Falling on deaf ears: The effects of sender identity and feedback dimension on how people process and respond to negative feedback − An ERP study

Rösler, Inga K.; Nunspeet, Félice van; Ellemers, Naomi

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104419

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, prior research has demonstrated that critical evaluations of the self or the ingroup regarding morality result in more negative affect (Rösler et al, 2023;van der Lee et al, 2016) and identity threat (Kouzakova et al, 2012), and reduced motivation to improve their behavior (Rösler et al, 2021), as compared to critical evaluations of the self or the ingroup regarding competence. These are all factors that potentially increase perceptions of situational demands and/or decrease perceptions of available resources (e.g., Blascovich, 2008) that relate to defensive and counterproductive responses (e.g., Does et al, 2012;Kouzakova et al, 2014;Rösler et al, 2021;van der Toorn et al, 2015). As a consequence, we predict that negative morality, rather than competence, evaluations are more likely to induce a motivational state of threat instead of challenge.…”

Section: Challenge and Threatmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Second, negative comments about one's morality are perceived to be more diagnostic of the self (being seen as having more predictive value for future behavior) than negative comments about one's competence (Pagliaro et al, 2016;Skowronski & Carlston, 1987). Finally, prior research has demonstrated that critical evaluations of the self or the ingroup regarding morality result in more negative affect (Rösler et al, 2023;van der Lee et al, 2016) and identity threat (Kouzakova et al, 2012), and reduced motivation to improve their behavior (Rösler et al, 2021), as compared to critical evaluations of the self or the ingroup regarding competence. These are all factors that potentially increase perceptions of situational demands and/or decrease perceptions of available resources (e.g., Blascovich, 2008) that relate to defensive and counterproductive responses (e.g., Does et al, 2012;Kouzakova et al, 2014;Rösler et al, 2021;van der Toorn et al, 2015).…”

Section: Challenge and Threatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Why would moral disapproval provide an inefficient way to alter group members’ behavior? We argue that the greater psychological impact of moral (vs. competence) judgments may impede group members’ perceived ability to cope with moral disapproval (see also Rösler et al, 2023; Sun & Goodwin, 2020). In other words, the ability to cope with negative evaluations is lower when these pertain to morality (rather than competence).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Threatened by the immoral, challenged by the incompetent: Cardiovascular responses to intragroup morality vs. competence evaluations

Lee

Ellemers

Zarzeczna

et al. 2023

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In group contexts, moral judgments are used as social influence tactics to regulate the behavior of group members. We argue that communicating moral disapproval with the aim of adapting group members’ behavior might backfire because it elicits (negative) threat rather than (positive) challenge. In two experiments, we examined the motivational consequences of negative morality (vs. competence) evaluations in group contexts. Participants worked on a group task while cardiovascular indices of challenge and threat motivational states were measured following the biopsychosocial model (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996). In Experiment 1, participants recalled their own prior behavior evaluated as immoral or incompetent; in Experiment 2, participants were exposed to an ingroup member’s prior behavior evaluated as immoral or incompetent. As predicted, in both experiments, reminders of immorality induced a state of threat rather than challenge in a novel group context. These results suggest that moral disapproval intended to motivate group members to adapt their behavior might actually be counterproductive.

show abstract

Section: Challenge and Threatmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Challenge and Threatmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Threatened by the immoral, challenged by the incompetent: Cardiovascular responses to intragroup morality vs. competence evaluations

Lee

Ellemers

Zarzeczna

et al. 2023

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a program of research set up to examine this, responses to receiving real-time feedback were assessed in studies in which participants were first asked to make monetary contributions to a public good (Rösler et al, 2023a) or donations to a charity (Rösler et al, 2023b). These contributions were then judged by ostensible spectators, who evaluated the contributions either positively or negatively, while referring either to participants' competence or morality.…”

Section: Unraveling the Vicious Cyclementioning

confidence: 99%

Regulating other people’s moral behaviors: Turning vicious cycles into virtuous cycles

Nunspeet

Ellemers

2023

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This contribution addresses the relation between moral values, moral choices, and moral behaviors. We build on prior research that has revealed the “paradox of morality”: on the one hand people are highly motivated to do what is moral and to appear moral in the eyes of others. On the other hand, this makes them reluctant to consider moral shortcomings of themselves and self-relevant others—which are considered socially costly and difficult to repair. Here, we highlight the implications this has for those who aim to improve the moral values, choices, or behaviors of others. We posit that the paradox of morality easily introduces a vicious cycle. This happens when people disagree with the moral values of others, criticize their moral choices, or remind them of their inadequate moral behaviors. We review a program of research documenting the counterproductive cognitive, emotional, and behavioral effects that are raised in this way. We then examine how other people’s moral values, choices, and behaviors may be addressed in ways that circumvent such counterproductive responses, resulting in a vicious cycle. We present initial evidence of manipulations and interventions that make people more open to the possibility of reconsidering their moral values and help them improve their moral choices and moral behaviors. The model we present, and empirical validation of implicit mechanisms that distinguish vicious from virtuous cycles has practical implications, and gives rise to new theory and predictions to be tested in future research.

show abstract

“…In support of this model, prior research has revealed that confronting people with their moral failures and questioning their good intentions (rather than questioning their abilities and competence) raises defensive emotional responses (Ellemers, 2017; Giner‐Sorolla, 2012). It reduces the likelihood that people set self‐improvement goals (Sun & Goodwin, 2020; Van der Lee et al., 2016) or accept and remember critique they receive from others to invest in behavioral improvement (Rösler et al., 2021, 2023). Similar evidence of defensive responses is also observed when people are asked to consider the moral failures of other ingroup members (Ellemers, 1993; Ellemers et al., 2002; Gausel & Leach, 2011; Gausel et al., 2012; Giner‐Sorolla, 2012; Lange & Washburn, 2012; see also Petriglieri, 2011).…”

Section: Framework and Description Of Relevant Theory And Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overcoming unintended consequences of social impact accountability: How to avoid counterproductive responses of individuals and groups in organizations

Ellemers,

de Gilder

2023

Social Issues Policy Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This contribution aims to explain when and why policies that increase social accountability are likely to have unintended and counterproductive effects on the social performance of organizations. The Behavioral Regulation Model applies insights from social identity theory to recent research on moral psychology. This elucidates that deep concerns about social approval for one's morality and good intentions, raise “the paradox of morality”: The motivation to signal endorsement of social values and good intentions prompts people to justify and defend shortcomings in these domains, instead of addressing them. We demonstrate how this approach and research supporting it can help recognize and understand a range of defensive responses organizations and their representatives are likely to show. Subsequently, we specify how policymakers, regulators, and other stakeholders can circumvent these counterproductive effects and help people in organizations to show more constructive responses toward social impact improvement.

show abstract

Falling on deaf ears: The effects of sender identity and feedback dimension on how people process and respond to negative feedback − An ERP study

Cited by 11 publications

References 69 publications

Threatened by the immoral, challenged by the incompetent: Cardiovascular responses to intragroup morality vs. competence evaluations

Threatened by the immoral, challenged by the incompetent: Cardiovascular responses to intragroup morality vs. competence evaluations

Regulating other people’s moral behaviors: Turning vicious cycles into virtuous cycles

Overcoming unintended consequences of social impact accountability: How to avoid counterproductive responses of individuals and groups in organizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About