In 1999, a 16-year-old Dutch girl named Marianne Vaatstra was found raped and murdered in a meadow. People quickly suggested that the murderer was likely to be found in the refugee centre near the village where the girl was killed. Many people thought that only someone from abroad could commit such a crime. In 2013, the murderer was finally identified and it turned out to be a local farmer. People were shocked that the crime was committed by a member of their community. The mother of the victim and others even refused to believe that it was true and they criticized the DNA methods that were used to solve the crime. Other people complained that the sentences in the Netherlands were not harsh enough to punish the ingroup murderer. When people are confronted with such behaviour, they often ask themselves ‘Was it one of us?’ People often think positively about themselves and the groups they belong to and they are likely to assume that only members of other groups could possibly be responsible. The question is, what happens when people learn that it was actually one of them who did something wrong. A plausible reaction could be finding excuses for the ingroup perpetrator or downplaying the severity of the event. The opposite reaction is also likely. The ingroup perpetrator could be rejected and punished more harshly than perpetrators from outgroups engaging in the same misconduct. It seems that both types of reaction occur. The writers of this article assume that both reactions are driven by the same motive: a striving for a positive social identity. The motive is stable, but the way in which it is strived for will vary as a function of several moderating variables. In this article, the model of Coping with Ingroup Deviance (CID) will be introduced. The writers argue that when relevant moderators are take into account, it can be predicted whether people will show very mild or very harsh reactions when dealing with ingroup deviance.

Categorization and ingroup favouritism

People often categorize their social world into broad categories, like children versus adults or men versus women. An important distinction people make when categorizing the social world is between ingroups (us) and outgroups (them).the Social Identity Theory states that people derive part of their identity from their membership in social groups. Who we are is determined by our nationality, gender and/or professional affiliation. People tend to strive for positive self-regard, but they will also strive for positive evaluations of their group memberships. The positive social identities are often achieved by perceiving the ingroup as comparatively better than other groups. Many studies have found this ingroup favouritism. The positive bias towards ingroups is robust, but it is not unconditional. It has to be responsive to reality constraints. One study found that soccer supporters whose team just lost miserably in competition with another team will not be prone to brag about the superior quality of their team’s soccer performance. They will be likely to try and reduce the damage of their own group’s defeat (for example, due to core player injuries). The responsiveness of ingroup bias to reality constraints is crucial for understanding differences in how people cope with negative ingroup deviance.

People are interested in a positive social identity and it therefore doesn’t seem strange that people tend to be positively biased when confronting an ingroup member who shows unacceptable behaviour. Group members will have to motivation to take the perspective of such an ingroup deviant as well as give the benefit of the doubt if possible. They may therefore downplay the harm that is done or make situational attributions rather than assuming that harm was done intentionally. In this way, the deviant ingroup member does not endanger the positive perception a person has of the ingroup, because the person is able to find excuses for the deviant behaviour. A biased interpretation of the negative event doesn’t really require an extensive effort on the part of the perceiver. Studies have shown that people have an automatic tendency to perceive their own groups positively. This positive default towards the ingroup can spontaneously and unconsciously affect evaluations of the ingroup and the members of the ingroup. If one sees ingroup members as positive at the outset, then such a default may override the potential negative evaluations that might occur when ingroup members violate norms. Some researchers have looked at real instances of intergroup violence between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. They found out that violence enacted by ingroup members was predominantly attributed to external, situational factors. They also found that violence enacted by outgroup members was mostly attributed to dispositional (personality-related) factors. It seems that ingroup violence can be conceptualized in terms of unusual circumstances, while outgroup violence is a matter of hostile people with bad characters.

Group members can also react very negatively to the misbehaving ingroup member and may respond even more negatively than towards outgroup members performing the same behaviour. by doing this, they can show that the deviant’s behaviour departs strongly from the norms of the group. This is labelled the Black sheep effect.’ One study showed that people, who were portrayed as dislikable and norm-deviant, received more disapproval when categorized as an ingroup rather than outgroup member. Some argue that the Black sheep effect can be seen as a sort of sophisticated ingroup favouritism. By strongly distancing the average group members from the ingroup deviant and by harshly criticizing the deviant’s conduct, group members can act as if the deviant is not typical for the group. According to the Subjective Group Dynamics Model, negative reactions to ingroup deviants are functional because people can retain the perception that the group as a whole is benevolent despite a bad person in the group.

These arguments show that a striving for positive ingroup distinctiveness, as postulated in Social Identity Theory, makes both options equally plausible and functional. The question is under which circumstances ingroup deviants will be viewed more positively or more negatively than outgroup deviants. The writers of this article believe that there are three important classes of moderating variables, that involve characteristics of the misconduct, characteristics of the group member evaluating the misconduct and characteristics of the group member committing the misconduct. This reasoning is also behind the writers’ Coping with Ingroup Deviance (CID) model. In the rest of this article, this model will be used to organize and discuss existing evidence on positively or negatively biased reactions to ingroup perpetrators. The writers will consider evaluations and punishment recommendations and they will refer to evidence on the specific emotions elicited by ingroup deviant behaviour. Different emotions are likely to prompt different behavioural reactions.

Negative ingroup deviance and moderators

The three moderators mentioned above were characteristics of the misconduct, characteristics of the group member and characteristics of the evaluator. All three will be discussed in some detail below.

Characteristics of the misconduct

In one study on the Black sheep effect, the researchers manipulated whether the deviant group member was offending either a general norm (that applies to everyone) or a norm that characterizes the ingroup. The results showed that only the ingroup-defining norm deviation elicited the Black sheep effect. However, later research found that offenses to generic norms can also sometimes elicit strong derogation of ingroup members. The writers think it’s safe to say that both distinguishing group norms and generic humanity norms can produce the Black sheep effect conditions.

Once a person is identified, people try to figure out whether the behaviour was intended or not. The case may be that as long as it isn’t determined whether a norm violation was actually intended, a person can continue to feel good about the ingroup without harsh evaluations of the person engaging in the misconduct. This means that the Black sheep effect may be less likely to occur if intent is ambiguous. Studies on this have been conducted. One study showed that if the intention to do harm was ambiguous, an ingroup perpetrator was rated less negatively than an outgroup perpetrator. When the intent was unambiguous, the pattern reversed: an ingroup perpetrator was viewed more negatively than an outgroup perpetrator. Other studies found that when guilt was certain, feelings of anger and hostility were stronger towards an ingroup perpetrator than an outgroup perpetrator. If guilt was uncertain, the ingroup perpetrator aroused less anger and hostility than the outgroup suspect. Also, as long as guilt was uncertain, the ingroup perpetrator was given the benefit of the doubt with respect to recommended punishment. Many studies reveal that perceivers are attentive to cues to intent ambiguity. If intentions to do harm are not ambiguous, then there is no positive bias towards ingroup deviants. Negative evaluations seem to serve the purpose of distancing most of one’s group from the perpetrator. These processes seem less important if outgroup members are involved. Anger seems to be a relevant mediator of evaluative and behavioural response to ingroup deviants.

Characteristics of the person committing the misconduct

Three types of group members are distinguished. There are newcomers who have just entered the group and who are in the socialization phase of their membership. There are full member who have successfully completed socialization and this gives them more privileges and responsibilities for the group and its goal achievements. There are also marginal members who lost their full member status by not fulfilling group standards. These members may re-socialize and become ingroup members again or they may psychologically exit the group. Researchers have argued that full members are particularly representative of the group and its positive image. These full members are therefore evaluated most strictly when they do wrong and they receive most praise when they engage in normative behaviour. Research has found that evaluations of the deviant ingroup member were more negative when the target was a full rather than new member. Behaviours that were directed towards the target depended on the group member. If the target was a new member, the goal was to get the target to change his/her behaviour. If the target was a full member, people desired to punish this target. These studies show that group members have a strong interest in the maintenance of norms that contribute to the ingroup’s positive identity. They will therefore perceive negatively deviant behaviour by fellow ingroup members as threatening and react accordingly. This will be less true for deviant members who do not possess full membership status.

Research has also looked at the power that ingroup members possess. Researchers say that leaders typically earn their status for being prototypical. Anti-normative behaviour should therefore strongly violate expectations and be evaluated more negatively. However, as power is associated with leadership status, the leader has permission to deviate. Some researchers argued that which of these two phenomena will apply may depend on the phase of leadership the deviant group member is in. These researchers distinguish between past, current and future leaders. In groups with future leaders, the group should give leaders innovation credit and provide them with permission to deviate from what is currently normative. Current leaders that deviate from the norm will be evaluated in terms of their failure to represent group expectations and this will result in more negative appraisals. Past leaders are no longer in the centre of attention and they should therefore elicit weaker negative reactions than current leaders. Research has shown that past leaders expressing opposing attitudes were evaluated less negatively than current leaders and the greatest deviance tolerance occurred for future leaders. Studies have also found that when the leader’s anti-normative behaviour was severe (like sexual harassment) he/she elicited harsher reactions (stronger punishment intentions) than non-leaders performing the same behaviour. But when the severity of anti-normative behaviour was minor (like being late for a meeting), there was a greater leniency for the leader than non-leader. Some studies have shown that, under some conditions, leaders within the group might be treated more leniently than regular group members showing the same negatively deviant behaviour. If the leader’s behaviour is driven by the goal to serve the group’s interest, the group has a double standard. When a leader acts deviantly, it might be considered as justified by the necessities of the situation, but if a non-leader acts this way it might be disapproved upon.

Characteristics of the evaluator

According to research, the strength with which a person identifies with an ingroup should matter. Not ambiguous anti-normative behaviours exhibited by ingroup members should be more threatening as identification with the group increases. As a result of the greater group identification, evaluations of deviants should be harsher. Studies have also found evidence for the idea that the ingroup bias can be seen as sort of default reaction. It operates automatically to protect ingroup positivity. This means that when a person is categorized as an ingroup member, the motivated tendency to view the person with benevolence should be elicited. But if this is the case, how can we then account for the Black sheep effect? Research on this topic has found that derogating deviant ingroup members requires cognitive effort. It is a strategic, deliberate response in situations when the ingroup’s reputation is endangered and positive expectations about ingroup members are challenged.

Conclusion

The writers of this article have shown that people are guided by a positive bias toward the ingroup and its members. The bias can take two forms. One form downsizes the misbehaviour and the other form punishes the member more harshly. The writers offered a model of CID and this can be used as a tool to better predict which form reactions to ingroup deviance will take. The writers provided three groups of moderators, but obviously, there are more moderators of reactions to deviance. For example, the context in which the deviance occurs (in front of an outgroup or ingroup audience) could be relevant. All findings in the current article are consistent with the assumption that people’s coping with ingroup deviance is guided by the motivation to maintain or re-establish the ingroup’s positive regard. The nature and circumstances of the misconduct will determine how it is fulfilled.