From Stats to Strats - Using Social Media Statistics to Plan an Integrated Marketing Campaign
Rhetorical Strats
-
Upload
fakhar-hussain-malik -
Category
Documents
-
view
230 -
download
0
Transcript of 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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
2/36
-
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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©right=&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©right=&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©right=&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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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
-
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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
-
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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
-
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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
-
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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
-
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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 -
8/2/2019 Rhetorical Strats
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