Public transgressions by group members threaten the public image of a group when outside observers perceive them as
representative of the group in general. In three studies, we tested the effectiveness of rejection of a deviant group member
who made a racist comment in public, and compared this to several other strategies the group could employ to protect their
image. In Study 1 (N¼75) and Study 2 (N¼51), the group was judged less racist after rejecting the deviant than after
claiming a non-racist position or not responding to the transgression. Perceived typicality of the deviant partially
mediated this effect in Study 2. In Study 3 (N¼81), the group was judged least racist after forcing the deviant to apologize
and as most racist after denying the severity of the transgression. Results also showed a negative side-effect of rejection.
Perceived exclusion of the deviant contributed to a perception of the group as disloyal to its members, which resulted in a
less favorable overall group evaluation. Potential benefits and risks of rejection, denial, and apologies are further
discussed in the General Discussion.