‘You can criticize because you care’: identity attachment,constructiveness, and the intergroup sensitivity effect

Criticism of one's group (e.g. nation, gender, or organization) is typically received in a less defensive way when it stems from another ingroup member than when it stems from an outsider (the intergroup sensitivity effect). We present two experiments demonstrating that this effect is driven not by group membership per se, but by the extent to which critics are perceived to be psychologically invested in the group they are criticizing. In Experiment 1 (N = 117), Australian participants were exposed to criticisms of their country from either other Australians (ingroup critics) or non‐Australians (outgroup critics). Furthermore, the ingroup critics were described as having either strong or weak attachment to their Australian identity. Ingroup critics were only received more positively than outgroup critics when they appeared to have a psychological investment in the group. In Experiment 2 (N = 96) we show how outgroup critics (Asian‐Australians) can overcome defensiveness among Anglo‐Australians by locating themselves within a shared, superordinate identity (Australian). Implications for communication within and between groups are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Group-directed criticism in Indonesia: Role of message source and audience

Research in individualist cultures has shown that group members are more likely to agree with criticisms of their group when the criticisms are made by another ingroup member as opposed to an outgroup member (the intergroup sensitivity effect). However, evaluations of ingroup critics are often harsher when they take their comments to an outgroup audience. In light of research on facework and tolerance for dissent, it seems important to test whether these effects are generalizable to a collectivist culture. Indonesian Muslims ( N  = 191) received a criticism of their religion stemming either from another Muslim or a Christian, and published in either a Muslim or a Christian newspaper. Participants agreed with the comments more when they were made by an ingroup as opposed to an outgroup member. Furthermore, consistent with previous research in Australia, the effects of audience on agreement were moderated by levels of group identification. Results are discussed in relation to theory about the functional role internal critics can play in group life.     

Keeping it in‐house: how audience affects responses to group criticism

It is often assumed that group‐directed criticism is best kept ‘in‐house’, but the effects of audience on responses to criticism have not been directly examined. Consistent with predictions, ingroup members who criticized the group to an outgroup audience were seen to be making a less appropriate choice of audience (Experiments 2 and 3), aroused more negative feelings (Experiment 1), were downgraded more strongly on personality traits (Experiment 2), and were seen to be doing more damage to the group (Experiment 2) than were ingroup members who kept their criticisms in‐house. Experiment 3 showed that, whereas moderate identifiers agreed with the comments less and showed weaker friendly intentions toward the critic when an outgroup audience as compared to an ingroup audience was chosen, high identifiers agreed with the criticisms just as strongly—and showed more friendly intentions toward the critic—when they were made to an outgroup as compared to an ingroup audience. Results are discussed in light of the broader literature on identity threat. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Reactions to internal and external criticism of outgroups: social convention in the intergroup sensitivity effect

Recent research has documented the intergroup sensitivity effect (ISE) whereby people respond more favorably to internal versus external criticism of their group. The present studies examine the reactions of bystanders who do not belong to the criticized group and whose reactions are therefore more likely to be informed by social conventions than by defensiveness. Studies 1 and 2 presented British participants with criticisms of Australians, manipulating their ostensible source. These British bystanders exhibited the ISE, responding more favorably to the speaker and comments when the critic was Australian rather than non-Australian. These responses were driven by the perceived motives of speakers rather than their level of experience with the group (Study 2). Study 3 provides direct evidence that internal criticism is more conventionally acceptable than is external criticism.     

United we stand: Intergroup conflict moderates the intergroup sensitivity effect

Ingroup members who criticize their group face much less resistance than outgroup members who say the same thing (the intergroup sensitivity effect). In the context of intergroup conflict, however, it was predicted that treatment of ingroup critics would not be so generous. Muslim Indonesians read an extract from an interview in which the speaker criticized Muslims. The comments were attributed to either another Muslim or to a Christian. Before reading the criticism, half of the participants had read an article describing intense conflict between Muslims and Christians in Indonesia, whereas the other half read a neutral article. As predicted, negativity toward the ingroup critic and the ingroup critic's comments increased in the conflict salience condition, to the point that the intergroup sensitivity effect disappeared. However, conflict salience did not have an effect on attributions of motive or on agreement with the message. Implications for our understanding of “patriotic criticism” are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sugaring the Pill: Assessing Rhetorical Strategies Designed to Minimize Defensive Reactions to Group Criticism

People are considerably more defensive in the face of group criticism when the criticism comes from an out‐group rather than an in‐group member (the intergroup sensitivity effect). We tested three strategies that out‐group critics can use to reduce this heightened defensiveness. In all studies, Australians received criticism of their country either from another Australian or from a foreigner. In Experiment 1, critics who attached praise to the criticism were liked more and agreed with more than were those who did not. In Experiment 2, out‐group critics were liked more and aroused less negativity when they acknowledged that the problems they identified in the target group were shared also by their own in‐group. In both experiments, the ameliorative effects of praise and acknowledgment were fully mediated by attributions of constructiveness. Experiment 3 tested the strategy of spotlighting; that is, of putting on the record that you intend your comments to apply to just a portion of the group rather than to the whole group. This strategy—which did not directly address the attributional issues that are presumed to underpin the intergroup sensitivity effect—proved ineffective. Practical and theoretical implications for intergroup communication are discussed.     

Responses to within-group criticism: does past adherence to group norms matter?

Two studies tested the hypothesis that responses to within-group criticism are influenced by perceptions of a critic's prior adherence to ingroup norms. Participants responded to criticism which originated from ingroup members who either had previously adhered to or deviated from a group norm. Across both studies, criticising the ingroup yielded more negative group evaluations for antinormative members than it did for normative members. Participants also reported highest levels of sensitivity overall to communication (whether critical or praising of the ingroup) which came from antinormative members. Mediational analyses (Study 2) indicated that these effects were driven by perceptions of whether the communication violated a group expectation, and also perceptions of the critic's identification with the group. Study 1 also provided evidence that reactions to criticism are made in response to social identity concerns: the effects of prior norm adherence were observed only in participants who were highly identified with the ingroup. The research integrates previous work on group deviance and responses to criticism by elaborating the conditions under which criticism originating from within a group is most and least likely to be tolerated by its members. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Why being right is not enough: Predicting defensiveness in the face of group criticism

Criticism of a group can be a catalyst for reform and positive change. Despite this, group-directed criticisms can sometimes face high levels of defensiveness, and can do so even if the comments have objective merit. In this article I review research on group-directed criticism and formulate a model designed to predict when and why people will express defensiveness in the face of criticisms of their group. I argue that, when deciding how to respond to group criticism, people weigh up three independent sets of considerations: (1) attributions about the motives and agenda of the critic (“why would they say that?”), (2) questions about whether the critic had obeyed identity-related rules in the timing and delivery of their criticism (“was it appropriate for them to say that?”), and (3) questions about whether it is in the long-term interests of the individual and the group for them to express support for the criticisms (“strategically, what is the best way for me to respond?”). Practical implications of the model for promoting positive and open communication within and between groups are discussed.     

Group-directed criticisms and recommendations for change: why newcomers arouse more resistance than old-timers

Three experiments examine the extent to which newcomers are able to influence their groups relative to old-timers. Specifically, how group members respond to criticisms of their group was assessed as a function of the intragroup position of the speaker. When criticizing their workplace (Experiment 1; N = 116), their profession (Experiment 2; N = 106), or an Internet community (Experiment 3; N = 189), newcomers aroused more resistance than old-timers, an effect that was mediated by perceptions of how attached critics were to their group identity. Experiment 3 also showed that newcomers could reduce resistance to their criticisms by distancing themselves from a group of which they were previously members. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Message content,group identification and the intergroup sensitivity effect: Responses to the message and recognition memory

An intergroup sensitivity effect (ISE) is people's tendency to react more negatively to a criticism when it was made by an outgroup member than when the same criticism was made by an ingroup member. The present study investigated variation in ISE when the criticism was varied in terms of valence (absence of positive qualities or presence of negative qualities) and level of abstraction (traits or behaviours). Dependent measures were emotional reactions to the criticism, perceived constructiveness, ingroup bias, and recognition memory for the criticism. All participants showed an ISE to the negative abstract criticism. In addition, consistent with the social identity account of ISE, participants' levels of identification with their ingroup moderated the ISE in some of the measures.     

Resistance to Group Criticism and Recommendations for Change: Lessons from the Intergroup Sensitivity Effect

This essay reviews research relating to criticism of groups. It is argued that, in order to successfully critique (and change) a group culture, it is not enough to be right. Rather, critics need to be sensitive to a range of variables wrapped up in who they are: their group memberships, their history, and the intergroup context. One example of this is the intergroup sensitivity effect, the phenomenon whereby criticisms that seem reasonable in the mouth of an insider are rejected when coming from an outsider. We discuss the intergroup sensitivity effect, the psychological mechanisms underpinning it, and the contextual factors that moderate it. On the basis of this review, we present a model that can be used to predict resistance (or open-mindedness) in the face of group-directed criticisms and recommendations for change. It is hoped that this model can open up new ways of thinking about group-mediated communication, and at the same time can provide specific, concrete and usable instruction for how to promote change within and between groups.     

Bounded Rationality's Account for the Influence of Group Identification on Ingroup Favoritism: A Field Investigation Using Jewish and Arab Populations in Israel

We used the bounded rationality approach to explore the impact of group identification on intergroup relations. 1,289 Jewish and Arab citizens completed assessments of group identification, functional relations, and indices of ingroup favoritism. Results provided evidence of (a) a positive relation between group identification and ingroup favoritism; (b) perceptions of more positive functional relations that were associated with less ingroup favoritism; and (c) that high-identifiers who evaluated relations as positive experienced the lowest levels of ingroup favoritism. We discuss how the results clarify the complex relation between group identification and ingroup favoritism.     

Mortality salience and evaluations of in‐group versus out‐group critics: The role of criticism legitimacy and perceived threat

Significant terror management research has examined the impact of mortality salience on evaluations toward in‐group versus out‐group and attitudinally similar versus dissimilar others. However, relatively little research has examined evaluations when group membership is disentangled from attitude similarity. The current research examined the impact of mortality salience on evaluations toward in‐group and out‐group critics when people are less likely to rely on group membership as a heuristic. In Experiment 1, the results showed that in the control condition, participants rated an in‐group member who provided unjustified criticism more positively than an out‐group member who provided the same criticism. Under mortality salience, the reverse occurred: An in‐group member who provided unjustified criticism was rated more negatively than an out‐group member. Experiment 2 showed that under mortality salience, the derogation of an in‐group critic who provided unjustified criticism was mediated by perceptions of threat. Implications for reactions to group‐directed criticism as well as mortality salience effects are discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Protecting threatened identity: sticking with the group by emphasizing ingroup heterogeneity

In two studies (Ns=163, 164), the authors tested the prediction that perceptions of group variability can steer and guide the way that loyalty is expressed in times of identity threat. In both studies, participants were classified as lower or higher identifiers on the basis of their scores on a group identification measure, and manipulations involved group variability perceptions (homogeneous ingroup vs. heterogeneous ingroup) and threat to the ingroup. Higher identifiers presented with a homogeneous ingroup perceived more ingroup homogeneity under threat than when there was no threat. In contrast, higher identifiers who perceived the ingroup initially as heterogeneous perceived more ingroup heterogeneity under threat than in no threat conditions. Lower identifiers perceived more ingroup heterogeneity under threat (vs. no threat) irrespective of manipulated group variability perceptions. Discussion focuses on different ways that group loyalty can be expressed in times of identity threat.     

Frequent Social Comparisons and Destructive Emotions and Behaviors: The Dark Side of Social Comparisons

Social comparisons may seem to serve several positive functions, including self-enhancement. Frequent social comparisons, however, have a dark side. Two studies examined the relationship between frequent social comparisons and destructive emotions and behaviors. In Study 1, people who said they made frequent social comparisons were more likely to experience envy, guilt, regret, and defensiveness, and to lie, blame others, and to have unmet cravings. In Study 2, police officers who said they made frequent social comparisons were more likely to show ingroup bias and to be less satisfied with their jobs. The dark side of frequent social comparisons was not associated with self-esteem. Results are discussed in terms of the role of individual differences in social comparison processes.     

Me,us and them: Political identification and the third-person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election

Three days prior to the 1993 Australian federal election 54 Australian university students who identified with one of the two major political parties were surveyed regarding their perceptions of media campaign impact on self and others. Results provided evidence of a third-person effect (Davison, 1983) wherein respondents judged others us more influenced by the election campaign than themselves. Consistent with predictions derived from social identity theory and self-categorization theory (e.g. Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell, 1987), political ingroup members were also judged as less injuenced by campaign content than political outgroup members. Respondents who identified strongly with their preferred party judged self and ingroup members as less influenced by campaign content than did other respondents, and showed more evidence of positive intergroup differentiation. At the same time, however, these respondents exaggerated self–ingroup differences, challenging the theoretical assumption that intergroup diferentiation is associated with ingroup assimilation. Judgements of media impact on self and other also depended on the direction of the campaign message. Respondents believed ‘voters in general’ were persuaded in line with the intent of campaign content, while outgroup members were seen to be persuaded by material favouring their own side but to be uninfluenced by counter-attitudinal content. Election propaganda, irrespective of direction, was seen to amplify existing party preferences in self and ingroup members. Hence the relative invulnerability of self to media impact was pronounced when respondents judged the impact of pro-outgroup messages. Results suggest that perceptions of self–other differences in media vulnerability are influenced by the subjectively salient social relationship between self and other, and are governed by motivational needs, such as self-esteem, social-identity, and differentiation from others (cf. Brewer, 1991; Hogs and Abrams, 1993).     

SOCIAL COMPARISONS AND CONTENTMENT Exploring the Psychological Costs of the Gender Wage Gapi

This study explored the role of social comparison processes in fostering contentment among those who are objectively disadvantaged. We focus on how comparisons can produce gender differences in personal entitlement, perceptions of one's own performance, and pay satisfaction. We hypothesized that individuals would base judgments of entitlement, performance, and pay satisfaction more on comparisons with ingroup (same-sex) than outgroup (cross-sex) others, even when both types of comparison information were equally available, unavoidable, and made clear the disadvantaged status of the ingroup. As predicted, the amount students felt they were entitled to be paid, how well they thought they had performed (women only), and how satisfied they were with their pay were all influenced more by same-sex than cross-sex comparison information. The implications of these results for the tolerance of injustice among disadvantaged groups are discussed.     

Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group

Two field studies examined the attributions made for the historically negative behaviour of a group as a whole, depending on whether the actions were committed by the ingroup or an outgroup. In the first study, Jewish people assigned more internal responsibility to Germans for their treatment of Jewish people during the Second World War than Germans assigned to their own group. In the second study, people attributed the negative historical actions of another nation more internally (and less externally) than similar negative historical actions committed by their own nation. This pattern of intergroup attributional bias was more pronounced among people who highly identified with their national ingroup. Outgroup homogeneity and perceptions of differences between the groups were also significantly predicted by ingroup identification. Links between social identity theory and the intergroup attribution bias are considered. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Leaders and their treatment of subgroups: implications for evaluations of the leader and the superordinate group

This experiment examined members' evaluations of a group leader and the group in contexts where a superordinate group comprised two subgroups and the group leader was aligned with one or other subgroup. The design varied group leader (ingroup, outgroup) and leader behavior (ingroup favoring, outgroup favoring) as well as the broader comparative context (intragroup, intergroup). Across a number of measures, results indicated a consistent Group Leader × Leader Behavior interaction that was independent of comparative context. Although group members were most satisfied with an ingroup leader who favored the ingroup, ingroup leaders were perceived positively irrespective of their behavior. Outgroup leaders who unexpectedly favored the other subgroup were also perceived positively. However, outgroup leaders who favored their own subgroup were perceived as less fair and as more biased than other leaders. They also engendered less identification with the superordinate group and a less unified perception of the group. Results demonstrate the importance of social identity concerns to leadership in nested group contexts and emphasize the fact that perceptions of leader fairness and concern for the common group mediate responses to the superordinate category. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.