European Journal of Social Psychology, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

41, 1–5 (2011)

Published online 29 July 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.764

Fast track report

Using the Black Sheep Effect to reveal normative stakes: The example of alcohol
drinking contexts

GRÉGORY LO MONACO1*, ANTHONY PIERMATTÉO1,

CHRISTIAN GUIMELLI1 AND ANDREEA ERNST-VINTILA2
1
Laboratory of Social Psychology, University of Provence, France; 2Aix-Marseille University,
CNRS UMR 6012 - Laboratory of Applied Psychology, University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, France

Abstract

The present study shows that the paradigm relative to Black Sheep Effect (BSE) may be used to reveal normative stakes whose
existence is not clearly identified. To this end, our study focuses on alcohol drinking practices among students, specifically with
regard to drinking contexts (solitary vs. group). Our hypothesis was that the drinking norms are determined by their context (i.e.
social vs. solitary drinking). More specifically, we suggested that social drinking is viewed by students as pro-normative, while
solitary drinking is viewed as anti-normative. The results confirmed our hypotheses and enable us to consider that the BSE
paradigm has the potential to reveal normative stakes. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Based on the Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel
& Turner, 1986) and the Self-Categorisation Theory (SCT;
Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), Marques,
Yzerbyt, and Leyens (1988) explored judgements made about
individuals as a function of the laters’ group membership and
of the normative orientation of their attitudes and behaviours.
The authors coined the term Black Sheep Effect (BSE) in such
cases to refer to the fact that judgements about both likeable
and unlikeable in-group members are more extreme than
judgements about out-group members, regardless of the
normative orientation of such in-group members’ attitude or
behaviour. Previous studies conducted on the BSE have been
based on norms that were clearly identified by the authors
beforehand. However, some situations and practices are
determined by normative aspects that are not explicitly
identified. As just one example among a number of others,
previous studies implicitly suggest that alcohol-drinking
contexts (solitary vs. group) may constitute such normative
contexts (Lo Monaco, Gaussot, & Guimelli, 2009; Lo Monaco,
Guimelli, & Hidalgo, 2010). The present study examines
whether the use of the BSE paradigm is likely to highlight the
normative aspects involved in this kind of situation.
Group Identity and In-group Deviant Members
firstly granted favouritism when he or she perceived as likeable
and, secondly, more unfavourably evaluated, or even rejected,
when he or she is perceived as socially unlikeable. In other
words, in the BSE, judgements about in-group members are
more extreme (more positive when likeable, and more negative
when deviant from the norm) than they are about out-group
members.
In line with the SIT, this reaction enables groups to preserve
their positive social identity by evaluating their desirable in-
group member(s) more favourably and their deviant mem-
ber(s) less favourably. In the present study, ‘deviant’ refers to
any individual whose behaviour and/or attitudes are contra-
dictory to the member’s group norms.
The starting point of the reflections regarding the BSE is
based on the observation that the in-group representation is
organised around a prototype which provides a framework for
categorising individuals as members of the in-group or of the
out-group. More specifically, the categorisation stems from the
detection of behaviours of an in-group member (actions, verbal
or nonverbal communication) that are incompatible with the
norms of his/her group. Consequently, when an in-group
member fails to satisfy the normative prescriptions shared and
valued by the reference group, the group’s social identity is
threatened.

The BSE effect initially identified by Marques et al. (1988) has
subsequently been extended quite significantly (Marques,
1990; Marques, Abrams, Páez, & Martinez-Taboada, 1998;
Marques & Páez, 1994; Marques, Páez, & Abrams, 1998;
Marques, Robalo, & Rocha, 1992). The BSE refers to a
simultaneous observation regarding an in-group member,
Using BSE to Validate the Existence of Normative
Stakes
The emergence of a BSE is therefore based on identity and
normative issues, since the group members judge in-group and
out-group members by the compatibility of the later’s attitudes

*Correspondence to: Grégory Lo Monaco, Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale, Université de Provence, 29 avenue Robert Schuman, 13621 Aix-en-Provence
Cedex 1, France. E-mail: gregory.lo-monaco@univ-provence.fr

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 11 October 2009, Accepted 20 April 2010
2 Grégory Lo Monaco et al.
and/or behaviours with the group’s norms. The BSE studies
have generally been based on norms identified beforehand
via pre-tests, and for which the positioning of the groups
in question was well-known: For example, asylum seeking
(Abrams, Marques, Bown, & Henson, 2000, Study 2),
initiation practices in student environments (Marques,
Abrams, & Serôdio, 2001, Study 1), homosexuality (Marques
et al., 2001, Study 2), etc.
However, there is little research on situations in which
certain norms are prescriptive of behaviours but are not
explicitly identified. This is the case for example of the
adoption of certain behaviours or attitudes observed in
organisational environments (behaviour of strikers, joining a
union, etc.). The BSE paradigm can help going further than
simple observation, by providing an empirical proof of the
existence of such normative aspects in a given situation.
The present study therefore uses the BSE framework to
validate normative aspects whose existence has not yet been
proved in a given situation.
In this regard, various studies on alcohol drinking practices
among students (e.g. Lo Monaco et al., 2009, 2010) seem
to indicate that the drinking contexts (solitary vs. group)
constitute real normative frameworks that regulate drinking
practices. We will thus use this social situation to illustrate our
arguments.
Drinking Contexts as Normative Frameworks
Many studies on young people recognise the normative nature
of alcohol consumption. Indeed, drinking among young people
appears to be considerably dependent on the shared perception
(albeit wrong) of the group norm. In a phenomenon known as
‘pluralistic ignorance’ (e.g. Miller & Prentice, 1994; Prentice
& Miller, 1993, 2003), for example, students can consume a
significant amount of alcohol based on their own incorrect
estimations of drinking by their peers. This phenomenon can
incidentally be observed at a more general level regarding
health-risk related behaviours (Hines, Saris, & Throckmorton-
Belzer, 2002). The harmful consequences of such excessive
drinking are numerous (e.g. Bègue & Subra, 2008; Bègue,
Subra, Arvers, Muller, Bricout, & Zorman, 2009; Goldberg,
Halpern-Felsher, & Millstein, 2002).
Drinking practices thus seem to depend on the perception
of the shared group norms, though not exclusively. Indeed,
the drinking contexts also seem to incorporate prescriptive
drinking norms specific to young people, especially in France.
Alcohol Drinking in Context
Research on the relationship that young individuals have to
psycho-active substances has indicated that drinking contexts
are also key explanatory factors alongside the traditional
socio-demographic factors. All of these studies, whether they
were conducted in the field of sociology (Freyssinet-Dominjon
& Wagner, 2003; Gaussot, 1998) or social psychology (Lo
Monaco et al., 2009, 2010), and whether they focused on
alcohol (Freyssinet-Dominjon & Wagner, 2003; Gaussot,
1998), wine (Lo Monaco et al., 2009, 2010), or even cannabis
(Dany & Apostolidis, 2002), highlighted the importance of
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
distinguishing between solitary and social consumption.
Choquet, Com-Ruelle, and Leymarie (2003) also reported
on a study conducted in France by the Institut de Recherche sur
les Boissons (IREB) involving 1028 youths, whereby 89% of
the 19–20-year-old participants (N ¼ 257) claimed to drink
with their friends, and none claimed to drink when alone. The
studies are similar in that their conclusions converge. On the
one hand, social drinking is placed under the banner of
friendliness, fun and sharing. On the other hand, solitary
drinking is synonymous with addiction, isolation or even
exclusion. Given the importance of the meaning associated
with drinking behaviours, the drinking contexts can thus be
considered as normative frameworks: Social drinking pro-
motes a drinking norm that is prescriptive for, and also
justifies, drinking behaviours, while solitary drinking high-
lights an abstinence norm which is synonymous with
prohibition. In short, social drinking is the socially accepted
norm, while solitary drinking is considered as socially
unacceptable.
HYPOTHESES
If the social drinking context is indeed pro-normative, we
predict an in-group favouritism bias (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, &
Flament, 1971) in this case, and, based on the BSE, we expect a
more positive evaluation of an in-group than an out-group
target. Conversely, within the scope of the BSE, if the solitary
drinking context is indeed anti-normative, we then predict that
a deviant in-group member would be rejected, as he or she
would be evaluated more unfavourably than an out-group
member. In this light, if a BSE occurs, it would provide
experimental evidence for validating the hypothesis of the pro-
normative nature of social drinking, and, in contrast, of the
anti-normative nature of solitary drinking. In short, if the
context of solitary drinking is viewed as anti-normative, it
would lead the participants to reject the in-group member more
than the out-group member. In contrast, if the context of group
drinking is viewed as pro-normative, it would lead the
participants to evaluate the in-group member more favourably
than the out-group member.
The present study was therefore conducted to test these
hypotheses.
METHOD
Participants
Eighty students (mean age ¼ 20.16, SD ¼ 1.98) from a French
university voluntarily took part in this study. The sample
comprised 33 women and 47 men equally and randomly
divided among four conditions (x2(1) ¼ 2.45, ns).
Procedure
Participants were invited to take part in a study about ‘alcohol
and drinking’. The questionnaire was self-administered. It
included a cover page with the title of the study and a statement
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 41, 1–5 (2011)

about all answers to remain anonymous and confidential. On
the second page, the participants were instructed to read a
scenario about a target (who was in fact fictitious), namely
an individual of non-specified gender (referred to as ‘X’).
The neutralisation of the target’s gender was explained to the
participants as a way of respecting the person’s anonymity.
Lastly, a third page presented a series of scales on which
participants were invited to position themselves.
The experimental induction was based on scenarios
(see Appendix) in which we manipulated the independent
variables. The participants were randomly divided between
four experimental conditions (i.e. four different scenarios) in a
2 (target’s drinking context: solitary vs. social) " 2 (target’s
group membership: in-group vs. out-group) between-subject
experimental design. Lastly, the subjects had to evaluate the
target (scenario’s protagonist) by answering four questions
which were the main dependent variable.
Induction of the Independent Variables
The drinking context (solitary vs. social) was induced in each
experimental condition by introducing, in each scenario, a
target who claimed to consume alcohol either when he/she was
alone (solitary drinking context) or when he/she was with
friends (social drinking context). The target’s group member-
ship was induced by presenting the participants with
information about the target’s age and status: 21-year-old
student vs. 50-year-old employee (in-group vs. out-group
relative to the student sample addressed in our study).
Dependent Variable
The participants were asked to evaluate the target on four
measures. In order to do this, the participants used a 9-point
scale (from 1 ¼ ‘completely disagree’ to 9 ¼ ‘completely
agree’). The four measures were the following: ‘In your
opinion, X gives a good image of him/herself’; ‘(. . .) is a
trustful person’; ‘(. . .) is someone you would like’; ‘(. . .) is an
example to follow’.
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
From the four dependent variables described above, a
maximum likelihood factorial analysis (explained variance:
49.66%; KMO ¼ 0.73) as well as an internal homogeneity test
(Cronbach’s a ¼ .79) enabled us to compute a single measure
reflecting the target’s global evaluation. This measure was used
throughout the study.
Evaluation of the Target
A 2 (target’s drinking context: solitary vs. social) " 2 (target’s
group membership: in-group vs. out-group) ANOVA was
performed on the target’s global evaluation measure. The
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Black Sheep Effect and normative stakes 3
analysis showed a main effect of the drinking context: The
target was evaluated more favourably when placed in a social
drinking context (M ¼ 5.23, SD ¼ 1.28) than in a solitary
drinking context (M ¼ 3.64, SD ¼ 1.23). The difference was
significant (F(1, 76) ¼ 37.11, p < .0001, h2p ¼ .33).
Next, in line with the results widely observed in previous
BSE studies (e.g. Marques et al., 1988; Marques & Yzerbyt,
1988), the analysis also revealed an absence of main effect of
group membership (F < 1).
Lastly, and confirming our hypothesis, the analysis showed
a significant interaction effect (F(1, 76) ¼ 14.36, p < .001,
h2p ¼ .16) between the drinking context and the target’s group
membership (see Figure 1).
Within this interaction hypothesis, we specified the
conditions for the BSE to occur through two specific
hypotheses. According to these hypotheses, it appeared that,
on the one hand, when the target was placed within a social
drinking context (F(1, 76) ¼ 7.36, p < .01, h2p ¼ .09), he/she
was evaluated more favourably when he/she was an in-group
member (M ¼ 5.73, SD ¼ .86) rather than an out-group
member (M ¼ 4.73, SD ¼ 1.46). On the other hand, within a
solitary drinking context, the target was evaluated less
favourably (F(1, 76) ¼ 6.99, p < .01, h2p ¼ .08) when he/she
was an in-group member (M ¼ 3.15, SD ¼ 1.45) rather than an
out-group member (M ¼ 4.13, SD ¼ .69).
Finally, we tested simple main effects of the drinking
context (social vs. solitary) within in-group and out-group
conditions. The analysis revealed a significant effect in the
in-group conditions (F(1, 76) ¼ 48.82, p < .00001, h2p ¼ .39).
The target was evaluated less favourably in a solitary drinking
Figure 1. Interaction effect of the two independent variables (drinking
context and group membership) on the evaluation of the target
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 41, 1–5 (2011)
4 Grégory Lo Monaco et al.
context (M ¼ 3.15, SD ¼ 1.45) than in a social drinking context
(M ¼ 5.73, SD ¼ .86). Furthermore, and in line with the results
generally found in BSE studies, in the out-group condition, the
effect did not reach statistical significance (F(1, 76) ¼ 2.65,
p ¼ .11, h2p ¼ .03).
DISCUSSION
The overall results suggest that students evaluated social
drinking more favourably, while solitary drinking was indeed
considered to be anti-normative. Thus, according to BSE-
specific dynamics, within a social drinking context (thus pro-
normative), individuals who belonged to the in-group were
evaluated more favourably, while in the case of solitary drinking
(thus anti-normative) we noted a rejection of the in-group
member. Within this framework, the occurrence of the BSE
made it possible to validate the hypotheses concerning the norms
that regulated the students’ drinking practices and thus to reveal
the potential of this paradigm to highlight normative stakes.
One limitation to this study is the need to verify if the target
(the scenario’s protagonist) was indeed categorised as in-group
or an out-group relative to the student sample, based on his/her
age and employment status. However, given that our data was
collected from a student sample on a university campus, it
would seem reasonable to assume that the participants
categorised as an in-group the student target rather than
the 50-year-old employee, especially because the former
was presented as a student from the same university as the
participants. In addition, we believe that the 50-year-old
employee target was different enough from the sample
participants to be categorised as an out-group.
We were able to show that the BSE can reveal the normative
aspects in situations in which their existence had not
previously been explicitely established. However, while the
BSE can help us to validate the existence of such stakes,
it cannot elucidate how the norms, in which these stakes
originate, are constructed at the outset. Nevertheless, in this
study, the validation of the very existence of the normative
stakes concerning alcohol-drinking contexts enables us to go
further in the understanding of this phenomenon.
Indeed, various studies conducted with young people
showed an interplay of inferences. It seems indeed that this
young population tends to make the link between solitary
drinking and daily drinking, on the one hand, and between
social drinking and occasional drinking, on the other. In the
first case, drinking is viewed as deviant and would suggest
addiction, while in the second case, it is synonymous with
a convivial lifestyle and special occasions. Thus, such an
interplay of inferences may also provide an explanation for the
prescriptive behavioural drinking norms and the positioning
taken by this population.
Lastly, the use of BSE can help us to gain insights into the
normative aspects at stake for a given population with regard to
a given object. It therefore has a contingent validity by the very
nature of the paradigm used. In line with this reasoning and
with our example, we could also assume that solitary drinking
would no longer be considered deviant if it concerns experts
(e.g. wine experts). Such a drinking context would instead
denote, at least in the French culture, a somewhat ‘elitist’
sensitivity (e.g. an individual drinking a glass of exceptional
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
wine) that would not threat the group’s positive image even if
the target was presented as consuming alone. Consequently,
this in-group member would not be subject to rejection, and the
BSE would therefore not take place.
In any event, by mobilising the BSE paradigm, we were
able to bring to light normative stakes, which, in our example,
were related to the drinking contexts, and which, until now,
had only been sensed or assumed from the discourse of young
people. The general implications of these findings indicate that
the BSE paradigm has the potential to reveal normative stakes
in various groups, objects and situations. This is notably what
our future studies will attempt to demonstrate.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Kees van den Bos and the two
reviewers for their comments which allowed to improve the
relevance of this article. The authors also thank Fabrice
Gabarrot for his invaluable advice.
APPENDIX
The following scenarios were used to induce the independent
variables (solitary vs. social drinking context; and target’s
in-group vs. out-group membership):
Condition 1: Solitary drinking context/in-group member-
ship
‘X’ is 21 years old. He/she is currently a Science student.
When questioned about his/her drinking habits, he/she says
that he/she drinks only he/she is alone.
Condition 2: Social drinking context/in-group membership
‘X’ is 21 years old. He/she is currently a Science student.
When questioned about his/her drinking habits, he/she says
that he/she drinks only he/she is with friends.
Condition 3: Solitary drinking context/out-group member-
ship
‘X’ is 50 years old. He/she currently works for a company.
When questioned about his/her drinking habits, he/she says
that he/she drinks only he/she is alone.
Condition 4: Social drinking context/out-group member-
ship
‘X’ is 50 years old. He/she currently works for a company.
When questioned about his/her drinking habits, he/she says
that he/she drinks only he/she is with friends.
REFERENCES
Abrams, D., Marques, J. M., Bown, N., & Henson, M. (2000). Pro-norm and
anti-norm deviance within and between groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78(5), 906–912.
Bègue, L., & Subra, B. (2008). Alcohol and Aggression: Perspectives on
controlled and uncontrolled social information processing. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 511–538.
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 41, 1–5 (2011)

Bègue, L., Subra, B., Arvers, P., Muller, D., Bricout, V., & Zorman, M. (2009).
A message in a bottle: Extrapharmacological effects of alcohol on aggres-
sion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 137–142.
Choquet, M., Com-Ruelle, L., & Leymarie, N. (2003). Les 13–20 ans et
l’alcool en 2001: comportements et contextes en France. Paris: Institut de
recherches scientifiques sur les boissons (IREB).
Dany, L., & Apostolidis, T. (2002). L’étude des représentations sociales de la
drogue et du cannabis: un enjeu pour la prévention. Santé Publique, 14(4),
335–344.
Freyssinet-Dominjon, J., & Wagner, A.-C. (2003). L’alcool en fête. Manières
de boire de la nouvelle jeunesse étudiante. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Gaussot, L. (1998). Les représentations de l’alcoolisme et la construction
sociale du « bien boire ». Sciences Sociales et Santé, 16(1), 5–42.
Goldberg, J. H., Halpern-Felsher, B. L., & Millstein, S. G. (2002). Beyond
invulnerability: The importance of benefits in adolescent’s decision to drink
alcohol. Health Psychology, 21, 477–484.
Hines, D., Saris, R., & Throckmorton-Belzer, L. (2002). Pluralistic ignorance
and health risk behaviors: Do college students misperceive social approval
for risky behaviors on campus and in media. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 32(12), 2621–2640.
Lo Monaco, G., Gaussot, L., & Guimelli, C. (2009). Consommation de vin,
pensée sociale et construction sociale de la normalité. Pratiques Psycho-
logiques, 15(4), 473–492.
Lo Monaco, G., Guimelli, C., & Hidalgo, M. (2010). Contextes et normes dans
la perception de l’alcoolisme. Alcoologie et Addictologie, 32(1), 45–51.
Marques, J. M. (1990). The black sheep effect: Out-group homogeneity in
social comparison settings. In D. Abrams, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social
identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 131–151). London:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Páez, D., & Martinez-Taboada, C. (1998).
The role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups
and their members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 976–
988.
Marques, J., Abrams, D., & Serôdio, R. (2001). Being better by being right:
Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when
generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 81(3), 436–447.
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Black Sheep Effect and normative stakes 5
Marques, J. M., & Páez, D. (1994). The black sheep effect: Social categor-
isation, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. In
W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology
(Vol. 5, pp. 37–68). New York: Wiley.
Marques, J., Páez, D., & Abrams, D. (1998). Social identity and intragroup
differentiation as subjective social control. In S. Worchel, J. F. Morales, D.
Páez, & J.- C. Deschamps (Eds.), Social identity: International perspectives
(pp. 124–141). New York: Sage.
Marques, J. M., Robalo, E. M., & Rocha, S. A. (1992). Ingroup bias and the
black sheep effect: Assessing the impact of cognitive-motivational and
informational antecedents of judgemental extremity towards ingroup mem-
bers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 331–352.
Marques, J. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental
extremity towards ingroup members in inter- and intra-group situations.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 287–292.
Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J.-Ph. (1988). Extremity of
judgments towards ingroup members as a function of ingroup identification.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.
Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. (1994). Collective errors and errors about the
collective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 541–550.
Prentice, D., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on
campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 243–256.
Prentice, D., & Miller, D. T. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use
on campus: some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. In
P. Salovey, & A. J. Rothman (Eds.), The social psychology of health
(pp. 183–198). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization
and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–177.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity of intergroup behaviour.
In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations.
Chicago, IL: Brooks-Cole.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S.
(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.
Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 41, 1–5 (2011)