Keeping it to Ourselves: Effects of Audience Size and Composition on Reactions to Criticisms of the Ingroup

Abstract

Criticism is an important aspect of communication within and between groups, but reactions to criticism of groups have been little studied. Past research has shown that criticism elicits greater sensitivity when made by an outgroup member, compared to an ingroup member. Two experiments were conducted to examine how this intergroup sensitivity effect (ISE) is affected by the context of the criticism. Experiment 1 showed that the ISE occurs in a private context, but disappears when it is clear that the criticism is made to a large public audience. Experiment 2 investigated intragroup criticism and manipulated both audience size and audience composition. Results showed that ingroup criticism elicited greater sensitivity and less favorable evaluations of the speaker when made to an outgroup rather than an ingroup audience. The results highlight strategic considerations and tacit protocols governing the criticism of groups.

United we stand: Intergroup conflict moderates the intergroup sensitivity effect

“…Examples of this dissociation across response dimensions can be found in the literature on the role of audiences in moderating responses to criticism. As stated above, ingroup critics who take their comments to an outgroup audience tend to be seen as less likeable and tend to face heightened negativity than those who keep their comments in-house (Ariyanto et al, 2006;Elder et al, 2005;Hornsey et al, 2005). Interestingly, however, violations of this ''in-house'' rule do not appear to influence attributions of motive, and do not influence whether group members are willing to agree with the criticisms.…”

“…One such rule is to always keep your criticisms ''in-house'' (''Don't air your dirty laundry''). Indeed, ingroup critics who violate this rule tend to be seen as less likeable and tend to face heightened negativity (Ariyanto, Hornsey, & Gallois, 2006;Elder, Sutton, & Douglas, 2005;Hornsey, de Bruijn, Creed, Allen, Ariyanto, & Svensson, 2005).…”

Who Do We Inform? The Role of Status and Target in Intergroup Whistle-blowing

“…Research has shown that ingroup criticism is likely to be evaluated as socially acceptable and conventional, as well as legitimate and constructive, so long as it can be perceived as a suggestion for improvement (Hornsey, Oppes, & Svensson, 2002;Hornsey & Imani, 2004). However, this constructive effect of criticism only occurs when the group is criticized to an exclusively ingroup audience, and not when the group is criticized in front of an outgroup audience (Elder, Sutton, & Douglas, 2005;Hornsey et al, 2005;Ariyanto, Hornsey, & Gallois, 2006). Reporting an ingroup misconduct to outside persons or authorities is a violation of the implicit rule that group members should never criticize their own group to outsiders.…”

Who Says We Are Bad People? The Impact of Criticism Source and Attributional Content on Responses to Group-Based Criticism

“…For example, research has demonstrated that criticism from an ingroup source is perceived negatively when it is communicated to an outgroup audience (Ariyanto, Hornsey, & Gallois, 2006;Elder, Sutton, & Douglas, 2005;. The negativity presumably comes from the fact that "airing dirty laundry" to outgroup members breaches the rules of strategic image management.…”