When criticism is ineffective: The case of historical trauma and unsupportive allies

Three studies examined the effect of historical trauma reminders and criticism from international allies on attitudes toward current conflicts. In Study 1, Israeli participants (N = 116) were primed with the Holocaust, and read either that the U.S. President Obama supports Israel's right to defend itself and attack Iran, or that he opposes such action. Then, support for preemptive violence was assessed. Study 2 (N = 133) replicated this design, comparing inclusive and exclusive framings of the Holocaust. Study 3 (N = 478), examined the effect of Holocaust reminders and criticism from the European Union on attitudes toward militant policies against Palestinians. All three studies found that Holocaust primes juxtaposed with international criticism increased support for aggression, especially under exclusive framings of the Holocaust. Study 3, however, found this effect only among left‐wing participants. These findings indicate that when historical trauma is salient, international criticism may be ineffective and may even backfire.     

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.     

The Logic of Critique

This paper attempts to define the concept of critique, explain its function␣and properties and distinguish it from the close concept of evaluation. It is argued that, beyond the argument, a critique is concerned with the position of the proponent relatively to the reality the argument is about. Moreover, a critique is itself an argument in which assumptions regarding the position of the proponent are justified for a given audience on the basis of the proponent’s argumentative background within a specific domain.     

Influence of expressed emotion and perceived criticism on cognitive-behavioral therapy for social phobia

This study examined significant others' expressed emotion (EE) and a closely related construct, perceived criticism, as predictors of cognitive-behavioral therapy outcome in a sample of 40 patients with social phobia (social anxiety disorder). Patients enrolled in group therapy for social phobia completed pre- and post-treatment questionnaire measures of perceived criticism and anxious and depressive symptoms. Designated significant others were assessed for the components of high EE (criticism, hostility and emotional overinvolvement) using the Camberwell Family Interview. It was hypothesized that these high-EE components and patients' perceived criticism would be associated with poorer treatment outcome, and results ran counter to these expectations. Controlling for initial social phobia severity, lower levels of perceived criticism predicted treatment dropout. There was also a nonsignificant trend for participants with a significant other rated as high in emotional overinvolvement to show less change on a composite symptom measure. Findings from this study suggest that close relationships impact the outcome of cognitive-behavioral interventions for social phobia.     

Interpreting Perelman’s Universal Audience: Gross versus Crosswhite

While still subject to differing interpretations Perelman’s theory of audience has potential as an evaluative tool in rhetorical criticism as demonstrated by Gross and Crosswhite. I compare their explanations of how politicians address the universal audience and the respective implications for evaluating the argumentation and then argue that although Gross provides a more immediately applicable theory, Crosswhite’s interpretation recommends itself by virtue of its wider scope in regard to deliberative rhetoric.     

析社会建构论心理学思想的四个层面

从社会建构论心理学中萃取四个核心概念,各代表一个思想层面,以此结构出社会建构论心理学思想体系的概观：（1）批判：心理不是对客观现实的“反映”;（2）建构：心理是社会的建构;（3）话语：是社会借以实现建构的重要媒介;（4）互动：社会互动应取代个体内在心理结构和心理过程成为心理学研究的重心。     

Reasoning to what is true in fiction

The paper discusses the principle by which we reason to what is true in fiction. The focus is David Lewis's article Truth in Fiction (1978) which proposes an analysis in terms of counterfactuals and possible worlds. It is argued thatLewis's account is inadequate in detail and also in principle in that it conflicts radically with basic and familiar tenets of literary criticism. Literary critical reasoning about fiction concerns not the discovery of facts in possible worlds but the recovery of meanings in interpretative frameworks. The model theoretic approach fails to account for common literary or rhetorical devices like unreliable narration, connotation and point of view. And in explaining indeterminacy of content in terms of truth-value gaps it gives too simplistic an account of critical reasoning about character motivation and thematic development. A more adequate account of content-indeterminacy can be provided through a comparison of the interpretation of fiction with the interpretation of human action. A broader motif in the paper is the underlying tension between what is required for the logic of fiction and what is required for the aesthetics of fiction.     

Naturalized Epistemics and Conditional Reasoning

The continued predominance of SL-logic and deductive paradigms in the research on conditional-based reasoning by experimental psychologists is examined and criticized. After recounting the history and influence of the model, I note the emergence of trends in epistemology and other areas of theory that might provide a springboard for the critique of the model, and I argue that a new approach to examining reasoning with conditionals ought to be developed. I conclude that a superior approach would model such reasoning with sociolinguistic, inductive, and neurophysiological parameters, and that it would not involve any comparison of subjects' reasoning with the standard deductive rules of logic.     

The Virtue of Nussbaum's Essentialism

This paper shows that Nussbaum's Aristotelian essentialism effectively combines resources for constructive social criticism (even in "traditional" societies) with concern for the concrete particulars of realized ways of life. Many critics of Nussbaum's views have failed to appreciate its many virtues in this regard. Yet Nussbaum's confidence in the broad possibilities of internal social criticism demands a better account of the moral openness of human cultures than anything Nussbaum has herself provided. Even Nussbaum's reading of Aristotle – as well as the ethical antirelativism on which it depends – demands a richer account than Nussbaum has so far offered of the essential openness of human world interpretations.     

Testing the status-legitimacy hypothesis: Predicting system justification using objective and subjective socioeconomic status in China and the United States

The status-legitimacy hypothesis proposes that those who are most disadvantaged by unequal social systems are even more likely than members of more advantaged groups to provide ideological support for the very social system that is responsible for their disadvantages. Li, Yang, Wu, and Kou (2020, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin) sought to expand the generalizability of this hypothesis by testing it in China, addressing inconsistencies surrounding the empirical support for this hypothesis by postulating that the construct of status should be separated into an objective and subjective status marker. They reported that objective socioeconomic status (SES; income and education) negatively predicted system justification, while subjective SES positively predicted system justification. In the present study we attempt to replicate and extend the work of Li et al. in a cross-cultural comparison of demographic stratified quota online samples in China and the United States. We test the status-legitimacy hypothesis using objective and subjective SES to predict system justification using cross-sectional and cross-lagged regression analyses. We received partial support for Li et al.'s findings. Specifically, subjective SES positively predicted system justification for both societies during cross-sectional and cross-lagged longitudinal analyses. However, we failed to replicate Li et al.'s findings surrounding objective SES in China during cross-sectional and cross-lagged analyses.