Why being right is not enough: Predicting defensiveness in the face of group criticism

Social impediments to meat-eaters' adherence to critical calls for a meat-free diet: An experimental test of social norm and message source effects

Reducing meat consumption is highly effective for reducing personal carbon emissions, yet most people in Western nations still eat meat. We build on recent research highlighting that group boundaries may impede dietary change by (a) promoting pro-meat norms and (b) prohibiting critical calls for a veg* diet (vegetarian and vegan, i.e., meat-free). Past research relied on self-reports and behavioural measures of engagement, leaving open whether these effects extend to food consumption settings and ad-hoc meal choice. We conducted two pre-registered experiments in which meat-eaters read critical calls to adopt a veg* diet, either by a vegan (outgroup) or a meat-eater (ingroup). In Experiment 2, participants moreover read an article either highlighting a veg* or a meat-eating norm. We then assessed actual (Experiment 1) or hypothetical (Experiment 2) meal choice as dependent variables. As predicted, intergroup criticism (i.e., voiced by veg*s) consistently led to message rejection in comparison to the same criticism voiced by meat eaters, but we did not observe effects on meal choice. Norms neither had a main nor interaction effect on self-reports and behaviour. We discuss potential intermediary processes between engagement with and adoption of a vegan diet and derive evidence-based recommendations for constructive communication across group boundaries.

The influence of trust and social identity in farmers' intentions to report suspected emergency disease outbreaks

This study examines the influence of trust on farmers' intentions to report suspected disease on their farm. Disease reporting is essential to detect and respond to disease early, thereby minimising its impacts on agriculture businesses, the economy, and the environment. Trust has been identified as an important factor influencing farmers' disease reporting intentions but has not been quantitatively investigated. We use an established model of trust-the Integrative Model of Organisational Trust (IMOT)-to conceptualise how trust influences disease reporting intentions. We also examine how social identity is related to trust and disease reporting. Australian plant, livestock, and aquaculture farmers (N = 41) completed an online questionnaire developed from existing validated measures and we also developed two new measures for disease reporting intentions. Trust in government positively and significantly predicted farmer intentions to report suspected disease outbreaks, explaining 26% of the variance. For every one-unit increase in trust, disease reporting intentions increased by over four times. Results also support the role of shared values and group membership as aspects of social identity that influence trust and disease reporting. These results highlight the importance of government decision-makers developing and maintaining trust with farmers to support early detection and response to emergency disease outbreaks.

Heroes or traitors? Perception of whistleblowers depends on the self-relevance of the group being reported

Whistleblowing is the action by which members of an organization report misconduct that occurs within their group to other persons inside or outside the organization. In the present research, we examined perception of whistleblowers in terms of global impressions, emotions, and behavioural intentions. Study 1 reveals negative reactions to whistleblowers, while Study 2 shows positive reactions to whistleblowers. To reconcile these findings, Study 3 varies the self-relevance of the context and reveals that whistleblowers are derogated when the context is highly self-relevant (as in Study 1) and positively evaluated when it is not (as in Study 2). Across the studies, we also show that emotions and the subjective importance of loyalty and fairness influence the evaluation of whistleblowers. Our findings help unveiling the conditions in which whistleblowers are alternatively regarded as heroes or traitors, depending on the perceivers’ point of view.

Intergroup Sensitivity and Promoting Sustainable Consumption: Meat Eaters Reject Vegans’ Call for a Plant-Based Diet

Reducing meat consumption can make immediate contributions to fighting the climate crisis. A growing minority adheres to meat-free diets and could convince others to follow suit. We argue, however, that recipients’ social identification as meat eaters may impede the effectiveness of such calls (i.e., an intergroup sensitivity effect based on dietary groups). Indeed, meat eaters in our experiment (N = 260) were more likely to reject calls for dietary change from a vegan than from a fellow meat eater. This effect was also evidenced in evaluations of and engagement with an initiative to promote a vegan diet (“Veganuary”), providing some indication for behavioral impact. In contrast, our societal dietary norm manipulation had no consistent effects on observed outcomes. Exploratory moderation analyses show a limited impact of participants’ social identification as meat eaters but highlight the role of peoples’ general willingness to engage in environmentally friendly behavior. We discuss theoretical and practical implications, including how our results challenge existing approaches to promoting a meat-reduced diet.

COVID-19 and the Wuhan Diary -how does the overseas Chinese community react to group criticism?

We conduct an online survey to explore how Chinese people living in Germany perceive and react to group criticism in the context of the debate on the Wuhan Diary, a chronicle about life during the lockdown in Wuhan. We find that the majority rating of the book is a lukewarm "neither like nor dislike." Most participants are open to criticism in principle and do not agree that the book only spreads so-called "negative-energy". However, many participants were skeptical about the objectivity of the book and concerned about its potential use by so-called anti-China forces, even though the degree of blind patriotism is relatively low in our sample. The factors influencing the book's evaluation are intriguing: perceived Western sentiment, media exposure and uncritical patriotism all affect COVID-19-related conspiracy beliefs, which in turn lead to a more negative evaluation of the book. A cluster analysis reveals two groups which differ in terms of properties like blind patriotism, belief in certain conspiracies, and also demographic parameters. Our results shed light on identity politics, motivated beliefs, and collective narcissism.

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

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 case, uninvolved bystanders should also punish individuals who criticize other groups. Past studies of these effects have largely relied on self-reports, making it unclear which theoretical account best explains punishment behaviour. Additionally, the motives underlying punishment of intergroup criticism have not been systematically investigated. Punishment could be intended to inform the commenter that such criticism is inappropriate (i.e., a consequentialist motive) or simply enact revenge (i.e., a retributionist motive). We conducted a registered experiment (N > 800) to examine whether (1) uninvolved bystanders punish intergroup criticism as much as intergroup criticism of their own group, and (2) punishment of intergroup criticism is motivated by consequentialist or retributionist motives. Results revealed more negative reactions to and greater punishment of intergroup criticism compared to intragroup criticism. These effects were actually stronger when the participant was a bystander compared with a member of the targeted group. This finding strongly supports the existence of a conversational norm proscribing intergroup criticism. Protection of social identity resulted in more negative reactions to and punishment of any criticism targeting the ingroup, independent of the source. Finally, punishment extended to situations in which the commenter did not learn of the punishment, consistent with a retributionist motive.

You gotta fight! - Why norm-violations and outgroup criticism lead to confrontational reactions

Group members frequently face group-related discrepancies, such as other group members violating group norms or outgroup members criticising the ingroup. In response, they often engage in confrontational reactions like expressing disapproval or excluding the person causing the discrepancy. The present work tests the often voiced but rarely studied idea that group-related discrepancies are met with such confrontational responses because discrepancies elicit feelings of threat. Our approach is inspired by research on threat-regulation, which links certain negative emotions to the activation of specific threat-regulatory systems. Three experiments (N_total = 680) provide evidence suggesting that group-related discrepancies foster emotions consistent with an activation of the Fight-Flight-Freeze-System (especially anger-related emotions tied to fight-tendencies), emotions consistent with an activation of the Behavioural Inhibition System (i.e. anxiety-related emotions), and confrontational intentions. The effect of discrepancies on confrontational intentions was mediated by heightened anger-related emotions. This supports the idea that confrontational reactions are driven by experienced threat and that these reactions are rightfully called confrontational. We discuss our results in relation to research on ingroup norm-violations, outgroup criticism, and threat perception.

Inclusive and exclusive beneficiary attributions: The role of social identity complexity in interpretations of and punishment for dissent

We suggest that intentionality attributed to dissenting behavior in intergroup contexts (e.g., exposing one’s country’s secrets) may be conceptualized as benefitting one of four social circles. Two social circles exclude the perceiver: (a) the actor him/herself and (b) the outgroup affected by the behavior; and two circles include the perceiver: (c) the ingroup of both the perceiver and the actor and (d) humanity as the ultimate collective including both ingroup and outgroup. We further suggest that adopting different beneficiary attributions depends on the perceivers’ social identity complexity (Roccas & Brewer, 2002), which refers to an individual’s representation of their multiple social identities on a continuum from highly overlapping to highly differentiated (i.e., simple vs. complex social identity). Perceivers are more likely to attribute dissent behavior to social circles that exclude (rather than include) themselves the simpler their social identity; such exclusive attributions lead to harsher moral judgements, expressed as punitiveness.

Leaving an attacked group: Authoritative criticism decreases ingroup favoritism

Research suggests people try to protect their social self-esteem from threats from the ingroup or the outgroup. However, how members react to a threat to social self-esteem from a third party remains unclear. Three studies were conducted to examine the influence of a threat to social self-esteem from an authoritative third party on ingroup favoritism. We explored the effect of negative (versus positive) evaluation from the testing system on explicit and implicit ingroup favoritism in Study 1 and Study 2 respectively. We compared the effect of negative evaluation posed by the testing system or the competitive outgroup on ingroup favoritism in Study 3. Results suggested that individuals experiencing a threat to social self-esteem from an authoritative third party manifested less ingroup favoritism than those experiencing no threat or outgroup threat. The theoretical implications of this research on social identity theory and the practical implications of reducing intergroup bias are discussed.

Effect of Threat and Social Identity on Reactions to Ingroup Criticism: Defensiveness, Openness, and a Remedy

Openness to criticism and dissenting opinions is enormously important to group decision-making. Past research has found that people are more persuaded by criticism of their group when it comes from fellow ingroup members rather than outgroup members. But this ingroup advantage is not boundless. Three experiments demonstrate that the ingroup advantage related to openness to criticism is erased when perceivers feel their group is under threat. The results further suggest that the psychological mechanism underlying defensive responses to criticism is attributional—Threat elicits greater suspicion of ingroup critics’ motives, which eliminates the ingroup critic’s advantage relative to outgroup critics. A final experiment tests an intervention designed to increase openness to criticism and finds that reminders of the importance of dissent and free speech emerge as an effective remedy to increase the persuasiveness of criticism despite high threat.

The Effects of Counterfactual Attacks on the Morality and Leadership of Different Professionals

Abstract. Past research has offered contrasting results regarding the effects of attacks on social judgments. In three experiments, we investigated the effects of counterfactual (“If only…”) and non-counterfactual attacks on the morality versus leadership of politicians versus entrepreneurs. First, participants rated morality as the most desirable, but least typical dimension of politicians, and leadership as the most desirable and most typical dimension of entrepreneurs (Study 1). Then, counterfactual attacks led to poorer evaluation of the attacked target and better evaluation of the attacking source as compared to non-counterfactual attacks, especially when counterfactuals were focused on the most desirable dimension for the professional category of the attacked target (Study 2). Similar results emerged when the typicality of the attacked dimension was manipulated (Study 3). Discussion focuses on the higher success of attacks on desirable personality dimensions and of counterfactual attacks as compared to other attacks.

Motivated Collective Defensiveness: Group Members Prioritize Counterarguing Out-Group Criticism Over Getting Their Work Done

Group members defensively reject out-group criticism in self-reports because they perceive it as more threatening than the same criticism from the in-group ( intergroup sensitivity effect). But does this effect motivate action? In five experiments, group members exhibited behavior patterns characteristic of motivated goal pursuit: They prioritized defending their group over completing their individual work (Experiments 1–5), even when work was intrinsically rewarding (Experiment 2) or incentivized (Experiment 3). Lastly, this effect disappeared when group members had attained their goal of protecting their group by other means (i.e., group affirmation; Experiments 4 and 5). Together, the experiments suggest that intergroup sensitivity motivates goal-directed action. We discuss how motivated collective defensiveness may undermine constructive debate and heighten acrimony between groups.

Social identity: The role of self in group processes and intergroup relations

Applications and conceptual developments made in social identity research since the mid-1990s are summarized under eight general headings: types of self and identity, prototype-based differentiation, influence through leadership, social identity motivations, intergroup emotions, intergroup conflict and social harmony, collective behavior and social protest, and resolving social dilemmas. Cautious prognoses for future directions are then suggested—health, e-behavior, population relocation and immigration, culture, language and intergroup communication, societal extremism and populism, social development, and inclusive and diverse social identities.

Solidarity with Animals: Assessing a Relevant Dimension of Social Identification with Animals

Interactions with animals are pervasive in human life, a fact that is reflected in the burgeoning field of human-animal relations research. The goal of the current research was to examine the psychology of our social connection with other animals, by specifically developing a measure of solidarity with animals. In 8 studies using correlational, experimental, and longitudinal designs, solidarity with animals predicted more positive attitudes and behaviors toward animals, over and above existing scales of identification, and even when this implied a loss of resources and privileges for humans relative to animals. Solidarity with animals also displayed predicted relationships with relevant variables (anthropomorphism, empathy). Pet owners and vegetarians displayed higher levels of solidarity with animals. Correlational and experimental evidence confirmed that human-animal similarity heightens solidarity with animals. Our findings provide a useful measure that can facilitate important insights into the nature of our relationships with animals.

The Effects of Counterfactual Attacks on Social Judgments

Two experiments were conducted to compare the effects of different styles of verbal criticism (factual vs. counterfactual) on the perceptions of target, source, and quality of the attack. Counterfactual attacks resulted in more negative overall judgment of the target and ratings of the target’s morality than either factual attacks or no attack. Counterfactual attacks were also rated more positively than factual attacks, and the source of the counterfactual attack was rated as being less biased against the target. Regression analyses confirmed that the observed effect on overall judgment was mediated by the perceived bias of the source. The greater effectiveness of counterfactual attacks was moderated by awareness of prior hostility of the source of the attack toward the target.

Exposure to Outgroup Members Criticizing Their Own Group Facilitates Intergroup Openness

A major barrier to conflict resolution is group members' tendency to hold on to the ingroup's narrative of the conflict and reject the outgroup's perspective. In the current research, we propose that voicing internal criticism to an outgroup crowd can undermine such orientations and foster intergroup openness. Across four experiments, Israeli Jews who were exposed to a Palestinian criticizing Palestinians were more open to the Palestinians' perspective of the conflict, than those not exposed to the criticism. This effect was obtained when the criticism was related (Study 1) and unrelated (Study 2) to the conflict, and was consistently mediated by increased hope about the future relations between the groups. Study 3 showed that the effect is more pronounced among those who believe that groups can change. Study 4 established that perceptions about the outgroup as open-minded underlie the effect of ingroup criticism on hope, and further demonstrated downstream effects of openness.

The password is praise: content of feedback affects categorization of feedback sources

In three experimental studies, we investigated the effect of the content of group-directed feedback on categorization of the feedback source as an ingroup or an outgroup member. In all studies, feedback valence (criticism vs. praise) and the attributional content of feedback (attributing outcomes to internal properties of the group vs. external circumstances) were experimentally manipulated. The results demonstrated that anonymous (Study 1) and ambiguous (Studies 2 and 3) sources of feedback are more likely to be seen as (typical) ingroup members when they provide praise rather than criticism. In addition, in all studies there was a significant interaction between valence and the attributional content of feedback, such that sources of praise were more likely to be seen as ingroup members when they attributed the group's success to internal (rather than external) causes, while the opposite was observed for critics. These effects were mediated by perceived group image threat. Implications for research on group-based feedback and social categorization are discussed.

The many ways to be marginal in a group

Previous theory and research primarily address marginal group members on the path to achieve core membership status. The authors argue that these only represent one form of marginality and that there are many other ways to be marginal within the group. The authors develop a dynamic model in which marginality is conceptualized as resulting from group and individual negotiation about inclusion (the Marginality as Resulting From Group and Individual Negotiation About Inclusion [MARGINI] model), and where individual and group inclusion goals can converge (resulting in relatively stable forms of marginality) or diverge (resulting in less stable forms of marginality). When the marginal position is unstable, individuals can either be motivated to move toward or move further away from the group, and such changing inclusion goals are associated with different emotions and behaviors. The authors argue that one needs to understand the interplay between individual and group inclusion goals to predict and explain the full complexity and diversity of the behavior of marginal group members.

Ingroup ambivalence and experienced discomfort: the moderating roles of affective versus cognitive attitudinal basis, group identification, as mediated by negative beliefs about the ingroup

Prior research has found individuals' reactions to vary depending on whether such associations are activated by emotions (an affective basis) or by beliefs (a cognitive basis) about the object's properties. Accordingly, this conceptual distinction should be relevant also for the discomfortive responses to one's ambivalent attitudes regarding fellow group members (or the ingroup). Findings from two studies support the argument that ambivalence-associated discomfort a) is a general tendency when it regards affect-based ambivalence towards fellow group members, while b) only holds for the more identified group members when ambivalence concerns beliefs about the ingroup, and for this latter group members c) this tendency is driven by the strength of their negative beliefs about the ingroup or fellow group members.

Outgroup helping as a tool to communicate ingroup warmth

The authors extend previous research on the effects of metastereotype activation on outgroup helping by examining in more detail the role of group impression management motives and by studying direct helping (i.e., helping the outgroup believed to hold a negative view of the ingroup). Data from three experiments provided full support for the communicative nature of direct outgroup helping by demonstrating that outgroup helping in response to a negative metastereotype was predicted by participants' concern for the image of their ingroup, but not by their self-image concerns. Moreover, group image concerns predicted outgroup helping but not ingroup helping and predicted outgroup helping only when a negative metastereotype was activated, compared with a positive metastereotype, or a (negative or positive) autostereotype. The results also ruled out an alternative explanation in terms of denying the self-relevance of the metastereotype.

Let another praise you? The effects of source and attributional content on responses to group-directed praise

Not all types of praise may be equally stimulating. Instead, positive feedback carries different meaning depending on the source that delivers it and the attributions for success that it contains. In the present study, source (in-group vs. out-group) of praise and its content (attributing success to internal vs. external causes) were experimentally manipulated. The results revealed that there was a significant interaction between source and content of praise on performance in a praise-related task. As predicted, participants exposed to out-group praise were motivated by external attributions for success rather than by internal attributions. Conversely, when praise originated from an in-group source, the attributional content of praise did not affect performance. This effect of source and content of praise on relevant behaviour was mediated by willingness to protect group image. Thus, responses to praise are contingent on what it implies about group success--corresponding to patterns demonstrated in previous work on group-directed criticism.

Our Flaws Are More Human Than Yours

Four studies investigated whether people tend to see ingroup flaws as part of human nature (HN) to a greater degree than outgroup flaws. In Study 1, people preferentially ascribed high HN flaws to their ingroup relative to two outgroups. Study 2 demonstrated that flaws were rated higher on HN when attributed to the ingroup than when attributed to an outgroup, and no such difference occurred for positive traits. Study 3 replicated this humanizing ingroup flaws (HIF) effect and showed that it was (a) independent of desirability and (b) specific to the HN sense of humanness. Study 4 replicated the results of Study 3 and demonstrated that the HIF effect is amplified under ingroup identity threat. Together, these findings show that people humanize ingroup flaws and preferentially ascribe high HN flaws to the ingroup. These ingroup humanizing biases may serve a group-protective function by mitigating ingroup flaws as “only human.”

Integrating social identity theory and the theory of planned behaviour to explain decisions to engage in sustainable agricultural practices

The present research integrates core aspects of social identity theory with the theory of planned behaviour to investigate factors influencing engagement in sustainable agricultural practices. Using a two-wave prospective design, two studies were conducted with samples of farmers (N = 609 and N = 259, respectively). At Time 1, a questionnaire survey assessed theory of planned behaviour variables in relation to engaging in riparian zone management (a sustainable agricultural practice). In addition, intergroup perceptions (i.e. relations between rural and urban groups), group norms and group identification were assessed. At Time 2, self-reported behaviour was measured. There was support for the integrated model across both studies. As predicted, past behaviour, attitudes and perceived behavioural control were significant predictors of intentions, and intentions significantly predicted self-reported behaviour. Group norms and intergroup perceptions were also significant predictors of intentions providing support for the inclusion of social identity concepts in the theory of planned behaviour. More supportive group norms were associated with higher intentions, especially for high-group identifiers. In contrast, more negative intergroup perceptions were associated with lower intentions and, unexpectedly, this effect only emerged for low-group identifiers. This suggests that in the context of decisions to engage in riparian zone management, an important sustainable agricultural practice, high identifiers are influenced predominantly by in-group rather than out-group considerations, whereas low identifiers may attend to cues from both the in-group and the out-group when making their decisions.

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

We investigated the interplay between the source of criticism and the attributional content of their message on behavioral responses to group-based criticism. Studies 1 and 2 revealed that outgroup critics were more effective when their criticism included internal attributions (to the ingroup’s character) rather than external attributions (the ingroup’s circumstances), whereas there was no effect of attributional content for ingroup critics (a significant Source × Content interaction). Study 3 explored the role of audiences in responses to outgroup criticism. The results indicated that the positive effects of internal versus external attributions were only evident when an outgroup audience was witness to participants’ responses. Furthermore, these effects were mediated through concerns about the ingroup’s image. Together, these patterns suggest that responses to criticism depend not just on the identity of the critic but also on what the critic says and who is watching. People may be surprisingly responsive to outgroup criticism—particularly when inaction might lead others to perceive them as “bad people.”