Black sheep Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! ==In psychology== In 1988, Marques, Yzerbyt and Leyens conducted an experiment where Belgian students rated the following groups according to trait-descriptors (e.g. sociable, polite, violent, cold): unlikeable Belgian students, unlikeable North African students, likeable Belgian students, and likeable North African students. The results indicated that favorability is considered highest for likeable ingroup members and lowest for unlikeable ingroup members, with the favorability of unlikeable and likeable outgroup members lying between the two ingroup members.<ref name="Marques et al. (1988)" /> These extreme judgements of likeable and unlikeable (i.e., deviant) ingroup members, relatively to comparable outgroup members is called "black sheep effect". This effect has been shown in various [[intergroup]] contexts and under a variety of conditions, and in many experiments manipulating likeability and norm deviance.<ref name="Branscombe et al. (1993)">{{ cite journal | last = Branscombe | first = N. |author2=Wann, D.|author3=Noel, J.|author4=Coleman, J. | title = In-group or out-group extremity: Importance of the threatened social identity | journal = Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin | year = 1993 | volume = 19 | issue = 4 | pages = 381–388 | doi = 10.1177/0146167293194003 | s2cid = 144403591 }}</ref><ref name="Coull et al. ()">{{ cite journal | last = Coull | first = A. |author2=Yzerbyt, V. Y. |author3=Castano, E. |author4=Paladino, M.-P. |author5=Leemans, V. | title = Protecting the ingroup: Motivated allocation of cognitive resources in the presence of threatening ingroup members | journal = Group Processes & Intergroup Relations | year = 2001 | volume = 4 | issue = 4 | pages = 327–339 | doi = 10.1177/1368430201004004003 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.379.3383 | s2cid = 16867772 }}</ref><ref name="Khan & Lambert (1998)">{{ cite journal | last = Khan | first = S. |author2=Lambert, A. J. | title = Ingroup favoritism versus black sheep effects in observations of informal conversations | journal = Basic and Applied Social Psychology | year = 1998 | volume = 20 | issue = 4 | pages = 263–269 | doi = 10.1207/s15324834basp2004_3 }}</ref><ref name="Pinto et al. (2010)">{{ cite journal | last = Pinto | first = I. R. |author2=Marques, J. M.|author3=Levine, J. M.|author4=Abrams, D. | title = Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect? | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | year = 2010 | volume = 99 | issue = 1 | pages = 107–119 | doi = 10.1037/a0018187 | pmid = 20565188 }}</ref> ===Explanations=== [[File:Mirosław Bałka - Czarny papież i czarna owca (1987)01.jpg|thumb|''Black Pope and Black Sheep'', a sculpture by [[Mirosław Bałka]], 1987]] A prominent explanation of the black sheep effect derives from the social identity approach ([[social identity theory]]<ref name="Tajfel & Turner (1979)">{{ cite book |author1=Worchel, S. |author2=Austin, W. G. | title = The Social psychology of intergroup relations. | year = 1979 | publisher = Brooks-Cole | location = Monterey, CA }}</ref> and [[self-categorization theory]]<ref name="Turner et al. (1987)">{{ cite book |author1=Turner, J. C. |author2=Hogg, M. A. |author3=Oakes, P. J. |author4=Reicher, S. D. |author5= Wetherell, M. S. | title = Rediscovering the Social group: A self-categorization theory. | year = 1987 | publisher = Blackwell | location = Oxford }}</ref>). Group members are motivated to sustain a positive and distinctive [[social identity]] and, as a consequence, group members emphasize likeable members and evaluate them more positive than outgroup members, bolstering the positive image of their ingroup ([[ingroup bias]]). Furthermore, the positive social identity may be threatened by group members who deviate from a relevant group norm. To protect the positive group image, ingroup members derogate ingroup deviants more harshly than deviants of an outgroup (Marques, Abrams, Páez, & Hogg, 2001).<ref name="Marques et al. (2001)">{{ cite book |author1=Hogg, M. A. |author2= Tindale, S. | title = Blackwell handbook of social psychology: group processes. | year = 2001 | publisher = Blackwell | location = Malden, Mass }}</ref> Eidelman and Biernat wrote in 2003 that personal identities are also threatened through deviant ingroup members. They argue that devaluation of deviant members is an individual response of interpersonal differentiation.<ref name="Eidelman & Biernat (2003)">{{ cite journal | last = Eidelman | first = S. |author2=Biernat, M. | title = Derogating black sheep: Individual or group protection? | journal = Journal of Experimental Social Psychology | year = 2003 | volume = 39 | issue = 6 | pages = 602–609 | doi = 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00042-8 }}</ref> Khan and Lambert suggested in 1998 that [[cognitive process]]es such as assimilation and contrast, which may underline the effect, should be examined.<ref name="Khan & Lambert (1998)" /> ===Limitations=== Even though there is wide support for the black sheep effect, the opposite pattern has been found, for example, that White participants judge unqualified Black targets more negatively than comparable White targets (e.g. Feldman, 1972;<ref name="Feldman (1972)">{{ cite journal | last = Feldman | first = J. M. | title = Stimulus characteristics and subject prejudice as determinants of stereotype attribution | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | year = 1972 | volume = 21 | issue = 3 | pages = 333–340 | doi = 10.1037/h0032313 }}</ref> Linville & Jones, 1980).<ref name="Linville & Jones (1980)">{{ cite journal | last = Linville | first = P. W. |author2=Jones, E. E. | title = Polarized appraisals of out-group members | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | year = 1980 | volume = 38 | issue = 5 | pages = 689–703 | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.38.5.689 }}</ref> Consequently, there are several factors which influence the black sheep effect. For instance, the higher the [[Identification (psychology)|identification]] with the ingroup, and the higher the [[entitativity]] of the ingroup, the more the black sheep effect emerges.<ref name="Castano et al. (2002)">{{ cite journal | last = Castano | first = E. |author2=Paladino, M.|author3=Coull, A.|author4=Yzerbyt, V. Y. | s2cid = 2003883 | title = Protecting the ingroup stereotype: Ingroup identification and the management of deviant ingroup members | journal = British Journal of Social Psychology | year = 2002 | volume = 41 | issue = 3 | pages = 365–385 | doi = 10.1348/014466602760344269 | pmid = 12419008 }}</ref><ref name="Lewis & Sherman (2010)">{{ cite journal | last = Lewis | first = A. C. |author2=Sherman, S. J. | title = Perceived entitativity and the black-sheep effect: When will we denigrate negative ingroup members? | journal = The Journal of Social Psychology | year = 2010 | volume = 150 | issue = 2 | pages = 211–225 | doi = 10.1080/00224540903366388 | pmid = 20397595 | s2cid = 31260933 }}</ref> Even situational factors explaining the deviance have an influence whether the black sheep effect occurs.<ref name="De Cremer, & Vanbeselaere (1999)">{{ cite journal | last = De Cremer | first = D. |author2=Vanbeselaere, N. | title = I am deviant, because...: The impact of situational factors upon the black sheep effect. | journal = Psychologica Belgica | year = 1999 | volume = 39 | pages = 71–79 | doi = 10.5334/pb.942 | doi-access = free }}</ref> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page