extent of deviation.

Experiment 2

In spite of the fact that we made it clear to participants thatcategory membership was not conditional on the responsibilityrankings, the results of Experiment 1 might be interpreted asthe outcome of perceived interpersonal similarity between theparticipants' judgments and the judgments given by the targetgroup members. That is, out-group deviates and in-group modalmembers are necessarily more similar to the participant thanare out-group modal members and in-group deviates. If concernsfor normative differences influence such judgments over andabove similarity, factors that affect normative differentiationshould also affect those judgments. In Experiment 2, we checkedfor the role of these concerns by directly examining the impactof accountability to the in-group or the out-group on judgmentsof group members. After the categorization and group norminformation, we informed participants that their judgments ofgroup members would be shown to either typical in-group ortypical out-group members. We assumed that accountability tothe in-group would make in-group norms more salient as abasis for differentiation. Therefore, we expected that relativefavorability toward the in-group as whole, as well as towardin-group-normative versus out-group-normative members,would be greater in the in-group accountability condition thanin the out-group accountability condition. Judgments of the out-group as a whole, as well as of modal and deviant out-groupmembers, should be less strongly affected by accountabilitybecause the out-group and its members are less relevant to nor-mative differentiation within the in-group.

Method

Participants. Eighteen male and 51 female (N = 69) undergraduatepsychology students volunteered to participate in the experiment. Cellsizes ranged from 15 to 23, and gender was similarly distributed acrossconditions.

Design. The design consisted of two between-subjects factors(group presented and accountability) and one within-subjects factor(member). Group presented and member were manipulated as in Experi-ment 1. We manipulated accountability by informing participants thatin a third stage of the study, "your answer booklet will be passed tosome highly typical members of the Pattern X [Pattern Y] group whowill be asked to give their opinion about your answers." Also, contraryto Experiment 1, in the present experiment participants always evaluatedboth the in-group and the out-group as a whole. These evaluations werethus treated as a within-subjects factor, group rated (in-group rated vs.out-group rated).

Procedure. The procedure was similar to that adopted in Experiment1 with the following exceptions. The delay between the two sessionswas longer (2 weeks), and participants completed two judgment tasksin the pretest session. The first task was to decide on the amount ofcompensation to be awarded to a victim of an industrial accident andthen to provide reasons for that decision. The second was to completethe ranking task used in Experiment 1. In Session 2, we informed partici-pants that the pattern group to which they belonged had been determinedby their reasoning on both pretest tasks. The purpose of including an

980 MARQUES, ABRAMS, PAEZ, AND MARTINEZ-TABOADA

additional task was to further strengthen the basis for category member-ship in within-group similarity and between-groups dissimilarity by in-cluding the compensation judgments as an additional criterion for de-termining judgmental style. However, as in Experiment 1, participantsonly received feedback about the responsibility rankings.

Dependent measures. The dependent variables were the same asthose used in Experiment 1 with two additions. In Experiment 1, grouprated was a between-subjects factor. When group presented was the in-group, participants judged only the in-group as a whole and in-groupmodal and deviant members. When group presented was the out-group,participants judged only the out-group as a whole and out-group modaland deviant members. In the present experiment, we asked the partici-pants to provide their overall impression (1 = very unfavorable, 7 =very favorable) of both the Pattern X group and the Pattern Y group.This procedure allowed us to determine the extent of intergroup differen-tiation on a within-subjects basis and whether group presented wouldhave any overall effect on the level of in-group bias.

Second, we asked participants to indicate how similar or differentthey believed each group member was to themselves. This measure ofintragroup differentiation was rated on a scale ranging from 1 (verydifferent) to 7 (very similar). We hypothesized that parallel to the effectson evaluations, similarity would be enhanced for modal in-group mem-bers and reduced with respect to the in-group deviate and that thiseffect would be larger in the in-group accountability than the out-groupaccountability condition.

Results

Social identification. After being categorized as belonging toa pattern, receiving general information about the two judgmentalpatterns, and being informed that their judgments would be shownto other group members, participants were asked to indicate theextent of their agreement with the in-group and out-group judg-mental criteria and their sense of belongingness to the in-groupand the out-group. The correlations between agreement and be-longing scores were .62 (p < .001) and .42 (p < .001), respec-tively, for the in-group and the out-group. As in Experiment 1,we collapsed scores of these items, respectively, to the in-groupand the out-group and conducted a Group Presented X Account-ability x Group Rated ANOVA. on this index. Group presentedand accountability were between-subjects factors. Group ratedwas a within-subjects factor. The significant effect of group ratedshowed that participants identified more with the in-group thanwith the out-group (Ms = 5.25 and 3.09, respectively), F( 1, 67)= 90.33, p < .001 (remaining Fs < 1).

Evaluations of entire in-group and out-group. Table 1shows the means and standard deviations of evaluations of theentire in-group and the entire out-group as a function of account-

Table 1Evaluations of In-Group and Out-Group as a Whole as aFunction of Accountability (Experiment 2)

ability. The effect of group rated was significant, F( 1, 65) =67.51, p < .001. In support of Hypothesis 1, participants evalu-ated the in-group more favorably than the out-group. We alsofound a significant effect of Accountability X Group Rated,F(\, 65) = 4.02, p < .05. Participants evaluated the in-groupmore favorably in the in-group accountability than in the out-group accountability condition, but no differences between thesetwo conditions emerged on evaluations of the out-group, /(67)= 2.43, p < .02, and f(67) = 0.70, respectively. This rindingis in line with the reasoning underlying the predicted increasein normativeness associated with in-group accountability.

Evaluations of modal and deviant members. Table 2 showsthe means and standard deviations of evaluations of modal anddeviant in-group and out-group members in the Group PresentedX Accountability cells. A planned comparison on the differencesbetween modal and deviant members2 in each condition wasused to test Hypothesis 2 (see the bottom row of Table 2).3

This hypothesis states that derogation of deviates relative tomodal members would be stronger in the in-group presented/in-group accountability condition than in all the other conditions.Indeed, this condition presents participants with two factors (in-group targets and in-group referees) that should reinforce thenormative aspect of judgments. In support of Hypothesis 2, thedifference between evaluations of modal and deviant memberswas more positive in the in-group presented/in-group account-ability condition than in all the other conditions, £(65) = 4.02,

Group rated

In-groupOut-group

Accountability

In-group

M

5.743.19

SD

1.061.40

Out-group

M

5.053.42

SD

1.251.29

Total

M

5.363.32

sample

SD

1.211.33

2 The analysis of evaluations was first conducted using just judgmentsof modal and deviant members. Subsequently, in order to facilitate com-parison with results from Experiments 1 and 3, the evaluation of theentire group presented (either in-group or out-group, depending on grouppresented condition) was included as a further level (target within-subjects factor). The secondary analysis including evaluations of theentire group revealed almost identical effects. The pattern of means forthe entire group closely matched, but was not quite as extreme as, thosefor modal members. Main effects of group presented, F( 1, 65) = 26.86,p < .001; accountability, F ( l , 65) = 7.81, p < .01; and target, F(2,130) = 12.02, p < .001, were all significant, whereas Group PresentedX Accountability, F( 1,65) < 1, and Target X Accountability, F(2, 130)= 2.94, p < .06, failed to achieve significance. As in the previousanalysis, there was a significant Group Presented x Target interaction,F(2, 130) = 53.55, p < .001. The significant effects of group presentedwere larger for judgments of the entire group, F( I, 65) = 49.00, p <.001, and modal members, F( 1,65) = 63.55, p < .001, than for deviantmembers, F ( l , 65) = 23.80, p < .001. There was also a significantGroup Presented X Accountability X Target interaction, F(2, 130) =3.25, p < .05. Once again, the Group Presented X Target interactioneffect was larger in the in-group accountability condition, F(2. 134) =29.20, p < .001, than within the out-group accountability condition,F(2, 134) = 11.87, p < .001. In the in-group accountability condition,there were significant effects of group presented for judgments of theentire group, F ( l , 67) = 18.06, p < .001; modal members, F ( l , 67)- 24.97, p < .001; and deviant members, F ( l , 67) = 20.80, p < .001.In the in-group accountability condition, the effects remained (less)significant for the entire group, F( 1, 67) = 17.27, p < .001, and modalmembers, F( 1,67) = l7.84,/?< .001, but the effect was only marginallysignificant for deviant members, F ( l , 67) = 3.66, p = .06.

3 We assigned contrast weighs of +3, - 1 , - I , and - 1 . respectively,to the in-group presented/in-group accountability, in-group presented/out-group accountability, out-group presented/in-group accountability,and out-group presented/out-group accountability conditions.

CATEGORY AND NORMATIVE DIFFERENTIATION 981

Table 2Favorability and Similarity Toward In-Group and Out-Group Members as a Function ofGroup Presented and Accountability (Experiment 2)

Group member

In-group accountability Out-group accountability

In-grouppresented

Out-grouppresented

In-grouppresented

M SD M SD M SD

Out-grouppresented

M SD

Modal memberDeviant memberNormative differentiation

6.402.274.13

0.741.161.73

3.384.69

-1.31

112

.78

.35

.83

5.133.072.07

111

.35

.33

.92

2.894.09

-1.20

1.1.2.

317020

p < .001.4 The results thus show that in-group accountabilityincreases derogation of deviant in-group members and upgrad-ing of modal in-group members, as well as derogation of modalout-group members and upgrading of deviant out-group mem-bers (see Figure 1).

Correlation between differential identification and normativedifferentiation. Hypothesis 3 is that normative judgmentsshould positively correlate with in-group identification. The nor-mative differentiation index and identification index, constructedusing the same procedure as in Experiment 1, were significantlyand positively correlated (r = .36, p < .01). The more partici-pants identified with the in-group as compared with the out-group, the more they upgraded in-group normative membersand derogated out-group normative members.

Similarity between self and group members. To examine therelative impact of interpersonal similarity and group member-ship on judgments of group members, we computed a Group

7 -.

6 -

>• 5 -

ro 4 -

to11.

2 -

1 -

Ingroup OutgroupPresented Presented

Ingroup OutgroupPresented Presented

tngroup Accountable Outgroup Accountable

Figure 1. Evaluations of modal and deviant members as a function ofgroup presented and accountability (Experiment 2).

Presented X Accountability X Member ANOVA. The relevanteffect is the significant Group Presented X Accountability XMember interaction, F{ 1, 65) = 6.79, p = .01. Perceived self-member similarity was stronger in relation to modal in-groupmembers than to modal out-group members, both in the in-group accountability, F ( l , 67) - 61.87, p < .001, and in theout-group accountability condition, F( 1,67) = 52.57, p < .001.However, the difference between similarity to the deviant in-group member and similarity to the deviant out-group memberwas stronger in the in-group accountability condition, F( 1, 67)= 23.59, p < .001, than in the out-group accountability condi-tion, F ( l , 67) = 5.03, p < .03. The impact of accountabilityon similarity judgments clearly suggests that these judgmentswere affected by normative concerns over and above the effectsof actual similarity between participants' responsibility rankingsand those of other group members.

Discussion

Consistent with Experiment 1, the results suggest that partici-pants evaluate deviant out-group members more favorably thanprototypical out-group members. In addition, when they areaccountable to other in-group members rather than out-groupmembers, participants show stronger in-group bias, considerthemselves more similar to modal in-group members, and dero-gate deviate in-group members more strongly. These results sup-port Hypothesis 2 and suggest that in-group accountability in-creases the extent to which participants engage in normativedifferentiation. Previous research suggests that the real or im-plied presence of an out-group may increase the salience of

4 A Group Presented X Accountability X Member ANOVA showed asignificant second-order interaction, F ( l , 65) = 4.06, p < .05. Thisinteraction further supported Hypothesis 2. It revealed a larger GroupPresented X Member effect within the in-group accountability condition,F ( I , 67) = 33.98, p < .001, than within the out-group accountabilitycondition, F ( l , 67) = 13.04, p = .001. In the in-group accountabilitycondition, participants judged modal in-group members more favorablythan modal out-group members, F( 1, 67) = 24.97, p < .001, and deviantin-group members less favorably than deviant out-group members, F( 1,67) = 20.80, p < .001. A similar pattern emerged in the out-groupaccountability condition. However, whereas strong in-group biasemerged for modal members, F ( l , 67) = 17.84, p < .001, the bias wasmuch reduced when participants considered the deviates, F ( l , 67) =3.66, p < .06.

982 MARQUES, ABRAMS, PAEZ, AND MARTINEZ-TABOADA

category membership and increase category differentiation(e.g., Abrams, 1990; Abrams, Thomas, & Hogg, 1990; Skin-ner & Stephenson, 1981). However, the effects of in-group pres-ence appear to be more complex. For example, people high inpublic self-consciousness are typically more concerned withbeing seen to conform to and comply with in-group norms(Scheier & Carver, 1981; cf. also Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno,1991). This effect could be described as a positive orientationto these norms, and the present results indicate that such orienta-tion has a significant impact on appraisals of in-group as wellas out-group members, depending on their contribution to thesenorms.

Experiment 3

In Experiment 3, we investigated the effects of norm salienceon the derogation of in-group deviates. The procedure was simi-lar to Experiment 2, except that instead of varying accountabil-ity, we manipulated norm salience more directly. After the mini-mal group categorization, participants reported their agreementwith the judgmental criteria, their sense of belongingness toeach pattern, and the perceived difference between both patterns.Then, they were informed about group members' responsibilityrankings. Participants either were not informed about the groupnorm at all (low salience) or were informed of the group normprior to receiving information about responses made by individ-ual members (high salience). Notice that the high-salience con-dition was essentially identical to what was done for all partici-pants in the preceding experiments. The crucial condition herewas thus the low-salience condition.

In Experiment 2, we found that participants reported strongerinterpersonal similarity between themselves and in-group nor-mative targets when they were accountable to the in-group ratherthan the out-group. However, our research paradigm explicitlyrendered modal in-group members and deviant out-group mem-bers more similar to participants than deviant in-group andmodal out-group members. Our hypotheses assume that similar-ity does not provide a sufficient account of evaluations of groupmembers, a conclusion that is well supported by other researchin the social identity literature (e.g., Abrams & Brown, 1989;Brown & Abrams, 1986; Hogg, 1992). Instead, we proposethat judgments of group members are driven by an interactionbetween category membership and the normative direction ofgroup members' behavior. If this proposition is correct, deroga-tion of deviant in-group members and upgrading of deviant out-group members should diminish when similarity ceases to berelated to in-group norms. Thus, in the low-salience condition,we expect participants to focus on category differentiation andto be less concerned with normative differentiation. Specifically,the critical prediction in this experiment was that we shouldreplicate the general pattern of results from the preceding experi-ments in the high-salience condition but find only simple in-group bias in the low-salience condition; normativeness shouldhave reduced impact on evaluations. In contrast, the similarity-attraction interpretation would hold that self-target similarityshould have similar effects regardless of the salience of thenorm.

Method

Participants. Thirty-seven female and 9 male (A' = 46) undergradu-ate psychology students volunteered to participate in this experiment.Four participants were discarded from the analysis because of missingresponses, leaving 42 participants, ranging from 10 to II within eachcell of the design. Gender was similarly distributed across conditions.

Design, The design consisted of two between-subjects factors(group presented and norm) and one within-subjects factor (member).Group presented and member were manipulated as in Experiment 1. Wemanipulated norm by varying whether participants were directly pro-vided (high salience) or not (low salience) with information aboutexisting in-group and out-group norms. Group rated was manipulatedas a within-subjects factor with the same purpose as in Experiment 2.

Procedure. Session 1 was identical to Experiment 1. However, inSession 2, participants were divided into two conditions according towhether they were provided with norm information. In the high-saliencecondition, participants learned the norm about the group members' re-sponses, read the members' responses, and then evaluated each member.In the low-salience condition, participants simply read the members'responses and then evaluated each member. Finally, all participants eval-uated the whole group. Information about the group norm was con-structed in the same way as in Experiments 1 and 2. Dependent measureswere identical to those of Experiment 1.

Results

Social identification. Agreement and belongingness ratingswere positively correlated both for the in-group (r = .70, p <.001) and the out-group (r = .53,p< .001). As in the precedingexperiments, we collapsed these scores to, respectively, an in-group and an out-group identification score. We then submittedthese scores to a Group Presented (information about in-groupvs. about out-group members) X Norm (low vs. high salience)x Group Rated (identification with in-group vs. identificationwith out-group) ANO\A. Group presented and norm were be-tween-subjects factors, and group rated was a within-subjectsfactor. The only significant effect was that of group rated. F( 1,38) = 13.48, p = .001. Participants expressed higher identifica-tion with the in-group (M = 4.76) than with the out-group (M- 3.46).

Evaluations of modal and deviant members. For evaluationsof modal and deviant members, a Group Presented x Norm xMember ANO\5\ supported Hypothesis 2.5 The Group PresentedX Member interaction was not significant, F ( l , 39) < 1. In

s In order to facilitate comparison results with Experiments 1 and 2,the evaluation of the entire group presented (either in-group or out-group, depending on group presented condition) was included as a thirdlevel (target within-subjects factor). This analysis yielded significanteffects of group presented, F( 1,38) = 32.52,p < .001; Group PresentedX Norm, F ( l , 38) = 7.72, p < .01; Group Presented X Target, F ( l ,38) = 9.22, p < .001; and Group Presented X Norm X Target, F ( l ,38) = 7.65, p = .001. Secondary analyses run separately for each levelof the target factor revealed only a significant effect of group presentedon evaluations of the entire group, F ( l . 38) = 37.82, p < .001. Similarly,modal member evaluations were significantly affected only by grouppresented, F ( l , 38) = 25.45,p < .001. In turn, deviant member evalua-tions were not affected by group presented, F ( l , 38) = 1.72, n.v, or bynorm, F{ 1, 38) = 2.74, ns, for both, but the Group Presented X Norminteraction was significant, F ( l , 38) = 20.36, p < .001, remainingFs( l , 38) < 1.

CATEGORY AND NORMATIVE DIFFERENTIATION 983

support of Hypothesis 2, we found a significant Group Presentedx Norm x Member interaction, F ( l , 38) = 9.72, p < .01.Within the high-salience condition, group presented was notsignificant, but the Group Presented X Member effect was sig-nificant, F( 1,39) < l , a n d F ( l , 3 9 ) = 13.86rp = .001, respec-tively. Modal in-group members were judged more favorablythan modal out-group members, and deviant in-group memberswere judged more unfavorably than deviant out-group members,F ( l , 39) = 10.59, p < .01, and f ( l , 39) = 4.69, p < .04,respectively (see Table 3 and Figure 2) . Within the low-saliencecondition, we found a significant in-group bias, as shown bythe effect of group presented, F( 1, 39) = 33.40, p < .001. In-group members were judged more favorably than out-groupmembers regardless of whether they were modal or deviant.

The results fully support the main hypothesis of the presentexperiment. In the low-salience condition, participants judgeddeviant out-group members less favorably than modal in-groupmembers, even though modal in-group members' and deviantout-group members' responsibility rankings were both similar tothe participants' rankings. Participants in this condition judgedmodal out-group members significantly less favorably than devi-ant in-group members, even though the responsibility rankingsmade by modal out-group members and by deviant in-groupmembers were both dissimilar to the participants' rankings.These results rule out an alternative interpretation of the findingsfrom our previous experiments based on interpersonal similaritybetween participants and target group members. The criticalelement appears to be closeness to in-group norms. When thesenorms are not salient, the effects of interpersonal similarity onjudgments of group members is outweighed by simple categorydifferentiation.

We also examined whether derogation of in-group deviates andupgrading of out-group deviates were stronger in the high-saliencecondition. The planned comparison on the differences betweenmodal and deviant members in each condition was significant,f(38) = 3.15, p < .003.6 As expected, the difference between the

Table 3Ratings of Entire Group, Modal Members, and DeviantMembers as a Function of Group Presentedand Norm Salience (Experiment 3)

Norm salience

High Low

Group presented

In-groupOut-group

In-groupOut-group

In-groupOut-group

M

Entirt

5.203.40

SD

i group

0.921.17

Modal members

4.95 0.953.55 1.33

Deviant member

3.70 0.954.80 0.92

M

5.553.09

5.023.39

5.823.82

SD

1.211.14

0.720.83

0.871.54

7 -i

6 -

>- 5 -

5 A

cc 4 —o>

2 -

1 -

Member:

Modal

Deviant

Ingroup Outgroup Ingroup OutgroupPresented Presented Presented Presented

High Salience Low Salience

Figure 2. Evaluations of modal and deviant members as a function ofgroup presented and norm salience (Experiment 3).

evaluations of modal and deviant members was the highest in thehigh-salience conditions (Ms = 1.25 and -1.25 in the in-groupand out-group conditions, respectively). In the low-salience condi-tions, the difference was lower (Ms = —0.80 and —0.43 in thein-group and out-group condition, respectively).

Correlational analysis between differential identification andnormative differentiation. Contrary to findings in the preced-ing experiments, the identification index, constructed as the dif-ference between the in-group and the out-group identificationscores, was not associated with the normative differentiationindex (r = —.18, ns). The attenuation in this correlation isattributable to the reduction in normative differentiation in thelow-salience condition. Consistent with this interpretation, thecorrelation between the identification and the normative differ-entiation index was positive, albeit nonsignificant, in the high-salience condition (r - .22) but negative in the low-saliencecondition (r = - .50, p < .05). This is due to the fact that inthe low-salience condition participants evaluated the deviant in-group member more favorably than the modal in-group member.These correlations differ significantly (z = 2.44, p < .01, one-tailed).

Discussion

The results of Experiment 3 add further support to our inter-pretation of Experiment 1. In Experiment 1, norms were avail-able to all participants and affected judgments of in-group and

6 We assigned +2, +1, —2, and - 1 , respectively, to the in-group pre-sented/high-salience, in-group presented/low-salience, out-group pre-sented/high-salience, and out-group presented /low-salience condition.

984 MARQUES, ABRAMS, PAEZ, AND MARTINEZ-TABOADA

out-group deviates. Specifically, in Experiment 1 and in thehigh-salience condition of Experiment 3, participants were morepositive toward members who adhered to the in-group normregardless of their membership category. However, in the low-salience condition of Experiment 3, participants' responses re-flect a simple use of category differentiation, although the simi-larity between participants' responses and target group mem-bers' responses did not vary. In this condition, participants werepositively biased toward deviant in-group members even thoughthese individuals were less similar to themselves than were devi-ant out-group members. Thus, interpersonal similarity in theabsence of in-group norms was insufficient to produce deroga-tion of deviant in-group members.

The results are also consistent with those obtained in Experi-ment 2. They show that in-group and out-group judgments canbe pervaded by concerns about normative differentiation to sup-port in-group norms. The results suggest that situational factorscan vary the focus on category membership or in-group normswhen people make appraisals of group members (cf. Framing &Carver, 1981). This is consistent with Abrams and Brown's(1989) finding that focus on in-group norms increases positivitytoward out-groups that endorse those norms. Abrams and Brownfound that participants high in public self-consciousness weremore positive toward out-groups when those out-groups ap-peared to share in-group norms than when they did not.

In our view, the most important conclusion to be drawn fromthe present results is that interpersonal similarity produces shiftsin evaluations of individual category members only if similaritycorresponds to group norms. This finding appears to be consis-tent with attraction based on group prototypicality rather thaninterpersonal similarity per se (Hogg & Hains, 1996). However,attraction to the in-group prototype may not provide a full ac-count of the results. In the high-salience condition, participantsrated deviant out-group members almost as favorably as theyjudged modal in-group members. Judgments driven by attractionto the in-group prototype alone would not have been favorabletoward out-group atypical members. Indeed, by definition, out-group atypical members cannot be prototypical of the in-group.A parsimonious explanation seems to be, in line with our reason-ing, that the attractiveness of out-group deviates increases to theextent that they legitimize norms held by the in-group.

Experiment 4

Experiments 1 to 3 support the idea that differentiation be-tween in-group and out-group categories can occur indepen-dently of evaluations of category members. They also confirmthat judgments of members reflect their closeness to in-groupnorms when those norms are salient, but not otherwise. Ourmodel proposes that normative differentiation between targetswho do and do not conform to in-group norms enhances identi-fication with the in-group. We reason that this reflects partici-pants' desire to impose subjective control over group membersand to legitimize in-group norms. In Experiment 4, we examinedthe relationship between normative differentiation and groupidentification. If our reasoning is correct, it should be the casethat those who differentiate more strongly will subsequentlyfeel more strongly attached to the in-group. Moreover, becauselegitimization does not depend on the group membership of

the target, differentiation in favor of in-group-normative targetsshould increase the in-group identification regardless of thegroup membership of the target. As in Experiments 1 to 3,we predicted that participants should derogate deviant in-groupmembers more than normative in-group members. We also pre-dicted that in-group-normative out-group members would bejudged more favorably than out-group-normative out-groupmembers. However, the present experiment also tested Hypothe-sis 3, that favoring of in-group-normative over out-group-nor-mative individuals will be positively correlated with partici-pants' in-group identification. In order to test this hypothesis,we asked participants first to indicate their belongingness to thein-group and out-group, then to evaluate modal and deviant in-group or out-group members, and finally to indicate their groupbelongingness again. To decrease demand characteristics due tothe fact that participants responded twice to the group belong-ingness measure, we included the second measure in a moregeneral questionnaire purportedly dealing with the "validationof a group membership scale." We expected that the relationshipbetween the first and second measures of in-group identificationwould be partially mediated by normative differentiation, suchthat more differentiation in favor of in-group-normative mem-bers would result in increased in-group identification.

Method

Participants. Ninety-eight male and 34 female undergraduate psy-chology students (N - 132), ages 18 to 22 years, volunteered to partici-pate in this experiment. Gender was similarly distributed acrossconditions.

Design. In Experiment 4, we employed a 2 (in-group presented vs.out-group presented) x 2 (in-group rated vs. out-group rated) X 2(pre- vs. postidentification) X 2 (modal members vs. deviant members)design. The first factor (group presented) was a between-subjects factor,and the remaining (group rated, pre-post, and member) were within-subjects factors. We manipulated group presented (information about in-group members' vs. information about out-group members1 responses),group rated (identification with the in-group, identification with the out-group), and member (modal, deviant) in the same way as in Experiments1 to 3. Pre-post was manipulated by asking participants to report theiridentification with the in-group and the out-group both before and afterevaluating modal and deviant group members.

Procedure. The general procedure for Session 1 was identical toExperiments 1 and 3. Three days later, in Session 2, participants werecategorized and completed a first measure of identification, both to thein-group (pre-in-group identification) and to the out-group (pre-out-group identification). They then received information about the modaland deviant members of either the in-group or the out-group. Afterevaluating these members, participants completed a second measure ofidentification with the in-group (post-in-group identification) and theout-group (post-out-group identification). The dependent measures wereidentical to those used in Experiments 1 and 3.

Results

Social identification. We submitted the pre- and postidenti-fication measures to a Group Presented X Group Rated X Pre-Post ANOVA in which group presented was a between-subjectsfactor and group rated and preidentification-postidentificationwere within-subjects factors. There was a significant effect ofgroup rated. Participants reported stronger identification with

CATEGORY AND NORMATIVE DIFFERENTIATION 985

the in-group than with the out-group, (Ms = 4.96 and 3.12,respectively), F(\, 130) = 184.24, p < .001. There was alsoa significant main effect for pre- versus postidentification, (Ms= 3.96 and 4.12, respectively), F ( l , 130) = 6.88, p = .01(remaining Fs < 1). Participants identified more strongly afterthey had evaluated the groups and group members.

Evaluations of modal and deviant members. For evaluationsof modal and deviant members, a Group Presented x MemberANOVA revealed significant effects of group presented, F ( l ,130) = 29.86,/? < .001, and Group Presented X Member, F(\,130) = 225.18, p < .001. The modal in-group member wasevaluated more positively than the modal out-group member(Ms = 5.35 and 2.13, respectively), F ( l , 130) = 196.92, p <.001. In turn, the deviant in-group member was evaluated morenegatively than the deviant out-group member (Afs = 2.56 and4.34, respectively), F ( l , 130) = 80.89, p < .001.

Correlational and mediation analysis. In the in-group pre-sented condition, we subtracted the evaluation of the deviatefrom the average evaluation of the modal members. In the out-group presented condition, we subtracted the modal evaluationsfrom the deviate evaluation. Thus, for all participants, a higherscore represents a more positive evaluation of member(s) thatare closer to the in-group norm. This corresponds to a normativedifferentiation index, which stands for differences in evaluationsof in-group normative and out-group normative members. Thecorrelations between pre-in-group identification and post-in-group identification with the normative differentiation indexwere significant (r = .17, p < .03, and r - .35, p < .001,respectively, one-tailed; see also Table 4) .

To check for the strengthening effect of evaluations of modaland deviant members on in-group identification, we conducteda regression analysis to test the prediction that evaluative differ-entiation affects change in identification. In line with the preced-ing experiments, we subtracted pre-in-group identification frompre-out-group identification (preidentification index), and post-in-group identification from post-out-group identification (post-identification index). The larger these indexes, the more partici-pants identified with the in-group as compared with the out-group. The normative differentiation index and preidentificationwere taken as predictors, and postidentification was the criterionvariable. We expected that, with preidentification accounted for,

postidentification would be predicted by the normative differen-tiation index. The significant effects of preidentification (ft =.46, t = 5.42, p < .001) and of the normative differentiationindex (/3 = .27, t = 3.36, p < .001) supported this prediction,R = .53, R2 = .30, F(2, 124) = 25.12, p < .001.

In order to examine the possibility that normative differentia-tion mediated the change in identification, we followed the pro-cedure outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). For evidence ofmediation, it is necessary that the total effect of preidentificationon postidentification be reduced when its indirect effect(through normative differentiation) is accounted for. The dataconfirm that mediation did occur, as the total effect (/? = .46)is reduced to /? - .42 once the effect of differentiation is ac-counted for.7 In sum, the data reveal that prior in-group identifi-cation resulted in greater normative differentiation, that norma-tive differentiation resulted in greater in-group identification,and that a small part of the effect of prior identificationon subsequent identification was mediated by normativedifferentiation.

Discussion

The results of Experiment 4 replicate our basic finding thatparticipants favor in-group modal members over in-group devi-ates and out-group deviant members over out-group modalmembers, consistent with the results of Experiments 1 to 3. Wealso found that relative identification to the in-group is associ-ated with favoring members that endorse in-group normativepositions over those endorsing non-normative positions. Moreimportant, we found that favoring members who are in-groupnormative reinforces relative identification to the in-group whenprior identification is accounted for. This result is consistentwith our hypothesis that identification to the in-group motivatesendorsement of norms and that endorsement of these normsbolsters identification. This fits with our view that social catego-rization fosters a process akin to our conception of subjectivegroup dynamics. Participants based their evaluations of groupmembers on their desire to acquire a legitimized sense of posi-tive social identity by committing themselves to norms and ex-erting subjective pressures on other group members to conformto those norms. As a result of reinforcing those norms, partici-pants became still more strongly attached to the in-group.

Table 4Correlations Between Normative Differentiation Index (NDl)and Differential In-Group Identification Before (Pre-ID)and After (Post-ID) Judgments of Modal andDeviant Group Members (Experiment 4)

Measure

Measure/group presented Pre-ID Post-ID

NDlIn-groupOut-group

Pre-IDIn-groupOut-group

7161

7161

.25*

.10.45**.24t

31**.61**

< .10 (marginally significant). * p < .05. ** p < .001.

General Discussion

The four experiments reported in this article support ourhypotheses consistently. Experiment 1 demonstrates that categori-cal and normative differentiation can be observed simultaneouslyeven using a minimal group procedure. Participants upgraded thein-group as a whole, as well as in-group and out-group memberswhen these members behaved according to in-group norms. Exper-iment 2 illustrates how situational features that highlight in-groupnorms can moderate the effect of categorization on judgments ofin-group attributes. Accountability to the in-group elevated expres-sions of agreement with the in-group, judged dissimilarity betweengroups, positive evaluations of the in-group, positive evaluations

7 Using EQS, we found the indirect effect of preidentification (P =.48) is marginally significant (t = 1.71, p < .05, one-tailed).

986 MARQUES, ABRAMS, PAEZ, AND MARTINEZ-TABOADA

of group members who endorsed in-group norms, and negativeevaluations of members who opposed these norms. Experiment 3provides a direct check on the effects of salience of group norms.When participants were unaware of the relationship betweengroup members' behavior and prescriptive group norms, theirjudgments were simply driven by a tendency to evaluate the in-group more favorably than the out-group. This applied equally toevaluations of the group as a whole, evaluations of modal mem-bers, and evaluations of deviant members. However, once prescrip-tive in-group norms became explicit, deviant in-group memberswere strongly derogated, although evaluations of the entire groupand modal members remained unchanged. Finally, Experiment 4reveals the mediating effect of judgments about in-group-norma-tive and out-group-normative members (regardless of these mem-bers' category membership) on group identification. These resultsshow that in-group identification fostered normative differentiationand that normative differentiation reinforced identification to thein-group.

Category Differentiation and Normative Differentiationin Group Judgments

Our findings highlight two interrelated processes. The firstprocess relates to category differentiation and in-group favorit-ism and is consistent with self-categorization theory. This theoryproposes that judgments of group members are determined bya metacontrast, according to which individuals subjectively as-sess the ratio between average intergroup differences and aver-age intragroup differences (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Hogg &McGarty, 1990; Turner et al., 1987). The larger the metacontrastratio, the more perceivers disregard intragroup differences andview members of distinct categories as representatives of con-trasting prototypes. In this vein, group prototypes function asgroup norms, because perceivers expect group members to ad-here to them (Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994). As a result, inintergroup contexts, individuals strive to maximize the clarityof the distinction between in-group and out-group features (e.g.,Brown & Abrams, 1986; Hogg, 1992). Our results indicate thatparticipants engaged in this process. Following social categori-zation, participants engaged in general intergroup differentiationand in-group bias across conditions. These responses remainedrelatively unaffected by the intragroup focus generated by thesalience of in-group or out-group accountability and salience ofin-group norms. It would seem that intergroup differentiationand in-group favoritism emerged as a simple and direct responseto judgmental settings that induced in-group/out-groupcomparisons.

Social identity and self-categorization theory also suggest thatindividuals prefer those in-group or out-group members whomaintain or increase intergroup differences (e.g., Hogg, 1996;Hogg & Abrams, 1993; McGarty et al., 1993) and that in-groupmembers should typically be regarded as more attractive thanout-group members (e.g., Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).However, this suggestion may be problematic under circum-stances in which the deviation arises on generally valued dimen-sions such as likability. Research by Marques and colleagues(see Marques & Paez, 1994, for a review) reveals that peopleare more favorable toward likable (but atypical) out-groupmembers than toward unlikable (but atypical) in-group mem-

bers, although both reduce intergroup contrasts. These findingsimply that, within a general framework of intergroup differentia-tion, people may try to establish normative distinctions amongindividuals. The present results directly support this idea. Theinformation we provided to participants emphasized that allgroup members did conform to a group membership criterion(Pattern X or Pattern Y reasoning). If participants were moti-vated only to maintain clear-cut intergroup boundaries, theirjudgments should have been more favorable towards prototypi-cal or modal and less favorable towards atypical or deviantmembers, regardless of whether they were in-group or out-groupmembers. The fact that this phenomenon was not observed isconsistent with the operation of a second process, that of norma-tive differentiation among group members.

Group members that deviated from in-group norms were der-ogated more strongly when accountability or norm salienceheightened participants' awareness of in-group norms. Underthese conditions, judgments of individual in-group and out-group members reflected the extent of their deviation from in-group norms. However, variations in these within-group judg-ments did not affect the levels of intergroup differentiation.These findings are consistent with the idea that an importantconcern for people in intergroup situations is to establish thelegitimacy of in-group norms.

Our results are not necessarily in contradiction with self-categorization theory. In our experiments, intergroup boundarieswere clear-cut from the outset. Hence, it is possible that partici-pants did not see in-group-normative out-group members as astrong threat to intergroup distinctiveness. It may have beensubjectively unproblematic for them to accept counternormativeout-group members as a source of legitimacy for their owngroup norms. This raises the interesting question of haw down-grading of out-group-normative members and upgrading of in-group-normative members might vary as a function of the clarityof intergroup boundaries. Self-categorization theory might pre-dict that normative intragroup differentiation emerges primarilywhen category differentiation is not at risk. An interesting ave-nue for future research would be to identify the conditions underwhich the tension between validation of in-group norms andthreats to in-group distinctiveness is resolved in different direc-tions (cf. Brewer, 1993; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, &Lucca, 1988).

Social Identity and the Operation of Subjective GroupDynamics

A further possibility, in line with more traditional researchon group cohesiveness (see Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Levine,1989, for a review), is that normative differentiation supportsthe perceived legitimacy of intergroup differences and, conse-quently, emerges primarily when social identity is insecure (seealso Tajfel, 1978). For instance, Moreland, Levine, and Cini(1993) proposed that one core process in judgments of groupmembers is the evaluation of the members' acceptance of andmotivation to fulfill group normative expectations. The grouptakes corrective action to reduce discrepancies—for instance,by redefining the status of individual members. This action re-quires a committed, ego-involved attempt to harmonize betweenthe actual characteristics or behavior of group members and

CATEGORY AND NORMATIVE DIFFERENTIATION 987

perceived group goals (Levine & Moreland, 1994). Group mem-bers who threaten group cohesiveness are negatively evaluatedand ultimately may be rejected from the group. Assuming thatthe motivation underlying this process applies to larger socialcategories, our findings seem consistent with this latter view.

Together, our findings are consistent with the operation of"subjective group dynamics" in judgments of group members(Marques & Paez, 1994; Marques, Paez, & Abrams, 1998).When social category memberships are salient, individuals mayassign themselves characteristics they recognize as most typical(i.e., shared by most members) of the group (Hogg, 1992, 1996;Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Turner et al., 1987). In the absence ofother cues, "social reality" (Festinger, 1950) is primarily de-fined by group membership, and a meaningful goal individualscan strive for is clarification and confirmation of their self-definition (cf. Abrams, 1994; Hogg & Abrams, 1993;Marques & Paez, 1994). In support of the above idea, previousresearch has demonstrated that openness to social influence isaffected by common self-categorization between the source andtarget (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hogg & Turner, 1987; Turner etal., 1987). For example, Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane, Hogg,and Turner (1990, Experiments 1-3) found that group member-ship is an important moderator of conformity in the Sherif au-tokinetic effect paradigm, the Asch conformity paradigm, andthe group polarization paradigm. In the present experiments, weshowed that evaluations of group members are strongly affectedby the extent to which they support subjectively valid in-groupnorms. These evaluations may reflect privately (Experiments 1,2, and 4) or publicly implicit (Experiment 2) social pressureson others to reinforce those norms. Perceived "interdepen-dence" or "common fate" with other in-group members isabsolute, because the value and coherence assigned to the cogni-tive representation of the in-group fully affects the clarity of thedefinition of self and its value as a group member (Marques,Paez, & Abrams, 1998). In particular, threats to social identityarising within in-groups lead participants to attempt to restorethe in-group's overall relative positivity. With this intragroupfocus, people may actively seek to constrain other group mem-bers to reinforce in-group norms—for instance, by derogatingin-group members who represent a threat to in-group cohesive-ness. Similarly, validation for in-group norms, even from out-group members, helps to verity the social reality implied bythose norms.

References

Abrams, D. (1990). How do group members regulate their behaviour?An integration of social identity and self-awareness theories. In D.Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructiveand critical advances (pp. 89-112). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf;and New Itbrk: Springer Verlag.

Abrams, D. (1994). Social self-regulation. Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin, 20, 473-483.

Abrams, D., & Brown, R. (1989). Self-consciousness and social iden-tity: Self-regulation as a group member. Social Psychology Quarterly,52, 311-318.

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social categorisation, social iden-tity and social influence. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Euro-pean review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 195-228). New >fork:Wiley.

Abrams, D., Thomas, J., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Numerical distinc-tiveness, social identity, and gender salience. British Journal of SocialPsychology, 29, 87-92.

Abrams, D., Wetherell, M. S., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner,J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorisation and the nature of norm formation, conformity andgroup polarisation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97-119.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator—mediator variabledistinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, andstatistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 51, 1173-1182.

Billig, M. (1985). Prejudice, categorization and particularization: Froma perceptual to a rhetorical approach. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 15, 79-103.

Branscombe, N. R., Wann, D. L., & Noel, J. G. (1994). In-group orout-group extremity: Importance of the threatened social identity. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 381-388.

Brewer, M. B. (1993). The role of distinctiveness in social identityand group behaviour. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Groupmotivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 1—16). London:Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Brown, R., & Abrams, D. (1986). The effects of intergroup similarityand cooperative vs. competitive orientation on intergroup discrimina-tion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 78-92.

Brown, R., Hinkle, S., Ely, P. G., Fox-Cardamone, L., Maras, P., &Taylor, L. A. (1992). Recognizing group diversity: Individual! st-col-lectivist and autonomous-relational social orientations and their im-plications for intergroup processes. British Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 31. 327-342.

Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics. London:Tavistock.

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theoryof normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and revaluation ofthe role of norms in human behavior. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advancesin experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 202-234). New\brk:Academic Press.

Crocker, J., Blainc, B., & Luhtanen, R. (1993). Prejudice, intergroupbehaviour and self-esteem: Enhancement and protection motives. InM. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psycho-logical perspectives (pp. 52-67). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroupbias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 60-67.

Doise, W., & Sinclair, A. (1973). The categorisation process in in-tergroup relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 145-157.

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Re-view, 57, 271-282.

Framing, W. J., & Carver, C. S. (1981). Divergent influences of privateand public self-consciousness in a compliance paradigm. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 15, 159-171,

Hamilton, V. L., & Rauma, D. (1995). Social psychology of devianceand law. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociologicalperspectives on social psychology (pp. 524-547). Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness:From attraction to social identity. New York: New York UniversityPress.

Hogg, M. A. (1996). Social identity, self-categorization, and the smallgroup. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding groupbehavior: Vol. 2. Small group processes and interpersonal relations(pp. 227-253). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A socialpsychology of intergroup relations. New York: Routledge, Chapman &Hall.

988 MARQUES, ABRAMS, PAEZ, AND MARTINEZ-TABOADA

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1993). Towards a single process uncer-tainty-reduction model of social motivation in groups. In M. A.Hogg & D. Abranis (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychologicalperspectives (pp. 173-190). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Hogg, M. A., & Hains, C. S. (1996). Intergroup relations and groupsolidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs on deper-sonalized attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70, 295-309.

Hogg, M. A., & McGarty, C. (1990). Self-categorisation and socialidentity. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory;Constructive and critical advances (pp. 10-27). London: HarvesterWheatsheaf; and New "fork: Springer-Verlag.

Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Social identity and conformity: Atheory of referent information influence. In W. Doise & S. Moscovici(Eds.), Current issues in European social psychology (Vol. 2, pp.139-182). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; andParis: Maison des Sciences de 1'Homme.

Levine, J. M. (1989). Reactions to opinion deviance in small groups.In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 187-231).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1994). Group socialization: Theoryand research. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European reviewof social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 305-336). New "fork: Wiley.

Marques. J. M. (1990). The black sheep effect: Out-group homogeneityin 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 \brk: Springer-Verlag.

Marques, J. M., & Paez, D. (1994). The black sheep effect: Socialcategorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of groupvariability. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European reviewof social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 37-68) . New "\brk: Wiley.

Marques, J. M., Paez, D., & Abrams, D. (1998). Social identity andintragroup 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.

Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J.-P. (1988). The black sheepeffect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members as a function

of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18,1-16.

McGarty, C , Turner, J. C , Oakes, P. J., & Haslam, S. A. (1993). Thecreation of uncertainty in the influence process: The roles of stimulusinformation and disagreement with similar others. European Journalof Social Psychology, 23, 17-38.

Moreland, R. L., Levine, J. M., & Cini, M. A. (1993). Group socializa-tion: The role of commitment. Tn M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.),Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 105-129).London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a functionof salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journalof Social Psychology, 22, 103-122.

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping andsocial reality. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1981). Private and public aspects ofself. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology(Vol. 2, pp. 189-216). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Skinner, M. E, & Stephenson, G. M. (1981). The effects of intergroupcomparison on the polarization of opinions. Current PsychologicalResearch, 1, 49-61.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in thesocial psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroupconflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology ofintergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Triandis, H. C , Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N.(1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectiveson self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 54, 323-338.

Turner, J. C , Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell,M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorisationtheory. London: Blackwell.

Yamagishi, T. (1995). Social dilemmas. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, &J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology(pp. 311-335). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Received March 17, 1998Revision received May 27, 1998

Accepted May 27, 1998 •