Embracing the odd ones : responses to deviance in intergroup negotiations

Research on deviance tends to study deviant ingroup members as “bad weeds” that the group needs to get rid of or to guide in Right(‘s) direction. By the same token, normative group members are favored and have a place in the sun. We argue that this research rests on two assumptions that prevent it from accounting for the variety of real-life situations: 1) assuming that group goals are mainly symbolic, and 2) assuming that “ingroups are the most relevant audience for deviant behavior” (Morton, 2011, p. 100). We argue that these assumptions do not always hold and show in which situations deviant ingroup members might be upgraded (at least) to the ranking of normative ones. In order to answer to this question we examine intra-group differentiation in intergroup negotiations. These situations are typically associated with high levels of intergroup interdependence (De Dreu, Beersma, Steinel & Van Kleef, 2007) in which the ingroup’s success depends on the support of an outgroup counterpart. We show that in these settings people attempt to minimize the distinction between the negotiating parties by upgrading deviants as ingroup representatives and by including these members in the ingroup’s prototype. In addition, we examine possible consequences of this choice on the counterpart’s perceptions and decision-making and discuss how it can ultimately affect the negotiation’s outcome.(PSY 3) -- UCL, 201