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.
AbramsD.WetherellM.CochraneS.HoggM. A.TurnerJ. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97-119.
2.
AriyantoA.HornseyM. J.GalloisC. (2006). Group-directed criticism in Indonesia: Role of message source and audience. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 96-102.
3.
AriyantoA.HornseyM. J.GalloisC. (2010). United we stand: Intergroup conflict moderates the intergroup sensitivity effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 169-177.
4.
BenardS. (2012). Cohesion from conflict does intergroup conflict motivate intragroup norm enforcement and support for centralized leadership?Social Psychology Quarterly, 75, 107-130.
5.
De DreuC. K.WestM. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191-1201.
6.
ElderT. J.SuttonR. M.DouglasK. M. (2005). Keeping it to ourselves: Effects of audience size and composition on reactions to criticisms of the ingroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 231-244.
7.
EsposoS. R.HornseyM. J.SpoorJ. R. (2013). Shooting the messenger: Outsiders critical of your group are rejected regardless of argument quality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 386-395.
8.
FinkelsteinE. A.MansfieldC.WoodD.RoweB.ChayJ.OzdemirS. (2017). Trade-offs between civil liberties and national security: A discrete choice experiment. Contemporary Economic Policy, 35, 292-311.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11.
HewstoneM. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error”? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 311-335.
12.
HornseyM. J. (2005). Why being right is not enough: Predicting defensiveness in the face of group criticism. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 301-334.
13.
HornseyM. J.BruijnP. D.CreedJ.AllenJ.AriyantoA.SvenssonA. (2005). Keeping it in-house: How audience affects responses to group criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 291-312.
14.
HornseyM. J.ImaniA. (2004). Criticizing groups from the inside and the outside: An identity perspective on the intergroup sensitivity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 365-383.
15.
HornseyM. J.OppesT.SvenssonA. (2002). “It’s OK if we say it, but you can’t”: Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 293-307.
16.
HornseyM. J.RobsonE.SmithJ.EsposoS.SuttonR. M. (2008). Sugaring the pill: Assessing rhetorical strategies designed to minimize defensive reactions to group criticism. Human Communication Research, 34, 70-98.
17.
HornseyM. J.TrembathM.GunthorpeS. (2004). “You can criticize because you care”: Identity attachment, constructiveness, and the intergroup sensitivity effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 499-518.
18.
HutchisonP.JettenJ.ChristianJ.HaycraftE. (2006). Protecting threatened identity: Sticking with the group by emphasizing ingroup heterogeneity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1620-1632.
19.
JanisI. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
20.
JettenJ.HornseyM. J. (2014). Deviance and dissent in groups. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 461-485.
21.
KaneA. A.ArgoteL.LevineJ. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 56-71.
22.
KhooB. L.SeeY. H. M. (2014). Mortality salience and evaluations of in-group versus out-group critics: The role of criticism legitimacy and perceived threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 242-254.
23.
MackieD. M.WorthL. T.AsuncionA. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812-822.
24.
MeadeA. W.CraigS. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437-455.
25.
MorelandR. L.McMinnJ. G. (1999). Gone but not forgotten: Loyalty and betrayal among ex-members of small groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1476-1486.
26.
PackerD. J. (2009). Avoiding groupthink whereas weakly identified members remain silent, strongly identified members dissent about collective problems. Psychological Science, 20, 546-548.
27.
PenicS.ElcherothG.ReicherS. (2016). Can patriots be critical after a nationalist war? The struggle between recognition and marginalization of dissenting voices. Political Psychology, 37, 481-496.
28.
PostmesT.SpearsR.CihangirS. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918-930.
29.
RamírezC. Z.VerkuytenM. (2011). Values, media framing, and political tolerance for extremist groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1583-1602.
30.
RothgerberH. (1997). External intergroup threat as an antecedent to perceptions in in-group and out-group homogeneity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1206-1212.
31.
RothschildZ. K.AbdollahiA.PyszczynskiT. (2009). Does peace have a prayer? The effect of mortality salience, compassionate values, and religious fundamentalism on hostility toward out-groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 816-827.
32.
SchatzR. T.StaubE.LavineH. (1999). On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20, 151-174.
33.
ShamirM.Sagiv-SchifterT. (2006). Conflict, identity, and tolerance: Israel in the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Political Psychology, 27, 569-595.
34.
SuttonR. M.ElderT. J.DouglasK. M. (2006). Reactions to internal and external criticism of outgroups: Social convention in the intergroup sensitivity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 563-575.
35.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
36.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. 33-47.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
