Att svenska medier hotas blir allt vanligare. Denna undersökning syftar till att diskutera omfattningen av hot mot journalister och beskriva hotens karaktär genom att lyssna till journalisternas egna erfarenheter. Undersökningen är kvalitativ och bygger på semistrukturerade intervjuer med sex verksamma journalister, varav tre har redaktionellt ansvar. Vi har besökt ett antal redaktioner som har erfarenhet av hot och vänt oss till vissa nyckelpersoner. Utifrån syftet har vi formulerat följande frågeställningar: Vilka uttryck tar sig hoten mot lokaltidningsredaktioner och enskilda medarbetare? Finns det en handlingsplan på redaktionerna när medarbetare hotas? Hur ser den i så fall ut? Vad anser de enskilda journalisterna att hot får för konsekvenser för det journalistiska arbetssättet och – i förlängningen – även demokratin? Vår forskningsfråga blir således: om, och i så fall varför, journalister på lokaltidningar uppfattar att olika typ av direkta hot mot dem ökat och vilka konsekvenser journalisterna anser att detta kan ha för deras yrkesutövning. Resultatet av studien visar att alla respondenter har fått hot och trakasserier riktade mot sig och/eller redaktionen. Samtliga upplever att hoten mot journalister har ökat de senaste åren och att hoten i dag tar sig andra uttryck. Till exempel har det blivit vanligare att representanter från den organiserade brottsligheten försöker påverka vad som publiceras och inte. På alla redaktioner vi besökt finns handlingsplaner och riktlinjer för hur man ska gå till väga när en journalist eller redaktion utsätts för hot. Samtliga lokaltidningsredaktioner har också varit tvungna att ta till säkerhetsåtgärder som en direkt konsekvens av att de upplever en ökad hotbild. Majoriteten av respondenterna berättar om hur man i ett tidigt skede har ändrat i artiklar på grund av rädsla för att utsättas för hot.

Studies have shown that politicians are significantly more likely to become victims of violent crime than other citizens in Sweden. In fact increasing political rank and engagement are directly proportionate to increased risk for violence. Threat towards politicians is not only dangerous to the individuals involved but also to the democratic system as a whole. Political scientists the world over have done a lot of research on democracy, but I have been unable to find a single method or theory that examines how violence, threat and harassment affect political leaders and democratic systems. The aim of this study is to expand the existing model made by Tommy Möller, professor in political science. In his model he presents 11 factors that affect political leaders ability to act. My aim is to develop his model by adding a 12 th factor “violence, threat and harassment”. To fulfill the aim of the study I have analyzed texts and interviews with political leaders to discover if and how violence, threat and harassment affect them in their role as political leaders. My analysis showed that all of the interviewed political leaders had been affected by this, but on different levels. Some of them were only affected personally, some of them were affected both personally and professionally and some were only affected professionally. On a personal level they becomes more emotionally cold, jaded and chastened. Some of the leaders questioned their motivation to continue their mission as politician. On a professional level it was common to “self censure” by avoiding contemporary blogs and debates on subjects they had marked as “sensitive”,. The interviews combined with the other information and reports (analysis of texts) support the conclusion that it useful to add a 12 th factor to Tommy Möllers model in the studied case. The name of the thesis is “Threat, violence & harassments – A study of limitations of political leadership and democracy”. This thesis is a final assignment for Bachelor degree in political science.

Objectives: Most researchers have attributed observed cognitive differences between individuals with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and ‘normal’ individuals to physiological changes to the brain. Lacking exploration has been the role of social context/environmental variables. One of the variables investigated in the social psychology literature is stereotypes. Research has shown that the presence of stereotypes in testing environments negatively interferes with test performance (called stereotype threat theory). This concept appears relevant to the TBI population given that empirical research has demonstrated that individuals tend to believe that traumatic brain injuries lead to cognitive deficits, as well as the fact that reminders of potential cognitive deficits are oftentimes present in neuropsychological testing settings (e.g., in pre-test instructions, etc.). It is argued that these cues exacerbate pre-existing negative beliefs regarding cognitive functioning for individuals with a mild-moderate TBI, thereby affecting neuropsychological test performance. Method: The sample consisted of 42 individuals who sustained a mild-to-moderate TBI at least 6 months earlier and 42 age-, gender-, and education-matched healthy adults below the age of 60. The study, similar to other stereotype threat research, consisted of ‘reduced threat’ and ‘heightened threat’ conditions. The purpose of the former condition was to reduce negative stereotypes and emphasize the notion of personal control over cognitive abilities. Questionnaires and neuropsychological tests were administered subsequent to the experimental manipulation. Results: TBI participants endorsed greater levels of anxiety, motivation, and dejection, but reduced feelings of memory self-efficacy compared to the control group. The most pivotal results to the research study revealed that the TBI heightened threat group displayed lower scores on the Initial Encoding and Attention composite variables (which were comprised of neuropsychological test measures) than the TBI reduced threat group. Furthermore, the head-injured heightened threat condition reported lower memory self-efficacy than the reduced threat condition, and the non-head-injured heightened threat group endorsed a greater degree of negative beliefs/stereotypes regarding TBI than the non-head-injured reduced threat group. The construct of memory self-efficacy was found to mediate the relation between threat condition and performance on encoding/attention measures. Conclusions: The findings highlight the role of negative stereotypes and expectations/beliefs to cognitive test performance in individuals who have sustained a mild/moderate TBI. To date, there have been few attempts to integrate social cognition with neuropsychology. Applying the information gleaned from previous stereotype threat studies to a TBI population bridges this gap and provides a prosperous avenue for future research.

The past two decades have seen a substantial increase in the availability of numerical data that individuals are faced with on a daily basis. In addition, research uncovering the multiple facets of statistical reasoning has become increasingly prominent. Both gender differences and the effect of experience or training have emerged as two key factors that influence performance in statistics. Surprisingly, though, the combined effects of these two variables have not been studied. This gap in understanding the joint effect of gender and experience on statistical reasoning is addressed in the present dissertation with six studies. In Study 1 (N = 201), participants with various levels of experience in statistics were asked to complete the Statistical Reasoning Assessment (SRA; Garfield, 2003). Although the performance of both genders improved with experience, the gender gap persisted across all experience levels. Multiple measures of individual differences were used in a confirmatory structural equation model. This model supported the idea that differences in statistical reasoning are not uniquely a matter of cognitive ability. In fact, gender was found to influence statistical reasoning directly, as well as indirectly through its influence on thinking dispositions. In Studies 2 (N = 67), 3 (N = 157), and 4 (N = 206), the role of stereotype threat was examined as a potential cause of the persisting gender gap in statistics, and value affirmation was tested as an intervention to overcome stereotype threat. Despite the fact that many women believed negative stereotypes about the ability of women in statistics, value affirmation had no significant impact on performance. To help explain this lack of effect, and in keeping with the results of the structural equation model suggesting a multi-pronged approach, efforts were turned towards a different (and potentially richer) cognitive factor. Specifically, mental representations were explored to help shed light on the root causes of those conceptual understanding differences in statistics. In Studies 5 and 6, gender differences in mental representations of statistical features were examined using a categorization paradigm. In Study 5 (N = 219), extending some of the key findings in Studies 1, 3 and 4, it was established that two courses in statistics are necessary to create a significant difference in the quality of mental representations of statistical concepts. More importantly, Study 6 (N = 208) demonstrated how constraining the task format particularly benefits women in that the quality of their reasoning significantly improved, where that of men was equal across tasks. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

This thesis examines how perturbing selected adversary capabilities in a design basis threat (DBT) may affect the assessment of a facility's security system performance. We found that using a strictly defined DBT to design and analytically test facility security systems can lead to invalid assessments that security measures are meeting standards. Design Basis Threats are intended to represent the most severe yet realistic attack a facility might face. However, the static nature of the standard DBT makes it unable to test the performance of a facility security system in the case where a specialized adversary may possess different capabilities than defined in the DBT. Our analysis of security system performance for various modeled facilities revealed significant vulnerabilities to certain perturbations of adversary capabilities. These vulnerabilities went undetected when the original strictly defined graded DBT was used in the assessment procedure. By maximizing one adversary capability at the expense of others, a specialized adversary force was able to efficiently defeat each facility. To address this problem, we proposed employing a so-called "point-based" DBT as an alternative to the existing strictly defined DBT. In a point-based DBT, multiple scenarios are assessed that test different sets of adversary capabilities to better uncover and understand any security system vulnerabilities that may exist. We believe the benefit of identifying these site-specific security vulnerabilities will outweigh the additional cost of generating a point-based DBT, especially if the vulnerabilities are identified during the initial design of the security system.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.