Insulting Ingroup Members: To Avoid or to Confront? Tina C. DeMarco & Anna-Kaisa Newheiser Background Results Discussion Summary: Desire to rebuke the deviating group member mediated the relationship between exposure to ingroup (vs. outgroup) deviance and confrontation Desires to rebuke the deviant and protect the self/ingroup jointly mediated the relationship with avoidance Thus, coping with “black sheep” is driven in part by retributive motives, which can translate into behavioral intentions to both confront and avoid deviating ingroup members Only for high identifiers: These patterns did not occur among low ingroup identifiers Why are high identifiers especially motivated to rebuke and therefore confront/avoid ingroup deviants? May allow high identifiers to communicate the importance of consensual group norms, bolster ingroup entitativity in the face of within-group conflict, and correct or ostracize the deviant Role of social identity threat: Exposure to insulting ingroup members may represent a case of value threat originating from within the ingroup itself Defensive reactions may take the form of ingroup (rather than outgroup) derogation Rebuking insulting ingroup members may restore positive social identity Question for future research: How effective is black sheep derogation (vs. outgroup derogation) as a social identity threat reduction mechanism? Desire to rebuke can be beneficial: Rejection of insulting ingroup members may ironically damage the group’s image by making the group appear disloyal to its members (Van Leeuwen, van den Bosch, Castano, & Hopman, 2010) Rebuking and seeking to correct ingroup deviants allows group members to repair the group’s public reputation while maintaining the group’s image as loyal to its members Desire to rebuke black sheep may be a highly functional response to within-group conflict Black sheep effect: people judge a deviant ingroup member as more unlikable and unfavorable than a similarly deviant outgroup member Known to be motivated by desires to: Protect the ingroup Protect the self We extend prior work by assessing a variety of divergent ways in which people may want to cope with ingroup deviants and by examining reasons behind these responses Hypotheses: Participants will be more motivated to both confront and avoid an ingroup (vs. outgroup) deviant This difference will be mediated by desires to protect the self and the ingroup, ignore the conflict, and rebuke the deviant These effects will be stronger among participants who are more strongly identified with their ingroup Study 1 Moderated mediation: Indirect effects (in green) are significant when ingroup identification is high Ingroup (vs. outgroup) deviant Protect Ignore Confront the deviant + ns - Rebuke Ingroup (vs. outgroup) deviant Protect Ignore Avoid the deviant + ns Rebuke Method Study 2 Moderated mediation: Indirect effects (in green) are significant when ingroup identification is moderate or high; pattern holds among both Democrat and Republican participants Participants read an essay written by an ingroup or outgroup member in which the author insulted his/her own ingroup, and reported the extent to which and potential reasons why they wanted to confront and avoid the author Study 1 (N=225): ingroup or outgroup university Study 2 (N=372): U.S. political party affiliation Predictor: Exposure to an ingroup (vs. outgroup) deviant Moderator: Ingroup identification Mediators: Desire to rebuke the deviant (e.g., “I would want to prove them wrong”) Desire to protect the self and the ingroup (e.g., “I would want to protect the university/party”) Desire to ignore (e.g., “I wouldn’t want to get involved”) DVs: How much do you want to (a) confront and (b) avoid this person? Ingroup (vs. outgroup) deviant Protect Ignore Confront the deviant + ns - Rebuke Ingroup (vs. outgroup) deviant Protect Ignore Avoid the deviant + Rebuke