Why punish critical outgroup commenters? Social identity, general norms, and retribution

Abstract

Group members are more likely to punish criticism of the ingroup when it is provided by outgroup members than by fellow ingroup members. Although this effect could reflect a response to threats to social identity, there may be a general conversational norm proscribing intergroup criticism of any kind. In this

When group members dissent: A direct comparison of the black sheep and intergroup sensitivity effects

“…Participants' responses to this critic were substantially less negative than their responses to an outgroup member criticizing the ingroup, suggesting that criticism originating from outside a group was not perceived as equivalent regardless of specific group memberships. This pattern is inconsistent with the norm-based explanation of the intergroup sensitivity effect, according to which criticizing a group to which one does not belong should be perceived as generally inappropriate (McCrea et al, 2022;Sutton et al, 2006).…”

“…Our studies also contribute to efforts to interpret the intergroup sensitivity effect as arising from either social identity threat or a violation of the more general norm that criticizing groups of which one is not a member is inappropriate (Adelman & Verkuyten, 2020;McCrea et al, 2022;Sutton et al, 2006). Both of the present studies are inconsistent with the norm-based explanation, given that criticism and insults that crossed group boundaries were perceived as much more inappropriate when they targeted the ingroup (vs. when an ingroup member criticized or insulted the outgroup).…”

“…Participants evaluated the outgroup critics more negatively than the ingroup critic, showing that the perceiver need not be a member of the criticized group for the intergroup sensitivity effect to emerge. This bystander effect can even be larger than the traditional effect observed among individuals responding to criticism directed at their ingroup (McCrea et al, 2022;Thürmer & McCrea, 2021). These findings support an alternative interpretation of the intergroup sensitivity effect as reflecting a general norm that prohibits intergroup criticism (i.e., the idea that it is inappropriate to criticize groups to which one does not belong; McCrea et al, 2022;Sutton et al, 2006).…”

“…This bystander effect can even be larger than the traditional effect observed among individuals responding to criticism directed at their ingroup (McCrea et al, 2022;Thürmer & McCrea, 2021). These findings support an alternative interpretation of the intergroup sensitivity effect as reflecting a general norm that prohibits intergroup criticism (i.e., the idea that it is inappropriate to criticize groups to which one does not belong; McCrea et al, 2022;Sutton et al, 2006). In terms of Figure 1, this interpretation suggests that the situations represented by lines 2 and 3 (where criticism crosses group boundaries) should elicit similar reactions and evoke more negativity than the situations represented by lines 1 and 4 (where criticism remains within the group).…”

Reaction to poor performers in task groups: A model of pro-group intent.

“…Viewing our current findings through the lens of social identity theory (e.g., Ellemers et al, 1999; Zaccaro & Dobbins, 1989; overview by Scheepers & Ellemers, 2019), one may interpret attributed pro-group intent as perceived affective commitment to the group, a key aspect of social identification (Ellemers et al, 1999). Providing tentative empirical support for the relation of social identification and pro-group intent, group members typically ascribe more constructive motives to critical ingroup members in comparison to outgroup members voicing the same criticism (Hornsey et al, 2004; McCrea et al, 2021; Thürmer & McCrea, 2021). Assuming that a constructive motive may be seen as a facet of pro-group intent, this evidence indicates that ingroup members are typically presumed to have a higher pro-group intent than outgroup members.…”