Research Article
Keeping it in-house: how audience affects responses to group criticism
Matthew J. Hornsey,
Petra de Bruijn, Jennifer Creed, James Allen, Amarina Ariyanto, Alicia Svensson,
Corresponding Author
Matthew J. Hornsey
University of Queensland, Australia
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Queensland, Australia.Search for more papers by this authorMatthew J. Hornsey,
Petra de Bruijn, Jennifer Creed, James Allen, Amarina Ariyanto, Alicia Svensson,
Corresponding Author
Matthew J. Hornsey
University of Queensland, Australia
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Queensland, Australia.Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
It is often assumed that group-directed criticism is best kept ‘in-house’, but the effects of audience on responses to criticism have not been directly examined. Consistent with predictions, ingroup members who criticized the group to an outgroup audience were seen to be making a less appropriate choice of audience (Experiments 2 and 3), aroused more negative feelings (Experiment 1), were downgraded more strongly on personality traits (Experiment 2), and were seen to be doing more damage to the group (Experiment 2) than were ingroup members who kept their criticisms in-house. Experiment 3 showed that, whereas moderate identifiers agreed with the comments less and showed weaker friendly intentions toward the critic when an outgroup audience as compared to an ingroup audience was chosen, high identifiers agreed with the criticisms just as strongly—and showed more friendly intentions toward the critic—when they were made to an outgroup as compared to an ingroup audience. Results are discussed in light of the broader literature on identity threat. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
REFERENCES
- Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London, UK: Sage Publications.
- Branscombe, N., Wann, D., Noel, J., & Coleman, J. (1993). In-group or out-group extremity: Importance of the threatened social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 381–388.
- Branscombe, N., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
- Brewer, M. B. (1981). Ethnocentrism and its role in interpersonal trust. In M. B. Brewer, & B. E. Collins (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the social sciences (pp. 345–360). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Caddick, B. (1982). Perceived illegitimacy and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 137–154). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Chen, E. S., & Tyler, T. R. (2001). Cloaking power: Legitimizing myths and the psychology of the advantaged. In A. Y. Lee-Chai, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 241–261). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
- Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–436.
- Eagly, A. L., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 424–435.
- Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together of falling apart: In-group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617–626.
- Ellemers, N., Van Dyck, C., Hinkle, S., & Jacobs, A. (2000). Intergroup differentiation in social context: Identity needs versus audience constraints. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 60–74.
- Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.
- Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
- Hornsey, M. J., & Imani, A. (2004). Criticizing groups from the inside and the outside: An identity perspective on the intergroup sensitivity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 365–383.
- Hornsey, M. J., Oppes, T., & Svensson, A. (2002). ‘It's OK if we say it but you can't’: Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 293–307. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.90
- Hornsey, M. J., Spears, R., Cremers, I., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). Relations between high and low power groups: The importance of legitimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 216–227.
- Hornsey, M. J., Trembath, M., & Gunthorpe, S. (2004). ‘You can criticise because you care’: Identity attachment, constructiveness, and the intergroup sensitivity effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 499–518. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.212
- Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos. Boston, US: Houghton Mifflin.
- Klein, O., & Azzi, A. E. (2001). The strategic confirmation of meta-stereotypes: How group members attempt to tailor an out-group's representation of themselves. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 279–293.
- Marques, J. M., & Paez, D. (1994). The ‘black sheep effect’: Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 37–68.
10.1080/14792779543000011 Google Scholar
- Nemeth, C., & Owens, P. (1996). Making work groups more effective: The value of minority dissent. In M. A. West (Ed.), The handbook of workgroup psychology (pp. 125–141). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
- Reicher, S., & Levine, M. (1994). Deindividuation, power relations between groups and the expression of social identity: The effects of visibility to the outgroup. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 145–163.
- Scott, W. (1965). Values and organizations: A study of fraternities and sororities. Chicago: Rand McNally.
- Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538–553.
- Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brook/Cole.
- Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6–34). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
- Turner, J. C., & Brown, R. J. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 201–234). London, UK: Academic Press.
- Vivian, J. E., & Berkowitz, N. H. (1992). Anticipated bias from an outgroup: An attributional analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 415–424.
- Vivian, J. E., & Berkowitz, N. H. (1993). Anticipated outgroup evaluations and intergroup bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 513–524.
- Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (1981). Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages: The role of causal attributions and message comprehension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 246–259.
- Worchel, S. (1979). Trust and distrust. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 174–187). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
