When differences matter: Intergroup distinctiveness and the evaluation of impostors

The present study examined the effect of intergroup distinctiveness and group membership on evaluations of impostors. We predicted that ingroup members would be harsher than outgroup members on an impostor and that perceptions of intergroup distinctiveness would further moderate these evaluations. Specifically, we tested the social identity theory prediction that low intergroup distinctiveness would lead to greater derogation of the impostor (the 'reactive distinctiveness' hypothesis) against the self-categorization hypothesis that high intergroup distinctiveness would instigate more derogation of an impostor (the 'reflective distinctiveness' hypothesis). In this study, vegetarians (ingroup members) and meat eaters (outgroup members) were presented with a target claiming to be vegetarian, but caught indulging in a meat dish. We found that ingroup members derogated the impostor more and felt less pleased about discovering the impostor behaviour than did outgroup members. In line with the reflective distinctiveness hypothesis, the heightened derogation displayed by ingroup members only emerged when intergroup distinctiveness was high, an effect that was mediated by ratings of group identification. The discussion focuses on the different responses intergroup distinctiveness may evoke. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Not being what you claim to be: impostors as sources of group threat

We examine the notion of impostors within groups, defined in this paper as people who make public claims to an identity while disguising their failure to fulfil key criteria for group membership. In Experiment 1, vegetarians showed heightened levels of negative affect toward vegetarians who ate meat occasionally compared to an authentic vegetarian. In contrast, non-vegetarians saw the impostor to be marginally more likeable than the authentic vegetarian. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants evaluated only a vegetarian who ate meat. Evaluations of the target were influenced by group attachment, such that participants who identified strongly as vegetarians downgraded the target more strongly and experienced more negative affect than did moderate identifiers and non-vegetarians. Participants were also sensitive to the size of the gulf between the target's claims for identity and their behaviour. Thus, targets who made public claims to being a vegetarian but ate meat were evaluated more negatively than were people who kept their claims for identity private (Experiment 2). Similarly, targets who tried to keep their deviant behaviour secret were evaluated more negatively than were people who openly admitted their deviant behaviour (Experiment 3). The reasons why impostors might threaten the integrity of group identities are discussed. Copyright (C) 2003 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.