In 3 experiments, participants (Ns = 50, 95, and 75, respectively) judged 2 ingroup or outgroup members who occupied 1 of 3 statuses--new members, full members, or marginal members. In each case, 1 of these members adopted a normative position and another supported a deviant position regarding a relevant issue. Participants upgraded normative ingroup full members and derogated deviant ingroup full members compared with all other members. In addition, derogation of deviant ingroup members was associated with a socializing and a punishing intention toward new members and full members, respectively. These results are discussed in terms of the group socialization model (e.g., Levine & Moreland, 1994) and the subjective group dynamics model (e.g., Marques, Paez, & Abrams, 1998).

Engagement with self-help groups is a predictor of positive outcomes for those attempting to control their addictive behaviours. In common with other groups, self-help groups have to manage non-normative ('deviant') behaviour to ensure the social values of the group remain preserved, and the group can fulfil its aims. These processes may protect group members from relapse. Drawing on the Social Identity Model of Cessation Maintenance, the current study asked a number (n = 44) of attendees of fellowship (AA/NA/CA) and of SMART groups to list behaviours they saw as normative and deviant, and rate a variety of responses to deviant behaviours. Costs of relapse to both the self and the group were also measured alongside self-efficacy regarding cessation and identity as both an active addict and as a member of a self-help group. Results suggest that social control responses to deviance grouped into education, punishment and avoidant type responses. More social control was perceived by highly identifying self-help group members. Educational responses were seen as used by groups more extensively than other responses. Punishment responses were mediated by the perceived costs an individual's relapse incurred on the rest of the group. These findings inform our understanding of what standards of normative and deviant behaviour self-help groups hold, and how they react to violations of such norms. They also have a number of implications for practitioners and facilitators in regard to using social identities as part of the treatment process.

Leaders often deviate from group norms or social conventions, sometimes innovating and sometimes engaging in serious transgressions or illegality. We propose that group members are prone to be more permissive toward both forms of deviance in the case of ingroup leaders compared to other ingroup members or outgroup members and leaders. This granting of “deviance credit” is hypothesized to be underpinned by perceptions of an ingroup leader's prototypicality of the group (“accrual”) and belief that occupancy of the role confers a right to be supported (“conferral”). Analyses of data from four studies demonstrate that both accrual and conferral (1) mediate evaluations, inclusion and punishment of deviant leaders, and (2) they make independent contributions to deviance credit. Implications for leadership, marginalization, corruption, innovation, and transformation are discussed.

Studies on perceptions of corruption have grown in recent years but are still struggling with several conceptual and measurement issues. This scoping review provides an analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on perception-based corruption. From a total of 1,374 articles surveyed, ninety ultimately met inclusion criteria. We found two main quantifiable trends when exploring our sample: publications in high-impact journals were slow in addressing perception-based corruption, and perceptions of corruption are of interest not only to political science and sociology but to other disciplinary traditions. In more qualitative terms, we observe that the explicit or implicit definitions of “corruption” behind these studies tend to fall into two categories: corruption as a “Deviant Process” or as a “Deviant Outcome,” while measurements can be typified in a two-dimensional scheme: “Sociotropic” vs. “Egocentric” and “Generic” vs. “Specific.” Most measurement approaches surveyed tend to use a “deviant process” definition, whereas the measurement of corruption as a “deviant outcome” still lacks development. This might represent a challenge for future research focusing on the social understanding of corruption in various contexts (administrative, organizational, political, economic, legal, etc.).