264 HEERDINK.VAN KLEEF.HOMAN.AND FISCHER deviant group member (Schachter.1951).This increase in com ard a dev roup membe reate the perception that one's belonging in the group is unde one 950 g hostility and aggn sion.For i Conformity in Response to the Majority's Emotional nd Wachtler (197.p.10)study: Expressions "The case was hypotheti the which n the table next to the confederate's face (the one who argued a d or reie cted.the maioritys em onal reaction may alloy the viant or mo ate the individua of anger. and ividual feels in tun rt.depending on the context and the situation the group i ee his or will the argue that onging. 0 o the may incite further deviance.and anger may motivate the individual Conformity can be defined as the act of adjustin one' (Nail.MacDo Anger,Happiness,and Inclusionary Status 2000) Although confo We propose that devian individuals interpret the majority's Gerard.1955).ther ulting c vior is si form to their the group nor ically. arg e that happiness and nger,if expre nity is that a deviant's challenge to the group's p about the deviant individa's o the appiness is elicited by events that an individual p Moreland le vine.1989).Conformity can therefore be 1991) context.e at gaining or i a195 nde.But 1986 had to of thre o)an that .1979 her theor pira nships when shared (Frednckso 1998.2001 his n g dev i( .Walter nity by miss 0sL1998) 2008) hap may mp an relativel be observe by this group.Fo elt re cople to change their behavi (cf.:Clr nents of their groups tha lid participants who felt less rejecte to the when their roup ocial distance between the deviant and the rest of the Adarves-Yomo.2006)Similarly. Dewall (2010 urt rmore,the evidence discussed suggests that D people who they e highly g in heir ude to be c with th e opinio s of the groups (Baumeister&Leary.1995: evine,2008:Sman Thus deviant group member (Schachter, 1951). This increase in com￾munication may be motivated by anger, as studies show that group members feel anger toward a deviant group member (e.g., Ju￾vonen, 1992; Phillips, 2003; see also Festinger, 1950). Anecdotal reports indeed illustrate how the majority’s reactions to deviance may escalate into strong hostility and aggression. For instance, Nemeth (2010) described the reactions of naive subjects in the group to a confederate advocating a deviant position in her Nemeth and Wachtler (1974, p. 10) study: “The case was hypothetical— but the anger was so evident that subjects were pounding their fists on the table next to the confederate’s face (the one who argued a minority position on compensation).” Thus, attempts to force a deviant individual to conform may be accompanied by expressions of anger. In short, depending on the context and the situation the group is facing, deviance may be welcomed or not. To effectively pursue group goals, groups therefore need to be able to regulate deviance. We argue that the majority’s expressions of anger and happiness in response to deviance can be functional in this respect, as happiness may incite further deviance, and anger may motivate the individual to conform. Anger, Happiness, and Inclusionary Status We propose that deviant individuals interpret the majority’s emotional reaction to their behavior to estimate their position in the group, which may motivate them to change their behavior. More specifically, we argue that happiness and anger, if expressed toward a deviant individual in a group, may be interpreted as information about the deviant individual’s inclusionary status. In other words, these emotional expressions influence the degree to which a deviant feels accepted or rejected by the group. Happiness is elicited by events that an individual perceives as goal congruent (Lazarus, 1991). In a dyadic context, expressions of happiness are interpreted as a signal that the environment is safe (Klinnert, Emde, Butterfield, & Campos, 1986; Sorce, Emde, Campos, & Klinnert, 1985) and expressing happiness (i.e., smil￾ing) is considered a strategy for affiliation (Clark, Pataki, & Carver, 1996; Fridlund, 1991, 1994; Kraut & Johnston, 1979). Indeed, positive emotions such as happiness serve affiliative func￾tions (van Kleef, De Dreu & Manstead, 2010), as they help build social relationships when shared (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001). Sim￾ilarly, in the group context, positive affect is linked to the devel￾opment of trust and harmonious intragroup relations (e.g., Walter & Bruch, 2008). Thus, happiness may implicate that one’s belong￾ing in the group is secure. We therefore expected to find that a deviant individual would feel relatively accepted if the majority responds with happiness to his or her deviance. Anger, on the other hand, is often expressed in an attempt to get other people to change their behavior (cf. Averill, 1982; Clark et al., 1996; Fischer & Manstead, 2008; Fischer & Roseman, 2007), which implies that one’s opinion or behavior is currently unac￾ceptable to the expressers (Fischer & Manstead, 2008). In a group setting, expressions of anger may therefore draw attention to the social distance between the deviant and the rest of the group. Furthermore, the evidence discussed suggests that expressions of anger precede or accompany social exclusion in groups. Given that humans are highly sensitive to the safety of their belonging in groups (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Kerr & Levine, 2008; Smart Richman & Leary, 2009; Williams, 2007; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000), the majority’s expressions of anger may therefore create the perception that one’s belonging in the group is under threat. Hence, we predicted that a majority’s expression of anger would cause the deviant individual to feel rejected by the group. Conformity in Response to the Majority’s Emotional Expressions By affecting the extent to which a deviant individual feels accepted or rejected, the majority’s emotional reaction may allow the deviant individual to remain deviant or motivate the individual to conform. When the majority expresses happiness in response to deviance, and the deviant individual feels accepted in turn, the deviant is not likely to change his or her behavior and can therefore be expected to persist in deviance. In the case of an angry reaction, however, the deviant will feel rejected, and the deviant will there￾fore be motivated to restore the sense of belonging. One way to do restore this sense is by conforming to the majority’s position. Conformity can be defined as the act of adjusting one’s overt behavior in such a way that it becomes more in line with the apparent group norm (for a similar definition, see Nail, MacDon￾ald, & Levy, 2000). Although conformity may be attributed to various motives (e.g., Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955), the resulting overt behavior is similar: Conformity involves movement toward the group norm. From the group’s point of view, the most important consequence of behavioral conformity is that a deviant’s challenge to the group’s position is removed. Thus, by conforming, a person can show a commitment to the group’s identity (i.e., identity performance; Klein, Spears, & Reicher, 2007) and group goals, which may increase acceptance from the group (cf. Hollander, 1960; Levine & Moreland, 1994; Moreland & Levine, 1989). Conformity can therefore be seen as strategic behavior aimed at gaining acceptance in a group. This idea is illustrated by prior research. For instance, Asch (1956), in an experiment in which participants had to choose which of three lines was the shortest, showed that even if people are really certain of their own judgment, they conform to the clearly erroneous opinion of a majority. Similarly, in her theory of the spiral of silence, Noelle-Neumann (1974, p. 43) observed that “to the indi￾vidual, not isolating himself is more important than his own judgment.” This may lead individuals holding deviant opinions to be reluctant to speak out in anticipation of negative reactions (i.e., conformity by omission; Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Several studies have suggested that conformity is especially likely if an individual feels motivated to seek acceptance from a group and if conformity can be observed by this group. For instance, Dittes and Kelley (1956) showed that participants who felt rejected by their group publicly conformed more to the judg￾ments of their groups than did participants who felt less rejected. In another study, peripheral group members (who experienced insecure status within their group) strategically exhibited greater conformity when their responses were made public to an ingroup audience than when their responses remained private (Jetten, Hornsey, & Adarves-Yorno, 2006). Similarly, DeWall (2010) showed that people who were led to expect that they would have a lonely future (Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003) changed their attitudes to be congruent with the opinions of their peers (see also Lakin & Chartrand, 2003). Thus, conformity is likely if a This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 264 HEERDINK, VAN KLEEF, HOMAN, AND FISCHER