Challenge, threat, and subjective group dynamics: Reactions to normative and deviant group members.

Abstract

The study of in-group deviance has typically measured cognitive or behavioral variables rather than motivational variables. The present research addressed this gap in the literature by using the biopsychosocial (BPS) model of challenge and threat, while testing predictions stemming from the subjective group dynamics (SGD) model. Group members participated in simulated interactions with other group members. Experiment 1 (n = 39) manipulated group membership of the interaction partner (in-group vs. out-group) and partner's attitude (normative vs. deviant). In line with SGD, interaction with out-group deviant members induced motivational challenge. However, interaction with in-group deviants induced neither challenge nor threat. Experiment 2 (n = 55) showed that challenge was invoked and confrontation tendency was increased during interactions with in-group deviants when participants had sufficient psychological resources (issue-relevant knowledge). These results are consistent with the SGD model and the BPS model, and they suggest that a desire to enhance or maintain subjective validity is a fundamental process underlying interactions with deviants.

Threat ≠ prevention, challenge ≠ promotion: The impact of threat, challenge and regulatory focus on attention to negative stimuli

“…Hence, in our understanding, the present findings suggest that individuals, who have more resources at their disposal than needed in a given situation (i.e., challenged individuals), can better afford to look for negative stimuli in contrast to those individuals with fewer resources at their disposal than needed in a given situation (i.e., threatened individuals). In a state of challenge, an individual is inclined to approach positive goals and to tackle what is to be done (e.g., Frings, Hurst, Cleveland, Blascovich, & Abrams, 2012). Therefore, drawing attention to negative stimuli is not only what an individual can afford, but also represents a functional self-strategy to search for possible obstacles standing in the way of personal goal attainment.…”

The Social Identity Model of Cessation Maintenance: Formulation and initial evidence

“…This should increase the perceived cost of relapse, discouraging such behavior (to the extent the social identity is perceived as an outcome that is both valued and perceived as possible to attain, see e.g., Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Other group members' attempts to address non-normative members also increases a sense of subjective validity towards the in-group (the belief that the differential between groups is defensible and veridical, see Abrams et al, 2000) and also generates motivational challenge when presented with stressful situations (Frings, Hurst, Cleveland, Blascovich, & Abrams, 2012). These social control mechanisms can occur even when group members do not know one another personally.…”

Kicking out the trolls – Antecedents of social exclusion intentions in Facebook groups

“…Their behavior ultimately puts under question (a) whether the group is different from and superior to other groups (e.g. Frings, Hurst, Cleveland, Blascovich, & Abrams, 2012;Pinto et al, 2010) and (b) what it means to belong to the group. Sani and colleagues (Sani & Reicher, 1999;Sani & Todman, 2002) have introduced the concept of identity subversion to describe the perception which norm-deviant behavior evokes in certain group members: They have the impression that the behavior puts at stake what their group stands for, ultimately questioning their social identity which is based on their membership of the group.…”