The fish can rot from the heart, not just the head: Exploring the detrimental impact of transgressions by leaders at multiple levels of an organization

In this registered report, we examined the effect of transgressions committed by leaders working at different group levels within an organization on employee outcomes. Based on social identity theorizing, we argued that organizational leader transgressions would affect organizational members' experiences only at the organizational level, but that workgroup leader transgressions would impact organizational members' experiences at both workgroup and organizational levels. To test these ideas, we developed a 2 (leader group affiliation: workgroup vs. organizational) × 2 (leader behaviour: normative vs. transgressive) between-subjects experimental paradigm. As hypothesized, both workgroup and organizational leader transgressions resulted in decreased organizational identification and perceived organizational leader effectiveness. Contrary to our prediction, transgressions of both workgroup and organizational leaders were similarly detrimental to workers' workgroup identification. However, as predicted, a transgressive workgroup leader had a greater negative impact on perceived workgroup leader effectiveness than a transgressive organizational leader. When outliers were excluded, a workgroup leader's transgression was found to be more detrimental to work performance than an organizational leader's transgression. Overall, this study demonstrates that the transgressions of lower-level workgroup leaders can be as detrimental - and in some cases more detrimental - to workers than the transgressions of higher-level organizational leaders.

Leader group prototypicality and reactions to leader transgressions

Leader group prototypicality—the extent to which a leader embodies and represents the group—is a characteristic that typically engenders favorable attitudes toward the leader. The present research examines how leader group prototypicality shapes group member reactions to leaders who commit wrongful acts, that is, transgressions. In three studies, I propose and demonstrate that outsiders’ knowledge of leader transgressions moderates how leader group prototypicality influences group member reactions to transgressing leaders. Specifically, when leaders commit transgressions that are known to outsiders, leader group prototypicality leads to more punitive reactions by eliciting an acute threat to the group image. Furthermore, punitive responses against transgressing leaders driven by group image threat are more pronounced among highly identified group members. The current research shows when and why the oft-observed advantage of leader group prototypicality might be reversed.

Support for group-based inequality among members of low-status groups as an ingroup status-enhancement strategy

We discuss the idea that competition-based motives boost low-status group members’ support for group-based hierarchy and inequality. Specifically, the more low-status group members feel motivated to compete with a relevant high-status outgroup, based on the belief that existing status positions may be reversed, the more they will defend status differentials (i.e., high social dominance orientation; SDO). Using minimal groups (N = 113), we manipulated ingroup (low vs. high) status, and primed unstable status positions to all participants. As expected, we found that SDO positively mediates the relation between ingroup identification and collective action, when ingroup’s status is perceived to be low and status positions are perceived as highly unstable. We discuss the implications of considering situational and contextual factors to better understand individuals’ support for group-based hierarchies and inequality, and the advantages of considering ideological processes in predicting collective action.

In defense of leader misconduct: the use of neutralization techniques by ingroup members

The current study is an initial effort to investigate the value of neutralization theory to understand how, by what method, to what degree, and in what condition ingroup members defend their leader against charges of misconduct. We propose that ingroup members use neutralizing techniques to defend their leaders in the same way they would defend themselves. After exploring the underlying social identity theory driving the use of leader defense, we test our proposition by analyzing the Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Republican Staff Report. Using content analysis, we determine the presence of neutralization techniques and classify those instances into specific neutralization categories proposed in the literature. Using a post-hoc analysis, we then explore under what conditions ingroup members use specific neutralization techniques in defense of an ingroup leader. Our study extends prior theory and research by examining the use of neutralization techniques in defense of an ingroup leader's alleged misconduct.

Social norms, social identities and the COVID-19 pandemic: Theory and recommendations

Sustained mass behaviour change is needed to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, but many of the required changes run contrary to existing social norms (e.g., physical closeness with in-group members). This paper explains how social norms and social identities are critical to explaining and changing public behaviour. Recommendations are presented for how to harness these social processes to maximise adherence to COVID-19 public health guidance. Specifically, we recommend that public health messages clearly define who the target group is, are framed as identity-affirming rather than identity-contradictory, include complementary injunctive and descriptive social norm information, are delivered by in-group members and that support is provided to enable the public to perform the requested behaviours.

(Im)moral Symbols and (Im)moral Deeds: Defensive Strategies for Coping with Historical Transgressions of Group Heroes and Villains

In two post-conflict societies (Serbia and Cyprus), the authors investigated how people cope with in-group historical transgression when heroes and villains relevant for their collective identity are made salient in it. The authors set the events in foundational periods for Serbian (Experiment 1) and Greek Cypriot (Experiment 2) ethnic identity—that is, historical representations of the Battle of Kosovo (1389) and the Liberation Struggle (1955–1959), respectively. In both experiments, a between-subjects design was used to manipulate group membership (in-group or out-group) and representation of the salient character (hero, villain, or neutral) in fictitious but historically plausible accounts of transgressions. In Experiment 1 ( N = 225), the participants showed more moral disengagement in the case of in-group historical transgressions than in the case of identical transgressions by an out-group, while the in-group hero was rejected less than all the other historical characters. Social identification based on in-group superiority moderated both observed effects in such a manner that they were more pronounced for participants perceiving their ethnic group as superior. In Experiment 2 ( N = 136), historical transgression involving the in-group hero provoked the most moral disengagement and the least rejection of the group deviant. In-group superiority and in-group importance as distinct modes of social identification moderated these effects in such a way that they were more pronounced for high-identifying individuals. Taken together, the experiments show that the in-group hero, as a highly valued ethnic symbol, is exempt from the black sheep effect and the sanctions of critically attached group members. The authors discuss the implications of in-group heroes for political and educational communication.

Children Hold Leaders Primarily Responsible, Not Entitled

Do children construe leaders as individuals whose position of power entails primarily more responsibility or more entitlement, compared with nonleaders? To address this question, 5-year-old children (n = 128) heard a story involving a hierarchical dyad (a leader and a nonleader) and an egalitarian dyad (two nonleaders), and then assessed protagonists' relative contributions to a collaborative endeavor (Experiments 1 and 2) or relative withdrawals from a common resource pool earned jointly (Experiment 3). Children expected a leader to contribute more toward a joint goal than its nonleader partner, and to withdraw an equal share (not more) from a common pool. Children thus gave evidence that they construed leaders as more responsible, rather than more entitled, relative to nonleaders.

Not Taking a Joke: The Influence of Target Status, Sex, and Age on Reactions to Workplace Humor

The current study tasked undergraduates with serving as hypothetical human resource workers to evaluate complaints of offensive and inoffensive humor used by male and female employees in a fictitious company who varied in employment status and age. Offensive humor was deemed more problematic in its usage, particularly among female perceivers. Contrary to hypotheses, its usage was more problematic for male and older employees than for female and younger employees. In addition, participants were more averse to both offensive and inoffensive humor from high-status and older men relative to women with similar characteristics. We frame results with consideration of recent social trends.

Ethics Versus Success? The Acceptance of Unethical Leadership in the 2016 US Presidential Elections

Before and after the 2016 US Presidential Election, this research examined Trump and Clinton supporters’ attributions about behavior of each leader, both of whose ethicality had been publicly questioned. American voters (N = 268) attributed significantly more dispositional factors to the outgroup leader than to the ingroup leader. Moreover, when the ingroup candidate won the election (i.e., among Trump supporters), unethical leadership subsequently became more acceptable and there was less desire to tighten the election process when dealing with unethical candidates. The opposite pattern was found among voters whose ingroup candidate lost the election (Clinton supporters). The results and implications are discussed.

Thank God for My Successes (Not My Failures): Feeling God's Presence Explains a God Attribution Bias

Little research has investigated attributional biases to God for positive and negative personal events. Consistent with past work, we predicted that people who believe in God will attribute successes more to God than failures, particularly for highly religious people. We also predicted that believing that God is a part of the self would increase how much people felt God's presence which would result in giving God more credit for successes. Our study (N = 133) was a two-factor, between-subject experimental design in which participants either won or lost a game and were asked to attribute the cause of this outcome to themselves, God, or other factors. Furthermore, participants either completed the game before or after responding to questions about their religious beliefs. Overall, there was support for our predictions. Our results have important implications for attribution research and the practical psychological experiences for religious people making attributions for their successes and failures.

Climbing the ladder or falling from grace? A threat-opportunity framework of the effects of norm violations on social rank

'Social norms keep anarchy at bay, yet norm violations are omnipresent. Although norm violators are generally rejected from higher-ranking positions, they sometimes rise up the ranks. We advance a threat-opportunity framework to understand how contextual factors shape norm violators' downward or upward mobility in social hierarchies. The contextual factors we identify pertain to attributes of the actor (violator), the observer, and the cultural context, which influence whether norm violations are construed as threats or opportunities. Norm violators rise up when their actions promote group goals, but they fall from grace when their actions obstruct observers' own interests or culturally reinforced goals. We offer a review of the literature, which supports the threat-opportunity framework. We close by suggesting future research directions.

The transformative and informative nature of elections: Representation, schism, and exit

In democratic elections, constituents may view unconventional or non-prototypical candidates as attempting to reshape their national identity in the wrong direction. When a non-prototypical candidate actually steps into a leadership role, the group's consensual view of their prototype may shift to position this new leader as prototypical. This process should be bound in member consensus, evidenced by the leader's successful election. The current work examines American Republicans (N = 297) and Democrats (N = 322) before and after the 2016 US election. We focus on Republicans' interpretations of their candidate Donald Trump's prototypicality and ability to bolster or subvert their party identity pre-election. Post-election, we examine changes to these processes, related in part to Republicans' homogenized view of Trump's prototypicality. In comparison, we examine these processes in the Democratic Party. Results suggest that whereas Democrats increased in their desire to leave their party, Republicans decreased in their desire to leave their party, an effect that is related to increasing perceptions of Trump's prototypicality and representation of the Republican Party. These findings have important implications for how the contexts of elections rapidly shape party identity through the election of leaders such as Trump.

Justice and Immigration: The Effect of Moral Exclusion

Numerous media news items suggest on a daily basis that people tend to use harsher criteria when they judge immigrants than members of their own in-group. In the present research project, we were interested in studying individual justice judgments of a violation of a law by an Italian (in-group) or an immigrant (out-group) member and the influence of moral exclusion processes on the assessment. In particular, we examined whether those people who tend to exclude out-groups from their scope of justice will give such biased judgments and will adopt double standards, while inclusive people will not. A total of 255 people evaluated the seriousness of a crime in two different law-breaking scenarios in which the offender's and the victim's nationalities were systematically changed (either Italian or Romanian). Moreover, participants completed a scale measuring the moral inclusion/exclusion of other social groups. As hypothesized, participants who tended to exclude some groups from their moral community judged the Romanian more harshly than the Italian culprit. On the contrary, those people that tended to have a more inclusive moral community did not show any difference in evaluation. In conclusion, the present research highlights the importance of considering the effect of moral inclusion/ exclusion processes on the evaluation of justice events, especially in an intergroup context.

Group decision-making from an evolutionary/adaptationist perspective

Over the 20 years that Group Processes & Intergroup Relations has been in existence, evolutionary theory has begun to play a larger role in our understanding of human social behavior. Theory and research on group decision-making is no exception and the present paper attempts to briefly highlight how an evolutionary/adaptationist perspective has informed our understanding of how groups reach consensus and make collective choices. In addition, we attempt to show that humans are not the only species that use group processes to make important choices. Looking for similarities and continuities among research domains with different species should lead to a more unified and informed understanding of group decision-making processes and outcomes.

It’s either you or me! Impact of deviations on social exclusion and leaving

When detecting deviations from group norms, observers often respond by attempting to exclude the deviates or by leaving the group. Despite the commonalities between these two impactful responses, they have rarely been addressed simultaneously. Therefore, three experiments investigated how deviant behavior in small groups relates to observers’ intentions to exclude the deviate from the in-group and to leave that group themselves. Exclusion intentions are evoked by severe deviations from core elements of the group norm, mediated by heightened identity subversion (Studies 1–3). Study 3 demonstrated that leaving becomes more likely when perceived situational control is low—here evoked by acceptance of the deviant behavior by other in-group members, suggesting that aggravating conditions must be present for this response. Observing deviations seems to trigger leaving and exclusion intentions, yet they result from two distinct processes. We discuss our results in relation to work on group schism and literature on social exclusion.

Do Ambiguous Normative Ingroup Members Increase Tolerance for Deviants?

Abstract. Subjective group dynamics theory ( Marques, Páez, & Abrams, 1998 ) proposes that deviant ingroup members who threaten the positive value of the group members’ social identity are evaluated negatively. In an experiment, we investigated whether group members evaluate deviant ingroup members less negatively when the normative member’s commitment to the ingroup is ambiguous. Participants evaluated one normative and one deviant ingroup or outgroup member. Two conditions were contrasted, in which the normative target showed high versus low commitment to the group. As predicted, the participants evaluated deviant ingroup targets more negatively and normative ingroup targets more positively than their respective outgroup counterparts – but only when the normative member’s commitment to the ingroup was unambiguous. When presented with a normative member with ambiguous commitment, the deviant ingroup member was evaluated less negatively. We discuss these results in light of subjective group dynamics theory.

Fewer but better: Proportionate size of the group affects evaluation of transgressive leaders

A group may be badly affected if its leader transgresses important rules. Nonetheless, an emerging body of evidence suggests that in intergroup contexts, group members apply a double standard when judging ingroup leaders - They respond less punitively to transgressions by their leader than by non-leaders. In this article, two experiments investigated how proportionate ingroup size affects reactions to transgressive ingroup leaders. We demonstrate that ingroup leaders from larger, but not smaller, groups benefit from the double standard. The experiments testing the effects of two different types of transgressions (nepotistic favouritism and corruption, respectively) show that transgressive leaders from larger groups are evaluated more positively than both comparable non-leaders and leaders from smaller groups. In contrast, transgressive leaders from smaller groups are evaluated similarly to comparable transgressive non-leaders. Experiment 2 investigated a potential explanation for this phenomenon. Faced with a transgressive leader, members of a smaller group report greater embarrassment than do members of larger groups in relation to the leaders' actions. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Equality Hypocrisy, Inconsistency, and Prejudice: The Unequal Application of the Universal Human Right to Equality

In Western culture, there appears to be widespread endorsement of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which stresses equality and freedom). But do people really apply their equality values equally, or are their principles and application systematically discrepant, resulting in equality hypocrisy? The present study, conducted with a representative national sample of adults in the United Kingdom (N = 2,895), provides the first societal test of whether people apply their value of "equality for all" similarly across multiple types of status minority (women, disabled people, people aged over 70, Blacks, Muslims, and gay people). Drawing on theories of intergroup relations and stereotyping we examined, relation to each of these groups, respondents' judgments of how important it is to satisfy their particular wishes, whether there should be greater or reduced equality of employment opportunities, and feelings of social distance. The data revealed a clear gap between general equality values and responses to these specific measures. Respondents prioritized equality more for "paternalized" groups (targets of benevolent prejudice: women, disabled, over 70) than others (Black people, Muslims, and homosexual people), demonstrating significant inconsistency. Respondents who valued equality more, or who expressed higher internal or external motivation to control prejudice, showed greater consistency in applying equality. However, even respondents who valued equality highly showed significant divergence in their responses to paternalized versus nonpaternalized groups, revealing a degree of hypocrisy. Implications for strategies to promote equality and challenge prejudice are discussed.