Living on the edge: loyalty to the group and intragroup position
Just imagine: Your boss asks you to run a series of special training days
for other employees. At first you feel rather flattered that your boss
is considering you for this task. But you soon realise that there are
costs involved: for one, it is clear that you are expected to prepare
for the training in your own time, for no extra payment. What would you
do if this happened to you? Would you take on the job without a second
thought? Or, would you agree to do it with a mind to how it would help
you get that promotion you are after? Or, would you tell your boss to
find someone else for the job?
One of the factors in your decision in this example, and many others
like it, will be your position within the organisation. To what degree
are you ‘prototypical’?
Position within groups
People who are prototypical of their group, best represent what the
group stands for as a whole (Turner, 1985). People who are less
prototypical are more peripheral to the group because they represent
the group less well. To give an example from the animal world, a robin
would be seen as a prototypical bird as it matches the defining
features of what a bird is (e.g. sings, is able to fly, lays eggs). In
contrast, a penguin is
a more peripheral example of the bird category as it matches some
defining features (e.g. has wings and lays eggs) but not all (not able
to fly). Similarly, if we think of employees in a hospital, doctors and
nurses are perceived to be more prototypical than other groups of
employees, like the hospital’s cleaners, porters and catering staff.
What this example also shows is that prototypicality within a group is
often associated with status. Doctors are not only perceived to be more
prototypical and central in a hospital than porters, they also have
higher status. In line with this, research shows that prototypical
group members are more likely to be group leaders than are peripheral
group members (Hains et al., 1997). They are also more successful in
eliciting attitude change in others (van Knippenberg et al., 1994), and
they are most likely to define the norms and standards within the group
that others then follow (Oakes et al., 1999). Those who are at the edge
of a group, perhaps because they are newcomers, junior, or in other
ways not matching our concept of what the group embodies, are less
influential.
Prototypicality and identity security
We all have joined new groups and have been peripheral group members
at times. We know what a stressful experience this can be. Differences
in group members’ perceived prototypicality within a group are
associated not only with differences in perceived identity security,
but have also been found to affect self-esteem (Jetten et al., 2002).
Newcomers often feel less respected (Branscombe et al., 2002), more
anxious, and less confident than established group members (Moreland,
1985). One reason for this might be that peripheral group members and
newcomers feel pressured to assimilate to the group and to change their
behaviour to become more in line with established group members (Louis,
1980). Occasionally, extra pressure is put on new or peripheral group
members by forcing them to prove their loyalty to the group – for
example, by engaging in acts of aggression against an ‘enemy’ (e.g. in
youth gangs; Short & Strodtbeck, 1974).
One factor that is likely to influence people’s responses to insecure
positions within a group is the meaning they attribute to being ‘on the
periphery’. Someone can be peripheral in a group because other group
members reject them. But people might also be peripheral because they
are new to the group and are in the process of being accepted. Others
still may choose to be at the edge of the group because they anticipate
leaving the group (e.g. those close to retirement, those that took on a
job somewhere else), because they have no desire to be a core group
member (e.g. because it would involve greater responsibility and
commitment), or because the group is not well-respected and they would
rather not belong to it (e.g. inmates in a prison; being an employee in
a corrupt organisation). Obviously, people in each category will feel
very different about being peripheral. It is against this background
that peripheral group members’ actions must be understood.
Who is most loyal?
Traditionally, researchers have been most interested in core members
of the group. The main reason for this is that group action often seems
to be initiated by those at the group’s centre. In this view,
peripheral group members are thought of as passive group members – they
are followers but never instigators. In line with this view, our own
research shows that prototypical group members are more responsive to
the needs of the group and more willing to act in ways that further the
group’s interests than peripheral group members are. Whereas
prototypical group members respond to threats to the group with
increased loyalty, peripheral group members are prone to bale out as
soon as the group is under attack. It may not be that peripheral group
members are simply more passive, rather that they are not motivated to
defend the interests of their group (Jetten et al., 1997). Indeed,
peripheral group members can at times behave in ways that actively
damage the group (e.g. by criticising or betraying it; Lewin, 1948).
But is that all there is to say about peripheral group members?
Anecdotally, we know of instances when it is those who are least
central in the group who are most likely to display loyalty and to
defend the group. For example, many African Americans gave their lives
in World War II to defend a country that marginalised them. Peripheral
status can also encourage people to aspire to standards of the group
even more strenuously (Noel et al., 1995). Consider the last words of a
Glasgow-born Scot, Lieutenant General Sir John Moore, serving in the
British army.
As he lay mortally wounded by a blast of grapeshot at the battle of
Corunna in 1809 he certainly had no doubts about whom he was serving.
He died saying:
I hope the people of England will be satisfied. I hope my country will do me justice. (Paxman, 1999, p.44)
We know many more examples of people who are not most typical of their
group, but who are most likely to endorse the group’s goals, actively
protect its integrity and are most loyal to the group.
Strategic behaviour
The question at the beginning of this article – how your
prototypicality in the organisation will influence whether or not you
take on the extra work – now seems less than straightforward. On the
one hand, prototypical group members seem most committed to their
group, no matter what. On the other hand, the behaviour of peripheral
group members is much more difficult to predict. Indeed, the variability
in their behaviour is what makes them so interesting to study. In
my research, my colleagues and I have examined the conditions that
determine whether peripheral group members become motivated to work for
their group, and when they are likely to bale out.
We expected that a crucial variable in determining the behaviour of
peripherals would be the future they see for themselves in the group.
Although group members may have the same position within a group at a
given point in time, their experiences in the group are likely to
differ in important ways depending on the future prospects in that
group.
To demonstrate this point, we conducted a number of studies. In one of
these, student participants were told that they were peripheral to the
student group (ostensibly on the basis of a personality questionnaire).
Hereafter, they were told that clinical psychologists had created a
personal profile for them predicting their future within the student
body. In one condition, they were reassured that, although they did not
match the student body well at the moment, the clinical psychologist
thought that they were the type of person who would have little
difficulty in becoming more accepted by other students in the future.
In the other condition, participants were told that the clinical
psychologist feared they would remain quite marginalised in the student
group in the future.
Following this information, we measured whether students were motivated
to help out with a subsequent task that would benefit the student body.
Our findings showed that those who expected to become more prototypical
in the future set aside more time to help out than those who knew they
did not have a future in the group. Thus, those who were confident that
they would be accepted became motivated to display ‘good behaviour’ to
their group, whereas those who did not anticipate becoming more
accepted became less engaged in group activities (see Jetten et al.,
2003).
Other studies show that prototypical group members, because of their
greater security within the group, express relatively high levels of
group loyalty across contexts – regardless of who is watching and
without thought to the strategic value of their actions. In contrast,
peripheral group members are more strategic in expressing group loyalty
to others in an attempt to gain greater acceptance. For instance, we
conducted an online survey via the BBC science website in order to test
our thinking across a wide range of groups. We asked participants to
think of a specific group of which they were a member and keep that
group in mind while responding to the questions. The groups people
considered came from a broad range of categories, including social
groups (e.g. sports teams, group of friends), work or study groups,
social categories (e.g. sexual orientation, gender, nationality), and
belief-based groups (e.g. church group, political group). Across these
different groups, people who saw themselves as prototypical group
members displayed high levels of loyalty, regardless of the context.
People who were peripheral, however, were more inclined to display
loyalty when they felt their behaviour was monitored by senior group
members than when they did not feel monitored. This study illustrates
the strategic behaviour of peripherals: loyalty is expressed to the
extent that they are accountable to other group members (Jetten et al.,
2005).
We concluded that peripheral group members appear to be highly responsive
to the social context, and their behaviour is often tailored to
maximise social advantage. The idea that peripheral group members are
sometimes even forced to engage in such strategic behaviour in order to
get ahead is nicely illustrated in Yann Martel’s novel Life of Pi, when
the writer talks about the behaviour of lions in the circus:
It is interesting to note that the lion that is the most amenable to
the circus trainer’s tricks is the one with the lowest social standing
in the pride, the omega animal. It has the most to gain from a close
relationship with the super-alpha trainer. It is not only a matter of
extra treats. A close protection will also mean protection from the
other members of the pride. It is this compliant animal, to the public
no different from the others in size and apparent ferocity, that will
be the star of the show, while the trainer leaves the beta and gamma
lions, more cantankerous subordinates, sitting on their colourful
barrels on the edge of the ring.
In line with our research, for peripheral group members, protecting
their position within the group appears to be contingent on publicly
demonstrating good group member behaviour. Fulfilling the group’s
expectations and flattering senior group members are often expected to
lead to greater rewards for these peripheral group members (Vonk,
1998).
What would you do?
So, would you sacrifice your time for the boss? It is likely that
your answer to the question depends first on your position within the
organisation. If your position is relatively secure (e.g. permanent
contract), or if you feel prototypical or relatively senior, your
decision on whether to organise these training sessions would be made
without strategic considerations of what the boss might think of you.
Rather, feelings of personal duty and commitment to the organisation
might guide you to agree to the extra work, or feelings of security
within the organisation might lead to the opposite decision (Jetten et
al., in press).
However, the nature of the decision would change considerably if you
were a newcomer, contract-worker, or peripheral employee in this
organisation. Your more precarious position would lead you to pay close
attention to the social value of taking on extra work. For instance,
your decision would be affected by whether you already have your eye on
a job at another company, whether the boss also said that this is going
to help to make a case for your promotion, or whether this would mean
that other employees would appreciate your help and would be more
accepting of you in
the future. More so than prototypical group members, peripheral
group members may have to address and balance these considerations.
Indeed, keeping up the appearances may occasionally have an obvious
strategic advantage when one is living on the edge.
- Jolanda Jetten is Professor of Psychology at the University of Exeter.
E-mail: [email protected].
Weblinks
Research on group processes and intergroup relations: www.ex.ac.uk/psychology/seorg
ESRC-funded research on peripheral group membership (Jetten et al.,
‘Intragroup status as determinant of normative behaviour and
norm-enforcement’): www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/
Discuss and debate
When do people want to be peripheral and when do they want to be prototypical?
Are peripheral group members more likely to bully other group members, or are they typically victims of bullies?
When does strategic group behaviour on the part of peripheral group members backfire?
People can sometimes choose to be peripheral in society (e.g. subcultures). What are their motives?
Have your say on these or other issues this article raises. Send
letters to [email protected] or post on the forum via
www.thepsychologist.org.uk.
References
Branscombe, N.R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N. & Doosje, B. (2002).
Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744–753.
Hains, S.C., Hogg, M.A. & Duck, J.M. (1997). Self-categorization
and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality and leader
stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,
1087–1100.
Jetten, J., Branscombe, N.R. & Spears, R. (2002). On being
peripheral: Effects of identity insecurity on personal and collective
self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 105–123.
Jetten, J., Branscombe, N.R., Spears, R. & McKimmie, B.M. (2003).
Predicting the paths of peripherals: The interaction of identification
and future possibilities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
29, 130–140.
Jetten, J., Hornsey, M.J. & Adarveds-Yorno, I. (in press). When
group members admit to being conformist: The role of relative
intragroup status in conformity self-reports. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin.
Jetten, J., Hornsey, M.J., Spears, R., Cowell, E. & Haslam, S.A.
(2005). Keeping up appearances: The conditional nature of peripheral
group members’ loyalty expressions and actions. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
Jetten, J., Spears, R. & Manstead, A.S.R. (1997). Distinctiveness
threat and prototypicality: Combined effects on intergroup
discrimination and collective self-esteem. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 27, 635–657.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper.
Louis, M.R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers
experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251.
Moreland, R.L. (1985). Social categorization and the assimilation of
‘new’ group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
1173–1190.
Noel, J.G., Wann, D.L. & Branscombe, N.R. (1995). Peripheral
ingroup membership status and public negativity toward outgroups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127–137.
Oakes, P., Haslam, S.A. & Turner, J.C. (1999). The role of
prototypicality in group influence and cohesion: Contextual variation
in the graded structure of social categories. In. S. Worchel, J.F.
Morales, D. Paez & J-C. Deschamps (Eds.) Social identity:
International perspectives. London: Sage.
Paxman, J. (1999). The English: A portrait of a people. London: Penguin.
Short, J.F. & Strodtbeck, F.L. (1974). Group process and gang delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Turner, J.C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A
social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E.J. Lawler (Ed.)
Advances in group processes: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp.77–121).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
van Knippenberg, D., Lossie, N. & Wilke, H. (1994). Ingroup
prototypicality and persuasion: Determinants of heuristic and
systematic message processing. British Journal of Social Psychology,
33, 289–300.
Vonk, R. (1998). The slime effect: Suspicion and dislike of likeable
behavior towards superiors. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 4, 849–864.
(Please note that some pictures may have been removed for copyright reasons)
BPS Members can discuss this article
Already a member? Or Create an account
Not a member? Find out about becoming a member or subscriber