Through the lens of the social identity approach (Haslam, 2004; Hogg & Terry, 2001) and in particular, the subjective group dynamics (SGD) model (Abrams, Randsley de Moura, Hutchison, & Viki, 2005) and an organisational justice perspective (Tyler & Blader, 2003), the current program of research set out to explore, in two phases, how anti-norm leaders can mitigate negative responses by their group members when they wish to lead their group towards the prescriptive norms of an outgroup. The first phase of the research, comprising three pilot tests, and Study 1, Study 2a and 2b investigated how anti-norm leaders were judged by ingroup members, and two possible moderators of this effect. Study 1 aimed to replicate the basic findings of Abrams et al. (2008) and explore whether group members’ evaluations of normative and deviant leaders would be moderated by the leaders’ method of gaining leadership (appointed vs. elected). Study 2a and 2b examined whether group members’ evaluations of normative and anti-norm leaders were moderated by the relationship of the ingroup to the authority who appointed the leader. The second phase of the research, comprising three pilot tests and Studies 3, 4 and 5, moved to consider what could help anti-norm leaders gain positive evaluations from members of their group in an organisational context. Drawing on the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), the traditional leadership literature (Hollander, 1958; Hollander & Julian, 1970), and relevant literature from the social identity approach (Hornsey, 2005; Morton, Postmes, & Jetten, 2007) the second phase aimed to examine whether perceived respect from the leader could help the anti-norm leader to gain more positive evaluations from their group members. Study 3 replicated the design of Studies 2a and 2b in a pseudo-organisational scenario with perceived respect from the leader as an additional measured variable. Study 4 explored the impact of the informal quality of treatment (IQT) received by the ingroup members from the leader on perceptions of the anti-norm leader. In addition, the proposed mediating effect of perceived respect from the leader was examined. Study 5 examined whether respect for the group’s history by the leader would diminish the negative responses of group members to an anti-norm leader. Across the six pilot studies and six main studies, and consistent with the SGD model (Abrams et al., 2005; Abrams et al., 2008), normative leaders were consistently endorsed more, or evaluated more positively, than anti-norm leaders. Across the different testing contexts, incumbent anti-norm leaders were derogated regardless whether they were appointed or elected or whether the outgroup who appointed them had an incompatible or irrelevant relationship with the ingroup. Further, whilst showing high IQT to group members helped anti-norm leaders obtain similar evaluations as to those obtained by low IQT normative leaders, exhibiting high levels of respect for group history failed to help anti-norm leaders mitigate negative evaluations from their group members. These findings suggest that, in line Abrams et al. (2008), once an individual becomes a leader, group members do not take into consideration how that leader came to be or where they came from in evaluations. Instead, group members seem to focus on what the leader does, or can do, for the group. Whilst respect at the group, and particularly at the individual, level can have a limited impact on evaluations, it would seem that little that the leader can do on their own will moderate the negative evaluations of them that stem from the fact that their position fundamentally undermines the validity of prescriptive ingroup norms. As such, and consistent with SGD literature (Abrams et al., 2005; Abrams et al., 2008), the findings of the current program of research demonstrate the overwhelmingly robust motivation of group members to derogate anti-norm leaders who undermine prescriptive ingroup norms. For leaders faced with the challenging task of leading their ingroup towards the prescriptive norms of an outgroup, the findings of the current program of research suggest that, consistent with the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) bolstering respect for group members through enacting both informal and formal procedures may be somewhat effective. Alternatively, and to carry the black sheep analogy dominant in this line of research further, the anti-norm leader may simply constitute the proverbial ‘sacrificial lamb’ – that is rejected and unpopular among the people he or she is supposed to lead.

Through the lens of the social identity approach (Haslam, 2004; Hogg & Terry, 2001) and in particular, the subjective group dynamics (SGD) model (Abrams, Randsley de Moura, Hutchison, & Viki, 2005) and an organisational justice perspective (Tyler & Blader, 2003), the current program of research set out to explore, in two phases, how anti-norm leaders can mitigate negative responses by their group members when they wish to lead their group towards the prescriptive norms of an outgroup. The first phase of the research, comprising three pilot tests, and Study 1, Study 2a and 2b investigated how anti-norm leaders were judged by ingroup members, and two possible moderators of this effect. Study 1 aimed to replicate the basic findings of Abrams et al. (2008) and explore whether group members’ evaluations of normative and deviant leaders would be moderated by the leaders’ method of gaining leadership (appointed vs. elected). Study 2a and 2b examined whether group members’ evaluations of normative and anti-norm leaders were moderated by the relationship of the ingroup to the authority who appointed the leader. The second phase of the research, comprising three pilot tests and Studies 3, 4 and 5, moved to consider what could help anti-norm leaders gain positive evaluations from members of their group in an organisational context. Drawing on the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), the traditional leadership literature (Hollander, 1958; Hollander & Julian, 1970), and relevant literature from the social identity approach (Hornsey, 2005; Morton, Postmes, & Jetten, 2007) the second phase aimed to examine whether perceived respect from the leader could help the anti-norm leader to gain more positive evaluations from their group members. Study 3 replicated the design of Studies 2a and 2b in a pseudo-organisational scenario with perceived respect from the leader as an additional measured variable. Study 4 explored the impact of the informal quality of treatment (IQT) received by the ingroup members from the leader on perceptions of the anti-norm leader. In addition, the proposed mediating effect of perceived respect from the leader was examined. Study 5 examined whether respect for the group’s history by the leader would diminish the negative responses of group members to an anti-norm leader. Across the six pilot studies and six main studies, and consistent with the SGD model (Abrams et al., 2005; Abrams et al., 2008), normative leaders were consistently endorsed more, or evaluated more positively, than anti-norm leaders. Across the different testing contexts, incumbent anti-norm leaders were derogated regardless whether they were appointed or elected or whether the outgroup who appointed them had an incompatible or irrelevant relationship with the ingroup. Further, whilst showing high IQT to group members helped anti-norm leaders obtain similar evaluations as to those obtained by low IQT normative leaders, exhibiting high levels of respect for group history failed to help anti-norm leaders mitigate negative evaluations from their group members. These findings suggest that, in line Abrams et al. (2008), once an individual becomes a leader, group members do not take into consideration how that leader came to be or where they came from in evaluations. Instead, group members seem to focus on what the leader does, or can do, for the group. Whilst respect at the group, and particularly at the individual, level can have a limited impact on evaluations, it would seem that little that the leader can do on their own will moderate the negative evaluations of them that stem from the fact that their position fundamentally undermines the validity of prescriptive ingroup norms. As such, and consistent with SGD literature (Abrams et al., 2005; Abrams et al., 2008), the findings of the current program of research demonstrate the overwhelmingly robust motivation of group members to derogate anti-norm leaders who undermine prescriptive ingroup norms. For leaders faced with the challenging task of leading their ingroup towards the prescriptive norms of an outgroup, the findings of the current program of research suggest that, consistent with the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) bolstering respect for group members through enacting both informal and formal procedures may be somewhat effective. Alternatively, and to carry the black sheep analogy dominant in this line of research further, the anti-norm leader may simply constitute the proverbial ‘sacrificial lamb’ – that is rejected and unpopular among the people he or she is supposed to lead.

No description available.

No description available.

In recent years it has become widely accepted that the natural systems on which we depend for survival are being degraded by human activity. It is no longer a question of if we need to reduce our impact upon the planet, but of the extent to which we need to change our behaviour, and how soon we need to act. Such change will depend upon the support of voters, governments, and the international community and will require wide spread changes in attitudes and behaviour. Using the social identity approach as a framework, the current programme of research focuses on rural land users in Australia and the effectiveness of sustainable land use campaigns directed at them from both urban and rural sources. The studies provide a novel contribution to the area by demonstrating the effects of intergroup threat on group-based communication, in particular, the perception of threat to rural identity and the effect on urban and rural messages aimed at changing land use behaviour. Conclusions about broader social influence processes were also made by assessing rural participants’ perceptions of the degree to which others are influenced. Although the studies are based in the context of rural Australian land users, the results and theoretical implications can be applied to any situation wherein one group is attempting to change the attitudes and behaviours of another group. This could range from local interest groups trying to convince each other of the merits of their ideas through to political parties and nations calling for united and decisive action on global issues. Such groups ignore issues of power and status at the risk of ineffective communications or even a backlash in opinion and behaviour. Six studies were conducted, including five survey studies with rural landholders and one experiment with students at a rural campus. Study 1 (N = 251) was an evaluation of sustainable land use campaigns in general, comparing those from urban sources to those from rural sources. Study 2 (N = 585) extended this by assessing the moderating role of intergroup threat perceptions. This study also measured the perceptions of influence of urban and rural messages on urban people and other rural people. Study 3 (N = 98) assessed the influence of an actual land use campaign delivered by an ingroup source on individuals’ attitudes and behaviours and the perceived influence on others. Study 4 (N = 249) built upon Study 2 but included additional measures to address some of the inconsistencies between Studies 1 and 2. To address the psychological underpinnings of group-based influence, Study 5 (N = 124) included measures of trust in urban and rural sources as well as reports of influence, agreement, and past behaviour. To conclude, Study 6 (N = 64) provided an experimental test of persuasion by manipulating the source of the message. Self-reported identification and intergroup threat were examined as moderators of group-based persuasion. Furthermore, attributions of constructiveness were explored as a possible reason for the superior influence of ingroups. Across the six studies it was found that ingroup messages were consistently more influential than outgroup messages. Attributions of trust and constructiveness helped to explain the superior influence of ingroups. In terms of perceptions of influence on others, there was a third-person effect for urban messages but rural people did not differentiate between themselves and other rural people in response to rural messages. Furthermore, rural identification was associated with greater reported influence from the ingroup source and perceived threat was associated with increased influence of rural messages compared to urban messages. These findings have clear implications for attempts at changing attitudes between groups, particularly where there is a salient and competitive intergroup context. Outgroups operate at a distinct disadvantage in delivering persuasive communications, especially if ingroup identification is high or there is a perception of threat stemming from the communicating group. Evidence of the persuasiveness of ingroups compared to outgroups is further strengthened by the perceptions of similarity in influence of rural sources for self and other ingroup members. The findings on trust and constructiveness hint at the possibility of overcoming barriers to outgroup persuasion if positive motives for the messages can be established. Of course, this depends on the severity of the intergroup context and the nature of communication. Recommendations are made for a collaborative approach to achieving change.

In recent years it has become widely accepted that the natural systems on which we depend for survival are being degraded by human activity. It is no longer a question of if we need to reduce our impact upon the planet, but of the extent to which we need to change our behaviour, and how soon we need to act. Such change will depend upon the support of voters, governments, and the international community and will require wide spread changes in attitudes and behaviour. Using the social identity approach as a framework, the current programme of research focuses on rural land users in Australia and the effectiveness of sustainable land use campaigns directed at them from both urban and rural sources. The studies provide a novel contribution to the area by demonstrating the effects of intergroup threat on group-based communication, in particular, the perception of threat to rural identity and the effect on urban and rural messages aimed at changing land use behaviour. Conclusions about broader social influence processes were also made by assessing rural participants’ perceptions of the degree to which others are influenced. Although the studies are based in the context of rural Australian land users, the results and theoretical implications can be applied to any situation wherein one group is attempting to change the attitudes and behaviours of another group. This could range from local interest groups trying to convince each other of the merits of their ideas through to political parties and nations calling for united and decisive action on global issues. Such groups ignore issues of power and status at the risk of ineffective communications or even a backlash in opinion and behaviour. Six studies were conducted, including five survey studies with rural landholders and one experiment with students at a rural campus. Study 1 (N = 251) was an evaluation of sustainable land use campaigns in general, comparing those from urban sources to those from rural sources. Study 2 (N = 585) extended this by assessing the moderating role of intergroup threat perceptions. This study also measured the perceptions of influence of urban and rural messages on urban people and other rural people. Study 3 (N = 98) assessed the influence of an actual land use campaign delivered by an ingroup source on individuals’ attitudes and behaviours and the perceived influence on others. Study 4 (N = 249) built upon Study 2 but included additional measures to address some of the inconsistencies between Studies 1 and 2. To address the psychological underpinnings of group-based influence, Study 5 (N = 124) included measures of trust in urban and rural sources as well as reports of influence, agreement, and past behaviour. To conclude, Study 6 (N = 64) provided an experimental test of persuasion by manipulating the source of the message. Self-reported identification and intergroup threat were examined as moderators of group-based persuasion. Furthermore, attributions of constructiveness were explored as a possible reason for the superior influence of ingroups. Across the six studies it was found that ingroup messages were consistently more influential than outgroup messages. Attributions of trust and constructiveness helped to explain the superior influence of ingroups. In terms of perceptions of influence on others, there was a third-person effect for urban messages but rural people did not differentiate between themselves and other rural people in response to rural messages. Furthermore, rural identification was associated with greater reported influence from the ingroup source and perceived threat was associated with increased influence of rural messages compared to urban messages. These findings have clear implications for attempts at changing attitudes between groups, particularly where there is a salient and competitive intergroup context. Outgroups operate at a distinct disadvantage in delivering persuasive communications, especially if ingroup identification is high or there is a perception of threat stemming from the communicating group. Evidence of the persuasiveness of ingroups compared to outgroups is further strengthened by the perceptions of similarity in influence of rural sources for self and other ingroup members. The findings on trust and constructiveness hint at the possibility of overcoming barriers to outgroup persuasion if positive motives for the messages can be established. Of course, this depends on the severity of the intergroup context and the nature of communication. Recommendations are made for a collaborative approach to achieving change.

In recent years it has become widely accepted that the natural systems on which we depend for survival are being degraded by human activity. It is no longer a question of if we need to reduce our impact upon the planet, but of the extent to which we need to change our behaviour, and how soon we need to act. Such change will depend upon the support of voters, governments, and the international community and will require wide spread changes in attitudes and behaviour. Using the social identity approach as a framework, the current programme of research focuses on rural land users in Australia and the effectiveness of sustainable land use campaigns directed at them from both urban and rural sources. The studies provide a novel contribution to the area by demonstrating the effects of intergroup threat on group-based communication, in particular, the perception of threat to rural identity and the effect on urban and rural messages aimed at changing land use behaviour. Conclusions about broader social influence processes were also made by assessing rural participants’ perceptions of the degree to which others are influenced. Although the studies are based in the context of rural Australian land users, the results and theoretical implications can be applied to any situation wherein one group is attempting to change the attitudes and behaviours of another group. This could range from local interest groups trying to convince each other of the merits of their ideas through to political parties and nations calling for united and decisive action on global issues. Such groups ignore issues of power and status at the risk of ineffective communications or even a backlash in opinion and behaviour. Six studies were conducted, including five survey studies with rural landholders and one experiment with students at a rural campus. Study 1 (N = 251) was an evaluation of sustainable land use campaigns in general, comparing those from urban sources to those from rural sources. Study 2 (N = 585) extended this by assessing the moderating role of intergroup threat perceptions. This study also measured the perceptions of influence of urban and rural messages on urban people and other rural people. Study 3 (N = 98) assessed the influence of an actual land use campaign delivered by an ingroup source on individuals’ attitudes and behaviours and the perceived influence on others. Study 4 (N = 249) built upon Study 2 but included additional measures to address some of the inconsistencies between Studies 1 and 2. To address the psychological underpinnings of group-based influence, Study 5 (N = 124) included measures of trust in urban and rural sources as well as reports of influence, agreement, and past behaviour. To conclude, Study 6 (N = 64) provided an experimental test of persuasion by manipulating the source of the message. Self-reported identification and intergroup threat were examined as moderators of group-based persuasion. Furthermore, attributions of constructiveness were explored as a possible reason for the superior influence of ingroups. Across the six studies it was found that ingroup messages were consistently more influential than outgroup messages. Attributions of trust and constructiveness helped to explain the superior influence of ingroups. In terms of perceptions of influence on others, there was a third-person effect for urban messages but rural people did not differentiate between themselves and other rural people in response to rural messages. Furthermore, rural identification was associated with greater reported influence from the ingroup source and perceived threat was associated with increased influence of rural messages compared to urban messages. These findings have clear implications for attempts at changing attitudes between groups, particularly where there is a salient and competitive intergroup context. Outgroups operate at a distinct disadvantage in delivering persuasive communications, especially if ingroup identification is high or there is a perception of threat stemming from the communicating group. Evidence of the persuasiveness of ingroups compared to outgroups is further strengthened by the perceptions of similarity in influence of rural sources for self and other ingroup members. The findings on trust and constructiveness hint at the possibility of overcoming barriers to outgroup persuasion if positive motives for the messages can be established. Of course, this depends on the severity of the intergroup context and the nature of communication. Recommendations are made for a collaborative approach to achieving change.

The present thesis investigates two theoretically novel processes of change in groups relevant to agents for change. Specifically, it examines the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on group members’ evaluation of ingroup change-agents. Group opinion change is operationalized as the group adopting the position advocated by a change-agent, and reintegration is operationalized as the group responding more positively towards a change-agent. These formulations of change processes within groups extend past theorizing in opinion deviance research (e.g., Festinger, 1950; Schachter, 1951; Marques & Paez, 1994) by a) examining how contextual differences that result from changes in the group may affect group members’ reactions to opinion deviates, and b) considering contingencies that result in acceptance or rejection of change-agents and their messages. In addition, this thesis investigates the psychological processes that may mediate and moderate the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on appraisals of change-agents. Specifically, it considers attributed motives of change-agents (i.e., perceived constructiveness; Hornsey, 2005), and target prototypicality (e.g., Hogg, 1993; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) as two possible mediators of these novel effects. Finally, group members’ identification with the group is examined as a moderator of these processes. Chapter 3 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of group opinion change on the evaluation of change-agents. Experiment 1 (N=100) was a scenario-based study that had a change-agent express a non-conformist view of giving water to an outgroup state at a time when the ingroup state was experiencing a water crisis. Experiment 2 (N=103) was a scenario-based study that looked at a change-agent who expressed pro-immigration views to the ingroup country at an earlier time when popular attitudes toward immigration were poor. In both experiments the deviants were marginalized initially because they endorsed non-conformist opinions. Depending on the condition, group opinions either shifted toward the positions advocated by the deviants or remained unchanged. Results showed group members’ target evaluations shifted as a function of group opinion change. Target evaluations became less favourable in Experiment 1, and more favourable in Experiment 2. There also was evidence that increased perceived constructiveness mediated more favourable target evaluations in Experiment 2. Chapter 4 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of reintegration and group members’ identification on the evaluation of change-agents. Both Experiments 3 (N=103) and 4 (N=94) involved a scenario where there was a severe drought in the ingroup state. In Experiment 3, a deviant politician argued for more investment on water infrastructure 10 years earlier when water shortage was not a critical problem. Thus, the politician expressed a minority opinion. In Experiment 4, a deviant water commissioner expressed a controversial opinion to give water to an outgroup state at the height of the drought. Both deviants were marginalized/excluded initially by the group. Reintegration was manipulated by showing that popular support for the deviant had increased (Experiment 3) or the deviant was reinstated (Experiment 4), or the group did not increase support for the deviant at all (not reintegrated). Results showed that high identifiers evaluated the deviant less positively, and perceived the deviant as more destructive after he or she was reintegrated than when marginalization continued. Further, perceived destructiveness mediated the effects of reintegration and identification on trait evaluations. Experiment 4 also showed that high identifiers were less willing to support change after the deviant was reintegrated, than when marginalization continued. Finally, Chapter 5 tested the interactive effects of group opinion change and reintegration on evaluation of change-agents. I also assessed group members’ responses to change-agents in light of the group’s resistance to change even though the change-agents were right and the groups were wrong. Experiment 5 was a scenario-based study in a minimal-groups situation that had a deviant arguing for a more equitable research funding than the existing distribution. Experiment 6 was a scenario-based study on the disagreement between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church on planetary motion. Again, the deviants initially were marginalized by the groups. For opinion change, the groups either adopted or rejected the deviants’ opinions. For reintegration, the groups either treated the deviants more favourably or continued to reject them. Results showed that either opinion change or reintegration was sufficient to defuse negativity towards the deviants. More importantly, group members continued mistreating the deviants when the groups rejected opinion change and reintegration. That is, negativity towards the deviants was highest when opinion was unchanged, and marginalization continued. Overall, this thesis shows that group members’ evaluations of deviant agents for change can shift as a function of group opinion change and reintegration. Group opinion change and/or reintegration defuse negativity toward change-agents in the absence of psychological threat (i.e., perceived destructiveness). However, if threat is present, opinion change or reintegration may ironically elicit more group members’ negativity towards these targets. This thesis also contributes to the literature by showing how change promotes or inhibits group members’ endorsement of change-agents.

Abstract This research investigated the extent to which taking notes influenced the quality of mock jurors’ decisions. High quality decisions were defined in this research as those which did not reflect the influence of the offender stereotype. The impact of note taking on the quality of jurors’ decisions is central to the judicial community’s concerns about note taking as a jury aid and their willingness to offer it in trial contexts. Previous research has argued that note takers make better quality decisions than non-note takers because note takers recall more trial content and make judgements that better reflect the evidence presented. However, according to dual process models of persuasion, high quality decisions should show evidence of both effortful processing of information and no influence of peripheral cues, such as stereotypes. To date, the existing literature has neglected to consider the extent to which note takers, as compared to non-note takers, are influenced by peripheral cues. The current research sought to address this by investigating the extent to which note taking and non-note taking mock jurors were influenced by stereotypes when making decisions in a mock criminal trial. In particular, note taking and non-note taking mock jurors were presented with a criminal trial in which either a male or female defendant had been charged with a stereotypically masculine crime (e.g., aggravated robbery or murder). The extent to which mock jurors were more likely to convict the male defendant and acquit the female defendant was used as a marker of the extent that stereotypes about offenders influenced participants in these studies. Across studies, note takers’ perceptions of guilt, evaluation of the defendant, and, in some instances, recall of trial content, reflected stereotype-based processing while the corresponding measures for non-note takers did not. This research then went on to investigate why note takers were more vulnerable to the influence of stereotypes than non-note takers. It was proposed that one reason might be the requirement that note takers simultaneously record and evaluate trial content. Previous research has shown that persons engaged in dual tasks rely on stereotypes to increase information processing efficiency and are therefore able to re-direct cognitive resources to the additional task. Consistent with previous studies, the current research found that both note takers and mock jurors engaged in an additional task during the trial were more vulnerable to the influence of stereotypes than non-note takers. Furthermore, whilst investigating interventions designed to reduce the influence of stereotypes on note takers’ decisions, results revealed that such interventions were less successful in improving decision quality than interventions that removed the requirement to engage in dual tasks. In particular, the influence of stereotypes was reduced when note takers were encouraged to elaborate on the content of their notes during designated review periods. Whilst methodological features of this research program--namely a reliance on student samples and the relative brevity of mock trials used--may have led to an underestimation of the reliance on stereotypes for note takers, the research has implications for the instructions given to jurors about note taking in judicial contexts. Specifically, the central conclusion of the thesis is that it would seem prudent to amend instructions to direct note takers to engage in the effortful review of their notes prior to coming together to reach a verdict.

The present thesis investigates two theoretically novel processes of change in groups relevant to agents for change. Specifically, it examines the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on group members’ evaluation of ingroup change-agents. Group opinion change is operationalized as the group adopting the position advocated by a change-agent, and reintegration is operationalized as the group responding more positively towards a change-agent. These formulations of change processes within groups extend past theorizing in opinion deviance research (e.g., Festinger, 1950; Schachter, 1951; Marques & Paez, 1994) by a) examining how contextual differences that result from changes in the group may affect group members’ reactions to opinion deviates, and b) considering contingencies that result in acceptance or rejection of change-agents and their messages. In addition, this thesis investigates the psychological processes that may mediate and moderate the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on appraisals of change-agents. Specifically, it considers attributed motives of change-agents (i.e., perceived constructiveness; Hornsey, 2005), and target prototypicality (e.g., Hogg, 1993; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) as two possible mediators of these novel effects. Finally, group members’ identification with the group is examined as a moderator of these processes. Chapter 3 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of group opinion change on the evaluation of change-agents. Experiment 1 (N=100) was a scenario-based study that had a change-agent express a non-conformist view of giving water to an outgroup state at a time when the ingroup state was experiencing a water crisis. Experiment 2 (N=103) was a scenario-based study that looked at a change-agent who expressed pro-immigration views to the ingroup country at an earlier time when popular attitudes toward immigration were poor. In both experiments the deviants were marginalized initially because they endorsed non-conformist opinions. Depending on the condition, group opinions either shifted toward the positions advocated by the deviants or remained unchanged. Results showed group members’ target evaluations shifted as a function of group opinion change. Target evaluations became less favourable in Experiment 1, and more favourable in Experiment 2. There also was evidence that increased perceived constructiveness mediated more favourable target evaluations in Experiment 2. Chapter 4 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of reintegration and group members’ identification on the evaluation of change-agents. Both Experiments 3 (N=103) and 4 (N=94) involved a scenario where there was a severe drought in the ingroup state. In Experiment 3, a deviant politician argued for more investment on water infrastructure 10 years earlier when water shortage was not a critical problem. Thus, the politician expressed a minority opinion. In Experiment 4, a deviant water commissioner expressed a controversial opinion to give water to an outgroup state at the height of the drought. Both deviants were marginalized/excluded initially by the group. Reintegration was manipulated by showing that popular support for the deviant had increased (Experiment 3) or the deviant was reinstated (Experiment 4), or the group did not increase support for the deviant at all (not reintegrated). Results showed that high identifiers evaluated the deviant less positively, and perceived the deviant as more destructive after he or she was reintegrated than when marginalization continued. Further, perceived destructiveness mediated the effects of reintegration and identification on trait evaluations. Experiment 4 also showed that high identifiers were less willing to support change after the deviant was reintegrated, than when marginalization continued. Finally, Chapter 5 tested the interactive effects of group opinion change and reintegration on evaluation of change-agents. I also assessed group members’ responses to change-agents in light of the group’s resistance to change even though the change-agents were right and the groups were wrong. Experiment 5 was a scenario-based study in a minimal-groups situation that had a deviant arguing for a more equitable research funding than the existing distribution. Experiment 6 was a scenario-based study on the disagreement between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church on planetary motion. Again, the deviants initially were marginalized by the groups. For opinion change, the groups either adopted or rejected the deviants’ opinions. For reintegration, the groups either treated the deviants more favourably or continued to reject them. Results showed that either opinion change or reintegration was sufficient to defuse negativity towards the deviants. More importantly, group members continued mistreating the deviants when the groups rejected opinion change and reintegration. That is, negativity towards the deviants was highest when opinion was unchanged, and marginalization continued. Overall, this thesis shows that group members’ evaluations of deviant agents for change can shift as a function of group opinion change and reintegration. Group opinion change and/or reintegration defuse negativity toward change-agents in the absence of psychological threat (i.e., perceived destructiveness). However, if threat is present, opinion change or reintegration may ironically elicit more group members’ negativity towards these targets. This thesis also contributes to the literature by showing how change promotes or inhibits group members’ endorsement of change-agents.