In 1988, Marques, Yzerbyt and Leyens conducted an experiment where Belgian students rated the following groups according to trait-descriptors (e.g. sociable, polite, violent, cold): unlikeable Belgian students, unlikeable North African students, likeable Belgian students, and likeable North African students. The results indicated that favorability is considered highest for likeable ingroup members and lowest for unlikeable ingroup members, with the favorability of unlikeable and likeable outgroup members lying between the two ingroup members.
Explanations , 1987 A prominent explanation of the black sheep effect derives from the social identity approach (
social identity theory and
self-categorization theory). Group members are motivated to sustain a positive and distinctive
social identity and, as a consequence, group members emphasize likeable members and evaluate them more positive than outgroup members, bolstering the positive image of their ingroup (
ingroup bias). Furthermore, the positive social identity may be threatened by group members who deviate from a relevant group norm. To protect the positive group image, ingroup members derogate ingroup deviants more harshly than deviants of an outgroup. Eidelman and Biernat wrote in 2003 that personal identities are also threatened through deviant ingroup members. They argue that devaluation of deviant members is an individual response of interpersonal differentiation. Khan and Lambert suggested in 1998 that
cognitive processes such as assimilation and contrast, which may underline the effect, should be examined. Consequently, there are several factors which influence the black sheep effect. For instance, the higher the
identification with the ingroup, and the higher the
entitativity of the ingroup, the more the black sheep effect emerges. Even situational factors explaining the deviance have an influence whether the black sheep effect occurs. ==See also==