Bilateral Australia: Making a difference? Understanding the impact of criticism on groups.
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Kent
Department Name: Sch of Psychology
Abstract
Abstracts are not currently available in GtR for all funded research. This is normally because the abstract was not required at the time of proposal submission, but may be because it included sensitive information such as personal details.
Organisations
Publications
Jeffries CH
(2012)
The David and Goliath principle: cultural, ideological, and attitudinal underpinnings of the normative protection of low-status groups from criticism.
in Personality & social psychology bulletin
Murphy A
(2011)
Ambivalent sexism and the "do"s and "don't"s of pregnancy: Examining attitudes toward proscriptions and the women who flout them
in Personality and Individual Differences
Douglas KM
(2011)
Constructive or cruel? Positive or patronizing? Reactions to expressions of positive and negative stereotypes of the mentally ill.
in British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)
Sutton R
(2010)
Benevolent Sexism, Perceived Health Risks, and the Inclination to Restrict Pregnant Women's Freedoms
in Sex Roles
Giles, Howard; Reid, Scott; Harwood, Jake
(2009)
The Dynamics of Intergroup Communication
Robbie M. Sutton (author)
(1900)
"Protected species" or "fair game"? : on who is protected from prejudice, in principle and practice
Robbie M. Sutton (author)
(1900)
Musn't grumble : those who say the world is a just place are rated favorably (regardless of what they think)
Description | Findings replicated the "intergroup sensitivity effect" in which audiences evaluate external critics (who do not belong to the group in question) and their comments more negatively than internal critics (who do). Participants also evaluated critics more harshly if they denied widely shared positive stereotypes (eg by saying the British are impolite) than if they affirmed negative ones (eg by saying the British are aloof). These reactions happened whether or not participants themselves belonged to the criticised group, but others were unique to participants who belong to it and thus have reason to be defensive. For example, external criticism sometimes led to "retaliatory prejudice": that is, negative perceptions of the critic's social group, and to a "boomerang" effect, where participants were less likely than before to acknowledge their group's failings. Further experiments showed that people do not respond with indiscriminate negativity to all external critics. For example, British participants responded much more negatively to criticism by American than French people of Britain's involvement in the Iraq war, whether their criticism alleged that Britain did not do enough, or should not have been there. Results suggest that this happened because American critics were seen as especially hypocritical, rather than ungrateful or disloyal. Studies further extended previous research on the intergroup sensitivity effect by examining responses to criticism of stigmatised, deviant and victimised groups, and of social systems. |
Sectors | Education |