To explain the determinants of negative behavior toward deviants (e.g., punishment), this article examines how people evaluate others on the basis of two types of standards: minimal and maximal. Minimal standards focus on an absolute cutoff point for appropriate behavior; accordingly, the evaluation of others varies dichotomously between acceptable or unacceptable. Maximal standards focus on the degree of deviation from that standard; accordingly, the evaluation of others varies gradually from positive to less positive. This framework leads to the prediction that violation of minimal standards should elicit punishment regardless of the degree of deviation, whereas punishment in response to violations of maximal standards should depend on the degree of deviation. Four studies assessed or manipulated the type of standard and degree of deviation displayed by a target. Results consistently showed the expected interaction between type of standard (minimal and maximal) and degree of deviation on punishment behavior.
Baron, J., & Ritov, I. ( 2004). Omission bias, individual differences, and normality . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94, 74-85.
2.
Baron, J., & Spranca, M. ( 1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1-16.
3.
Barsalou, L.W. ( 1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in lexical and semantic organization (pp. 21-74). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
4.
Battle, E.S. ( 1965). Motivational determinants of academic task persistence . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 209-218.
5.
Berthold, A., Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Lücke, B., & Schubert, T. ( 2008). More than just different! The influence of different types of group goals on ingroup projection and attitudes towards outgroups . Unpublished manuscript, University of Jena.
6.
Biernat, M. ( 2003). Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. American Psychologist, 58, 1019-1027.
7.
Biernat, M., & Eidelman, S. ( 2007). Standards. In A. W. Kruglanksi & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 308-333). New York, NY: Guilford.
8.
Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72, 544-557.
9.
Biernat, M., & Manis, M. ( 1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5-20.
10.
Biernat, M., Manis, M., & Nelson, T.F. ( 1991). Comparison and expectancy processes in human judgment . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 203-211.
11.
Boldero, J., & Francis, J. ( 2002). Goals, standards, and the self: Reference values serving different functions. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 6, 232-241.
12.
Brendl, C.M., & Higgins, E.T. ( 1996). Principles of judging valence: What makes events positive or negative? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 95-160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
13.
Carlsmith K.M., Darley, J.M., & Robinson, P.H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284-299.
14.
Friedman, R.S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001-1013.
15.
Fritsche, I., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., & Neumann, J. ( 2009). Minimal and maximal goal orientation and reactions to norm violations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 3-21.
16.
Geeraerts, D. ( 1986). On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics, 5, 275-291.
17.
Gould, R. ( 1939). An experimental analysis of "level of aspiration." Genetic Psychology Monographs, 21, 3-115.
18.
Greene, J.D. ( 2007). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology: Vol. 3. The neuroscience of morality: emotion, disease, and development (pp. 35-117). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
Higgins, E.T. ( 1990). Personality, social psychology, and person-situated relations: Standards and knowledge activation as a common language. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality (pp. 301-338). New York, NY: Guilford.
20.
Higgins, E.T. ( 1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist , 52, 1280-1300.
21.
Higgins, E.T. ( 1999). Promotion and prevention as a motivational duality: Implications for evaluative processes. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 503-525). New York, NY: Guilford.
22.
Lichtenstein, S., Gregory, R., & Irwin, J. ( 2007). What’s bad is easy: Taboo values, affect, and cognition . Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 169-188.
23.
Lücke, B., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., & Berthold, A. ( 2008). Minimal and maximal goal representations as determinants of explicit negative behavior toward outgroups in experimental games. Unpublished manuscript, University of Jena.
24.
Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. ( 1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158-174.
Ritov, I., & Baron, J. ( 1999). Protected values and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 79-94.
27.
Rosch, E. ( 1983). Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. In E. Scholnick (Ed.), New trends in cognitive representation: Challenges to Piaget’s theory (pp. 73-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braehm, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
29.
Rotter, J.B. ( 1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30.
Schubert, T., Mummendey, A., Waldzus, S., & Kessler, T. ( 2008). Minimal goals and the social exclusion of goal violators: The good, the not so good, and the ugly. Manuscript submitted for publication.
31.
Stapel, D.A., & Koomen, W. ( 2001). The impact of interpretation versus comparison mindsets on knowledge accessibility effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 134-149.
32.
Tanner, C., Medin, D.L., & Iliev, R. ( 2008). Influence of deontological versus consequentialist orientations on act choices and framing effects: When principles are more important than consequences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 757-769.
33.
Tenbrunsel, A.E., Wade Benzoni, K.A., Messick, D.M., & Bazerman, M.H. (2000). Understanding the influence of environmental standards on judgments and choices. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 854-866.
34.
Tetlock, P.E. ( 2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109, 451-471.
35.
Tetlock, P.E., Kristel, O.V., Elson, S.B., Green, M., & Lerner, J.S. ( 2000). The psychology of the unthinkable. Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 853-870.
36.
Trafimow, D., & Trafimow, S. ( 1999). Mapping perfect and imperfect duties onto hierarchically and partially restrictive trait dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 686-695.
37.
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.
38.
Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. ( 2005). When "different" means "worse": In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 76-83.
