Skip to main content

Deviant Ingroup Protection Effect Study 2

Abrams, Dominic and Travaglino, Giovanni A and Davies, Ben and Marques, J and Randsley de Moura, Georgina (2020) Deviant Ingroup Protection Effect Study 2. [Data Collection]


This is Study 2 reported in a paper by Abrams, Travaglino et al. on the Deviant Ingroup Protection Effect, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Methods complied with APA ethical standards and were approved by the University of Kent’s Psychology ethics board (ID 2011855) The data are in an SPSS .sav file called DIP_Study2_Tax


One-hundred-and-sixty-five US residents were recruited from the crowdsourcing platform Academic Prolific. To ensure there were equal numbers of participants in our Norm Validity factor (In-Category Valid vs. Out-Category Valid), participants were first pre-screened and answered the subjective validity measures from Experiment 1 to assess whether they thought US or EU norms on taxation were more valid. Participants were classified as belonging to the in-category valid condition if their mean score on the US subjective validity measure was greater than their score on the EU subjective validity measure. There were 80 participants in the in-category valid condition and 85 in the out-category condition. Participants were then randomly assigned to condition (85 in the In-Category condition, 80 in the Out-Category condition). Group Position (Attenuator, Consolidator, Accentuator) was the within participants factor. There were 94 males, 67 females, and four participants who identified as other.


After reading the general introduction, participants evaluated US and EU by responding to the question: “How favorable do you feel towards [States in the US; Countries in the EU” (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely).

Participants were then asked to report the policy orientation of groups A to F by asking “to what extent does each group support a lower or a higher taxation policy (1 = lower, 7 = higher). This was to ensure that they accurately perceived the magnitude of differences among the groups.

Evaluations of groups. To measure evaluations of groups, participants then rated how favorable they felt towards each group. Groups labeled A to F were presented in rows in a matrix table and participants were asked: “Please, indicate how favorable you feel towards each group [A to F] in the US [EU] category (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely).

Category Subjective Validity.

Two sets of items (one for US, another for the EU) asked participants to rate (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely): “To what extent do you think the [category’s] views are reasonable, fair, and valid (3 items).

Uncontrolled keywords: Psychology Experiment Group Processes
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion
B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General)
DOI: 10.22024/UniKent/01.01.132
Divisions: Divisions > Division of Human and Social Sciences > School of Psychology
Depositing User: Dominic Abrams
Collection period:
August 2020
August 2020
Last Modified: 07 Jul 2022 08:45
Publication Date: 13 October 2020

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item


Downloads per month over past year

Available Files