The Black-Sheep Effect: How Positive and Negative Advertisements Affect Voters’ Perceptions of the

Sponsor of the Advertisement1

DOUGLAS MATTHEWS AND BETH DIETZ-UHLER* Miami University

Participants read a positive or negative (mock) political advertisement that was spon- sored by either an in-group (subject and sponsor were members of the same political party) or an out-group (subject and sponsor were members of different political par- ties) member. The results found support for a black-sheep effect. An in-group sponsor of a positive advertisement was evaluated more positively than any out-group mem- ber, regardless of advertisement type, or an in-group member who sponsored a nega- tive advertisement. However, an in-group sponsor of a negative advertisement was evaluated more negatively than either an in-group sponsor of a positive advertise- ment. or an out-group sponsor. regardless ofadvertisement type. The results are dis- cussed in terms of social identity theory.

When people are categorized into groups, their perceptions of and behav- iors toward their own and other groups are often biased. For example, people assign more rewards to members of their own group than another group (Brewer, 1979), assume that any actions taken by their group are correct (Abrams, Thomas, & Hogg, 1990; Turner & Oakes, 1989), perceive other group members (out-group) as being more homogeneous than members of their own group (in-group) (Quattrone & Jones, 1980), and are more likely to help in-group members than out-group members (Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner, & Clark, 1981). It is also assumed that members of the in-group are “good” and that members of the out-group, while not necessarily “bad,” are worse than in- group members (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1988). If these assumptions hold true, then the behavior of in-group and out-group members toward each other is gen- erally predictable (e.g., in-group bias). The purpose of this study is to examine group members’ behavior when these assumptions are not satisfied. More spe- cifically, What happens when in-group members engage in negative behaviors?

The current study investigates how voters’ perceptions of political candi- dates vary as a function of the type of advertisement (positive or negative)

‘The authors would like to thank Nyla Branscombe and an anonymous reviewer for their insight-

?Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Beth Dietz-Uhler, Department of ful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Psychology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056.

1903

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1998, 28, 20, pp. 1903-1915 Copyright 0 1998 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

1904 MATTHEWS AND DIETZ-UHLER

and the party affiliation of the sponsor of the advertisement (in-group or out- group). The predicted variations in voters’ perceptions of political candidates can be derived from social identity theory.

According to social identity theory, people gain a sense of who they are and derive much of their self-esteem from their membership in social groups and categories (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The theory is based on the assumption that people are motivated by a need for self-esteem. One way of deriving positive self-esteem is by making favorable comparisons between one’s in-group and a relevant out-group. For example, people might compare their softball team to the team that is in last place, clearly a favorable comparison. In this way. peo- ple are biased toward their own group and against the other group. People’s self-esteem will be high to the extent that they can make positive comparisons between their own group and other, relevant out-groups. However, the effect that is produced when a member of one’s own group engages in behavior that is negative is also an important component of social identity.

When an in-group member engages in behavior that is unfavorable, it might threaten the identity of in-group members, thus placing their positive social identity in danger. For example, suppose a member of your softball team repeatedly argues with an umpire, thereby embarrassing the entire team and threatening the social identities 01’ the group members. Research suggests that group members may respond in several different ways when their social identi- ties are threatened. However, their reactions often depend on the strength of their identification with their group (Doosje & Ellemers, 1997). For example, after receiving feedback that one’s group has failed, those who identify strongly with their group tend to maintain their allegiance to the group, defensively der- ogate the threatening out-group (Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Crocker, Thomp- son, McGraw, & Ingerman, 1987). and attribute the failure to situational causes (Dietz-Uhler & Murrell, 1998). Those who identify weakly with their group tend to distance themselves from the group (Cialdini et al., 1976; Lee, 1985; Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986), and describe the in-group as very heteroge- nous (Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995). These results suggest that people react quite strongly and defensively when their social identities are threatened.

Related research (Marques, Robalo, & Rocha, 1992; Marques & Yzerbyt, 1988; Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988) has shown that when an in-group member does something favorable (or is described in favorable terms). he or she is evaluated more extremely favorably than an out-group member who does something favorable (or is described in favorable terms). However, when an in-group member does something unfavorable, he or she is evaluated more extremely unfavorably than an out-group member who does something unfavorable. This effect has been termed the black-sheep effect (Marques et al., 1998). According to the black-sheep effect, when an in-group member

THE BLACK-SHEEP EFFECT 1905

does something bad, he or she will be evaluated more negatively than an in- group member who does something good, or than any out-group member, regardless of his or her behavior. However, when an in-group member does something good, he or she will be evaluated more positively than an in-group member who does something bad, or any out-group member, regardless of his or her behavior. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the black- sheep effect in the context of sponsoring negative political advertising, a situ- ation in which in-group members engage in negative behavior.

Negative political advertising accounted for 33% of all political advertise- ments in 198 1 (Sabato, 198 I ) , while recent reviews contend that the fre- quency of negative advertisements can be as high as 50% (Johnson-Cartee & Copeland, 1991 ). Although the use of negative advertisements during cam- paigns is widespread, the effectiveness of such advertisements has been debated. More relevant to the present investigation is research showing that negative advertisements can cause a backlash effect wherein the sponsor of the advertisement receives negative attention (Garramone, 1984, 1985; Merritt, 1984). Hill ( 1 989) found that negative advertisements resulted in negative reactions from voters, causing a backlash toward the sponsor of the advertisement, and had less impact than positive advertisements. Finally, in a review of negative political advertising, James and Hensel (1991) suggest that advertisers should use negative advertising cautiously.

The backlash effect described by many researchers may be a manifestation of the black-sheep effect. That is, when an in-group member (e.g., a political candi- date from one’s own party affiliation) engages in negative behavior, such as sponsoring a negative political advertisement, evaluations of that candidate could be extremely negative (i.e., the backlash effect). But when an in-group member engages in positive behavior, such as sponsoring a positive political advertise- ment, then evaluations of that candidate could be extremely positive. Evaluations of an out-group member (e.g., a political candidate from a different party) should be the same, regardless of the type of advertisement he or she sponsored.

The purpose of the present study is to test the hypothesis that when in- group political members engage in negative behavior (e.g., sponsor a nega- tive political advertisement), then evaluations of them will be uncharacteristi- cally negative. In other words, they will become black sheep. In this study, participants were asked to read either a positive or negative political adver- tisement sponsored by either a candidate with the same political party affilia- tion as themselves (the in-group), or a different political party affiliation (the out-group). An in-group extremity effect was predicted. When the in-group candidate sponsored a negative advertisement, he was expected to be evaluated the most negatively because such behavior reflects badly on the group. But when he sponsored a positive advertisement, he was expected to

1906 MATTHEWS AND DIETZ-UHLER

be evaluated the most positively. Evaluations of the out-group candidate were expected to be less extreme than evaluations of the in-group candidate, regardless of the type of advertisement that he sponsored.

Method

Participants and Design

Participants were 123 students (101 females, 22 males) enrolled in an Introductory Psychology class who participated in the experiment in partial fulfillment of a course requirement. The experiment was a 2 x 2 (Valence of the Advertisement: Positive vs. Negative x Group Membership of the Spon- sor of the Advertisement: In-Group vs. Out-Group) between-participants design. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions.

Procedure

When participants arrived at the designated location, they were greeted by a male or female experimenter who explained that the purpose of the study was to understand people’s perceptions of advertising. They were then told that they would be asked to read a mock political advertisement that was sponsored by either a member of the political party (e.g., Democrat, Republican)’ that they most strongly identified with (in-group sponsor) or a member of the other political party (out-group sponsor). For example, if a subject in the in-group sponsor condition was a Democrat, then he or she was told that the sponsor of the advertisement was also a Democrat. If a subject in the out-group sponsor condition was a Democrat, then he or she was told that the sponsor of the advertisement was a Republican. Participants indicated their party affiliation on a pretest questionnaire before reading the political advertisement. Although the experimenter had knowledge of the participants’ party affiliations, partici- pants were presumably unaware that the experimenter possessed this knowl- edge. They were then asked to carefully read a political advertisement about a senatorial candidate that focused on “family values.” We chose the issue of family values because we believed it was a relatively party-neutral issue. Although one could argue that family values is traditionally a Republican issue, it is one on which Democrats have also taken a stand. The positive version of the advertisement stated that the sponsor of the advertisement did support family values in his personal and professional life. The negative version of the advertisement stated that the sponsor’s opponent did not support family values in his personal and professional life. When participants finished reading the advertisement, they were asked to complete a questionnaire. When they fin- ished the questionnaire, they were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

3Approximately 25% of the sample identified themselves as Independent. Their data were not used in the analyses.

THE BLACK-SHEEP EFFECT 1907

Dependent Measures

Participants completed a questionnaire that contained a number of manip- ulation checks. It also assessed their affective and behavioral reactions about the sponsor of the advertisement. They were asked if the political party affili- ation of the sponsor whose advertisement they read was the same as or differ- ent from their own. This measure was included to check on the group- membership-of-the-sponsor manipulation. They were also asked to rate the valence of the advertisement they read using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (negative) to 7 (positive). This measure was included to check on the valence-of-the-advertisement manipulation.

Participants were asked a number of questions designed to assess their affective reactions about the sponsor of the advertisement. First, they were asked to evaluate the sponsor on a variety of traits, including intelligence, com- petence, trustworthiness, sincerity, informativeness, and sensitivity using a 7- point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much), with a higher score indicating a more positive rating. When the responses on these items were summed, they were shown to be quite reliable (a = .93). Thus, they were com- bined to form a trait-rating scale. Second, participants were asked how much they disliked the sponsor using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much), with a higher score indicating more dislike. Third, participants were asked how likely they thought it would be that the sponsor would be elected to office using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much), with a higher score indicating a greater likelihood of being elected. Fourth, participants were asked how satisfied they would be if the sponsor won the election using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much), with a higher score indicating greater satisfaction.

Participants were asked eight questions about their behavioral intentions toward the sponsor of the advertisement. They were asked how likely they would be to: (a) vote for the sponsor, (b) persuade others to vote for the sponsor, (c) learn more about the sponsor, (d) exercise their right not to vote, (e) ignore the race, (f) sign a petition to support the sponsor, (8) contribute money to the sponsor, and (h) discuss the sponsor with a friend. They were asked to respond to each question using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (unlikely) to 7 (likely). In addition to being analyzed separately, these items were summed to form an overall behavioral intentions scale. This scale was shown to be very reliable (a = .90).

Results

Manipulation Checks

Participants were asked to indicate whether the sponsor of the advertisement they read was in the same or a different political party as themselves. The results showed that participants were 100% accurate in identifying whether the sponsor

1908 MATTHEWS AND DIETZ-UHLER

Table 1

Effect of Valence of Advertisement m d Group Membership on Affective Measures

Valence of advertisement

Group membership Negative Positive

Trait ratings In-group 2.62 (1.24) 4.41 (1.31) Out-group 3.55 (1.30) 4.06 (1.34)

In-group 5.17 (1.69) 3.74 (1.69) Dislike sponsor

Out-group 4.16 (1.87) 4.39 (2.00) Likelihood of electing

In-group 2.21 (1.34) 3.88 ( 1.92) Out-group 2.88 (1.37) 2.89 (1.66)

In-group 2.76 (1.32) 4.10 ( 1.74) Out-group 3.43 ( 1 S O ) 3.34 (1.71)

Satisfied if won

Nore. Table entries include means and standard deviations (appear in parentheses).

was in the same or a different party, indicating that the group-membership-of- the-sponsor manipulation was successful. Participants were also asked to rate the valence of the advertisement that they read. The results showed that partici- pants who read the positive advertisement ( M = 4.22) rated it as significantly more positive than those who read the negative advertisement (M= 1.45), F( 1, 12 1) = 8 3 . 5 4 , ~ < .OO 1, suggesting that the valence of the advertisement was manipulated successfully. I t should be noted however, that even the positive advertisement was not evaluated as highly positive (M= 4.22). This may be due to the fact that almost half of all political advertisements are negative, leading to a perception that all political advertisements have some negativity.

Afective Reactions

Participants were asked to indicate their affective reactions about the sponsor on a number of measures (Table 1). To assess the effects of valence of the advertisement and group membership of the sponsor of the advertise- ment, 2 x 2 (Valence of Advertisement x Group Membership of Sponsor) ANOVAs were performed on each measure separately. The results showed main effects of valence on trait ratings, F( 1, 1 19) = 26.17, p < .001; likeli- hood of electing the sponsor, F( 1, 1 19) = 9.55, p < .001; and how satisfied

THE BLACK-SHEEP EFFECT 1909

Table 2

EfSect of Valence of Advertisement and Group Membership on Behavioral Measures

Valence of advertisement

Group membership Negative Positive

In-group 1.98 (1.31) 4.12 (1.88) Out-group 2.97 (1.77) 2.82 (1.51)

In-group 1.62 (1.02) 3.31 (1.89) Out-group 2.47 (1.64) 2.44 (1.42)

In-group 4.34 (2.21) 5.91 (1.36) Out-group 5.39 (1.69) 4.38 (1.94)

In-group 5.27 (2.14) 5.44 (2.17) Out-group 4.26 (2.42) 5.42 (2.06)

In-group 5.44 (1.69) 6.12 (1.42) Out-group 5.98 (1.58) 6.14(1.37)

In-group 1.90 (1.43) 3.49 (2.04) Out-group 2.54 (1.61) 2.33 (1 237)

In-group 1.33 (0.92) 1.94 (1.59) Out-group 1.72 (1.41) 1.77 (1.14)

In-group 4.59 (1.82) 5.41 (1.52) Out-group 4.99 (1.79) 4.89 (1.55)

Note. Table entries include means and standard deviations (appear in parentheses). (R) indicates that item was reverse scored.

Vote for sponsor

Persuade others to vote

Learn more about sponsor

Exercise right not to vote (R)

Ignore race (R)

Sign petition to support

Contribute money

Discuss sponsor

participants would be if the sponsor won the election, F( 1, 1 19) = 4.74, p < .05. These results show that after reading a positive advertisement, partici- pants evaluated the sponsor more favorably, perceived that he had a greater likelihood of being elected, and would be more satisfied if he won than after reading a negative advertisement. 'There were no main effects of group mem- bership of the sponsor of the advertisement on any of the measures.

The results also found significant valence-by-group-membership interac- tions on trait ratings, F(1, 119) = 7.58, p < ,001; how much the sponsor was disliked, F(1, 119) = 6.77, p < . O O l ; likelihood of electing the sponsor, F( 1, 1 19) = 8.0 1, p < .001; and satisfaction if the sponsor won the election,

1910 MATTHEWS AND DIETZ-UHLER

F( I , 1 19) = 6.34, p < .OO I . The direction of the interaction for all measures was the same. The in-group member who sponsored the positive advertisement was rated the most favorably, while the in-group member who sponsored the nega- tive advertisement was rated the most negatively. The out-group sponsor was rated comparably, regardless of the type of advertisement he sponsored.

Behavioral Reactions

Participants were asked to indicate their behavioral intentions toward the sponsor on a number of measures (Table 2). To assess the effects of valence of the advertisement and group membership of the sponsor of the advertise- ment, 2 x 2 (Valence of Advertisement x Group Membership of Sponsor) ANOVAs were performed on each measure separately. The results showed main effects of valence on how likely participants would be to vote for the sponsor, F( I , 1 19) = 1 I .43, p < .OO 1 ; persuade others to vote, F( 1, 1 19) = 10.1 1 , p < . O O l ; and ignore the race, F( 1, 119) = 3.56, p < .05. The results showed that participants indicated that they would be more likely to vote for the sponsor and to persuade others to vote after reading a positive than a neg- ative advertisement. They also indicated that they would be less likely to ignore the race after reading a positive than a negative advertisement. There was also a main effect of valence of the advertisement on total behaviors, F( I , 11 9) = 8.59, p < .01. Participants indicated a greater willingness to engage in behaviors to support the candidate after reading a positive than a negative advertisement. There were no main effects of group membership of the sponsor of the advertisement.

The results also found significant Valence x Group Membership of the Sponsor interactions on the likelihood of voting for the sponsor, F( 1, 1 19) = 1 5.46, p < .OO 1 ; persuading others to vote, F( 1, 1 1 9) = 9.14, p < .001; learning more about the sponsor, F( I , 1 19) = 14.17, p < .OO 1 ; and signing a petition to support the sponsor, F( I , 1 19) =: 8.19, p < .OO 1 . The results also found a significant Valence x Group Membership interaction on total behaviors, F( 1, 1 19) = 9.33, p < .01. This interaction is displayed in Figure 1. Again, the direction of these interactions is the same. When the in-group member spon- sored the positive advertisement, participants indicated the greatest likelihood of performing positive behaviors for him. When the in-group member spon- sored the negative advertisement, participants indicated the least desire to perform positive behaviors for him. The out-group member was rated compa- rably, regardless of the type of advertisement he sponsored.

Discussion

When categorized into in-groups and out-groups, people are generally biased in favor of their own group. That is, they tend to evaluate their own group members more positively than other group members. One question that

THE BLACK-SHEEP EFFECT 1911

35.6

*Positive

20 In-group Out-group

Group Membership of Sponsor

Figure I. The effects of valence of the advertisement and group membership of the sponsor on overall behavioral intentions.

the current research sought to answer was what happens when in-group mem- bers engage in behavior that is negative. It was predicted that when in-group members engaged in negative behavior, people would derogate them relative to an in-group member who engaged in positive behavior because bad in- group members represent a threat to the overall value of the in-group. In other words, an in-group extremity effect was expected.

To test this prediction, participants were asked to read a positive or nega- tive political advertisement that was sponsored by a candidate in the same political party as themselves or in a different party. Participants were then asked a series of questions designed to assess their affective and behavioral reactions toward the sponsor of the advertisement.

The results were very supportive of the predicted in-group extremity effect. When an in-group member sponsored a negative advertisement, participants evaluated him less favorably, disliked him more, reported a smaller likelihood that he would be elected, and reported being less satisfied if he won the election than an in-group member who sponsored a positive advertisement, or any out-group member regardless of the type of advertise- ment sponsored. Thus, on the affective reactions to the sponsors of the adver- tisements, in-group extremity effects were found.

1912 MATTHEWS AND DIETZ-UHLER

Similar in-group extremity effects were found on the behavioral reactions toward the sponsor of the advertisements. When an in-group member spon- sored a negative advertisement, participants were less likely to want to vote for him, to persuade others to vote for him, to learn more about him, and to sign a petition to support him than an in-group member who sponsored a positive advertisement, or any out-group member regardless of advertisement type. Again, these results suggest that when an in-group member engages in positive behavior, he or she is admired because he or she maintains or enhances the value of the in-group. When an in-group member engages in negative behav- ior, he or she is derogated because they threaten the value of the in-group.

One question that this research does not address is why this in-group extrem- ity effect occurs. In other words, Why do people derogate a bad in-group mem- ber and inflate their evaluations of a good in-group member relative to out- group members? Marques et al. ( 1988) research on the black-sheep effect sug- gests that this effect occurs to preserve a positive social identity. When an in- group member engages in unfavorable behavior, other group members attempt to distance themselves from him or her. Essentially, the black-sheep effect is a form of in-group favoritism designed to preserve a positive image of the group.

A related explanation was recently suggested by Budesheim, Houston, and DePaola ( 1996). They examined people’s evaluations of political candidates who either sponsored or were the target of attack advertisements. Their results also found support for the in-group extremity effect. An in-group sponsor of an attack advertisement was evaluated negatively. Their explanation for this effect rests on evidence showing that an in-group member’s behavior is scrutinized more carefully than an out-group member’s behavior because in-group mem- bers’ behavior is of greater concern to them.

Other research has not found evidence for an in-group extremity effect. Instead, this research has found support for an out-group extremity effect (Linville. 1982; Linville & Jones, 1980). This effect is the result of people’s representations of out- group members, which are less complex than representations of in-group members. Less complex information produces greater extremity of evaluations.

Branscombe, Wann, Noel, and Coleman ( 1993) provide evidence to indicate when an in-group extremity effect is likely to occur and when an out-group extremity effect is likely to occur. They had participants who identified either weakly or strongly with a sports team evaluate a loyal or disloyal in-group or out- group fan. Their results showed that when participants identified strongly with their team, they showed an in-group extremity effect by derogating the disloyal in-group member and inflating their evaluations of the loyal in-group member. But when participants identified weakly with their team, an out-group extremity effect was observed. Participants derogated the disloyal out-group member but evaluated the loyal out-group member the most positively. These results are

THE BIACK-SHEEP EFFECT 1913

explained in terms of the degree of threat felt by persons who identified weakly or strongly with the team. For those who identified weakly with the team, their social identities were not threatened by the disloyal in-group member. Therefore, an out-group extremity effect was observed. For those who identified strongly with the team, their social identities were sufficiently threatened by the disloyal in-group member. One way of coping with that threat and maintaining a sense of positive social identity is to derogate the disloyal in-group member relative to any one else. Thus, an in-group extremity effect was observed. These results are consistent with those of the current study. Participants in the current study were probably highly identified with their political party. These participants displayed the same behavior as high identifiers in Branscombe et al.’s (1993) study.

Thus, it seems that the most likely explanation for why people derogate a bad in-group member and inflate their evaluations of a good in-group member relative to any out-group member is to preserve a sense of positive social iden- tity. In the current study, participants probably wanted to continue their associ- ation with their political party. One way to continue to value this group membership when it is threatened by an in-group member who is behaving badly is to derogate the in-group member.

As far as the implications for the use of negative political advertising, these results, consistent with previous research, suggest that it can lead to unfavorable evaluations of the sponsor of the advertisement. This has been termed the backlash eSfect. The results of the current study suggest that the backlash effect may be due to a need to preserve a positive image of the party, and to protect the social identities of the individual members of the party. Future research could focus on how to avoid the backlash effect, such as providing readers of advertisements some other way to boost or protect their social identities. Previous research on group members’ reactions to threats to their group suggests that group members might attempt to fight the backlash in a variety of ways. These include proclaiming their pride in their own patty, attributing the negative advertisement to a situational cause, or strengthening their allegiance to their party. Each of these techniques would allow the group member to maintain the value of the group.

These results also point to the ability of social identity theory to explain a wide range of behaviors. Although social identity theory has not, to our knowl- edge, been used previously to explain people’s reactions to political advertis- ing, these results suggest that social identity plays a significant role. Future research should focus on exploring the role of the strength of social identity in predicting voters’ perceptions of political candidates who engage in negative advertising. It is predicted that people who identify strongly with their party would be more likely than those who identify weakly with their party to treat an in-group sponsor of a negative advertisement as a black sheep.

1914 MATTHEWS AND DIETZ-UHLER

References

Abrams, D., Thomas, J., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Numerical distinctiveness, social identity and gender salience. British Journal of Social Psychology,

Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, I). L. (1994). Collective self-esteem conse- quences of out-group derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24,64 1-657.

Branscombe, N. R., Wann, D. L., Noel, J. G., & Coleman, J. (1 993). In-group or out-group extremity: Importance of the threatened social identity. Per- sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 381 -388.

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-323.

Budesheim, T. L., Houston, D. A , & DePaola, S. J. (1996). Persuasiveness of in-group and out-group political messages: The case of negative political campaigning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,523-534.

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,366-375.

Crocker, J., Thompson, L. L., McGraw, K. M., & Ingerman, C. (1987). Down- ward comparison, prejudice and evaluations of others: Effects of self-esteem and threat. Journal of Personaiity and Social Psychology, 52,907-916.

Dietz-Uhler, B. D., & Murrell, A. (1998). The effects of social identity and threat on self-esteem and attributions. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2,24-35.

Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Stereotyping under threat: The role of group identification. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group If2 (pp. 257-272). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. ( 1 995). Perceived intragroup variabil- ity as a hnction of group status and identification. Journal of Expet-imen- tal Social Psychology, 31,410-436.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. ( 1 988, September). Resistance to affirmative action: The implications of aversive racism. In F. Crosby (Chair), .4fir- mative Action: Why it's Needed, Why it's Resisted. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Buffalo, NY.

Garramone, G. M. (1984). Voter responses to negative political advertise- ments. Journalism Quarterly, 61,250-259.

Garramone, G. M. (1985). Effects of negative political advertising: The roles of sponsor and rebuttal. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,

29, 87-92.

29, 147-159.

THE BUCK-SHEEP EFFECT 1915

Hill, R. P. (1989). An exploration of voter responses to political advertise- ments. Journal ofddvertising, 18, 14-22.

Johnson-Cartee, K. S., & Copeland, G. A. (1991). Negative political advertising: Coming ofage. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lee, M. J. (1985). Self-esteem and social identity in basketball fans: A closer look at basking in reflected glory. Journal of Sport Behavior, 8,2 10-223.

Linville, P. W. (1 982). Affective consequences of complexity regarding the self and others. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), ASfecr and cognition: The Carnegie Symposium (pp. 79-1 09). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,689-703.

Marques, J. M., Robalo, E. M., & Rocha, S. A. (1992). In-group bias and the “black sheep” effect: Assessing the impact of social identification and perceived variability on group judgments. European Journal of Social

Marques, J. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity in inter- and intra-group situations. European Journal of Social

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

Merritt, S. ( 1 984). Negative political advertising: Some empirical findings. Journal of Advertising, 13,27-38.

Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D. (1981). Emer- gency intervention. New York, NY: Academic.

Quattrone, G. A., & Jones, E. E. (1980). The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 14 1 - 1 52.

Sabato, L. J. (1 98 1 ). The rise of political consultants. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 382-388.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. (1 989). Self-categorization theory and social influ- ence. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 233-275). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Psychology, 22, 33 1-352.

Psychology, 18, 287-292.