Research on psychological contract breach has referenced social exchange as its dominant theoretical foundation. In this study, we draw insights from the group value model as a theoretical extension to explain employees' negative responses to psychological contract breach. According to the group value model, fair treatment by group members communicates symbolic messages about the relationship between the organization and the employee, and has implications for whether employees can take pride in their organizational membership. When people are treated unfairly, they lose trust in the organization and dis-identify from the group. This in turn results in less willingness on the part of the employees to engage in organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs). We tested these relationships across three studies. In Study 1, we conducted a longitudinal test of the role of trust as a mediator between breach and organizational identification. In Studies 2 (cross-sectional) and 3 (longitudinal), we tested the complete model in which we examined the role of trust and identification in mediating the link between breach and OCBs. All three studies provided support for the mediated model. Furthermore, as predicted by the group value model, the hypothesized relationships emerged in response to relational but not transactional contract breaches. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed. Copyright (c) Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2008.

People are more resistant to criticisms of their group when those criticisms are made by an outgroup rather than an ingroup member, a phenomenon referred to as the intergroup sensitivity effect (ISE). The current study compared four competing models of how argument quality would moderate the ISE, with a view to establishing the complex interrelationships between source and message effects in group-directed criticism. Quality of the argument affected responses to ingroup critics, but not to outgroup critics. For outsiders who wish to promote positive change and reform in a group culture, this leads to a somewhat depressing conclusion: their message is likely to be rejected regardless of whether it is objectively 'right', well-considered, well-justified, or well-argued.

This essay reviews research relating to criticism of groups. It is argued that, in order to successfully critique (and change) a group culture, it is not enough to be right. Rather, critics need to be sensitive to a range of variables wrapped up in who they are: their group memberships, their history, and the intergroup context. One example of this is the intergroup sensitivity effect, the phenomenon whereby criticisms that seem reasonable in the mouth of an insider are rejected when coming from an outsider. We discuss the intergroup sensitivity effect, the psychological mechanisms underpinning it, and the contextual factors that moderate it. On the basis of this review, we present a model that can be used to predict resistance (or open‐mindedness) in the face of group‐directed criticisms and recommendations for change. It is hoped that this model can open up new ways of thinking about group‐mediated communication, and at the same time can provide specific, concrete and usable instruction for how to promote change within and between groups.

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 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 strategy-which 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.

In an era of digital technology and the Internet, terrorists can communicate their threats directly to citizens of Western countries. Yet no research has examined whether these messages change individuals' attitudes and behaviour, or the psychological processes underlying these effects. Two studies (conducted in 2008 and 2010) examined how American, Australian, and British participants responded to messages from Osama bin Laden that threatened violence if troops were not withdrawn from Afghanistan. Heightened fear in response to the message resulted in what we call "aggressive capitulation," characterized by two different group-protection responses: (1) submission to terrorist demands in the face of threats made against one's country, and (2) support for increased efforts to combat the source of the threat, but expressed in abstract terms that do not leave one's country vulnerable. Fear predicted influence over and above other variables relevant to persuasion. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.