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

Abstract

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.Imagine reading through online comments on a newspaper article and coming across one that heavily criticizes the political party that you support. You do not know anything about the person who posted this comment, but you will probably not hesitate to draw some conclusions about their political affiliation. In fact, most of us would be likely to make such a conclusion straight away, and to consider the content of the comment through the prism of this inferred group membership. Similar processes are at play when authors receive anonymous reviews of their research. When receiving generally positive feedback about one's work, one often jumps to conclusions about the reviewer's likely affiliation to a particular shared school of thought. As most authors would also know, such attributions lay the ground for easy discounting of critical feedback.In fact, in many instances of receiving feedback (either critical or flattering), we do not have much information about the people who provide such feedback but nonetheless make quick inferences about them. Given that information about the group membership of a feedback provider, when available, has been shown to have substantial effects on responses to feedback (Hornsey, 2005), it would seem important to also understand how such information is inferred when not provided explicitly. This research addresses this question by exploring the effect of feedback content on inferences made about either anonymous or ambiguously characterized feedback sources. In particular, we focus on

Is Group-Directed Praise Always Welcome? Reactions to Ingroup and Outgroup Praise Depend on Linguistic Abstraction

“…Some evidence that individuals are actually sensitive to the source of praise comes from studies of Rabinovich et al (2012), who found that responses to praising messages by ingroup and outgroup members can vary depending on the implied cause of praiseworthy behavior. The authors manipulated the content of praise in order to attribute the excellent academic skills and performance of students of a given university to internal (i.e., intellectual abilities or efforts) or external (i.e., circumstances) causes.…”

“…To date, research on group-based feedback has paid little attention to praise and has pointed out that recipients seem to respond favorably to praising messages regardless of their source (e.g., Hornsey & Imani, 2004; for a review, see Rabinovich & Morton, 2015). However, there is evidence that reactions to outgroup praise depend on its attributional focus (Rabinovich et al, 2012) and that individuals often infer negative beliefs and prejudice even from positive feedbacks (Fiske et al, 2015;Garcia et al, 2006;Kunstman & Fitzpatrick, 2018). Given the potential that praise has to promote desired social change (e.g., Haimovitz & Dweck, 2017), it is important to examine more in depth the conditions under which positive feedbacks addressed to a group are likely to be accepted or to be regarded with suspicion.…”

Paradoxes of praise: Identity‐inconsistent praise results in praise‐inconsistent responses

“…While we are confident that sources of feedback in Studies 1 and 4 must have been seen as external to the group, the presentation of feedback in Studies 2 and 3 was more ambiguous. Taking into account that feedback content can affect perceived group membership of the feedback source (Rabinovich et al, ), and that the observed effects could be expected to vary depending on audience group membership, future research would benefit from incorporating stronger experimental control into feedback source presentation.…”

“…In the domain of group-directed feedback, it has also been shown that some types of praise are more motivating than others. In particular, it has been demonstrated that source of praise and its attributional content play an important role: Praise that is delivered by an outgroup member and that attributes group success to external causes (i.e., the group's circumstances, as opposed to its integral qualities) is particularly motivating because it increases group members' need to defend their group image (Rabinovich, Morton, Crook, & Travers, 2012). In contrast, outgroup praise that attributes success to the group's character (an equivalent of "generic" praise in the research of Cimpian et al, 2007) results in complacency about the group's image, and consequently reduces motivation.…”

Perceived Insider Status and Feedback Reactions: A Dual Path of Feedback Motivation Attribution

“…According to self-categorization theory, when a feedback receiver possesses the group identity and perceive strong self-organization relationship, we may expect that other group members (e.g., supervisor) would be treated as less of a threat to self-identity; they generally possess legitimate identity to convey criticism, and their feedback may be viewed as constructive (Hornsey et al, 2004; Rabinovich et al, 2014). We postulate that either perception of negativity or constructive nature of feedback is a consequence of attribution on feedback deliverer motivation.…”