Despicability in the Workplace: Effects of Behavioral Deviance and Unlikeability on the Evaluation...

Despicability in the Workplace: Effects of Behavioral Deviance and Unlikeability on the

Evaluation of In-Group and Out-Group Members

NICOLA J Bow1 DOMINIC ABRAMS Leeds University Business School

Leeds, United Kingdom University ofKent

Kenl, United Kingdom

This study examined how members of functionally independent work groups (bank employees) evaluated behavioral deviance among in-group and out-group members. Members’ behavior was either modal (normative) or deviant in relation to workplace norms, and members were either likeable or unlikeable. Based on social identity theory (Tajfel &Turner, 1979) and on the black-sheep effect (e.g., Marques & Paez, 1994), it was predicted that both unlikeability and deviance would result in more negative evaluations. It was also predicted that behavior that challenged prescriptive in-group standards would result in relative derogation of in-group targets compared to similar out-group targets (the evaluative extremity effect). These hypotheses were supported. Discussion focuses on how evaluations of deviant group members help to preserve a positive sense of social identity. Practical implications of social deviance in the workplace are considered.

Some workplace actions may contravene generic social norms for desirable or appropriate behavior and invite negative evaluations, regardless of the particular situation in which they occur. In contrast, some aspects of behavior might be considered deviant only in a group-specific domain. In this article, we draw on theories of group dynamics from experimental social psychology to consider reactions to organization members who deviate from generic social norms and from specific group norms. We also examine how the deviant’s group membership affects the way that the deviant is judged.

Self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) and its forerunner, social identity theory (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), propose that when people categorize themselves as members of a group, they also may identify with that group, associating themselves with its salient attributes and norms. Membership in one’s organization provides an important social identity (Blau & Boal, 1987). Organizational identity has

‘Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nicola Bown, Leeds University Business School, Maurice Keyworth Building, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom; or Dominic Abrams, Centre for the Study of Group Processes, Department of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] or D.Abrams@ ukc.ac.uk

2413

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2003, 33, 11, pp. 241 3-2426. Copyright 0 2003 by V. H. Winston 8 Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

2414 BOWN AND ABRAMS

important implications for organizational behavior, well-being, turnover intention, and economically important aspects of organizational commitment (Abrams, Ando, & Hinkle, 1998; Abrams & Randsley de Moura, 2001; Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Haslam, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992).

One way that social identity is maintained and enhanced is through intergroup differentiation: making intergroup comparisons that favor the in-group (cf. Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Recent attention has also been paid to intragroup social comparisons (Turner et al., 1987). One example of the evaluative consequences of intergroup and intragroup comparisons in the context of social categorization is the black-sheep effect (Marques & Paez, 1994; Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988), which shows that likeable in-group members are judged more positively than are similarly likeable out-group members. However, unlikeable in-group members are evaluatively downgraded in relation not only to likeable in-group members, but also to unlikeable out-group members. In other words, there tends to be greater evaluative extremity between the judgments of socially desirable and socially undesirable in-group members, compared to out- group members.

Marques and Paez (1 994) posited that sustaining clear in-group norms helps to preserve a positive social identity for individuals, and differential evaluative extremity results from a subjective sense of a normative pressure toward in-group uniformity. Moreover, Marques et al.’s (1 988) research suggested that differences in evaluative extremity only emerge on dimensions that are especially salient to participants’ social identity.

It has been argued that the evaluative extremity effect is the outcome of subjective group dynamics that involve prescriptive differentiation among group members (Abrams, Marques, Bown, & Henson, 2000; Marques, Abrams, Paez, & Martinez-Taboada, 1998; Marques, Paez, & Abrams, 1998). Prescriptive differentiation focuses on group members’ adherence to valued in-group norms, and reflects the specific normative context of the situation. When prescriptive norms are salient, people may reinforce in-group standards and norms by upgrading group members who endorse those norms and downgrading members who undermine the norms (Abrams et al., 2000; Marques, Abrams, & Serodio, 2001).

Overview of the Study and Hypotheses

The present study has two aims. One aim is to extend research on the black-sheep effect to an organizational context. Previous research primarily has examined the black-sheep effect in laboratory situations in which the groups are minimal, short-lived, or only transitorily salient. Despite the potential relevance of the black-sheep effect in organizations, we are aware of only one previous

DESPlCABlLlTY IN THE WORKPLACE 2415

study that has examined subjective group dynamics in an organizational context (Abrams, Marques, Bown, & Dougill, 2002).

A second aim is to explore the extent to which deviance in generic social attractiveness and deviance in group-related norms will each attract negative evaluations from other group members. Although people may expect in-group members to be more likeable than out-group members, we believe that most real groups are also likely to be concerned with securing social validation of their group norms, and members will be judged in terms of these norms, independent of their personal attractiveness (Hogg, Cooper-Shaw, & Holzworth, 1993).

Employees of a prestigious banking organization evaluated other anonymous employees who ostensibly worked either for their own organization or for a rival organization. The target employees were either likeable or unlikeable and dis- played either normative (modal) or antinormative (deviant) behavior in relation to their organization.

We are testing three distinct hypotheses, based on previous research:

Hypothesis 1. Because likeability can be considered a generic social norm that has little to do with particular groups, we predict that likeable employees will be evaluated more positively than unlikeable employees, regardless of their group membership or level of deviance.

Hypothesis 2. Self-categorization theory suggests that, irrespective of whether such deviants are within an in-group or an out-group, other members are likely to be unfavorably disposed toward those individuals who cloud the distinction between the groups. We therefore hypothesize that members who deviate toward an oppos- ing group will be evaluated more negatively than modal members.

Hypothesis 3. Because group members should be especially concerned with prescriptive norms, we predict that both the rejection of deviants and the evaluative extremity effect should be clearer when targets are judged on relevant attributes (work-related) than on irrelevant attributes (personality-related).

Method

Design

A 3 x 2 x 2 mixed design was used. The within-participants factor was the Target Evaluated (likeable modal vs. unlikeable modal vs. deviant). The two between-participants factors were Group Membership of Target Stimuli (in-group

241 6 BOWN AND ABRAMS

vs. out-group) and Likeability of the Deviant Target (likeable deviant vs. unlikeable deviant).

Participants

Employees at a particular office of a merchant banking company (Company A) were approached and 79% participated in the study. They included 17 male and 25 female (gender distribution within the four experimental groups ranged from 13% male to 57% male). Ages ranged from 19 to 61 years; positions included clerical grades through to director level; and all held permanent, full- time positions, with an average tenure of 5.57 years (SD = 4.98 years). Mean tenure for participants within each condition ranged from 4.60 years (SD = 4.14 years) to 6.26 years (SD = 7.38 years).

Procedure

Questionnaires were distributed to each employee, together with an explana- tory letter requesting that it should be completed in private and returned through the internal mail.

Materials. Each questionnaire began with short extracts from the marketing leaflets of two named companies (Company A and Company B). This was used to sensitize participants toward thinking of their organization as the in-group in relation to another comparable out-group. Company B was chosen as the out- group because it was an equivalent market competitor.

Participants read standardized personality profiles of three fictitious but ostensibly real individuals (targets) who worked for either their own company or the rival organization. Two targets behaved normatively (modal members), but one was likeable and the other was unlikeable. The third target behaved antinor- matively (deviant member) and was either likeable or unlikeable, depending on experimental condition. Each profile consisted of 8 to 10 lines of text stating how long the employee had worked for the company (3 years), followed by a descrip- tion and a summary of some of his or her personal characteristics.

The behavior used to depict modal and deviant targets was chosen on the basis of an earlier series of pilot interviews. Normative (modal) behavior would be typical in a person who “undertakes whatever tasks are required, for example doing overtime if required, but does not put in unnecessarily long hours.” In contrast, deviant behavior would be typified by a person who, for example, “con- stantly criticizes management decisions, showing very low commitment to the company’s policies and practices” (Abrams et al., 2002). In a homogeneous industry such as banking, there are few, if any, distinct behaviors that would apply in one organization and not another. However, loyalty to one’s own company is a strong norm that applies in each different organization (cf. Marques


et al., 2001). Behavior is interpreted as normative or deviant when it clearly supports or opposes the target’s company.

To vary how likeable the targets were, we used descriptions based on Marques and Paez ( 1 994). A likeable target would be “friendly and sociable, gen- uinely interested in what others have to say,” whereas an unlikeable individual “can be inconsiderate and insensitive to others’ feelings and can be quite rude.” Presentation order of targets was counterbalanced across conditions.

Dependent measures. The first dependent measures were eight 7-point seman- tic differential items. As in Abrams et al. (2002), these included the items that Marques et al. (1988) found yielded significant differences between evaluative judgments of likeable and unlikeable targets. Of these, 5 items focus on personal traits: unsociable-sociable, uncommunicative-communicative, unpleasant- pleasant, narrow minded-open minded, and pessimistic-optimistic. The remaining items concern traits that are directly relevant to the workplace (occupational traits): unreliable-reliable, Iazy-hardworking, and dishonest-honest.

Next, participants rated 12 evaluative statements using a 7-point scale rang- ing from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).2 Half the items concern the target’s personal popularity. Sample items are “This person’s colleagues enjoy working with them,” and “I would like to work with this person.” The remaining 6 items concern target’s workplace acceptability. Sample items are “This person is not highly regarded by their supervisor,” and “This person does not have a good future with their company.” The order of these 12 items was randomized.

The measures designed to tap each construct were combined into the relevant composite scales (items were scored so that higher numbers represent more positive judgments). All scales had acceptable internal reliability (a > .70). Descrip- tive statistics are presented in Table 1.

Results

Personal Judgments

Personal traits. ANOVA reveals no significant effect of group, but there were significant effects of target, F(2, 76) = 1 8 2 . 4 3 , ~ < .001, partial q* = 33; and a significant Target x Likeability interaction, F(1, 76) = 30.26, p < ,001, partial q 2 = .44. Likeable modal targets ( M = 5.83, SD = 0.61) were rated more highly than were either unlikeable modal targets ( M = 2.7 1, SD = 0.76) or deviant targets ( M = 3.23, SD = 1.52). The simple effect of deviant likeability was significant for ratings of the deviant target, F( 1 , 4 1) = 77.18, p < .O 1 1, but not for the likeable or unlikeable modal targets, Fs(l,41) = 0.06 and 0.04, ns, respectively. In other words, likeable deviants were evaluated significantly more positively ( M = 4.39, SD = 0.86) than were unlikeable deviants ( M = 1.95, SD = 0.94).

2The evaluative statements were designed so as not to indicate the target’s gender.

Tabl

e 1

Scor

es fo

r Eva

luat

ive

Mea

sure

s for

All

Targ

ets

ru oa m f 0 5 2

Like

abili

ty o

f dev

iant

Like

able

(in-

grou

p, n

= 8

; out

-gro

up, n

= 1

4)

Unl

ikea

ble

(in-g

roup

, n =

10;

out

-gro

up, n

= 1

0)

0

B

03

R D

Like

able

U

nlik

eabl

e Li

keab

le

Unl

ikea

ble

mod

al

mod

al

Dev

iant

m

odal

m

odal

D

evia

nt

Gro

up

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

A4

SD

M

SD

5 Pe

rson

al tr

aits

In

-gro

up

5.90

0.

82

Out

-gro

up

5.83

0.

47

All

targ

ets

5.85

0.

60

In-g

roup

5.

35

1.09

O

ut-g

roup

5.

67

0.42

A

ll ta

rget

s 5.

55

0.72

In-g

roup

5.

19

0.94

O

ut-g

roup

5.

52

0.58

A

ll ta

rget

s 5.

40

0.73

In-g

roup

6.

21

0.56

O

ut-g

roup

5.

74

0.46

A

ll ta

rget

s 5.

91

0.54

Pers

onal

pop

ular

ity

Wor

kpla

ce ac

cept

abili

ty

Occ

upat

iona

l tra

its

2.60

1.

19

4.15

0.

77

6.06

0.

50

2.40

0.

41

1.76

2.

73

0.73

4.

53

0.90

5.

56

0.66

3.

06

0.59

2.

14

2.68

0.

90

4.39

0.

86

5.81

0.

62

2.73

0.

60

1.95

2.63

0.

86

3.52

0.

77

6.15

0.

54

2.50

0.

86

1.53

3.

01

0.70

3.

94

1.06

5.

58

0.53

2.

73

0.74

1.

92

2.87

0.

76

3.79

0.

97

5.87

0.

60

2.62

0.

79

1.73

3.42

1.

03

2.40

0.

99

5.92

0.

49

3.32

0.

52

1.62

3.

21

0.66

2.

51

0.91

5.

13

0.63

3.

02

0.48

1.

90

3.29

0.

79

2.47

0.

92

5.53

0.

68

3.17

0.

51

1.76

4.13

1.

19

2.71

0.

58

6.10

0.

52

4.90

1.

03

2.50

4.

86

0.64

3.

76

0.56

5.

67

0.57

4.

00

0.77

2.

70

4.59

0.

93

3.38

0.

76

5.88

0.

58

4.45

1.

00

2.60

0.62

1.

19

0.94

0.64

0.

85

0.76

0.62

1.

06

0.86

1 .oo

0.73

0.

86


7 1

\

\

&Likeable modal

- -A- Unl ikeable modal

- t - Deviant

1 1 I

Likeable deviant Unlikeable deviant

Figure 1. Mean perceived personal trait evaluation scores as a function of target and li keabi I ity.

As can be seen in Figure 1, being personally likeable appears to have counter- acted the negative connotations of deviant behavior for this target. Indeed, the ratings of deviant targets who were also likeable actually exceeded the evaluations of the modal target who was unlikeable, 421) = 6.18, p < .001. In contrast, unlikeable deviants were significantly downgraded ( M = 1.95, SD = .95) in comparison with unlikeable modals ( M = 2.73, SD = 0.60), t( l9) = 3.24, p<.o1.

PersunuZpopuZur@. A very similar pattern emerged for personal popularity ratings. There was a significant main effect of target, F(2, 76) = 238.68, p < .001, partial q 2 = 26. Evaluations of likeable modal targets were more positive ( M = 5.70, SD = 0.68) than were those of unlikeable modal targets ( M = 2.75, SD = 0.78) and deviant targets ( M = 2.81, SD = 1.35). The Target x Likeability interaction was also significant, F(2, 76) = 31.01, p < .001, partial q2 = .45. The simple effect of deviant likeability was significant for the ratings of deviant targets, F( 1,41) = 58.3 1, p < .001, but not for likeable and unlikeable modal targets, Fs(1, 41) = 2.32 and 1.12, ns, respectively. Likeable deviant targets ( M = 3.79, SD = 0.97) were evaluated more favorably than were their unlikeable, modal colleagues ( M = 2.62, SD = 0.79), t(21) = 3.87, p < .01. Deviants who were unlikeable were downgraded ( M = 1.73, SD = 0.76) relative to unlikeable modal targets, t( 19) = 4.40, p < .001.


-Likeable modal

- -A- Unl ikeable modal

- t - Deviant

1 4 I

In-group Out-group

Figure 2. Mean occupational trait evaluation scores for modal members and likeable deviants as a function of group membership.

Workplace Evaluations

Workplace acceptability. There was a significant main effect of target, F(2, 76) = 2 1 6 . 6 8 , ~ < .001, partial q2 = .85. The likeable modal target was evaluated more positively ( M = 5.46, SD = 0.70) than was the unlikeable modal target ( M = 3.23, SD = 0.67), t(41) = 15.68, p < .001, who in turn was evaluated more positively than was the deviant target ( M = 2.13, SD = 0.95), t(41) = 1 5 . 6 8 , ~ < .001. There were no significant interactions on this measure; likeability did not affect evaluations of the deviant target.

Occupational traits. There was a significant main effect of target, F(2, 76) =

179.59, p < .001, partial ‘12 = .83. The likeable modal target was rated more positively ( M = 5.90, SD = 0.55) than was the unlikeable modal target ( M = 4.54, SD = 0.95), t(41) = 8 . 7 6 , ~ < .001, who in turn was rated more positively than was the deviant target ( M = 3.01, SD = 0.89), t(41) = 7 . 9 3 , ~ < .001. All differences among targets remained significant within levels of group and target conditions (all p s < .05). However, there was a significant Group x Target interaction, F(2,76) = 5 . 9 5 , ~ < .01, partial q2 = .14, qualified by a significant Group x Like- ability x Target interaction, F (2,76) = 3.45, p < .05, partial q2 = .08, as shown in Figures 2 and 3.


&Likeable modal

- -A- Un l i keab le modal

- f - Dev iant

1 1 I

In-group Out-group

Figure 3. Mean occupational traits evaluation scores for modal members and unlikeable deviants as a function of group membership.

Consistent with the evaluative extremity effect, the simple effect of group shows that the in-group likeable modal target ( M = 6.15, SD = 0.53) was preferred over the out-group likeable modal target ( M = 5.71, SD = 0.50), whereas the in-group deviant target ( M = 2.59, SD = 0.82) was preferred less than the out-group deviant ( M = 3.32, SD = 0.82), Fs(1, 38) = 7.63 and 7.48, ps < .01, respectively. However, the unlikeable modal targets were evaluated similarly (in- group, M=4.56,SD= 1.14;out-group, M=4.50,SD=0.81), F=O.O9,ns.

We explored the three-way interaction by examining the simple interaction effects of Group x Target within the two likeability conditions. In both likability conditions, differences in the evaluations of the three targets were larger when the in-group was judged than when the out-group was judged. In the likeable deviant condition, the simple Group x Target interaction was highly significant, F(2, 78) = 7 . 4 6 3 , ~ = .001; whereas in the unlikeable condition, it only approached significance, F(2, 78) = 2.91, p = .061. Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3 show that the evaluative extremity effect occurs for likeable modal in-group members versus deviant group, regardless of whether the deviant is likeable or unlikeable. However, tests for the simple effects of group within levels of likeability and target show that the unlikeable modal in-group target was preferred over the similar out-group member when the deviant is likeable, F(1, 39) = 3.77, p = .059, whereas the unlikeable modal out-group member was preferred over the


similar in-group member when the deviant is unlikeable, F( 1,39) = 5 . 2 3 , ~ < .05. Thus, although participants showed the evaluative extremity effect in relation to both generic deviance (unlikeability) and group-specific deviance, it appears to have been stronger in the latter case.

Discussion

Our research was concerned with the extent to which reactions to atypicality might differ as a function of whether the evaluative dimensions were generic or group specific. First, not surprisingly, participants rated more likeable target workers as having more positive personal traits and being more personally attractive. Generic socially desirable characteristics (e.g., likeability) contribute positively to the workplace and are valued by group members. This result supports our first hypothesis.

Second, when a worker deviated from the group-specific norms for behavior, this further reduced his or her personal attractiveness. This suggests that group members may infer negative personality characteristics to target workers who deviate from group norms. This would be consistent with a subjective group dynamics interpretation that group members should try to find ways of psycho- logically reducing the impact of deviants on the group. This finding is consistent with our second hypothesis.

When workplace acceptability and occupation-related traits were judged, targets who opposed group norms were evaluated negatively, regardless of their likeability. This is highly consistent with a subjective group dynamics model that posits that group members are especially concerned to distinguish between one another in terms of specific group norms because this is the best way to preserve those norms. The present findings show that, regardless of how likeable a person is, his or her resistance to workplace norms is likely to be met by negative reactions (especially in judgments of work-related characteristics). This finding is also consistent with our second hypothesis.

Our third hypothesis was that the difference in evaluations of modal and deviant members should be clearer for relevant attributes (work-related) than for irrelevant attributes (personality-related), and that differentiation between the deviant and modal members on these traits should be larger when the target individuals are from the in-group than from the out-group. The pattern of results supports this expectation. For the workplace-related attributes, deviance was sufficient to reduce evaluations, independent of the likeability of the deviant. In contrast, for personality-related evaluations, the negative effect of workplace deviance was ameliorated by being likeable.

The evaluative extremity hypothesis received support from the significant Group x Likeability interaction on the occupational traits measure, which repli- cates the black-sheep effect. Specifically, the different judgments of workplace


acceptability indicate that participants were attentive to the fact that deviants would attract negative judgments from within their respective organizations. However, the occupational traits measure shows that participants themselves made less negative evaluations of deviants in the out-group than those in the in-group, This suggests that although participants were aware of the social undesirability of failing to support one’s organization (Zdaniuk & Levine, 2001), they were more sensitive to (and less tolerant of) behavioral deviance among coworkers in their own organization than they were of others in similar roles in a comparable out-group organization. This indicates that there are indeed certain behavioral norms to which in-group members are expected to conform, and members will apply subjective (and ultimately, we would anticipate, direct) pressure on one another to adhere to them. An extreme form of such pressure is likely to be exclusion and social ostracism (Williams, 1997; Williams & Sommer, 1997).

The three-way interaction extends the black-sheep effect by showing that reactions to generic deviance (unlikeability) might depend on whether it occurs in conjunction with group-specific deviance. When considering judgments of unlikeable modal group members, we found that they were treated as if they were “black sheep” only when deviant group members were likeable. If the deviant members were also unlikeable, then the black-sheep effect did not occur for unlikeable modal members.

Practical Implications and Conclusions

Our findings suggest that evidence from previous laboratory-based research extends to an organizational context. Both behavioral deviance and personal likeability of group members affected evaluations of workers in an organization. Participants discriminated among anonymous group members on the basis of relatively mild manipulations of behavioral deviance and social attractiveness. It seems plausible that these effects would be even stronger in the context of face- to-face, interacting group members, and for those who demonstrate more extreme deviant behavior because their potential threat to cohesiveness and valued group norms is even greater.

The importance of generic social desirability (likeability) at work is perhaps not surprising, given that work groups are more than just functional units. Many people reportedly go to work primarily for interpersonal contact. Interpersonal relationships at work are important for harmony, job satisfaction, and group cohesiveness, which in turn is related to productivity (Mullen & Cooper, 1994). However, productivity and effectiveness of organizational work teams also may be supported by the presence of clearly established performance-related norms. Therefore, deviance on these group-specific attributes tends to be threatening to the existence of the group because it weakens the group’s capacity to sustain particular practices or to justify particular goals. Our results suggest that an in-group


worker who deviates from these group-specific norms is especially likely to be regarded as an unworthy colleague and to be rejected from the workplace by colleagues over time.

The practical implications of the evaluative extremity effect are potentially ironic. Employees may downgrade their work-related evaluations of noncon- formist members from their own organization more than others from competitor organizations, even though they may be objectively similar. Social pressure on intransigent in-group deviants may ultimately lead them to “defect” to competitor organizations, even though the situation there (and the members of that organization) may be objectively no different from their present company. Similarly, organizations may be more willing to accept defectors from rival organizations, even though they are just as deviant in their attitudes as are rejected in-group members, suggesting a paradox for the successful retention of employees.

Our results suggest that it is important for managers to be aware that both personal characteristics and workplace behavior can contribute to group cohesiveness. However, it seems that an important aspect of cohesiveness is based on what Hogg (1992) called social attracfion-attraction to others based on their shared membership of one’s group. Our measures of workplace evaluations probably reflect this social attraction. Our finding that this type of attraction is responsive to the extent to which workplace behavior supports or challenges in-group prescriptive norms is consistent with both Hogg’s theory (Hogg & Terry, 2000) and the subjective group dynamics model.

References

Abrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group: Cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers’ turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1027-1039.

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). (Eds.). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Abrams, D., Marques, J. M., Bown, N., & Dougill, M. (2002). Anti-norm and pro-norm deviance in the bank and on the campus: Two experiments on subjective group dynamics. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5(2),

Abrams, D., Marques, J. M., Bown, N., & Henson, M. (2000). Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within and between groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,906-912.

Abrams, D., & Randsley de Moura, G. (2001). Organizational identification: Psy- chological anchorage and turnover. In M. A. Hogg & D. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 13 1 - 148). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

163-1 82.


Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Labeling processes in organizations: Constructing the individual. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17,

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14,20-39.

Blau, G. J., & Boal, K. R. (1987). Conceptualizing how job involvement and organizational commitment affect turnover and absenteeism. Academy of Management Review, 12,288-300.

41 3-46 1.

Haslam, A. S. (2001). Psychology in organizations. London, UK: Sage. Hogg, M. A. ( 1 992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attrac-

tion to social identity. Heme1 Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A socialpsychology

of intergroup relations. New York, NY: Routledge, Chapman, & Hall. Hogg, M. A., Cooper-Shaw, L., & Holzworth, D. W. (1 993). Group prototypical-

ity and depersonalized attraction in small interactive groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19,452-465.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25,

Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Paez, D., & Martinez-Taboada, C. (1998). The role of categorization and in-group norm judgments of groups and their members. Journal of Personali~~ and Social Psychology, 75,976-988.

Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., & Serodio, R. G. (2001). Being better by being right: Group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,

Marques, J. M., & Paez, D. (1994). The “black-sheep effect”: Social categorization, rejection of in-group deviates, and perception of group variability. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 37-68). London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Marques, J. M., Paez, D., & Abrams, D. (1998). Social identity and intragroup differentiation as subjective social control. In S. Worchel, J. F. Morales, D. Paez, & J.-C. Deschamps (Eds.), Social identity: International perspectives (pp. 124-141). London, UK: Sage.

Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (1988). The black-sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards in-group members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1 - 16.

Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The reiation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115,2 10-227.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The socialpsychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-48). Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.

121-140.

43 6-447.


Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quar- terly, 37,549-579.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (Eds.). ( 1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski & M. Robin (Eds.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133- 170). New York, N Y Plenum.

Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by co-workers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693-706.

Zdaniuk, B., & Levine, J. M. (2001). Group loyalty: Impact of members’ identification and contributions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3 7, 502-509.

Despicability in the Workplace: Effects of Behavioral Deviance and Unlikeability on the Evaluation...

Documents

Transcript of Despicability in the Workplace: Effects of Behavioral Deviance and Unlikeability on the Evaluation...