INTERPER IS AND GROUP PROCESSES Group Members' Reactions to Opinion Deviates and Conformists at Varying Degrees of Proximity to Decision Deadline and of Environmental Noise Arie W Kruglanski and Donna M. Webster University of Maryland Four experiments examined freely interacting groups to investigate the determinants of group members* reactions to opinion deviates and conformists. In the 1st experiment, the deviate was rejected more when he or she articulated the dissenting opinion in close proximity to the group-de- cision deadline versus at an earlier point in the group discussion. In the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th experi- ment, the deviate was rejected more when the group discussion was carried out in a noisy versus a quiet environment. Furthermore, when the conformist's contributions to the group's attempts to reach consensus were made salient (in Experiment 4), he or she was evaluated more positively in a noisy versus a quiet environment. The results were discussed in terms of the notion that group members' tendency to denigrate a deviate or extol a conformist may be stronger when their need for collective cognitive closure is heightened. A key question in the study of group processes concerns the conditions under which group members' response to an opin- ion deviate is negative or rejecting versus tolerant or accepting. The answer could partially depend on each member's motiva- tions and on how they are affected by the opinion discrepancy. Simply put, rejection (vs. acceptance) may be more likely when the discrepancy frustrates the individuals' salient motives and less likely when it does not. The motivational dimension has not been overlooked by stu- dents of reactions to deviancy Festinger (1950) and Schachter (1951) adopted the functional approach (Levine, 1989; Mosco- vici, 1985; Nemeth, 1986), whereby the deviate is rejected when she or he interferes with the group goals of forging social reality or enabling group locomotion. More recently, Doms (1984) and Wolf (1987) stressed the individual's dependence on the major- ity as a significant mediator of majority influence. Such, pre- sumably assymetrical, dependency may not only motivate the individual to accept the majority position but also lower the majority members' motivation to accept the deviant position, thus rendering discreditation and rejection the more likely re- sponses to dissent. Finally, Paicheler's (1976, 1977) work on Thefirstexperiment in this report was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungs Gemeineschaft to Martin Irlc and Arie W Kru- glanski. Experiments 2, 3, and 4 were supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant 1R01MH464I2-0I to Arie W Kruglanski. We are indebted to Jud Mills and four anonymous reviewers for comments on a draft. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Arie W Kruglanski, Department of Psychology, Zoology, Psychology Build- ing, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742. Zeitgeist effects in minority influence has had a distinct moti- vational flavor in implying that opinion deviancy is reacted to more positively if it is congruent with the group's prevalent val- ues (i.e., ones the members are motivated to uphold) than if it is incongruent with such values. Despite the foregoing work, fundamental questions concern- ing the motivational base of group members' reactions to de- viance remain unanswered. Further work seems needed to identify what types of motivations may mediate such reactions, whether those motivations are typically present in groups or only under specific conditions, and what might those condi- tions be. Indeed recent reviews of the relevant literature (Chai- ken & Stangor, 1987; Kruglanski & Mackie, 1990; Levine, 1989; Maass & Clark, 1984) stress the need for further motivationally oriented research on reactions to dissent, aimed at identifying the circumstances in which the deviant or minority positions are dismissed out of hand versus granted a more sympathetic hearing. Accordingly, the present research aimed to explore some mo- tivationally relevant determinants of group members' responses to opinion deviance. Our point of departure was the assump- tion that group members' negative reaction to a deviate would be proportionate to the magnitude of their motivation to reach consensus. Specifically, the deviate undermines consensus; this may induce frustration if consensus was desired. In turn, the frustration may engender negative feelings toward the deviate, the magnitude of which may vary as a function of group members' desire for consensus. The desire for consensus should exert an opposite effect on group members' reactions to the conformists in their midst: The latter may be seen as acting to promote consensus and should be, therefore, especially appre- ciated when the desire for consensus is high. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1991, Vol. 61, No. 2, 212-225 Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0O22-35l4/9I/$3.00 212 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.