Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2000, Vol. 78, No. 5, 906-912 0022-3514/00/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.5.906

Pro-Norm and Anti-Norm Deviance Within and Between Groups

Dominic Abrams Jos6 M. Marques

University of Kent at Canterbury University of Porto

Nicola Bown Michelle Henson

University of Leeds University of Kent at Canterbury

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.

Research on group deviance usually focuses on group members
whose behavior or characteristics reduce the group's distinctive-
ness, contradict its stereotype, or threaten its goals (Levine, 1989).
According to self-categorization theory, in-group norms embody
the behaviors or features that members should adopt and that
maintain distinctiveness from the out-group (Turner, Hogg, takes,
Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). In-group members who do not follow
such norms will reduce the clarity of intergroup boundaries and,
hence, should attract less positive evaluations than more normative
members. However, deviants who are pro-normative should be
judged as more prototypical than those who are anti-normative,
because the former are more distant from the out-group. Therefore
the perceived prototypicality of pro-norm deviants should be
heightened when intergroup comparisons are salient.
Marques, Abrams, Paez, and Martinez-Taboada (1998) distin-
guished between descriptive in-group norms and prescriptive
norms. Descriptive norm deviance simply reduces the clarity of
group prototypes and thus of intergroup boundaries. For example,
if half the spectators at a football game chose to wear the colors of
neither team it would be less easy to distinguish between rival
supporter groups. Prescriptive norm deviance has implications
both for distinctiveness and for the legitimacy of positive evalua-
tions of the in-group because it threatens the validity of the
in-group consensus. For example, if some people who were wear-
ing home team colors cheered when the opposition played well, it
Dominic Abrams and Michelle Henson, Department of Psychology,
University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, United Kingdom; Jose M.
Marques, Department of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University
of Porto, Porto, Portugal; and Nicola Bown, Leeds University Business
School, University of Leeds, Leeds, united Kingdom.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dominic
Abrams, Department of Psychology, University of Kent at Canterbury,
Canterbury CT2 7NP, United Kingdom, or to Jos6 M. Marques, FPCE-UP,
R. do Camp Alegre, 1055, P-4150 Porto, Portugal. Electronic mail may be
sent to d.abrams@ukc.ac.uk or to marques@psi.up.pt.
would be ambiguous for other home team supporters to know
when to cheer. Conversely, some home team supporters might
vehemently deny that their team player committed a foul, even
though the evidence was clear that the foul had been committed.
Supporting the opposition and excessive in-group support may
both be viewed as highly atypical, but they are likely to carry
different connotations for the value of social identity (cf. Sherman,
Hamilton, & Lewis, 1999) for home team supporters. One form of
deviance may invite a negative reaction, the other might attract
tacit approval.
In the present article, we investigate how individuals react when
prescriptive norm deviation occurs in a direction that is inconsis-
tent with (anti) or consistent with (pro) the prevailing norm for the
target group. We define pro-norm deviants as group members who
deviate from their group's norm by holding an extreme position
that, nonetheless, supports the group's aims or ethos. We define
anti-norm deviants as group members who reject their group's
norms and/or who favor the normative attitudes or behavior of a
contrasting group.
Social identity theory (e.g., Tajfel, 1981), holds that people are
motivated to sustain a positive social identity. Marques et al.'s
(1998) model of subjective group dynamics holds that one way
group members do this is by maintaining the subjective validity
and legitimacy of in-group norms. We define subjective group
dynamics as a process by which people maximize and sustain
descriptive intergroup differentiation while simultaneously maxi-
mizing and sustaining the relative validity of prescriptive in-group
norms through intragroup differentiation.
Relative validity is increased by evidence supporting the in-
group norm relative to evidence that supports contrasting norms.
An interesting consequence of subjective group dynamics is that
people should like out-group members whose relative support for
in-group norms boosts relative validity, whereas they should dis-
like in-group members whose relative rejection of in-group norms
undermines relative validity. In fact, in-group--favoring deviants
should be favored more than in-group-rejecting deviants, even

906
 PRO-NORM AND ANTI-NORM DEVIANCE
when both deviate by the same amount and regardless of whether
the deviant is an in-group or out-group member.
Hypotheses and Overview of Studies
We propose that reactions to deviants involve at least two
distinct processes. First, group members should perceive the extent
of deviation at the intragroup level. Noticing that a group member
has deviated is not sufficient to provoke negative evaluations and
judgments of the deviants (Marques et al., Expt. 3, 1998). Instead,
we believe that perceivers evaluate deviants with reference to the
validity of salient in-group norms. Whereas self-categorization
theory simply predicts that less prototypical members should be
evaluated less positively, we propose that such evaluations are
systematically related to the direction of such deviation. The
studies reported in this article examine whether this prediction is
upheld in intragroup and intergroup contexts.
In Study 1, we examined judgments of normative and deviant
members of the gender in-group. In Study 2, we examined judg-
ments of in-group and out-group normative and deviant members
who hold different attitudes toward asylum seekers in the United
Kingdom. We assume that deviants who favor the in-group nor-
mative direction help validate prescriptive group norms and that an
underlying motive for evaluations of these members is to sustain
social identity. This leads us to predict that both normative mem-
bers and pro-in-group deviants should be evaluated more posi-
tively than deviants who oppose the in-group norm. Moreover, the
more individuals identify with their group, the more they should
favor in-group and out-group members that are closer to the
in-group norm.
Study 1
Method
Participants
Sixty male and sixty female students (age 17-18 years) at a tertiary
college participated in the study in groups of 20-30 in each session.
Procedure
Participants were asked to take the role of a personnel officer in an
insurance company (Alpha). Their task was to form impressions of the
employees in the Shipping Section (all of the participant's own gender).
They were told that the supervisor was about to leave and the 7 other
members could be considered for promotion. Three members had applied,
each of whom had worked for the company for approximately 5 years, had
performed well, and was well qualified. The company ostensibly had
obtained information about all 7 employees in the course of their depart-
mental review.
A booklet presented bar charts that used a 9-point continuum to depict
the 7 employees' standing on 7 dimensions. All 7 employees had very
similar levels of intelligence, optimism, politeness, and competence (rated
across 10 office tasks). Five (normative) members were very similar on the
dimensions of dominance, masculinity, and emotionality, averaging 5.2 on
these dimensions. One deviant target was described as much higher (av-
eraging 8.0), and the other was much lower (averaging 2.0) on those
dimensions. Thus, depending on the participant's own gender, one deviant
was pro-in-group normative and the other was anti-in-group normative in
comparison with the normative employees.
907
Measures
Participants rated each of the three targets using a 9-point semantic
differential scale to indicate how masculine-feminine, passive-dominant,
unintelligent-intelligent, and incompetent-competent they were. These
constituted the manipulation checks. Next, participants were asked to
indicate their evaluations of each of the three targets on four items using a
5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much). These items asked how much
participants liked the target, would like to work with the target, saw
themselves as having a similar personality to the target, and had a lot in
common with the target. Next, participants rated the career prospects and
appropriate pay and conditions for each of the 3 targets. All items were
responded to using a 5-point scale (1 = not, 5 = very). They were asked
how high a chance the target had for promotion, how successful their career
would be, how far they will progress in their career, and what payment
band their salary should fall within (from 10,000 in bands of 2,000 up to
18,000+). They were also asked what percentage pay rise the target
should receive at their annual review (1%-5%), and, if promoted to
manager, what their salary band should be (from 10,000 rising in bands of
3,000 to 22,000+). They were asked what type of contract the target
should receive (3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years), how long the
organization would want to keep them (1 = less than most, 5 = more than
most), and how satisfied the company would be with their performance
(1 = not very satisfied, 5 = very satisfied). The next set of items asked how
similar the target was to other members of the department (1 = not very
similar, 5 = very similar) and how much they had in common with the rest
of the department (1 = nothing, 5 = a lot).
Results
Data Reduction
After conducting factor and reliability analyses we computed
composite indexes by averaging across sets of measures relating to
each target (pro-norm, normative, and anti-norm). All composite
indexes had acceptable internal reliability and distinctiveness from
one another. There were no significant main effects or interactions
involving participants' gender, and therefore this factor was not
included in the analyses reported below. The details are available
from the first author on request.
Manipulation Checks
An averaged masculinity and dominance index of stereotypic
extremity was coded so that a higher score represents greater
consistency between the target's femininity-masculinity and that
which is stereotypical for their group (masculinity for male targets,
femininity for female targets). An analysis of variance (ANOVA)
revealed a significant effect of target, F(2, 238) = 1942.86, p <
.001, accurately reflecting the profiles (see Table 1). Pro-norm
targets were rated as higher (M = 7.93) than normative targets
(M = 5.03), t(119) = 42.09, p < .001, who were in turn higher
than anti-norm targets (M = 2.16), t(l19) = 36.34, p < .001. W e
did not want levels of perceived competence to be confounded
with gender extremity and normativeness. As intended, there were
no significant differences in the competence ratings, F(2,
238) = 1.19, or the intelligence rating, F(2, 238) = 0.55, of the
three targets.
Target Fit
The extent to which targets were similar to, and had much in
common with, other members of the department were combined
908 ABRAMS, MARQUES, BOWN, AND HENSON

Table 1 The advancement prospects of the pro-norm and anti-norm devi-

Means and Standard Deviations of Evaluations of In-Group ants did not differ, t(l19) = 0.35.
Members as a Function of Deviance

Target Rewards

Pro-norm Normative Anti-norm This index averaged ratings of appropriate pay, percentage pay
rise, promotion pay, and appropriate length of contract. The effect
Index M SD M SD M SD of target, F(2, 238) = 14.18, p < .001, was significant. The
Stereotypic Extremity 7.93 0.71 5.03 0.27 2.16 0.87 normative target was rewarded more highly (M = 3.75) than the
Competence 5.60 1.07 5.67 0.82 5.52 1.15 pro-norm deviant (M = 3.42), t(l19) = 4.32, p < .001, and than
Target Fit 2.87 0.87 4.00 0.79 2.66 0.87 the anti-norm deviant (M = 3.40), t(l19) = 5.23, p < .001.
Similarity to Self 2.65 0.93 2.85 0.81 2.15 0.73 Rewards for pro-norm and anti-norm deviants did not differ sig-
Attractiveness 3.13 0.78 3.58 0.56 2.80 0.76
Advancement 3.42 0.81 3.82 0.70 3.38 0.82 nificantly, t(119) = 0.22.
Rewards 3.42 0.71 3.75 0.62 3.40 0.68

Note. The scale ranged from 1 (low) to 5 (high), except the scale for
Stereotypic Extremity and Competence ranged from 1 (low) to 9 (high).
into a measure of fit. There was a significant effect of target, F(2,
238) = 93.97, p < .001. The normative member was judged as
more fitting to their group (M = 4.00) than either the pro-norm
(M = 2.87), t(l19) = 10.85, p < .001, or the anti-norm
(M = 2.66), t(l19) = 12.40, p < .001, deviants. However, the
pro-norm deviant was also viewed as significantly more fitting
than the anti-norm deviant, t(119) = 2.03, p = .045.
Self-Target Similarity
This index included ratings of similarity of personality, amount
in common, and extent of shared views and opinions with the
target. The effect of target was significant, F(2, 238) = 23.15, p <
.001. Self was viewed as more similar to the normative target
(M = 2.85) than to the pro-norm deviant (M = 2.65),
t(l19) = 1.82, p = .071, and than to the anti-norm deviant
(M = 2.15), t(l19) = 7.45, p < .001, and as more similar to the
pro-norm than to the anti-norm deviant, t(119) = 4.46, p < .001.
Target Attractiveness
This index averaged across items that measured liking, willing-
ness to work with, willingness to have as a friend, and perceived
friendliness. The effect of target was significant, F(2,
238) = 39.55, p < .001. The normative member was rated as more
attractive (M = 3.58) than the pro-norm deviant (M = 3.13),
t(199) = 5.97, p < .001, and the anti-norm deviant (M = 2.80),
t(199) = 9.79, p < .001, respectively. Moreover, the pro-norm
deviant was seen as more attractive than the anti-norm deviant,
t(l19) = 3.10, p = .002.
Advancement
This index averaged ratings of the target's future success, pro-
motion prospects, progress, prospective length of tenure, and likely
organizational satisfaction with their work. The effect of target was
significant, F(2, 238) = 11.09, p < .001. The normative target was
evaluated as having better advancement prospects (M = 3.82) than
the pro-norm deviant (M = 3.42), t(l19) --- 3.83, p < .001, and
than the anti-norm deviant (M = 3.38), t(l19) = 4.61, p < .001.
Discussion
The manipulation checks verified that both the pro-norm and
anti-norm deviants were seen as equally more gender extreme
relative to the normative employee and that all targets were per-
ceived as equally competent. Both deviants were downgraded on
expectations of advancement and rewards relative to the normative
target. This appears to be consistent with the idea that both types
of deviants attracted similar (negative) judgments on these "ob-
jective" measures. However, other aspects of the results lead to a
different conclusion.
Both the anti-norm and pro-norm deviant were seen as fitting
less well to the group than was the normative employee. However,
participants made less distinction between the fit of the normative
member and the pro-norm deviant than they did between the
normative member and the anti-norm deviant. This supports the
hypothesis that pro-norm deviants are viewed as more typical than
they really are. The evaluations of the targets amplify this pro-anti
distinction. Despite being equally deviant, the pro-norm deviant
was perceived as more attractive than the anti-norm deviant. This
is consistent with the idea that the pro-norm deviant conflicts less
with norms that define in-group social identity.
One explanation for the differential attractiveness of pro- and
anti-norm deviants in Study 1 might rest on our use of gender to
define the group. Even though we did not provide any explicit
information about targets' sexuality, participants may have in-
ferred that a member of their gender who displayed opposite-
gender traits might be a lesbian or a gay man, and this would
convey additional stereotypical information. This might have ren-
dered anti-norm deviants less attractive than gender-extreme per-
sons who deviated in a pro-norm direction (cf. Lindsey & Zakahi,
1996; Madon, 1997). We have no direct evidence for such an
interpretation, but it remains consistent with our hypothesis that
people are sensitive to in-group members who deviate toward
out-group norms because such deviants challenge the subjective
validity of in-group norms.
Study 2
Our second study used a different manipulation of objective
deviance to allow us to compare evaluations of deviants who hold
identical attitude positions but different positions relative to their
group norm. In addition, we examined the effects of evaluating
in-group or out-group targets in the context of an explicit inter-
 PRO-NORM AND ANTI-NORM DEVIANCE
group comparison in which the norms for both groups were also
made explicit.
We added three critical predictions to the hypotheses from
Study 1. First, we hypothesized that an out-group member who
deviates toward the in-group (anti-norm) will be evaluated as less
typical of the out-group than normative out-group members and
than out-group members who deviate in the out-group direction
(pro-norm). Second, the out-group anti-norm deviant will be
judged as more attractive than out-group members who are nor-
mative or are pro-norm deviant. Third, we predicted that an out-
group anti-norm deviant will be evaluated more positively than an
in-group anti-norm deviant even when both have exactly the same
attitude. This is because, relative to other out-group targets, out-
group anti-norm deviants provide validation o f in-group norms. In
turn, relative to other in-group targets, in-group anti-norm deviants
weaken the validity of the in-group norm. To test these ideas we
used a 2 (group presented: in-group vs. out-group) 3 (target
evaluated: anti-norm deviant, normative, pro-norm deviant)
between-within design. In pretesting our materials, 40 psychology
students indicated their agreement with each of 10 attitude state-
ments about national policy (more open-more closed) on immi-
grants seeking asylum. A composite measure ( a = .86) had a mean
score of 3.65 (SD = 0.92) on a 7-point bipolar scale. The students
made recommendations for British government policy on the per-
centage increase or decrease in people granted asylum, using a
21-point scale in steps of,5%, ranging from - 5 0 % to +50%. The
mean recommended change was + 5 % (SD = 3.02). Thus, students
had a neutral attitude overall.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Forty-one University of Kent psychology students (9 men, 32 women)
completed a brief self-description questionnaire, designed to make identity
as a psychology student salient. Then they completed a five-item measure
of identification with psychology whose items were based on results from
previous research (Abrams, 1992; Marques et al., 1998). Next, there was a
brief introduction to the topic of asylum seeking in Europe. A newspaper
article was described, containing a series of graphs and tables reporting the
number of people granted asylum in different European countries. Britain
was the middle of the range in terms of number of people granted asylum.
Participants then read a document entitled, "Survey Research on Asylum
Seeking." This presented two opposing views regarding asylum regulations
in Britain. An introductory paragraph highlighted the importance and
emotiveness of the issues involved, and provided (accurate) statistical
information that 194,000 asylum seekers enter Britain each year, of which
21% (41,000) are granted asylum. The second paragraph gave a series of
strong reasons why the numbers should be increased. The third paragraph
provided information from a bogus survey conducted among the British
Association of Immigration and Customs Officers (BAICO). This stated
reasons the numbers granted asylum should be reduced (arguments were
matched for strength and number against those in the preceding paragraph).
At the end of this paragraph we included the sentence,
In this survey the responses of the large majority of members reflected
the official policy of the BAICO, namely that the proportion of
asylum seekers who are ultimately granted permission to stay in
Britain should be reduced by at least 30%, to 27,000.
The final paragraph mentioned a survey conducted among British psychol-
ogy students and stated that the results indicated "widespread support for
909
the status quo, namely that the current level of admissions for asylum
seekers set by the present Government was about right." This reflected
actual pretested attitudes regarding the asylum issue. Participants were then
told that the survey would be continued and that they would be asked to
give their impressions of other people who had participated.
Global Evaluations
participants completed a set of measures that asked (on a scale of 1 =
not at all, 7 = extremely) how favorable they felt toward BAICO, the
extent to which they considered psychologists and the BAICO as two very
similar groups, how much they would like to belong to BAICO, how
favorable they felt toward psychologists, and how much they agreed with
psychologists' and with BAICO's views about asylum.
Judgments of Group Members
Participants viewed 6 group members' (labeled A to F) responses to
the 10 attitude items used in the pilot test, as well as each member's
specific recommendations about the percentage change in numbers granted
asylum. In the in-group condition the group members were all psychology
students; in the out-group condition they were all nonpsychologist BAICO
members. Attitude responses were represented on 21-point bipolar scales,
which allowed us to manipulate deviance precisely. Four (normative)
members were depicted as holding normative beliefs for their group.
Members B and E were deviant. Both were equally divergent from the
normative members. Their attitudes fell outside of the range of the nor-
mative members. Moreover, the anti-norm targets in the in-group and
out-group conditions actually shared the same position on the scale.
In the in-group condition, the 4 normative members' (psychology stu-
dents) positions corresponded to the (transposed) scale positions of psy-
chology students in the pilot study. Their attitude positions each aver-
aged 11, with a range of 10-12 across the attitude items. The
recommended percentage change in people granted asylum averaged 0%
across the normative members, with a range from - 5 % to +5%. Deviants'
attitudes were determined so that when transposed to a 7 point scale, they
fell outside the 95% confidence interval (and differed significantly) relative
to attitudes held by psychology students. The pro-norm deviant averaged 8
(range 7-9) on the attitude items, and recommended a 20% increase in the
numbers granted asylum. The anti-norm deviant averaged 14 (range 13-15)
and recommended a 20% reduction in the numbers granted asylum.
In the out-group condition, the 4 normative (BAICO) members each
averaged 17 on the attitude scales, with a range of 16-18 across the items.
The recommended percentage change in people granted asylum averaged
-30% across the normative members, with a range from -25% to -35%.
The pro-norm deviant averaged 20 (range 19-21) on the attitude items, and
recommended a 40% decrease in the numbers granted asylum. The anti-
norm deviant averaged 14 (range 13-15) and recommended a 20% reduc-
tion in the numbers granted asylum. Note that the anti-norm positions in the
in-group and out-group condition are identical.
Next, participants evaluated each of the 6 members using a series of
rating scales. The policy manipulation check asked participants to describe
the policy orientation of the member (1 = open, 7 = closed). Remaining
items asked participants to rate (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely) how typical
the member was of their wider category, how favorable they felt toward the
member, how similar each member was to themselves, how well the
member would support the views of psychology students if they registered
for a psychology degree at Kent, and what share of 300 should be paid to
each member if all 6 were to sit on a panel of appeal judges for asylum
applications. Finally, participants rated how similar the 6 people from the
survey were to one another (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely) and how much
they had in common with one another (1 = very little, 7 = very much).
910 ABRAMS, MARQUES, BOWN, AND HENSON

Results
Global Evaluations
In-group identification was similar in the in-group (M = 5.60,
SD = 1.20) and out-group (M = 5.26, SD = 0.90) conditions, the
two groups were rated as being generally dissimilar (M = 2.35,
SD = 1.10), and participants did not wish to belong to the out-
group (M = 2.41, SD = 1.13). When asked to rate the two groups
separately, participants were more favorable toward the in-group
(M = 5.45, SD = 0.93) than toward the out-group (M = 3.68,
SD = 1.12), F(1, 38) = 69.26,p < .001, and agreed more with the
in-group (M = 4.44, SD = 1.23) than with the out-group
(M = 3.63, SD = 1.24), F(1, 39) = 9.70,p < .004. Thus the global
information successfully conveyed an image of an out-group with
which participants felt less in agreement and less favorable toward
relative to the in-group.
Previous research suggested that in-group bias would be asso-
ciated with higher prior identification (Abrams, 1992, 1999; Jetten,
Spears, & Manstead, 1996; Lindeman, 1997; Marques et al.,
1998). Identification was significantly associated with general
favorability toward the in-group, r(40) = .49, p < .001, and with
the difference between in-group and out-group favorability,
r(40) = .42, p < .009, but not with favorability toward the
out-group, r(40) = - . 0 9 .
Judgments o f Group Members
We averaged the ratings for the 4 normative members and
analyzed the remaining variables using a Group Presented (in-
group vs. out-group) Target (pro-norm deviant vs. averaged
normative vs. anti-norm deviant) ANOVA. Group is a between-
participants variable and target is a within-participants variable.
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for these
analyses.
Policy Manipulation Check. There was a significant effect of
group, F(1, 38) = 22.22, p < .001, and a significant Group
Target interaction, F(2, 76) = 100.17, p < .001. The out-group
targets were perceived to have more closed policies than the
in-group targets. The pro-norm deviant was significantly different
in the relevant direction from the normative targets in the in-group
and out-group target conditions, t(17) = -7.21, p < .001, and
t(22) = 7.23, p < .001, respectively. The anti-norm deviant was
also significantly different from the normative members in both
conditions, t(17) = 7.71, p < .001, and t(21) = -6.09, p < .001,
respectively. This confirms the effectiveness of the deviance
manipulation.
Typicality. Following a significant main effect of target, F(2,
78) = 21.29, p < .001, paired t-tests revealed that normative
members and pro-norm deviants were seen as equally typical of
their wider group, (M = 5.06 and 4.97, respectively), t(40) = 0.41,
but that normative members were seen as significantly more typ-
ical than anti-norm members (M = 3.43), t(40) = -7.15, p <
.001. This pattern was repeated both within the in-group condition,
t(40) = 0.57, t(40) = -3.84, p < .001, respectively, and the
out-group condition, t(40) = 0, t(40) = -6.15, p < .001,
respectively.
Perceived Similarity of Members to Self. There was a signif-
icant main effect of group, F(1, 39) = 8.74,p < .005, qualified by
a significant Group Target interaction, F(2, 78) = 14.72, p <
.001. In-group members were rated as more similar to self than
out-group members when they were pro-norm, F(1, 39) = 32.22,
p < .001, or normative, F(1, 39) = 6.56, p < .02, but this pattern
was reversed (nonsignificantly) if the targets were anti-norm, F(1,
39) = 3.48, p < .08. Ratings of targets differed within the in-group
condition, F(2, 78) = 4.11, p < .02. Pro-norm and normative
members were rated as equally similar to self, t(17) = 0.14, but
normative members were rated as more similar than anti-norm
members to self, t(17) = -2.23, p < .04. Ratings also differed
within the out-group condition, F(2, 78) = 13.83, p < .001.
Pro-norm members were rated as less similar than normative
members to self, t(22) = -4.50, p < .001, but normative members
were rated as less similar than anti-norm members to self,
t(22) = 2.34, p < .03.
Favorability to Members. There was a significant Group
Target interaction, F(2, 78) = t9.20, p < .001; see Figure 1.
Within levels of target, in-group and out-group members were
evaluated differently if they were pro-norm, F(1, 39) = 12.07, p <
.001, or anti-norm, F(1, 39) = 15.60, p < .001, but not if they were
normative, F(1, 39) = 0.38. Moreover, evaluations of targets
differed within both the in-group condition, F(2, 78) = 7.29, p <
.001, and the out-group condition, F(2, 78) = 13.15, p < .001. In
the in-group condition, pro-norm and normative members were

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of Judgments of Pro-Norm, Normative, and Anti-Norm Group
Members as a Function of Group Membership

In-group target Out-group target

Pro-norm Normative Anti-norm Pro-norm Normative Anti-norm

Measure M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Policy Manipulation Check 2.50 0.92 4.12 0.72 5.72 0.89 6.65 1.27 5.18 0.76 3.59 1.44
Typicality 4.61 1.42 4.36 0.90 3.06 1.14 5.43 1.41 5.43 0.71 3.70 1.26
Perceived Similarity of Members to Self 4.39 1.46 4.33 1.07 3.22 1.77 2.04 1.19 3.25 1.52 4.17 1.50
Favorability to Members 4.61 1.65 4.13 0.93 3.17 1.25 2.91 1.47 3.92 1.11 4.65 1.15
Anticipated Agreement With In-Group 4.44 1.69 4.28 0.93 3.17 1.47 2.52 1.41 3.70 1.07 4.26 1.05
Recommended Payment for Members 54.06 28.98 49.75 12.07 35.18 19.37 35.65 16.54 51.30 6.39 63.04 22.70

Note. The Recommended Payment for Members measure involved distributing 300 among the group members. For the Policy Manipulation Check, the
scale endpoints were 1 (lenient) and 7 (closed). All other measures ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much~extremely).
 PRO-NORM AND ANTI-NORM DEVIANCE
Pro-Norm
, ~ m. Normative
4.8
. o . . o . Anti-Norm
4.4 ~ * * * * *
4.0 ~ ******
3.6
.... ****
3.2
2.8
I 1
In-group Out-group
Figure 1. Study 2: Favorability toward in-group and out-group members
as a function of deviance from their respective group norms.
rated equally favorably, t(17) = 1.44, but anti-norm members were
rated less favorably than normative members, t(17) = -2.71, p <
.02. In the out-group condition, pro-norm members were rated less
favorably than normative members, t(22) = -5.79, p < .001, and
normative members were rated less favorably than anti-norm
members, t(22) = 2.51, p < .02.
Anticipated Agreement with In-Group. There was a significant
Group Target interaction, F(2, 78) = 17.33, p < .001. Within
levels of target, agreement from in-group and out-group members
was rated differently if they were pro-norm, F(1, 39) = 15.79, p <
.001, or anti-norm, F(1, 39) = 7.74, p < .001, but not if they were
normative, F(1, 39) = 3.37, p < .08. Within the in-group condi-
tion, targets were judged differently, F(2, 78) = 6.52, p < .002.
Pro-norm and normative members were judged to be equally in
agreement, t(17) = 0.43, but normative members were expected to
agree more than anti-norm members, t(17) = -2.84, p < .02. In
the out-group condition, targets were also judged differently, F(2,
78) = 13.60, p < .001. Pro-norm members were assumed to agree
less than normative members, t(22) = -5.00, p < .001, but
normative members were not seen as very different from anti-norm
members, t(22) = 1.83, p < .09.
Recommended Paymentfor Members. There was a significant
Group Target interaction, F(2, 76) = 12.18, p < .001. In-group
and out-group members were paid differently if they were pro-
norm, F(1, 38) = 6.47, p < .02, or anti-norm, F(1, 38) = 16.63,
p < .001, but not if they were normative, F(1, 38) = 0.28.
Payments differed within both the in-group condition, F(2,
76) = 3.85, p < .03, and the out-group condition, F(2,
76) = 10.05, p < .001. In-group pro-norm and normative members
were paid equally, t(16) = 0.50, but normative members were paid
more than anti-norm members, t(16) = -2.72, p < .02. Out-group
pro-norm members were paid less than normative members,
t(22) = -4.16, p < .001, and normative members were paid less
than anti-norm members, t(22) = 2.10, p < .05.
Identification and Ratings of Members
We examined the correlation between in-group identification
and favorability measures within each condition. Identification had
only a weak association with judgments regarding normative
911
members of either group. However, identification had divergent
associations with judgments of targets who were pro- versus
anti-norm. We encapsulated this in an index of the difference
between favorability toward pro- and anti-norm deviates. Differ-
entiation was positively associated with identification for in-group
targets, r(18) = .55, p < .05, but negatively associated with
identification for out-group targets, r(23) = - . 3 8 , p < .08. These
two correlations differ significantly (z = 2.98, p < .005). In other
words, there was a clear relationship between identification and
relative favorability toward in-group-validating deviants regard-
less of whether these are in-group or out-group members.
Discussion
In Study 2, participants felt more favorable toward, and in
agreement with, the in-group than the out-group. Consistent with
intergroup differentiation predicted by social identity theory (cf.
Abrams, 1992; Lindeman, 1997), this difference was larger among
participants who identified more strongly with the in-group.
Perceptions of Difference
Individual targets whose policy orientation deviated either to-
ward or away from their own group norm were perceived to
deviate to the same degree in both the out-group and in-group
condition (similar to the gender-extremity results in Study 1).
However, anti-norm deviants were regarded as being more atypical
than pro-norm deviants, consistent with (but more pronounced
than) the pattern of Findings for "fit" in Study 1. It seems that
judgments of fit and typicality reflect perceived prototypicality, as
conceptualized in self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987).
According to self-categorization theory, the metacontrast of
within-group and between-group differences should mean that
both normative and pro-norm members are more prototypical than
anti-norm members. The former are closer to the position that
encapsulates the difference between in-group and out-group in
relation to perceived intragroup differences. The stronger finding
in Study 2 is attributable to the increased salience of intergroup
context, which would be expected to polarize the prototypical
position for the in-group (Abrams & Hogg, 1990). The results for
judgments of self-target similarity in both studies support the idea
that these judgments are associated with self-categorization. In
both studies participants regarded the in-group pro-norm deviant
as more similar to self than the in-group anti-norm deviant.
Evaluations
In both studies, evaluations were affected by targets' closeness
to the in-group prototype more than by group membership. The
in-group pro-norm deviant was rated more positively than the
anti-norm deviant, and in Study 2, as positively as the normative
target. In Study 2, out-group pro-norm deviants were evaluated
more negatively than normative members, and anti-norm deviants
were evaluated more positively than normative members. This
pattern is consistent with a motivation to validate the in-group
norm. It is in line with our idea that anti-norm out-group deviants
help to undermine the validity of out-group norms and strengthen
in-group norms. This idea is supported by the fact that out-group
anti-norm deviants were evaluated and rewarded substantially
912 ABRAMS, MARQUES, BOWN, AND HENSON
more positively than in-group anti-norm deviants, despite the fact
that both expressed identical attitudes. As well as ruling out a
similarity-attraction interpretation, this discrepancy demonstrates
that the meaning of deviance is derived not only from the intra-
group but also from the intergroup context. This is clearly in line
with subjective group dynamics.
Identification and Global Judgments o f Groups
In Study 2, consistent with our hypothesis that identification
motivates intragroup differentiation, and also in line with subjec-
tive group dynamics, higher identification was associated with
greater favorability toward deviants that endorsed a more in-group
normative direction. This supports the findings in Marques et al.'s
(1998) previous research.
Conclusions
The present research shows how individuals subjectively con-
struct deviance when they evaluate group members. In an intra-
group context without explicit intergroup comparison, members
are sensitive to anti-norm and pro-norm deviance. However, they
evaluate anti-norm deviance more negatively. In an intergroup
context this tendency is more extreme. Pro-norm deviance among
in-group members is largely disregarded and such members are
treated as if they were typical. Anti-norm deviance from in-group
members is regarded very negatively and is punished. Judgments
of out-group members seem to be harsher for pro-norm deviants
and more positive for anti-norm deviants. Subjective group dy-
namics seem to afford protection to in-group pro-norm deviants
and a welcoming hand to out-group anti-norm t:leviants.
References
Abrams, D. (1992). Processes of social identification. In G. Breakwell
(Ed.), Social identity and the self-concept (pp. 57-100). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Abrams, D. (1999). Social identity, social cognition, and the self: The
flexibility and stability of self-categorization. In D. Abrams & M. A.
Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 197-229). Oxford,
England: Blackwell.
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-
categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychol-
ogy, 1, 195-228.
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1996). Intergroup norms and
intergroup discrimination: Distinctive self-categorization and social
identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1222-1233.
Levine, J. M. (1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In P. B.
Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 187-231). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Lindeman, M. (1997). Ingroup bias, self-enhancement and group identifi-
cation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 337-355.
Lindsey, A. E., & Zakahi, W. R. (1996). Women who tell and men who
ask: Perceptions of men and women departing from gender stereotypes
during initial interaction. Sex Roles, 34, 767-786.
Madon, S. (1997). What do people believe about gay males? A study of
stereotype content and strength. Sex Roles, 37, 663-685.
Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Paez, D., & Martinez-Taboada, C. (1998). The
role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and
their members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 976-
988.
Sherman, S. J., Hamilton, D. L., & Lewis, A. L. (1999). Perceived entita-
tivity and the social identity value of group memberships. In D. Abrams
& M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 80-110).
Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, En-
gland: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M.
(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.
Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Received July 2, 1999
Revision received November 30, 1999
Accepted November 30, 1999