rhetorical strats

8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats

1/36

Skip to Main Content

HomeHelp

PUBLICATIONS BROWSE BY SUBJECT RESOURCES ABOUT US

LOGIN

Enter e-mail address

Enter password

REMEMBER ME

NOT REGISTERED ? FORGOTTEN PASSWORD ?

INSTITUTIONAL LOGIN > Home > Communication & Media Studies > Communication Studies > Journal Home > Vol 34 Issue 1 > Abstract

JOURNAL TOOLS Get New Content Alerts

Get RSS feed Save to My Profile

Get Sample Copy

JOURNAL MENU Journal Home

FIND ISSUES Current Issue

All Issues

GET ACCESS Subscribe / Renew

FOR CONTRIBUTORS Author Guidelines Submit an Article
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#contenthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#contenthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/browse/publicationshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/browse/publicationshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/browse/subjectshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/browse/subjectshttp://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-390229.htmlhttp://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-390229.htmlhttp://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-390001.htmlhttp://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-390001.htmlhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/user-registrationhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/user-registrationhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/user/forgottenpasswordhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/user/forgottenpasswordhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/login-optionshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/login-optionshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/subject/code/000037http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/subject/code/CO30/titleshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hcre.2008.34.issue-1/issuetochttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/abstracthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/getEmailAlert?id=10.1111%2F%28ISSN%291468-2958&originUrl=%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x%2Ffullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/getEmailAlert?id=10.1111%2F%28ISSN%291468-2958&originUrl=%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x%2Ffullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/rss/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/rss/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/saveTitle?id=10.1111%2F%28ISSN%291468-2958&type=JOURNAL&originUrl=%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x%2Ffullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/saveTitle?id=10.1111%2F%28ISSN%291468-2958&type=JOURNAL&originUrl=%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x%2Ffullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hcre.2011.37.issue-1/issuetochttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hcre.2011.37.issue-1/issuetochttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958/currentissuehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958/currentissuehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958/issueshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958/issueshttp://ordering.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/subs.asp?ref=1468-2958&doi=10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958http://ordering.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/subs.asp?ref=1468-2958&doi=10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958/homepage/ForAuthors.htmlhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958/homepage/ForAuthors.htmlhttp://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hcrhttp://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hcrhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click;h=v8/3ab9/0/0/*/n;227533384;0-0;0;42406979;3454-728/90;37828390/37846238/1;;~sscs=?http:/olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-390001.htmlhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click;h=v8/3ab9/0/0/*/n;227533384;0-0;0;42406979;3454-728/90;37828390/37846238/1;;~sscs=?http:/olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-390001.htmlhttp://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hcrhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958/homepage/ForAuthors.htmlhttp://ordering.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/subs.asp?ref=1468-2958&doi=10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958/issueshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958/currentissuehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hcre.2011.37.issue-1/issuetochttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/saveTitle?id=10.1111%2F%28ISSN%291468-2958&type=JOURNAL&originUrl=%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x%2Ffullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/rss/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/getEmailAlert?id=10.1111%2F%28ISSN%291468-2958&originUrl=%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x%2Ffullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/abstracthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hcre.2008.34.issue-1/issuetochttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/subject/code/CO30/titleshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/subject/code/000037http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/login-optionshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/user/forgottenpasswordhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/user-registrationhttp://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-390001.htmlhttp://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-390229.htmlhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/browse/subjectshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/browse/publicationshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#content


2/36


3/36

Human Communication Research

Volume 34, Issue 1, pages 7098, January 2008

Additional Information(Show All)

How to CiteAuthor InformationPublication History

1. This article was accepted under the editorship of Jim Dillard.

SEARCH

Search Scope

In this issue

Search String

Advanced >

Saved Searches >ARTICLE TOOLS

Get PDF (339K) Save to My Profile E-mail Link to this Article

Export Citation for this Article Get Citation Alerts

Request PermissionsShare|

Abstract Article References Cited By

Get PDF (339K)

Abstract

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
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hcre.2008.34.issue-1/issuetochttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hcre.2008.34.issue-1/issuetochttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hcre.2008.34.issue-1/issuetochttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hcre.2008.34.issue-1/issuetochttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/fullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/fullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/fullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/fullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/fullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/searchhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/searchhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/myprofile/displaySavedSearcheshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/myprofile/displaySavedSearcheshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/pdfhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/pdfhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/saveContent?doi=10.1111%252Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x&originUrl=%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x%2Ffullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/saveContent?doi=10.1111%252Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x&originUrl=%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x%2Ffullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/emailArticleLink?doi=10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.xhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/emailArticleLink?doi=10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.xhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/documentcitationdownload?publicationDoi=10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958&doi=10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x&type=journalhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/documentcitationdownload?publicationDoi=10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958&doi=10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x&type=journalhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/getCitationAlert?id=10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x&originUrl=%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x%2Ffullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/getCitationAlert?id=10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x&originUrl=%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x%2Ffullhttp://rightslinkpopup%28%27https//s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=Wiley&publication=HCRE&title=Sugaring%20the%20Pill:%20Assessing%20Rhetorical%20Strategies%20Designed%20to%20Minimize%20Defensive%20Reactions%20to%20Group%20Criticism&publicationDate=01%20JAN%202008&author=Matthew%20J.%20Hornsey,Erin%20Robson,Joanne%20Smith,Sarah%20Esposo,Robbie%20M.%20Sutton&startPage=70&endPage=98&copyright=&contentID=10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x&orderBeanReset=True%27)http://rightslinkpopup%28%27https//s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=Wiley&publication=HCRE&title=Sugaring%20the%20Pill:%20Assessing%20Rhetorical%20Strategies%20Designed%20to%20Minimize%20Defensive%20Reactions%20to%20Group%20Criticism&publicationDate=01%20JAN%202008&author=Matthew%20J.%20Hornsey,Erin%20Robson,Joanne%20Smith,Sarah%20Esposo,Robbie%20M.%20Sutton&startPage=70&endPage=98&copyright=&contentID=10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x&orderBeanReset=True%27)http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=xa-4cbc15896d9442fahttp://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=xa-4cbc15896d9442fahttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/abstracthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/abstracthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/referenceshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/referenceshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/citedbyhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/citedbyhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/pdfhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/pdfhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/pdfhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/citedbyhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/referenceshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/abstracthttp://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=xa-4cbc15896d9442fahttp://rightslinkpopup%28%27https//s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=Wiley&publication=HCRE&title=Sugaring%20the%20Pill:%20Assessing%20Rhetorical%20Strategies%20Designed%20to%20Minimize%20Defensive%20Reactions%20to%20Group%20Criticism&publicationDate=01%20JAN%202008&author=Matthew%20J.%20Hornsey,Erin%20Robson,Joanne%20Smith,Sarah%20Esposo,Robbie%20M.%20Sutton&startPage=70&endPage=98&copyright=&contentID=10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x&orderBeanReset=True%27)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/getCitationAlert?id=10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x&originUrl=%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x%2Ffullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/documentcitationdownload?publicationDoi=10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2958&doi=10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x&type=journalhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/emailArticleLink?doi=10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.xhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/saveContent?doi=10.1111%252Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x&originUrl=%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.2007.00314.x%2Ffullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/pdfhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/myprofile/displaySavedSearcheshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/searchhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/fullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/fullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/fullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/fullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hcre.2008.34.issue-1/issuetoc


4/36

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

strategywhich 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.

Rsumvaluation des stratgies visant minimiser les ractions dfensives face une critique de groupe : Dorer la

pilule

Les gens sont considrablement plus dfensifs face une critique de groupe lorsque cette critique provient dun

membre hors-groupe plutt que dun membre intra-groupe (leffet de sensibilit inter-groupe). Nous avons test trois

stratgies que les critiques hors-groupes peuvent utiliser afin de rduire cette attitude dfensive exacerbe. Dans

chaque tude, des Australiens ont reu des critiques de leur pays formules par un autre Australien ou par un

tranger. Dans lexprience 1, les critiques ayant attach des loges la critique furent plus apprcis et appuys

que ceux qui ne le firent pas. Dans lexprience 2, les critiques hors-groupes furent plus apprcis et soulevrent

moins de ngativit lorsquils reconnurent que les problmes identifis dans le groupe cible taient aussi partags

par leur propre groupe. Dans les deux expriences, les effets avantageux de lloge et de la reconnaissance furent

compltement mdiatiss par lattribution dune volont constructive. Lexprience 3 a test la stratgie de

focalisation, cest--dire dindiquer que vos commentaires visent ne sappliquer qu une portion du groupe plutt

qu toutle groupe. Cette stratgie (qui ne traitait pas directement des questions dattribution prsumes soutenir

leffet de sensibilit inter-groupes) sest rvle inefficace. Les implications pratiques et thoriques pour la

communication inter-groupes sont discutes.

AbstractDie Bewertung von Strategien zur Minimierung defensiver Reaktionen auf Gruppenkritik: Wie man eine

bittere Pille verst.

Menschen reagieren wesentlich defensiver, wenn sie mit der Kritik einer Person aus der Outgroup verglichen mit

einer Person aus der Ingroup konfrontiert werden (Intergruppensensitivittseffekt). Wir testeten drei Strategien, die

Outgroup-Kritiker nutzen knnen, um diese erhhte Defensivitt zu minimieren. In allen Studien wurden Australier

von einem Australier oder einem Auslnder mit Kritik am eigenen Land konfrontiert. Im ersten Experiment zeigte sich,

dass Kritiker, deren Kritik mit Lob verbunden war, mehr gemocht wurden und grere Zustimmung erfuhren als

solche, die dies nicht taten. Im zweiten Experiment zeigte sich, dass ein Outgroup-Kritiker mehr gemocht wurde und

weniger Ablehnung erfuhr, wenn er einrumte, dass das Problem, dass er angesprochen hat auch in seiner Ingroup

existiert. Beide Experimente verdeutlichen den frderlichen Effekt von Lob und Anerkennung, der gnzlich durch

Konstruktivitt moderiert wurde. Experiment 3 testete die Scheinwerfer-Strategie; das heit, die Strategie, einen

Kommentar so zu formulieren, dass er nur einen Teil der Gruppe betrifft und nicht die gesamte Gruppe. Diese


5/36

Strategie die nicht direkt das Thema angesprochen hat, dass den Intergruppensensitivittseffekt befrdern sollte

erwies sich allerdings als ineffektiv. Praktische und theoretische Schlussfolgerungen fr Kommunikation zwischen

Gruppen werden diskutiert.

ResumenEvaluando las Estrategias Destinadas a Minimizar las Reacciones Defensivas hacia las Crticas de Grupo:Endulzando la Pldora

La gente es considerablemente ms defensiva hacia la crtica de grupo cuando esta crtica proviene de un grupo al

que no se pertenece, que cuando proviene de un miembro del grupo de pertenencia (el efecto de sensibilidad

intergrupal). Pusimos a prueba 3 estrategias que las crticas de grupos de no pertenencia pueden usar para reducir

este mecanismo de incrementado. En todos los estudios, unos australianos recibieron la crtica a su propio pas de

otro australiano de un extranjero. En el experimento 1, aquellos que hicieron una crtica junto con elogios fueron

ms preferidos y concordaron ms que aquellos que no hicieron elogios. En el experimento 2, los crticos del grupo

de no pertenencia fueron ms preferidos y despertaron menos negatividad cuando admitieron que los problemas que

ellos identificaron en el grupo meta eran compartidas tambin por su propio grupo. En ambos experimentos, los

efectos de alivio de los elogios y de reconocimiento fueron mediados por completo por las atribuciones constructivas.

El experimento 3 puso a prueba la estrategia de llamar la atencin; esto es, de poner como antecedente que la

persona intentaba aplicar sus comentarios solo a una porcin del grupo y no al grupo en su totalidad. Esta estrategia

que no se dirigi directamente a los asuntos de atribuciones supuestos para mantener el efecto de sensibilidad

intergrupalcomprob ser ineficiente. Las implicaciones prcticas y tericas sobre comunicacin intergrupal son

tambin discutidas.

ZhaiYao


6/36

Yo yak

In literature on interpersonal and small group communication, researchers hold an ambivalent approach toward

criticism. On one hand, there is an acknowledgment that criticism can be destructive. Poor use of criticism, for

example, is perceived to be a major cause of conflict in organizations (Baron, 1988) and perceptions that ones
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2


7/36

spouse is critical of you is a major predictor of relapse among depressives (Hooley & Teasdale, 1989). Personal

criticism is seen as a dysfunctional strategy for dealing with conflict (e.g.,Hocker & Wilmot, 1991), whereas absence

of criticism is seen to be a relational maintenance strategy (Canary & Stafford, 1992). In his work on marital

relationships,Gottman (1994; Gottman & Levenson, 1992) showed that criticism of ones partner contributes to

cascades of isolation and withdrawal and is a key factor that characterizes distressed couples. Gottman concluded

that to achieve marital stability, five positive behaviors should be communicated for every one negative behavior.

Despite this, it is also clear that people occasionally need criticism to grow and to develop. As Winston Churchill said:

Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls

attention to an unhealthy state of things. Criticism helps signpost weaknesses and potentially provides a map for

how to correct them. Providing negative feedback about past and current behavior is a cornerstone of many

performance interventions; for example, performance appraisals in the workplace, feedback on assignments, and

reviews of scholarly articles. Even in intimate relationships, it might on occasion be functional to highlight aspects of a

partners behavior that need addressing. Indeed, whereas conflict engagement negatively predicts marital happinesswhen measured concurrently, there is evidence that conflict engagement predicts improvement in marital satisfaction

in the long run (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989).

Criticism can be directed at people as individuals (e.g., you are racist) or it can be directed at peoples groups (e.g.,

Australians are racist). In the current paper, we examine the second form of criticism. Specifically, we examine how

people respond when, for example, they receive negative comments about their country, or their profession, or their

religion. Like criticism of individuals, criticism of groups can be a prerequisite for reform. Where a nation, for example,

is out of touch with international norms of environmental responsibility, or military conduct, or respect for human

rights, then criticism from within and outside the country can be a catalyst for positive change. If received defensively,

however, criticism can lead to disharmony, schism, conflict, and denial.

This paper examines some of the strategies that can be used to reduce resistance to criticism of groups. In

examining this question, we first review the limited research that has been conducted to date on when and why

people respond in a defensive versus an open-minded fashion to group criticism. We then describe and test three

strategies for reducing resistance. Although all three are intuitively appealing strategies, we argue (and show) that

only two of these strategies help overcome the active ingredient that promotes defensiveness: suspicious attributions

about motive. Throughout, we acknowledge points of contact between the research on group c riticism and the

research on interpersonal criticism but maintain that insights that can be drawn from one arena cannot be translated

unproblematically into the other. One phenomenon that helps illustrate the unique nature of intergroup criticism is the

intergroup sensitivity effect.

Intergroup sensitivity effect
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b29http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b29http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b29http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b28http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b28http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b28http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b11http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b11http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b11http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b22http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b22http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b22http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b23http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b23http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b23http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b23http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b22http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b11http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b28http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b29


8/36

It is only very recently that researchers have systematically examined the psychology of responses to group-directed

criticism. One factor that has been shown to have a profound effect on how people respond to group criticism is the

group membership of the critic. Put simply, when criticism of a group is delivered by outsiders (otherwise known as

out-group members), the criticisms arouse more defensiveness than when the very same comments are delivered by

insiders (or in-group members). This phenomenon is labeled the intergroup sensitivity effect. This effect appears to

be robust, having now been demonstrated across at least eight different intergroup contexts, each using different

criticisms, and using participants from both collectivist and individualist cultures (seeHornsey, 2005, for a review).

Furthermore, the effect is relatively large: Criticisms that might be cautiously accepted when delivered by an in-group

member are aggressively denied if delivered by an out-group member (Hornsey & Imani, 2004; Hornsey, Oppes, &

Svensson, 2002; Sutton, Elder, & Douglas, 2006).

With its focus on group identities, influence, and threat, the intergroup sensitivity effect can be located within the

language and meta-theoretical umbrella of the social identity approach (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1991). Self-

categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), for example, argues that the more stronglypeople identify with a salient group, the more they shift their self -definition from the personal to the collective level.

This depersonalization around the group prototype is accompanied by a perceptual enhancement of intragroup

similarities and intergroup differences, a process that is assumed to underpin conformity and group-mediated attitude

change (Turner, 1991). One consequence of this is that people are more likely to embrace messages from in-group

members than from out-group members.

There are two reasons, however, to believe that the intergroup sensitivity effect is not merely a specific example of

this tendency for people to be cognitively predisposed to embrace in-group messages more readily than out-group

messages. First, proponents of the social identity approach would not argue that members would assimilate around

the attitudes of any group member; indeed, researchers in this field typically argue that in-group deviants and

dissenters face exaggerated levels of hostility as the group tries to preserve its positive distinctiveness (Abrams,

Hogg, & Marques, 2005). Second, the tendency to accept in-group comments more than out-group comments does

not apply when people make positivecomments about the group. When participants read praise of their university

(Hornsey et al., 2002, Study 1b) or of their country (Hornsey & Imani, 2004; Hornsey et al., 2002, Study 1a), they do

not rate the speaker or the comments differently depending on whether they are attributed to an in-group or an out-

group member. This suggests that the intergroup sensitivity effect is specific to criticisms and not a more generalized

tendency to cognitively assimilate to in-group members (seeHornsey, 2006, for a deeper discussion of the points of

similarity and dissimilarity between the intergroup sensitivity effect and the social identity perspective).Heightened defensiveness in the face of criticism from outsiders is a concern because there are times when it is

important that groups listen to criticism. If a group is not criticized, it can become complacent and stagnant as

maladaptive, corrupt, or inefficient practices continue unchallenged. Indeed, a lack of dissent and criticism has been

shown to lead to suboptimal decision making (Postmes, Spears, & Cihangir, 2001), the consequences of which can

be disastrous (Janis, 1982). Furthermore, there are times when negative feedback needs to come from outside the

group because in-group members are unwilling or unable to recognize the problems within their own culture. In short,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b30http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b30http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b30http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b58http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b58http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b58http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b53http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b53http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b53http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b52http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b52http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b52http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b34http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b34http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b34http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b31http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b31http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b31http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b45http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b45http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b45http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b36http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b36http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b36http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b36http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b45http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b31http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b34http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b52http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b53http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b58http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b30


9/36

groups occasionally need a nudge along from outsiders to help them pick up their game and reform their culture. And

yet research on the intergroup sensitivity effect suggests that such pleas for change face heightened resistance.

One intuitive way that outsiders could guard themselves against defensiveness is to engage in credentialing; that is,

to equip themselves with a great deal of knowledge and experience of the target group (seeCupach & Metts, 1994,

for a discussion of this strategy in the context of interpersonal conflict). Interestingly, however, this strategy does not

appear to work.Hornsey and Imani (2004)designed studies in which experience and group membership could be

manipulated independently of each other. In these studies, Australians received an extract from an interview with a

person who criticized Australians for being uncultured and racist. These comments were attributed either to another

Australian, a foreigner who had spent many years living in Australia, or a foreigner with no experience of Australia.

The consistent finding was that in-group critics aroused less defensiveness than outsiders and that experience did

not help the outsiders. In other words, critics who had spent large chunks of their life in Australia were treated no

differently from critics who had never set foot in the country. This suggests that perceptions of epistemic authority did

not underpin the intergroup sensitivity effect and that outsiders cannot reduce defensiveness merely by boosting andcommunicating their credentials as experienced judges.

Using language to overcome the intergroup sensitivity effect

The failure of credentialing to overcome the intergroup sensitivity effect poses the question of what outsiders can do

to neutralize or overcome defensiveness in the face of group criticism. One possibility is to adjust the language they

use. Before engaging in (interpersonal) communications that might be considered argumentative or aggressive,

people edit their arguments before uttering them (Hample & Dallinger, 1988). Arguments are tailored and so is the

language used to express them. Communicators use disclaimers (Hewitt & Stokes, 1975), equivocations (Bavelas,

Black, Bryson, & Mullett, 1988), and ingratiation tactics (Berscheid & Walster, 1978) to maximize the effectiveness of

their message and to conform to rules about politeness and maintenance of face (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Cupach &

Carson, 2002; Cupach & Metts, 1990, 1994; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Rogan & Hammer, 1994; Ting-Toomey,

1988). Like any communication, criticisms can be delivered well and they can be delivered poorly, depending on the

sensitivity and skill with which critics tailor their language to deliver the message (Baron, 1988; Tracy, van Dusen, &

Robinson, 1987). Although research on this question is surprisingly scarce, certain principles can be intuited:

Criticism should be specific, should be oriented toward the future rather than the past, should avoid attributing poor

performance to internal causes, should be clear, and should avoid being biting or sarcastic (Baron, 1988; Ogilvie &

Haslett, 1985).

The research question examined in this paper is: What strategies are available to the outsider who wishes to promote

change in another group? To answer this question, we sought a theoretical base that went beyond intuitive notions of

respectfulness, specificity, and so forth, and could grapple with the emergent processes that govern intergroup as

opposed to interpersonal criticism. To achieve this, it is necessary to engage with the deeper question of what it is

about a critics out-group status that arouses so much defensiveness in the first place. Only by coming to a theoretical
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b17http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b17http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b17http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b26http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b26http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b26http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b27http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b27http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b27http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b4http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b4http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b4http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b4http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b5http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b5http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b5http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b10http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b10http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b10http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b10http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b10http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b10http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b10http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b10http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b5http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b4http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b4http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b27http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b26http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b17


10/36

understanding of what drives the intergroup sensitivity effect, can we generate predictions about which strategies

should work and which should not.

The literature to date has shown quite consistently that at the heart of the intergroup sensitivity effect is an

attributional bias. Attributions play a central role in communication theories, having been found to influence responses

to excuses (Weiner, Amirkhan, Folkes, & Verette, 1987), resistance to compliance requests (Wilson, Cruz, Marshall,

& Rao, 1993), relational disengagement (Cody, Kersten, Braaten, & Dickson, 1992), rejection (e.g.,Folkes, 1982),

bad news (e.g.,Bies & Sitkin, 1992), and conflict (e.g.,Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). With respect to group-directed

criticism,Hornsey (2005)argues that people look past the content of the words and make judgments about the

integrity of the critics motives; in other words they ask themselves the question: Why would theysaythat? If they

perceive that the critic has relatively sinister or destructive motives, then this provides an opportunity to dismiss the

message, and heightens negativity toward the speaker and his or her comments. However, if they can see no reason

to assume that the speaker has destructive motives, they are free to assess the content of the message on its merits.

When making this judgment about motive, receivers of criticism factor in a number of considerations, not least of

which is the group membership of the critic. In short, when in-group members criticize the group, people are more

likely to assume that they are motivated by constructive reasons than when the same comments are delivered by an

outsider, and these differing perceptions of motive drive the effect. This is consistent with much evidence showing

that people expect in-group members to look after them and to show reciprocity of favors (e.g., Brewer, 1981; Tanis &

Postmes, 2005; Yamagishi & Kiyonari, 2000), whereas they expect out-group members to have hostile and

competitive intentions (e.g.,Judd, Park, Yzerbyt, Gordijn, & Muller, 2005; Vivian & Berkowitz, 1993).

Evidence for this attributional explanation includes mediational analyses demonstrating that the intergroup sensitivity

effect tends to disappear when attributions of constructiveness are controlled for (e.g.,Hornsey & Imani, 2004). There

is also experimental evidence reinforcing the notion that it is attributions of constructiveness that are the most

proximal driver of the effect. For example, if participants are led to believe that the in-group critic is not committed to

the groupeither because they are a low identifier (Hornsey, Trembath, & Gunthorpe, 2004) or because they are a

newcomer to the group (Hornsey, Grice, Jetten, Paulsen, & Callan, 2007)they arouse just as much defensiveness

as outsiders.Figure 1provides a summary of the attributional model of responses to group criticism.

Figure 1. Responses to group criticism: An attributional model.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b55http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b55http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b55http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b56http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b56http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b56http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b56http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b12http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b12http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b12http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b21http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b21http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b21http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b6http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b6http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b6http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b8http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b8http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b8http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b30http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b30http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b30http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b9http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b9http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b9http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b9http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b37http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b37http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b37http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b35http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b35http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b35http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b32http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b32http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b32http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#f1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#f1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#f1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/asset/image_n/HCRE_314_f1.gif?v=1&t=gkkr1agr&s=99827ff444f1534053bfd5dbd1d1a453ac94cdc5http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#f1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b32http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b35http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b37http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b9http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b9http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b30http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b8http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b6http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b21http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b12http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b56http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b56http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b55


11/36

In devising and testing strategies for reducing resistance to groupcriticism, we were guided by this attributional

account of the intergroup sensitivity effect. If it is true that heightened levels of defensiveness in the face of out-group

criticisms are driven by suspicions about the motives of the out-group speaker, then any strategy used by out-group

speakers to minimize distrust with regard to their motives should be particularly useful in reducing defensiveness.

One such strategy might be to preface criticism with positive feedback (sweetening). An alternative strategy

available to out-group critics might be to acknowledge the failings of their own group as well as the target group

(sharing; e.g., wealsoare racist). In each case, the out-group members are presenting the criticisms in such a

way as to disarm peoples expectations that they are making the criticism as part of a wider intergroup competition for

prestige and status. With these suspicions assuaged, in-group members might be better positioned psychologically to

focus on the content of the message in a balanced and nondefensive way. These two strategies are tested in

Experiments 1 and 2, respectively. Experiment 3 tests an alternative strategy that has powerful intuitive appeal but

does not address the attributional concerns that have been argued to be the primary driver of defensiveness: namely,

putting on the record that you intend your comments to apply to just a portion of the group rather than to the wholegroup (spotlighting). If attributions of constructiveness really do underpin the intergroup sensitivity effect, we should

see the first two strategies work, whereas the third strategy should not.

Experiment 1

It is commonly assumed that the strategic use of praise (sweetening) can help soften responses to negative

feedback; for example, in our department, tutors are advised to sandwich their negative feedback between pieces of

praise when marking assignments. This common wisdom has filtered into textbooks and manuals, but there have

been surprisingly few controlled empirical tests of whether the strategy actually works.

Descriptive evidence for the power of praise emerged in a study byTracy et al. (1987), in which participants were

asked to recall examples of good and bad criticism they had received in the past. In 19% of cases of well -delivered

criticism, the specific negative comments were framed in a broader positive context. Of the examples of poorly

delivered criticism, only 2% did so. To our knowledge, experimental tests of the use of praise as a buffer to criticism

are rare. One exception is a study byCohen, Steele, and Ross (1999), who exposed Black and White students to

negative evaluations of a written task from a White teacher. In one condition, the criticism was unbuffered; in another

condition, it was buffered by praise. Evidence for the buffering effect of praise was mixed. Black (but not White)

students were marginally more task motivated when the criticism was buffered by praise than when it was not. On a

measure of whether participants identified with their writing task (e.g., How would you rate your overa ll competence

as a writer?), praise had no effect for either Black or White participants. One final experiment of note was conducted

byDavies and Jacobs (1985), who tested the sandwiching approach described earlier using 28 attendants at a 2-

hour self-development workshop. Participants who received the sandwich rated the feedback as more desirable and

credible (but no more emotionally positive) than those who received other permutations of positive and negative
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b51http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b51http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b51http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b13http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b13http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b13http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b18http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b18http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b18http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b18http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b13http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b51


12/36

feedback. However, it was not possible to compare the effectiveness of praise per se because praise was present in

all conditions.

In summary, there has been surprisingly little empirical research examining whether praise can buffer the effects of

criticism (and certainly none from an intergroup perspective). Of the research that has been conducted, the evidence

for praise is mixed. Where effects have been found, there has been no examination of what might mediate the

effects. Experiment 1 was designed to respond to these limitations.

From the perspective of research on the intergroup sensitivity effect, it is reasonable to expect that praise might help

reduce defensiveness toward group criticism. Our argument is that, when responding to criticism of their groups,

people draw hypotheses about what is going on in the heart and mind of the critic: Do they care about us? Are they

trying to be constructive? If praise is at tached to the criticism, it might be that recipients would be more likely to

answer these questions in the affirmative. The more generous attributions associated with praise should then flow on

to reduced levels of defensiveness.

One potential problem with sweetening, however, is that the strategy might be seen by a skeptical in-group audience

as an overly transparent attempt to soften criticism. This could result in the praise simply being dismissed, or even

worse, it could result in group members feeling as though the speaker is being overaccommodating or patronizing.

Even in the absence of skepticism about the motives for the praise, it could be that the praise would not be processed

or remembered, given that it is potentially overshadowed by the more threatening and ego-involving criticism. Indeed,

social theorists have long recognized the tendency for some people to selectively attend to negative experiences and

to discount positive experiences when receiving feedback from the social world, a phenomenon sometimes referred

to as the negativity effect (Fiske, 1980), negativity bias (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Rozin &

Royzman, 2001), or mnemic neglect (Green, Pinter, & Sedikides, 2005). Consistent with this, an analysis of student

reactions to teacher feedback revealed that bad feedback had a much stronger effect on perceptions than good

feedback (Coleman, Jussim, & Abraham, 1987). Although good feedback was seen to be more credible, bad

feedback was seen to be more diagnostic of what the teacher really thought. Thus, despite the assumed consensus

that praise is helpful in softening the blow when delivering negative feedback, there are theoretical reasons to test

this assumption empirically.

In Experiment 1, Australian participants read criticisms of their group that were attributed either to another Australian

(in-group critic) or to a non-Australian (out-group critic). Depending on condition, the criticism was either

contextualized with praise or it was not. Consistent with the intergroup sensitivity effect, we predicted that out-group

critics would be liked less than in-group critics and that their comments would arouse more negativity and less

agreement than the in-group critics comments. We also predicted that, when praise was attached to the criticism,

levels of interpersonal liking and agreement would increase and levels of negativity would decrease relative to when

praise was not used. If we were to obtain effects of praise, it was expected that these effects would be mediated by

attributions of constructiveness.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b19http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b19http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b19http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b3http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b3http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b3http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b3http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b25http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b25http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b25http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b14http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b14http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b14http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b14http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b25http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b3http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b3http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b19


13/36

Method

Participants and design

Participants were 107 undergraduate psychology students (79 females, 28 males, M= 21.61 years) who participated

in the study in return for course credit. Assuming a moderate effect size of .30, we needed only 90 participants to

achieve acceptable power (80%); thus, the current sample size was considered sufficiently powerful. Participants

were randomly allocated to the four conditions of a 2 (speaker type: in-group vs. out-group) 2 (strategy: praise vs.

no praise) between-groups design. Participants were only included if they nominated Australia as their primary

national identity.

Materials and procedure

To reduce the transparency of the experiment, participants were told that the study was interested in how people

make personality evaluations on the basis of minimal information. They were told that they would be given an extract

from an interview with someone who would talk a little about themselves and a little about what they think of

Australia. They would be asked to read these extracts and to evaluate both the speaker and his or her comments.

Before starting the questionnaire, participants recorded the extent to which they agreed with the following statements:

Being an Australian is an important part of my self-image,I have a lot in common with other Australians, and I

identify as an Australian. These items were combined to form a single measure of national identification (= .87).

Manipulation of speaker

This section of the questionnaire consisted of a biography of the speaker and was intended to manipulate speaker

type. A summary of the speakers demographic information was provided, including name (J. Benson), country of

birth (Australia or United States), current residence (Brisbane or Washington), and age (22). In response to the

question, Tell us a little bit about yourself, the speaker answered: My parents own their own landscaping business.

Ive got two older brothers and an older sister. I enjoy hanging out with my friends and reading. In response to the

question, What country are you from? the speaker said I was born in Australia (or America, depending on

condition) and Ive lived here all my life. To accentuate this condition, the national flag of Australia or the United

States (depending on condition) was pasted next to the biographical information.

Participants then rated the extent to which they thought the speaker was intelligent, trustworthy, friendly, open-

minded, likeable, respected, interesting, and nice (Time 1 trait evaluations; = .90). Trait ratings of the speaker were

measured before the criticisms were read by the participants in order to assess preexisting differences in trait

evaluations of in-group and out-group members. These measures can be used as a baseline against which

postcriticism trait evaluations can be compared.

Criticisms

The scripts used to present the criticisms were similar to those used by Hornsey and colleagues (Hornsey & Imani,

2004; Hornsey et al., 2002, 2004). In response to the question, What do you think of Australians? the critic said:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b33


14/36

I think of them as being fairly racist. Theyre racist towards Aborigines, and theyre intolerant of Asians. Also, my

understanding of Australia is that, on the whole, theyre not as cultured as most societies.

The script was identical in both in-group and out-group conditions, except in the in-group conditions they used

inclusive pronouns (i.e., us and we rather than them and they). This is consistent with all previous research onthe intergroup sensitivity effect.

In the no-praise condition, there was no further text. In the praise condition, the negative comments were

contextualized with three positive comments:

Having said that, I think Australians are generally fairly friendly and warm people. I also think theyre a very educated

society. And they seem to have a good sense of humor. They can see the funny side to things which is good.

The comments used in the scripts were based on a pilot study in which Australians were asked to rate the extent to

which various negative and positive statements applied to Australians. The traits used in the scripts were used

because we found some consensus that Australians themselves believed them to be true (seeHornsey et al., 2002,

for details). The order of the praise relative to the criticism was counterbalanced, such that half of the time the praise

came before the criticism and half the time the praise came after the criticism.

Dependent measures

All subsequent items were measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The first part of the

questionnaire was designed to test the extent to which the positive and negative comments were salient to

participants. Participants were reminded of each of the three criticisms and were asked after each to indicate the

extent to which, when reading the script, this particular comment had stuck in their mind and the extent to which it

had stood out from the rest in their mind. For participants in the praise condition, they repeated the exercise in

relation to each of the pieces of praise. The responses for the pieces of criticism (= .70) and for the pieces of praise

(= .88) were combined into scales ofsalience.

The rest of the questionnaire measured the key dependent variables. Constructivenesswas measured by asking the

extent to which the participants believed the speakers comments were intended to be constructive, were intended to

be destructive (reverse scored), and were made with Australias best interests at heart (= .80).Negativitytoward the

criticisms was measured by asking the extent to which the participants felt the criticisms of Australia were

disappointing, irritating, offensive, judgmental, and insulting (= .93). Following this, participants completed the same

trait evaluation scale used at Time 1 (Time 2 trait evaluations; = .92).Agreementwith the criticisms was measured

by asking the extent to which the participants agreed with the speakers criticisms about Australia, and the extent to

which they felt the criticisms were true ( r= .93).

To determine whether constructiveness, negativity, agreement, and likeability represent discrete scales, a factor

analysis was conducted on these items using principal components extraction with oblimin rotation. A three-factor

solution emerged, with the first factor comprising both the likeability items (Time 2) and the constructiveness items
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b34http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b34http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b34http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b34


15/36

(eigenvalue = 10.05, 55.81% of variance explained). The second factor comprised the negativity items (eigenvalue =

2.45, 13.61% of variance explained), and the third factor comprised the agreement items (eigenvalue = 1.15, 6.40%

of variance explained). Although the likeability and constructiveness items are clearly highly correlated, on face value,

we were confident that these constructs were separate, given that the former represents a set of trait evaluations of

the critic and the latter represents attributions of motive. It should also be noted that in Experiments 2 and 3 (reported

later), factor analysis of the same items reveals a perfect four-factor solution.

Results

Preliminary analyses

Preliminary analyses showed that there were no significant main effects of sex on any measures and that sex did not

interact with speaker type or strategy. Analysis of the identification measure showed that participants identified

strongly with their national identity overall (M= 5.66) and that levels of identification were statistically equivalent

across all conditions. For participants in the praise condition, independent ttests were conducted to see if the order of

the praise relative to the criticism had any effect on the dependent measures. None of the ttests were significant

(all ps > .32), meaning that it did not matter whether praise was delivered before or after the criticism. Consequently,

the data for the praise conditions were collapsed across order.

To test how salient the praise was relative to the criticisms, we conducted a 2 (speaker type) 2 (praise vs. criticism)

mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the salience scales. The only significant effect was that criticisms on

the whole were more salient to participants (M= 5.34) than the praise (M= 4.26), F(1, 53) = 31.75, p< .001, 2= .38.

Speaker type had no effect on salience, either as a main effect (p= .91) or as an interaction (p= .42).

Main analysesResults for constructiveness, negativity, and agreement were analyzed using a series of 2 (speaker type: in-group vs.

out-group) 2 (strategy: praise vs. no praise) between-groups ANOVAs. Results for Time 2 likeability were analyzed

using a 2 2 analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with Time 1 likeability scores entered as a covariate. All effect sizes

reported here and in subsequent studies are partial 2. Means and standard deviations are summarized inTable 1.

MeasureAustralian (In-Group Critic) Non-Australian (Out-Group Crit

Praise No Praise Praise No P

1. Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. Means that do not share a subscript are significantly different acc

Duncan posthoc test (p < .05). Means for Time 2 likeability are adjusted after having covaried out Time 1 likeability.

Constructiveness 4.87c (1.28) 3.63b (1.18) 3.58b (1.02) 2.54a

Time 2 likeability 4.40c (1.30) 3.68b (1.08) 3.92bc (1.21) 3.06a

Negativity 3.81a (1.65) 4.14ab (1.64) 4.89bc (1.35) 5.47c

Agreement 4.50c (1.85) 3.60ac (1.87) 3.39ab (1.52) 2.87a

Table 1. Effects of Sweetening on Responses to Criticism: Experiment 1
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#t1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#t1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#t1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#t1


16/36

As predicted, main effects of speaker type emerged on constructiveness, F(1, 103) = 30.00, p< .001, 2= .23,

negativity, F(1, 103) = 18.01,p< .001, 2= .15, Time 2 likeability, F(1, 102) = 6.49, p= .012, 2= .06, and

agreement, F(1, 103) = 7.98, p= .006, 2= .07. Consistent with the intergroup sensitivity effect, in-group critics were

liked more (M= 4.04), were attributed more constructive motives (M= 4.28), and were agreed with more (M= 4.08)

than were out-group critics (Ms = 3.49, 3.06, and 3.13, respectively). In-group critics also aroused less negativity (M=

3.97) than did out-group critics (M= 5.18).

Main effects of praise also emerged on constructiveness, F(1, 103) = 27.70, p< .001, 2= .21, Time 2 likeability, F(1,

102) = 13.26, p< .001, 2= .12, and agreement, F(1, 103) = 4.74, p= .032, 2= .04. Critics who used praise were liked

more (M= 4.16), were attributed more constructive motives (M= 4.24), and were agreed with more (M= 3.95) than

critics who did not praise (Ms = 3.37, 3.06, and 3.22, respectively). The tendency for critics who praised (M= 4.34) to

arouse less negativity than those who did not praise (M= 4.83) was nonsignificant, F(1, 102) = 2.55, p= .11, 2= .02.

On none of the measures did strategy significantly interact with speaker type (all ps > .64).

Why does praise help? The role of constructiveness

In summary, attaching praise to criticism helped critics overcome defensiveness on measures of agreement and

likeability. It was predicted that the reason for this would be that critics who praised would be attributed more

constructive motives for their criticism than those who did not praise. To test for mediation, a series of regressions

was conducted with strategy dummy-coded such that 0 =no praiseand 1 =praise. Consistent with the strategy for

conducting the ANOVAs, when conducting regressions on Time 2 likeability, Time 1 likeability scores were controlled

for at the first stage.

When included in a regression along with strategy, constructiveness significantly predicted both agreement (=

.59, p< .001) and likeability (= .68,p< .001), thus satisfying a key condition for mediation. Furthermore, after

including constructiveness in the model, significant effects of strategy on agreement (= .21,p= .031) and likeability

(= .31,p< .001) were reduced to nonsignificance (agreement: =.04,p= .64; likeability: = .03,p= .65). In each

case, this represented a significant drop in variance according to the Sobel test (agreement: z= 3.89, p< .001;

likeability: z= 3.81, p< .001). In sum, there was evidence that attributions of constructiveness fully mediated the

effects of praise on agreement and likeability.

Discussion

There has been limited empirical research examining whether negative feedback is more likely to be absorbed if the

criticisms are contextualized by praise, either at the interpersonal level or the intergroup level. Although such a

strategy is intuitively appealing, there are theoretical reasons to challenge the assumed link between praise and

responses to criticism that make empirical scrutiny of the relationship important. If praise is recognized as simply a

strategy to reduce defensiveness toward the criticisms, then people might dismiss or gloss over the positive feedback

and focus exclusively on the more diagnostic, threatening, and ego-involving criticisms, rendering the praise


17/36

ineffectual. Indeed, in our sample, we found that people who were exposed to both praise and criticism of Australia

were far more likely to cognitively focus on the negative than the positive feedback.

Despite this, there was some evidence that praise could help reduce defensiveness toward group criticism. The

effects of praise were most marked on ratings of how likeable the critic was seen to be: Critics who used praise were

seen to be much more likeable than those who did not. A weaker but still reliable effect emerged on agreement:

When praise was used participants agreed with the criticisms more than when praise was not used. On negativity,

however, praise had no reliable effect at all. Despite the mixed picture, the overall conclusion is that it is better to

praise than to not praise, particularly if being liked is important to you.

In addition to testing the effects of praise on reducing defensiveness, another aim of the current study is to

examine whypraise might help reduce defensiveness. Our mediation analysis showed evidence consistent with our

argument that attributions underpin responses to group-directed criticism. Specifically, critics who used praise were

assumed to be motivated by more constructive reasons than did those who did not praise, and this led to higher

ratings on likeability and agreement. Thus, the current study does not just provide an early attempt to empirically

assess the merits of praise, it also provides clues as to the psychological mechanisms through which praise might

work.

It should be noted that in all cases, the effects of praise need to be interpreted against the backdrop of a robust

intergroup sensitivity effect. In all cases, out-group critics aroused more defensiveness than did in-group critics. The

effects of praise worked equally for in-group and out-group critics, so this strategy should be seen as a way of

reducing defensiveness per se rather than a way of reducing the intergroup sensitivity effect. Inspection of effect

sizes shows that the effect of group membership was greater than the effect of praise on ratings of agreement and

negativity. Indeed, across all the measures, an out-group critic who used praise aroused just as much defensiveness

as an in-group member who did not use this strategy. This helps reinforce the uphill battle that people face when

directing negative feedback at out-groups.

Experiment 2

We have seen in Experiment 1 that praise can help outsiders reduce defensiveness toward criticism, at least on

dimensions of agreement and likeability. An alternative strategy is for out -group critics to acknowledge the failings of

their own group as well as the in-group with regard to the criticism (sharing). As described earlier, the social identity

perspective suggests that people gain and maintain self -esteem through membership in groups that offer positive

distinctiveness. Thus, when an out-group member criticizes a group to which we belong, we might be quick to

assume that their comments are simply part of this ongoing struggle for intergroup supremacy. If, however, an out-

group critic also articulates the shortcomings of his or her own group, it would help defuse the notion that the out-

group critic is motivated by a need to demonstrate his or her group s superiority. In the absence of this explanation for


18/36

the criticisms, the in-group members might be more likely to rely on an alternative explanation: that the person is

making these comments with the best interests of the group in mind. These attributions of constructiveness might

then flow on to lower levels of negativity, more positive evaluations of the critic, and a greater willingness to embrace

the truth within the criticisms. To our knowledge, there have been no empirical tests of whether such a st rategy would

work, either in the context of interpersonal or intergroup criticism.

It is important, however, not to automatically assume that sharing would work solely because it promotes more

positive attributions about motive. An alternative and equally plausible explanation is that critics who acknowledge

problems within their own group are seen to be less hypocritical than those who do not, which leads to a more

positive attitude toward the comments. Indeed, qualitative research on persuasion has shown that perceptions of

hypocrisy in others are a key reason for resisting messages stemming from schools and wider society (e.g.,Booth-

Butterfield, Anderson, & Williams, 2000; Flacks, 1967). It seems reasonable, then, to test whether any effects of

acknowledgment are driven by constructiveness over and above perceptions of hypocrisy.

In Experiment 2, Australian participants read what they believed to be an extract from an interview in which a personcriticized Australians for being racist toward indigenous people and Asians. In the in-group condition, the criticisms

were attributed to another Australian. In the out-group conditions, the criticisms were attributed to a foreigner. Three

versions of the out-group criticism were included in the study. In the acknowledgment condition, the out-group critic

acknowledged the failings of his or her own country in regard to racism and in the no-acknowledgment condition they

did not. We also included a control condition in which the out-group critic acknowledged racism existed in other

countries but did not mention his or her own (other-group acknowledgment). By including this condition, we were able

to disentangle the unique effects of own-group acknowledgment from the effects of merely diffusing criticism across

multiple groups.

In line with the intergroup sensitivity effect, it was expected that the in-group critic would arouse less defensiveness

than the out-group critics who did not acknowledge similar problems within their own country (the no-

acknowledgment and the other-group acknowledgment conditions). It was expected that the out-group critic who

acknowledged the failings of his or her own group would arouse less defensiveness than the other out-group critics,

resulting in attenuation or even elimination of the intergroup sensitivity effect. Furthermore, it was expected that the

effects of acknowledgment would be mediated by constructiveness, over and above perceptions of hypocrisy.

Specifically, it was expected that the out-group critic who acknowledged his or her own groups failings would be

attributed more constructive motives than would the out-group critic who did not use acknowledgment and that this

difference in attribution would underpin the effects of acknowledgment on likeability, agreement, and negativity.

Method

Participants and design
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b7http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b7http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b7http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b7http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b7http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#b7


19/36

Participants were 160 undergraduate student volunteers (118 females, 42 males, M= 21.26 years) who nominated

Australia as their primary national identity. Assuming a moderate effect size of .30, we needed only 128 participants

to achieve acceptable power (80%); thus, the current sample size was considered sufficiently powerful. Participants

were randomly allocated to one of the four between-groups conditions: in-group criticism, out-group criticism with no

acknowledgment, out-group criticism with acknowledgment of another groups flaws, and out-group criticism with

acknowledgment of own groups flaws.

Procedure

The cover story and procedure were similar in most respects to that used in Experiment 1. After completing

demographic details and the three-item measure of national identification (= .86), participants read details about the

target speaker. The demographic descriptions of the speaker were the same as those used in Experiment 1, except

this time three out-group nationalities were used: speakers were described as being either citizens of the United

States, New Zealand, or Canada (out-group nationality was counterbalanced within each out-group condition). As in

Experiment 1, the speakers gave a small amount of information about their hobbies, their families, and the fact thatthey had lived in their country of birth all their life. After receiving this information, participants completed the Time 1

likeability items described earlier (= .91).

Participants then read the speakers response to the question What do you think of Australians? In the in -group

condition and the out-group/no-acknowledgment condition the response read: When I think of Australians I think of

us (them) as fairly racist. Were (Theyre) racist toward Aborigines and intolerant of Asians. In the condition where

the out-group speaker acknowledged similar flaws in other countries, the following sentences were added: But I think

this is something other countries struggle with too. For instance, (members of X country) are racist towards their

indigenous people and towards Asian people. In this condition, the speaker always referred to members of another

out-group; for example, a New Zealander might say that Canadians are also racist, or a Canadian might say that U.S.

citizens are also racist. In the condition where the out-group speaker acknowledged similar flaws in his or her own

country, these sentences were replaced with the following: But I think this is something we struggle with too. For

instance, I also think we are racist towards our indigenous people and towards Asian people.

To account for ratings of hypocrisy, participants rated the extent to which they found the criticisms to be hypocritical.

They also completed the same measures of constructiveness (= .85), Time 2 likeability (= .95), negativity (= .92),

and agreement (r= .90) used in Experiment 1. This time, a factor analysis with oblimin rotation revealed a four-factor

solution corresponding perfectly to the four key-dependent measures.

Results

Preliminary analyses

Preliminary analyses showed that there were no significant main or interactive effects of sex on any measures. Again,

participants identified strongly with their national identity (M= 5.28), and an ANOVA revealed that levels of


20/36

identification were equivalent across all conditions (p= .22). A series of ANOVAs was run among the participants in

the out-group conditions to check whether ratings of negativity, likeability, agreement, and constructiveness differed

depending on which out-group participants were exposed to. Results showed that ratings were equivalent regardless

of whether the out-group critic was a New Zealander, a Canadian, or a U.S. citizen (all ps > .19). Thus, we felt

comfortable collapsing these groups together.

Main analyses

Analyses were conducted using one-way between-groups ANOVAs with four levels. When analyzing Time 2

likeability, Time 1 likeability was entered as a covariate. Significant main effects were followed up with Duncans

posthoc tests. Means and standard deviations are summarized inTable 2.

In-Group Critic

Out-Group Critic

Acknowledgment of Group Failings

None Other Group Ow

1. Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. Means that do not share a subscript are significantly different acc

Duncan posthoc test (p < .05). Means for Time 2 likeability are adjusted after having covaried out Time 1 likeability.

Constructiveness 4.32c (1.30) 2.69a (1.04) 3.31b (1.28) 3.9

Time 2 likeability 4.18b (0.90) 3.46a (1.06) 3.60a (1.08) 4.1

Negativity 3.71a (1.45) 5.31d (1.12) 4.69bc (1.49) 4.1

Agreement 4.25 (1.62) 3.78 (1.47) 3.66 (1.54) 3.9

Table 2. Effects of Sharing on Responses to Criticism: Experiment 2

Unexpectedly, no effects of condition emerged on ratings of agreement, F(3, 156) = 1.11, p= .35, 2= .02. However,

as predicted, main effects of condition emerged on constructiveness, F(3, 156) = 15.73, p< .001, 2= .23,

likeability, F(3, 155) = 6.59, p< .001, 2= .11, and negativity, F(3, 156) = 10.11, p< .001, 2= .16. For ratings of

constructiveness, posthoc analysis revealed that the highest ratings of constructiveness occurred when the critic was

an in-group member and when an out-group critic acknowledged similar problems within his or her own country

(these conditions did not differ from each other). Ratings of constructiveness in these conditions were significantly

higher than when an out-group critic acknowledged similar problems in another group, which in turn were higher than

when out-group critics did not use acknowledgment at all.

For ratings of negativity a similar pattern emerged: Least negativity emerged when the critic was an in-group member

and when an out-group critic acknowledged similar problems within his or her own country (these conditions did not

differ from each other). Ratings of negativity were significantly lower in the in-group condition than in the condition

where out-group critics acknowledged similar problems in other groups. Negativity in the out-group/no-

acknowledgment condition was significantly higher than in all other conditions.

Finally, posthoc analyses on the Time 2 likeability scores showed that the highest likeability ratings occurred when

the critic was an in-group member and when an out-group critic acknowledged similar problems within his or her own
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#t2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#t2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#t2http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00314.x/full#t2


21/36

country (these conditions did not differ from each other). Ratings of likeabi lity were significantly higher in these

conditions than when an out-group critic acknowledged similar problems in another group, or did not use

acknowledgment at all (these last two conditions also did not differ from each other).

Why does acknowledgment help? The role of constructivenessBy acknowledging similar problems within ones own country, out-group critics could reduce defensiveness on

likeability and negativity to the point where the intergroup sensitivity effect was eliminated. Consistent with the

attributional arguments presented here, it was predicted that these effects would be mediated by attributions of

constructiveness. To test this, we selected only participants in the out-group/no-acknowledgment and the out-

group/own-group acknowledgment conditions. This way we were able to reduce our four-level IV into a dichotomous

variable that could be used in regression. This variable was dummy coded such that the no-acknowledgment

condition was coded 0 and the own-group acknowledgment condition was coded 1. When conducting the regressions

on Time 2 likeability, ratings of likeability at Time 1 were included at the first step as a control.

When included in a regression along with condition, constructiveness significantly predicted both negativity

(=.41, p< .001) and likeability (= .51,p< .001). After including constructiveness into the model, significant effects

of condition on negativity (=.42,p< .001) and likeability (= .32,p< .001) were reduced to being either marginally

significant (negativity: =.19,p= .090) or nonsignificant (likeability: = .04,p= .63). In each case, this change in

variance explained was significant according to the Sobel test (negativity: z=3.08,p= .002; likeability: z= 4.06, p .26, 2range from .00 to .02). Clearly, on the

constructiveness measure, it is possible that more participants could have pushed the effect past the conventional

level of significance. But it should be noted that the effect size (2= .05) compares unfavorably to the double-digit

effect sizes found with respect to sweetening and sharing. Furthermore, power analyses revealed that at least 165

participants would have to be tested to achieve an 80% likelihood of detecting a significant effect on the basis of this

effect size. On negativity, the effect size (partial 2) for the main effect and the interaction was .004. Posthoc power

analyses revealed that at least 1,961 participants would have to be tested to achieve an 80% likelihood of detecting a

significant effect on the basis

rhetorical strats

Documents