View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DSpace at VU G Group Processes & P Intergroup Relations I Article R Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 13(6) 779–794 © The Author(s) 2010 How intragroup dynamics affect Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermission.nav behavior in intergroup conflict: DOI: 10.1177/1368430210375702 The role of group norms, gpir.sagepub.com prototypicality, and need to belong Wolfgang Steinel,1 Gerben A. Van Kleef,2 Daan Van Knippenberg,3 Michael A. Hogg,4 Astrid C. Homan,5 and Graham Moffitt 6 Abstract This study explores the role of intragroup dynamics in intergroup conflict. In a computer-mediated negotiation experiment (N = 107), we investigated how a group representative’s standing in the group, group norm, and the representative’s need to belong influence behavior in intergroup negotiations. We hypothesized that the extent to which peripheral representatives adhere to group norms is contingent on their need to belong, whereas prototypical representatives behave in norm-congruent ways regardless of their need to belong. In support of this idea, results showed that prototypicals behaved more cooperatively when the group norm prescribed cooperation rather than competition. By contrast, peripherals only adhered to the group norm when they had a high need to belong. These findings suggest that peripherals only represent the interests of their group when doing so furthers their self-interest. We discuss implications for theorizing about prototypicality, social exclusion, and conformity to group norms. Keywords group norm, group processes, intergroup negotiation, need to belong, prototypicality, representative negotiation Paper submitted 19 April 2010; revised version accepted 26 April 2010. Intergroup conflict represents one of the most pressing social problems of our time. The 1 Leiden University 2 University of Amsterdam newspapers are filled with accounts of inter- 3 group conflicts that greatly affect the people Erasmus University Rotterdam 4 Claremont Graduate University involved. The most constructive way of dealing 5 VU University Amsterdam with such conflict is through negotiation, which 6 University of Queensland can be defined as a discussion between two or more parties aimed at resolving a perceived Corresponding author: Wolfgang Steinel, Social and Organizational Psychology, divergence of interests (Pruitt & Carnevale, Leiden University, P. O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The 1993). Intergroup negotiations are typically Netherlands. conducted by representatives (Adams, 1976; [email: [email protected]] 780 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 13(6) Walton & McKersie, 1965)—negotiators who intergroup discrimination (Noel, Wann, & represent the interests of a group. One key fac- Branscombe, 1995), aggressive outgroup tor that distinguishes intergroup negotiation behavior (Short & Strodtbeck, 1974), and self- from interpersonal negotiation is the fact that esteem (e.g., Jetten, Branscombe, & Spears, representatives in intergroup negotiation 2002; Moreland, 1985). defend not just their own interests but also the Because being part of certain groups is a interests of their constituent groups. Indeed, in crucial basis of one’s self-concept (see Hogg, a sense, the ‘eyes of the group are on them’. 2003; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1985; This position of representing a group means Turner et al., 1987), peripheral group members that representatives’ behavior in intergroup nego- are often motivated to secure their group mem- tiation may be influenced not only by their own bership (e.g., Noel et al., 1995), especially when dispositions and motivations, but also by intra- group membership is attractive (Van Kleef, group dynamics. Little is known about how rep- Steinel, Van Knippenberg, Hogg, & Svensson, resentatives navigate this complicated situation. 2007). Group members that are not central to In the present study we address this issue, devel- the group therefore appear to be highly respon- oping an analysis of how group norms relevant sive to the social context (Jetten et al., 2002). to negotiation (i.e., putting a premium on a coop- One possible consequence of this motivation erative vs. a competitive stance) may shape repre- that is particularly relevant in the context of sentatives’ negotiation behavior depending on intergroup conflict concerns contentious behav- their own position within the group (i.e., whether ior toward the outgroup. Compared to group they are central or peripheral to the group) and members with a central, secure position in their their dispositional need to belong (i.e., whether group, individuals with a marginal, insecure sta- they have a stable desire to belong with others tus in a desirable group are more likely to engage and to be included in groups). in outgroup derogation (Noel et al., 1995) and to approach outgroups in a competitive way Representative’s standing within the (Hermann & Kogan, 1968; Van Kleef et al., 2007; Wall, 1975). group: the role of prototypicality Although it is tempting to interpret these find- Standing within the group is an important pre- ings as evidence that peripheral group members dictor of behavior in intergroup conflict. are more prone to engage in competitive behavior Particularly, group members vary in the extent toward outgroups than are prototypical group to which they are prototypical of the group, members, this conclusion would be premature. that is, representative of what group members Prior research has often focused on the behavior have in common and what differentiates the of group representatives in the presence of com- group from other groups. Some group mem- petitive goals. That is, representatives were either bers possess characteristics that are more pro- explicitly instructed to further the interests of their totypical of the group, and therefore can be own group (e.g., Vidmar, 1971); had good reason considered more representative exemplars of to assume that competition was the norm, for the group than others (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, example, when competing was the only way to Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). Group members secure favorable outcomes for the group (e.g., who strongly match group prototypes can be Benton & Druckman, 1974; Klimoski, 1972), or referred to as prototypical members. Individuals when competitive incentives were more salient who are less prototypical examples of their than cooperative ones (e.g., Steinel, De Dreu, group can be referred to as peripheral members. Ouwehand, & Ramirez-Marin, 2009). Furthermore, Among other things, differences in centrality without explicit information about constituent have been shown to affect perceived identity expectations, peripheral negotiators tend to security (e.g., Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1997), assume that their constituents favor a competitive Steinel et al. 781 approach (Holmes & Lamm, 1979; Van Kleef expectation that serving the group can provide et al., 2007). them with a desirable outcome, such as accep- In the current article, we integrate literature on tance by the group. the behavior of peripheral and prototypical group These studies thus suggest that peripherals members in intergroup settings, the role of norms adapt their behavior in order to enhance their as defining characteristics of one’s ingroup, and position within their group, depending on their individual differences in the motivation to main- desire to be accepted by their group. In doing so, tain relationships and propose an alternative they are especially sensitive to contextual infor- explanation for the effect of group member mation that determines the effectiveness of their prototypicality on competition in intergroup behavior in terms of securing group membership. negotiation (e.g., Noel et al., 1995; Van Kleef et al., Besides exhibiting ingroup favoritism and/or out- 2007): Peripheral group members behaved more group derogation (see Noel et al., 1995), an addi- competitively than prototypical group members tional way in which peripheral group members in earlier studies because the desire to be a valued may improve their position within the group is by part of the group motivated them to exhibit stressing characteristics that they share with the norm-congruent behavior (and competition was ingroup prototype (Schmitt & Branscombe, the implicit norm). Next we review relevant litera- 2001). The more group members embody the ture on prototypicality, norms, and need to belong core values of the group, the more prototypical to derive specific predictions about the interactive they are of that group. Thus, publicly endorsing effects of these variables on behavior in inter- group norms should be an effective way for group negotiation. peripheral group members to enhance their posi- tion within the group. Preliminary support for Prototypicality and behavior in this idea comes from a study by Jetten, Hornsey, and Adarves-Yorno (2006), who found that intergroup settings peripheral group members strategically tailored Several studies suggest that peripherals are highly self-reports of conformity to the social context, sensitive to contextual cues that inform effective expressing more conformity when their responses strategies aimed at improving their status in the were made public to an ingroup audience than group. For instance, Noel et al. (1995) found that when they were not. These findings support our peripherals displayed high levels of ingroup view that peripherals in earlier studies behaved favoritism and