Subjective Group Dynamics Model Research Articles

Provjera temeljnih postavki razvojnoga modela subjektivne grupne dinamike na ad hoc grupama mladih

The aim of this paper is to test some of the assumptions of the Developmental Subjective Group Dynamics Model (Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003) on ad hoc groups of youth. The variables included were: a) differential evaluation; b) differential inclusion; c) intragroup bias; and d) group identification. It was assumed that the participants' age would moderate the relationship of intragroup bias and differential evaluation, while differential inclusion would be a mediator of this relationship. Furthermore, the moderation effect of group identification on the relationship of differential evaluation and differential inclusion was expected. The participants were students 12 to 16 years of age (N = 349). As assumed, the existence of differential evaluation, differential inclusion and intragroup bias was found. However, age had no moderating effect on the relationship between intragroup bias and differential evaluation. Intragroup bias had a direct effect on differential evaluation; however, this relationship was also mediated by differential inclusion. Furthermore, group identification moderated the relationship of differential inclusion and differential evaluation.

You are either for us or against us: When are ambivalent in-group members sanctioned?

The subjective group dynamics model describes conditions for sanctioning deviant in-group members. A description of a new or established group member's (the target) attitude toward “Obamacare” was provided to 136 Republican participants. The target expressed a group-normative, ambivalent, or deviant opinion. Participants indicated the self-relevance of Obamacare, and evaluated the target. Neither target status nor attitude affected evaluations for non-vested participants; however, highly vested participants evaluated new ambivalent targets more favorably than established ambivalent targets (p < .05): derogation or sanctioning of ambivalent and deviant targets, that is, was moderated by evaluators’ vested interest and longevity of the target's group membership.

Explaining Extremity in Evaluation of Group Members

A meta-analysis that included more than 1,100 effect sizes tested the predictions of three theoretical perspectives that explain evaluative extremity in social judgment: complexity-extremity theory, subjective group dynamics model, and expectancy-violation theory. The work seeks to understand the ways in which group-based information interacts with person-based information to influence extremity in evaluations. Together, these three theories point to the valence of person-based information, group membership of the evaluated targets relative to the evaluator, status of the evaluators’ ingroup, norm consistency of the person-based information, and incongruency of person-based information with stereotype-based expectations as moderators. Considerable support, but some limiting conditions, were found for each theoretical perspective. Implications of the results are discussed.

Children's responses to social atypicality among group members - advantages of a contextualized social developmental account

Abrams, Rutland, Palmer, Ferrell, and Pelletier (2014) showed that better second-order mental state understanding facilitates 6-7-year-olds' ability to link a partially disloyal child's atypicality to inclusive or exclusive reactions by in-group or outgroup members. This finding is interpreted in terms of predictions from the developmental subjective group dynamics model. We respond to thoughtful commentaries by Rhodes and Chalik, Patterson, and Rakoczy. Children face a significant developmental challenge in becoming able to recognize and interpret social atypicality in intergroup contexts. Researching that ability to contextualize judgements raises new questions about the nature of peer inclusion and exclusion, about children's social cognition, and about the way that social cognitive development and social experience combine. Rather than individual-focused cognition taking priority over category-based cognition, we argue the two become more systematically integrated during development. We note that loyalty is but one example of typicality, and we also consider the role of more advanced perspective taking among older children, and the role of multiple classification skill among younger children, as well as potential implications for intervention to reduce peer victimization and prejudice.

The role of cognitive abilities in children's inferences about social atypicality and peer exclusion and inclusion in intergroup contexts

Children aged 6-7 years judged a loyal and a partially disloyal member of a school in terms of how typical they are within the school group and their likely acceptance by peers from the same school and a different school. Second-order mental-state understanding (SOMSU) predicted whether children thought atypical members would be included differently in the two groups. Counterfactual reasoning ability, multiple classification ability, and working memory ability did not predict children's judgements of group members. Moreover, as predicted by the developmental subjective group dynamics model, only children with higher levels of SOMSU and who discerned differences in the typicality of normative and deviant ingroup members inferred that peers would differently include atypical individuals from the same and different groups.

Challenge, threat, and subjective group dynamics: Reactions to normative and deviant group members.

The study of in-group deviance has typically measured cognitive or behavioral variables rather than motivational variables. The present research addressed this gap in the literature by using the biopsychosocial (BPS) model of challenge and threat, while testing predictions stemming from the subjective group dynamics (SGD) model. Group members participated in simulated interactions with other group members. Experiment 1 (n 39) manipulated group membership of the interaction partner (in-group vs. out-group) and partner’s attitude (normative vs. deviant). In line with SGD, interaction with out-group deviant members induced motivational challenge. However, interaction with in-group deviants induced neither challenge nor threat. Experiment 2 (n 55) showed that challenge was invoked and confrontation tendency was increased during interactions with in-group deviants when participants had sufficient psychological resources (issue-relevant knowledge). These results are consistent with the SGD model and the BPS model, and they suggest that a desire to enhance or maintain subjective validity is a fundamental process underlying interactions with deviants.

Wherein Lies Children’s Intergroup Bias? Egocentrism, Social Understanding, and Social Projection

Does children's bias toward their own groups reflect egocentrism or social understanding? After being categorized as belonging to 1 of 2 fictitious groups, 157 six- to ten-year-olds evaluated group members and expressed preferences among neutral items. Children who expected the in-group to share their item preferences (egocentric social projection) showed intergroup bias. However, most bias was expressed by children who expected their in-group to share, but the out-group to oppose, their own evaluations of members. These oppositional expectations were associated with better social perspective taking, and better understanding that groups expect loyalty from their members. Consistent with the developmental model of subjective group dynamics (D. Abrams, A. Rutland, J. Pelletier, & J. M. Ferrell, 2009), social understanding, rather than egocentrism, provides a more parsimonious explanation of children's intergroup bias.

The effect of difference oriented communication on the subjective validity of an in-group norm: Doc can treat the group.

The subjective group dynamics model predicts that in-group deviants who violate in-group norms that differentiate between the in-group and the out-group threaten the in-group's public image and its sense of validity. Previous research has shown that, to reduce this threat, group members attempt to symbolically marginalize in-group deviants through negative evaluation. In the current study (N = 107), the effect of another form of symbolic marginalization (difference oriented communication) is investigated. The findings support the subjective group dynamics model by showing that group members whose communications to deviants highlighted differences experienced a subsequent increase in subjective validity of in-group norms.

Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect?

In 3 experiments, participants (Ns = 50, 95, and 75, respectively) judged 2 ingroup or outgroup members who occupied 1 of 3 statuses--new members, full members, or marginal members. In each case, 1 of these members adopted a normative position and another supported a deviant position regarding a relevant issue. Participants upgraded normative ingroup full members and derogated deviant ingroup full members compared with all other members. In addition, derogation of deviant ingroup members was associated with a socializing and a punishing intention toward new members and full members, respectively. These results are discussed in terms of the group socialization model (e.g., Levine & Moreland, 1994) and the subjective group dynamics model (e.g., Marques, Paez, & Abrams, 1998).

Children’s Group Nous: Understanding and Applying Peer Exclusion Within and Between Groups

In Study 1, 167 English children aged 6-8 or 9-11 evaluated peer English or French soccer fans that were loyal or partially disloyal. In Study 2, 149 children aged 5-11 made judgments about generic inclusion norms between and within competitive groups. In both studies, children's understanding of intergroup inclusion/exclusion norms (group nous) was predicted by theory of social mind (a social perspective taking measure) but not multiple classification skill. In Study 2, the number of groups children belonged to (an index of peer group experience) also predicted group nous. Supporting the developmental subjective group dynamics model (D. Abrams, A. Rutland, & L. Cameron, 2003), children's experience and perspective taking help them make sense of inter- and intragroup inclusion and exclusion.

Children’s Judgments of Disloyal and Immoral Peer Behavior: Subjective Group Dynamics in Minimal Intergroup Contexts

The developmental model of subjective group dynamics hypothesizes that peer exclusion during middle childhood involves inferences about group dynamics. To test the generality of this prediction, children judged, within minimal groups, peers whose behavior was loyal versus disloyal (Study 1: n = 46, mean age = 113 months) or morally acceptable versus unacceptable (Study 2: n = 121, mean age = 90 months). As hypothesized, in Study 1, children used their understanding of loyalty norms as a basis for evaluating peers. In both studies, higher commitment to the in-group increased use of group-based criteria for judging peers. In Study 2, children employed moral- and group-based criteria independently for judging peers. Multiple classification skill was associated with lower intergroup bias and greater use of morality-based judgment.

Retributive justice and social categorizations: the perceived fairness of punishment depends on intergroup status

AbstractIn the current research, the authors investigate the influence of intergroup status and social categorizations on retributive justice judgments, that is, the extent to which observers perceive punishment as fair. Building on social identity theory and the model of subjective group dynamics, it is predicted that when the ingroup has higher status than the outgroup, people are relatively less concerned about punishment of an outgroup offender than when the ingroup has lower status than the outgroup. Two experiments revealed that participants are more punitive towards an ingroup than an outgroup offender when ingroup status is high but not when ingroup status is low. Furthermore, in correspondence with our line of reasoning, this finding emerged because participants were less punitive towards outgroup offenders when ingroup status is high than when ingroup status was low. It is concluded that the perceived fairness of punishment depends on the offender's social categorization and intergroup status. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

The development of subjective group dynamics: children's judgments of normative and deviant in-group and out-group individuals.

A developmental model of subjective group dynamics suggests that social identity is sustained first by intergroup biases and later by intragroup biases. In this study 476 English children 5 to 11 years old evaluated the English and German soccer teams, and judged in-group or out-group members whose attitudes toward the teams was normative versus antinormative. Children of all ages expressed intergroup bias. Differential evaluation against in-group deviants and in favor of out-group deviants strengthened with age. Understanding of targets' relative acceptability (differential inclusion) among in-group and out-group members mediated the effects of age and intergroup bias on intragroup bias. Identification with the in-group moderated the effects only among older children.

The development of subjective group dynamics: When in‐group bias gets specific

Children aged 6–7 years and 10–11 years evaluated an in‐group or out‐group summer school and judged in‐group or out‐group members whose attitudes towards the summer schools were either normative or anti‐normative. According to a subjective group dynamics model of intergroup processes, intergroup differentiation and intragroup differentiation co‐occur to bolster the validity of in‐group norms. The hypothesis that this process develops later than simple in‐group bias was confirmed. All children expressed global in‐group bias, but differential reactions to in‐group and outgroup deviants were stronger among older children. Moreover, the increasing relationship, with age, between in‐group bias and evaluative preferences for in‐group and out‐group members that provide relative support to in‐group norms, is mediated by the degree of perceptual differentiation among group members.

The emergence and effects of deviants in low and high status groups

We test the proposition, derived from social identity theory and the subjective group dynamics model, that a group member who undermines the in-group’s quest for positive status will be perceived as a “deviant.” Using a minimal group paradigm, participants ( N=104) were assigned to either a high or a low status group. They were then confronted with an in-group member who claimed that the status differentials were either legitimate or illegitimate. We found that a group member who claimed that the status differences were legitimate in a low status group, or illegitimate in a high status group, was seen as less valuable to the in-group than a more neutral in-group member. Furthermore, such deviants were less likely to be selected for group leadership than neutral group members. Finally, the presence of a deviant undermined the cohesion of the group. The results are discussed in terms of the social functions of deviant rejection for obtaining or preserving positive group distinctiveness.

Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined.

The authors predicted that derogation of group deviants depends on the extent to which in-group norms or values are validated or undermined in a social context. In Experiment 1 participants were less tolerant and derogated in-group deviants more when other in-group members opposed the norm. In Experiment 2 participants derogated in-group deviants more than out-group deviants and than noncategorized individuals, but only when normative in-group members lacked uniformity. In Experiment 3 participants derogated in-group deviants more when there was uncertainty about in-group superiority. These results are consistent with previous research on the black sheep effect (J. M. Marques, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & J. -P. Leyens, 1988) and with the model of subjective group dynamics (D. Abrams, J. M. Marques, N. J. Bown, & M. Henson, 2000; J. M. Marques, D. Abrams, D. Paez, & C. Martinez-Taboada, 1998).

Being better by being right: subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined.

The authors predicted that derogation of group deviants depends on the extent to which in-group norms or values are validated or undermined in a social context. In Experiment 1 participants were less tolerant and derogated in-group deviants more when other in-group members opposed the norm. In Experiment 2 participants derogated in-group deviants more than out-group deviants and than noncategorized individuals, but only when normative in-group members lacked uniformity. In Experiment 3 participants derogated in-group deviants more when there was uncertainty about in-group superiority. These results are consistent with previous research on the black sheep effect (J. M. Marques, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & J. -P. Leyens, 1988) and with the model of subjective group dynamics (D. Abrams, J. M. Marques, N. J. Bown, & M. Henson, 2000; J. M. Marques, D. Abrams, D. Paez, & C. Martinez-Taboada, 1998).

Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within and between groups.

Participants evaluated other individuals who deviated in either an anti- or pro-normative direction relative to normative members. In Study 1, in-group gender-normative members were rated more positively than deviant members. The pro-norm deviant was viewed as more attractive than the anti-norm deviant. In Study 2 anti-norm in-group deviants were evaluated more negatively than anti-norm out-group deviants even though both held identical attitudes. In both studies, despite objective equivalence, pro-norm deviance was perceived as less "atypical" than anti-norm deviance. Judgments and reactions to deviance depend on group membership and the direction of deviance, not just its magnitude. Evaluations of deviants are also related to perceivers' identification with their own group. These findings are consistent with our model of subjective group dynamics.