Editing Group dynamics (section)

===Black sheep effect===
Beliefs within the [[ingroup]] are based on how individuals in the group see their other members. Individuals tend to upgrade likeable in-group members and deviate from unlikeable group members, making them a separate outgroup. This is called the [[black sheep]] effect.<ref name="Marques, Yzerbyt & Leyens, 1988">{{cite journal |last1=Marques |first1=J. M. |last2=Yzerbyt |first2=V. Y.|last3=Leyens|first3=J. Ph. |year=1988 |title=The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members as a function of ingroup identification |journal=European Journal of Social Psychology |volume=18 |issue=1 |pages=1–16 |doi=10.1002/ejsp.2420180102}}</ref> The way a person judges socially desirable and socially undesirable individuals depends upon whether they are part of the ingroup or outgroup.

This phenomenon has been later accounted for by subjective group dynamics theory.<ref name="Marques, Abrams, Paez, & Taboada, 1998">{{cite journal |last1=Marques |first1=J. M. |last2=Abrams |first2=D. |last3=Paez |first3=D. |last4=Taboada |first4=C. |year=1998 |title=The role of categorization and ingroup norms in judgments of groups and their members |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=75 |issue=4 |pages=976–988 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.976}}</ref> According to this theory, people derogate socially undesirable (deviant) ingroup members relative to outgroup members, because they give a bad image of the ingroup and jeopardize people's social identity.

In more recent studies, Marques and colleagues<ref name="Pinto, Marques, Levine, & Abrams, 2016">{{cite journal |last1=Pinto |first1=I. R. |last2=Marques |first2=J. M. |last3=Levine |first3=J. M. |last4=Abrams |first4=D. |year=2016 |title=Membership role and subjective group dynamics: Impact on evaluative intragroup differentiation and commitment to prescriptive norms |url= http://kar.kent.ac.uk/61201/1/Pinto%2CMarques%2CLevine%26Abrams2016GPIR.pdf|journal=Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, On-Line |doi=10.1177/1368430216638531 |volume=19 |issue=5 |pages=570–590|s2cid=147836059 }}</ref> have shown that this occurs more strongly with regard to ingroup full members than other members. Whereas ''new members'' of a group must prove themselves to the full members to become accepted, full members have undergone socialization and are already accepted within the group. They have more privilege than newcomers but more responsibility to help the group achieve its goals. ''Marginal members'' were once full members but lost membership because they failed to live up to the group's expectations. They can rejoin the group if they go through re-socialization. Therefore, full members' behavior is paramount to define the ingroup's image.

Bogart and Ryan surveyed the development of new members' stereotypes about in-groups and out-groups during socialization. Results showed that the new members judged themselves as consistent with the stereotypes of their in-groups, even when they had recently committed to join those groups or existed as marginal members. They also tended to judge the group as a whole in an increasingly less positive manner after they became full members.<ref name="Ryan 1997 719–732">{{cite journal |last1=Ryan |first1=Carey S. |last2=Bogart |first2=Laura M. |title=Development of new group members' in-group and out-group stereotypes: Changes in perceived variability and ethnocentrism |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|date=Oct 1997|volume=73 |issue=4 |pages=719–732 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.719 |pmid=9325590}}</ref> However, there is no evidence that this affects the way they are judged by other members. Nevertheless, depending on the [[self-esteem]] of an individual, members of the in-group may experience different private beliefs about the group's activities but will publicly express the opposite—that they actually share these beliefs. One member may not personally agree with something the group does, but to avoid the black sheep effect, they will publicly agree with the group and keep the private beliefs to themselves. If the person is privately [[self-aware]], he or she is more likely to comply with the group even if they possibly have their own beliefs about the situation.<ref name="Pinto, I. R. 2010">{{cite journal |last1=Pinto |first1=I. R. |last2=Marques |first2=J. M. |last3=Abrams |first3=D. |year=2010 |title=Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect? |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=99 |issue=1 |pages=107–119 |doi=10.1037/a0018187 |pmid=20565188}}</ref>

In situations of [[hazing]] within [[fraternities and sororities]] on college campuses, pledges may encounter this type of situation and may outwardly comply with the tasks they are forced to do regardless of their personal feelings about the Greek institution they are joining. This is done in an effort to avoid becoming an outcast of the group.<ref name="Ryan 1997 719–732"/>  Outcasts who behave in a way that might jeopardize the group tend to be treated more harshly than the likeable ones in a group, creating a black sheep effect. Full members of a fraternity might treat the incoming new members harshly, causing the pledges to decide if they approve of the situation and if they will voice their disagreeing opinions about it.