DOI: 10.22024/unikent/01.01.131
title: Deviant Ingroup Protection Effect Study 6 2020

description: This is Study 6 reported in a paper by Abrams, Travaglino et al. on the Deviant Ingroup Protection Effect, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Participants Participants were one hundred fifty-five introductory psychology students at a UK University Design Participants were presented with a superordinate in-category or out-category profile in which one of the groups occupied an anti-normative (attenuator), one occupied a pro-normative (accentuator) and the rest occupied normative (consolidator) positions. When out-category groups were presented the occupation of these positions was not linked with particular group names. However, when in-category groups were presented we explicitly described the in-group as occupying either the attenuator, consolidator or accentuator position. To summarize, participants were randomly assigned to condition in a 4 (Condition: In-group Attenuator vs In-group Consolidator vs In-group Accentuator vs. Out-group) x 3 (Position: Attenuator, Consolidator, Accentuator) mixed factorial design with repeated measures on the Position factor. Summary of Method: Participants viewed how the six groups in the category, labeled A to F, had responded to 10 attitude items. They were also shown each group’s specific recommendations about the percentage change in numbers that should be granted asylum. In the In-Category condition, the groups listed, which included Psychologists, were all from the social-humanitarian category. In the Out-Category condition they were all from the authority-governance category and the list included the (fictitious) British Association of Immigration and Customs Officers (BAICO). Psychology and BAICO were the two groups that had been used as the in-group and out-group in Abrams et al. (2000), and in subsequent experiments in the present research. Groups’ average attitude responses were represented on 21-point bipolar scales, which allowed precise manipulation of deviance. Across the 10 items, each group’s attitudes did not vary by more than +/- 1 from its overall position. Four groups (A, C, D, F) were depicted as holding normative attitudes for their category (consolidators). Group B was extreme pro-normative (accentuating) and E was anti-normative (attenuating) (see Figure 1). In absolute terms, the accentuating and attenuating groups were equally divergent from the normative group mean, and their attitudes fell outside of the range expressed by consolidating groups. In the Social-Humanitarian (In-Category) condition, the 4 consolidating groups’ positions corresponded to the attitudinal positions of psychology students observed in previous research (e.g. Abrams et al., 2000). These attitude positions each averaged 11, with a range from 10 to 12 across the attitude items. The recommended percentage change in people granted asylum averaged 0% across the consolidator groups, with a range from -5% to +5%. The accentuator (group B) attitude averaged 8 (range 7-9) on the 21 point scales, and it recommended an increase (+15%) in the numbers granted asylum. The attenuator (group E) averaged 14 (range 13-15) on the 21 point scales, and recommended a reduction (-15%) in the numbers granted asylum. These were determined so that they fell outside the 95% confidence interval (and differed significantly) relative to attitudes held by consolidator groups. In the Out-Category condition, the 4 consolidator groups each averaged 17 on the attitude scales, with a range of 16-18 across the items. The recommended percentage change in people to be granted asylum averaged -30% across the consolidator groups, with a range from -25% to -35%. The accentuator averaged 20 (range 19-21) on the attitude items, and recommended a large decrease in the numbers granted asylum (-45%). The attenuator group averaged 14 (range 13-15) and recommended a smaller reduction in the numbers granted asylum (-15%). Thus, the average position of the attenuator groups the In-Category and Out-Category conditions was identical. Summary of measures: Category Evaluations After reading the general introduction, participants evaluated Social-Humanitarian occupations and Authority-Governance occupations by responding to the question: “How favorable do you feel towards [Social-Humanitarian occupations; Authority-Governance occupations” (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). Policy orientation check. Participants were then asked to report the policy orientation of groups A to F by asking “to what extent does each occupational group support a more open or a more closed policy towards asylum seekers” (1 = more open, 7 = more closed). This was to ensure that they accurately perceived the magnitude of differences among the groups. Evaluations of groups. To measure evaluations of groups, participants then rated how favorable they felt towards each group. Groups labeled A to F were presented in rows in a matrix table and participants were asked: “Please, indicate how favorable you feel towards each group [A to F] in the Social Humanitarian [Authority-Governance] category (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). Category Subjective Validity. Two sets of items (one for Social-Humanitarian category, another for the Authority-Governance category) asked participants to rate (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely): “To what extent do you think the [category’s] views are reasonable, fair, and valid (3 items). In-category identification. This was measured using the items “I am pleased to think of myself as being from the Social-Humanitarian set of occupations”, “I am glad I am from the Social-Humanitarian set of occupations” and in-group identification was measured using the items “I identify with psychologists as a group”, “I am pleased to think of myself as a psychology student”, “I am glad I am a psychology student”. Responses were recorded on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).