Resistance to Group Criticism and Recommendations for Change: Lessons from the Intergroup Sensitivity Effect

Hornsey, Matthew J.; Esposo, Sarah

doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00178.x

Cited by 52 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a message is problematic on multiple levels. First, it positions the campaign designers as outsiders which is likely to reduce the effectiveness of the campaign from the start, compared to if an insider gives the message (see Hornsey & Esposo, 2009, for a review). When campaigners are distrusted within the target community, seeking to pass the message closer in the "chain of trust" may be more effective than attempting to persuade themselves.…”

Section: Advice For Campaignersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Volatility of Collective Action: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Data

Louis

Thomas

McGarty

et al. 2020

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collective action is volatile: characterized by swift, unexpected changes in intensity, target, and forms. We conduct a detailed exploration of four reasons that these changes occur. First, action is about identities which are fluid, contested, and multifaceted. As the content of groups’ identities change, so do the specific norms for the identities. Second, social movements adopt new tactics, or forms of collective action. Tactical changes may arise from changes in identity, but also changes in the target or opponent groups, and changes in the relationships with targets and with other actors. Factions or wings of a group in conflict may in turn form identities based on opposition or support for differing tactics. Third, social movements change because participant motivation ebbs, surges, and also changes in quality (e.g., becoming more subjectively autonomous, or self‐determined). Finally, political social change occurs within socio‐political structures; these structures implicate higher‐level norms, which both constrain and emerge from actions (e.g., state openness or repression). Our analysis presents idealized and descriptive models of these relationships, and a new model to examine tactical changes empirically, the DIME model. This model highlights that collective actors can Disidentify after failure (giving up and walking away); they can Innovate, or try something new; and they can commit harder, convinced that they are right, with increased moral urgency (Moralization) and redoubled efforts (Energization).

show abstract

Section: Advice For Campaignersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Volatility of Collective Action: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Data

Louis

Thomas

McGarty

et al. 2020

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Couching scientific viewpoints as competing models championed by opposing teams intertwines logic and evidence with scientific identities and reputations. This mix discourages trusting others' motives and being open to their critique (25). Yet, advancement through debate is only possible when people can avoid being defensive and can reconsider their own position when offered a new perspective (26).…”

Section: Progress Toward Cooperative Joint Goals: Starting With Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adversarial alignment enables competing models to engage in cooperative theory building toward cumulative science

Ellemers

Abele²,

Koch

et al. 2020

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crises in science concern not only methods, statistics, and results but also, theory development. Beyond the indispensable refinement of tools and procedures, resolving crises would also benefit from a deeper understanding of the concepts and processes guiding research. Usually, theories compete, and some lose, incentivizing destruction of seemingly opposing views. This does not necessarily contribute to accumulating insights, and it may incur collateral damage (e.g., impairing cognitive processes and collegial relations). To develop a more constructive model, we built on adversarial collaboration, which integrates incompatible results into agreed-on new empirical research to test competing hypotheses [D. Kahneman,Am. Psychol.58, 723–730 (2003)]. Applying theory and evidence from the behavioral sciences, we address the group dynamic complexities of adversarial interactions between scientists. We illustrate the added value of considering these in an “adversarial alignment” that addressed competing conceptual frameworks from five different theories of social evaluation. Negotiating a joint framework required two preconditions and several guidelines. First, we reframed our interactions from competitive rivalry to cooperative pursuit of a joint goal, and second, we assumed scientific competence and good intentions, enabling cooperation toward that goal. Then, we applied five rules for successful multiparty negotiations: 1) leveling the playing field, 2) capitalizing on curiosity, 3) producing measurable progress, 4) working toward mutual gain, and 5) being aware of the downside alternative. Together, these guidelines can encourage others to create conditions that allow for theoretical alignments and develop cumulative science.

show abstract

“…As is easy to guess, criticisms like these, especially if made by representatives of an out-group, might end up being perceived as injuries to the in-group or, at best, as an intrusion into its affairs. Indeed, research on this issue has shown that receivers usually react harshly and defensively to criticisms against their own group moved by outsiders, whereas similar comments are more easily accepted and agreed with when they are made by insiders (e.g., Hornsey & Imani, 2004; Sutton, Elder, & Douglas, 2006; for a review, see Hornsey & Esposo, 2009). This phenomenon has been called the intergroup sensitivity effect (ISE; Hornsey, Oppes, & Svensson, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

If You Criticize Us, Do It in Concrete Terms: Linguistic Abstraction as a Moderator of the Intergroup Sensitivity Effect

Moscatelli

Prati

Rubini

2019

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examined whether linguistic abstraction in group-directed criticisms moderates the intergroup sensitivity effect. Study 1 ( N = 76) showed that criticisms coming from an out-group member and formulated in concrete terms—which imply lower generalizability and stability of the information transmitted—provoked less negative reactions compared with out-group criticisms formulated in abstract terms. Linguistic abstraction did not affect reactions to in-group criticism. In Study 2 ( N = 77), receivers of concrete criticism from an out-group representative attributed less hostile intentions and prejudice to the critic, and this mediated the impact of critic group membership and linguistic abstraction on negativity toward criticism. Participants also reported more favorable attitudes toward the out-group as a whole when out-group criticism was formulated in concrete terms. This research underlines that linguistic abstraction can facilitate or obstruct effective group communication, and has important implications for the development of communicative strategies aiming to promote social change.

show abstract

Resistance to Group Criticism and Recommendations for Change: Lessons from the Intergroup Sensitivity Effect

Cited by 52 publications

References 47 publications

The Volatility of Collective Action: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Data

The Volatility of Collective Action: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Data

Adversarial alignment enables competing models to engage in cooperative theory building toward cumulative science

If You Criticize Us, Do It in Concrete Terms: Linguistic Abstraction as a Moderator of the Intergroup Sensitivity Effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About