The intergroup sensitivity effect (ISE) refers to individuals responding more negatively to criticism directed toward their ingroup if the criticism is delivered by someone outside the group. The ISE has never been examined for groups defined by race. In light of ongoing racial tensions in America, the purpose of the current research was to examine whether the ISE replicates among racial groups. Study 1 replicated the ISE among African American, European American, and Latinx American university students and, unexpectedly, found that European American participants responded more positively to praise delivered by a racial outgroup member. Study 2 replicated these results in a nonstudent sample and identified motivation to respond without prejudice as a moderator of the praise effect. In both studies, the ISE was mediated by perceptions of comment legitimacy/constructiveness but was not moderated by feelings toward the outgroup. Future directions and explanations for the praise effect are discussed.
AveryD. R.RichesonJ. A.HeblM. R.AmbadyN. (2009). It does not have to be uncomfortable: The role of behavioral scripts in Black–White interracial interactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1382–1393. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016208
3.
BarghJ. A. (1984). Automatic and conscious processing of social information. In WyerR. S.SrullT. K. (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 1–43). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
4.
CrowneD. P.MarloweD. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
5.
CzoppA. M.MonteithM. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(4), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250923
6.
CzoppA. M.MonteithM. J.MarkA. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 784–803. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.784
7.
DevineP. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5
8.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11, 315–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00262
9.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 36, pp. 1–52). Elsevier Academic Press.
10.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.PearsonA. R. (2017). Aversive racism and contemporary bias. In SibleyC. G.BarlowF. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice. (pp. 267–294). Cambridge University Press.
11.
DuttonD. G. (1973). Reverse discrimination: The relationship of amount of perceived discrimination toward a minority group on the behaviour of majority group members. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 5, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082326
12.
DuttonD. G.LakeR. A. (1973). Threat of own prejudice and reverse discrimination in interracial situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035582
13.
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(2), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12024
14.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
GulkerJ. E.MarkA. Y.MonteithM. J. (2013). Confronting prejudice: The who, what, and why of confrontation effectiveness. Social Influence, 8(4), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.736879
17.
HarberK. D. (1998). Feedback to minorities: Evidence of a positive bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 622–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.622
HarberK. D.ReevesS.GormanJ. L.WilliamsC. H.MalinJ.PennebakerJ. W. (2019). The conflicted language of interracial feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 1220–1242. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000326.supp
20.
HarberK. D.StaffordR.KennedyK. A. (2010). The positive feedback bias as a response to self-image threat. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X473956
21.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
22.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028
23.
HornseyM. J.De BruijnP.CreedJ.AllenJ.AriyantoA.SvenssonA. (2005). Keeping it in-house: How audience affects responses to group criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.246
24.
HornseyM. J.EsposoS. (2009). Resistance to group criticism and recommendations for change: Lessons from the intergroup sensitivity effect. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00178.x
25.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203261295
26.
HornseyM. J.OppsT.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. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.90
27.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.212
MaD. S.CorrellJ.WittenbrinkB. (2015). The Chicago Face Database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1122–1135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
30.
MajorB.KunstmanJ. W.MaltaB. D.SawyerP. J.TownsendS. S. M.MendesW. B. (2016). Suspicion of motives predicts minorities’ responses to positive feedback in interracial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.007
31.
MendesW. B.BlascovichJ.LickelB.HunterS. (2002). Challenge and threat during social interaction with White and Black men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 939–952. https://doi.org/10.1177/01467202028007007
32.
MendesW. B.KoslovK. (2013). Brittle smiles: Positive biases toward stigmatized and outgroup targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 923–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029663
33.
MendesW. B.MajorB.McCoyS.BlascovichJ. (2008). How attributional ambiguity shapes physiological and emotional responses to social rejection and acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.278
34.
MillerW. E. (1982). American national election study, 1980. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
35.
NailP. R.HartonH. C.DeckerB. P. (2003). Political orientation and modern versus aversive racism: Tests of Dovidio and Gaertner’s (1998) integrated model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 754–770. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.754
36.
NemethC.OwensP. (1996). Making work groups more effective: The value of minority dissent. In WestM. A. (Ed.), The handbook of workgroup psychology (pp. 125–141). Wiley.
37.
PlantE. A.DevineP. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811
38.
RabinovichA.MortonT. A. (2015). Things we (don’t) want to hear: Exploring responses to group-based feedback. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 126–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1115214
39.
RichesonJ. A.SheltonJ. N. (2007). Negotiating interracial interactions: Costs, consequences, and possibilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 316–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00528.x
40.
SheltonJ. N. (2003). Interpersonal concerns in social encounters between majority and minority group members. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006002003
41.
SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A. (2006). Ethnic minorities’ racial attitudes and contact experiences with White people. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.12.1.149
42.
SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A. (2015). Interacting across racial lines. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.DovidioJ. F.SimpsonJ. A. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 2. Group processes (pp. 395–422). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14342-015
43.
ThürmerJ. L.McCreaS. M. (2018). Beyond motivated reasoning: Hostile reactions to critical comments from the outgroup. Motivation Science, 4(4), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000097
44.
ThürmerJ. L.McCreaS. M.McIntyreB. M. (2019). Motivated collective defensiveness: Group members prioritize counterarguing out-group criticism over getting their work done. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618762298
45.
TroppL. R.PettigrewT. F. (2005). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1145–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205274854
46.
VorauerJ. D.TurpieC. A. (2004). Disruptive effects of vigilance on dominant group members’ treatment of outgroup members: Choking versus shining under pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.384
47.
WilliamsD. R.YuY.JacksonJ. S.AndersonN. B. (1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health: Socio-economic status, stress and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology, 2, 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910539700200305
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.
