Application of David and Goliath Rule to Modern Society - Thesis Example

However, providing honest yet negative feedback is a difficult task to perform. Critical feedback can lead to a range of negative consequences such as hurt, conflict, and feelings of hopelessness and failure (Baron, 1988l; Gottman, 1994; Gottman & Levenson, 1992; Hooley & Teasdale, 1989; Renshaw, 2008; Weaver, 2006). Praise and positive feedback are easily communicated to others, however, criticism is cited as one of the most avoided communication acts (Blumberg, 1972; Rosen & Tesser, 1972; Tesser & Rosen, 1975).

It is perhaps not surprising then that there are well-established social rules that govern the communication of criticism.It has been consistently demonstrated that it is less acceptable to criticize groups to which you do not belong compared to groups of which you are a member (Hornsey, Oppes, & Svensson, 2002). In a lot of different contexts, it has been established that those who criticize groups outside their own are downgraded more severely and are perceived as less likable than those who criticize their own group (Ariyanto, Hornsey, & Gallois, 2006; Hornsey et al.

, 2005; Hornsey, Frederiks, Smith, & Ford, 2007; Hornsey, Grice, Jetten, Paulsen, & Callan, 2007; Hornsey & Imani, 2004; Hornsey, et al., 2002). Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that negative feedback is calibrated as a function of the target of the feedback with minority group members (e.g., racial minorities, the disabled) receiving less negative feedback than majority group members (Harber, 1998, 2004; Harber, Stafford, & Kennedy, 2010; Hastorf, et al., 1979). Indeed, the “David and Goliath” rule has emerged which states that it is less acceptable to criticize those groups that are low in status and power (David groups) than it is acceptable to criticize those groups high in status and power (Goliath groups) (Jeffries, Hornsey, Sutton, Douglas, & Bain, 2012).

What is less clear, however, is whether the criticism of groups deemed as less appropriate targets of criticism compared to others is met with negative social ramifications such as negativity, less agreement with the criticism, and downgrading of the critic in terms of likeability and personality evaluations.

This thesis therefore examines responses to criticism directed towards David and Goliath groups and the psychological mechanisms that lead people to make those decisions. The research questions proposed are important to examine for a number of reasons. Firstly, according to social rules theory (Argyle, Furnham, & Graham, 1981), the impact of social rules is often only evident when they are disrupted or broken. Indeed, in order for people to learn the rules and be motivated to adhere to them, breaking the rules should be accompanied by adverse social consequences such as disapproval and conflict.

In turn, these rules need to be learned and people willing to enforce them (cf. Mae & Carlston, 2005). For instance, if someone openly criticises low status and power groups and negative reactions are not elicited, it would suggest that people are simply paying lip service to a loose rule of etiquette. On the other hand, if violating this rule is met with social disapproval, it would imply that it is a guarded and socially enforced rule. If the David and Goliath rule – that is, the normative protection of lower status and power groups from criticism – is a guarded rule, it might mean that important yet negative feedback is often withheld to members of certain groups across, for example, educational, organisational, and clinical contexts.

As Winston Churchill said, “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” This quote captures the paradoxical nature of criticism. Although hearing critical comments can be threatening and even painful, at times groups need to hear it in a raw and honest form. Legitimate criticism can be a powerful tool, because it suggests avenues for improvement. Sometimes criticisms are valuable to prevent people and groups repeating their mistakes (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Packer, 2008).

Indeed, groups that do not encourage open and honest airing of inconvenient truths are prone to maladaptive, stagnant and occasionally disastrous decision-making (see Janis, 1982; Moscovici, 1976; Nemeth & Owens, 1996; Postmes, Spears, & Cihangir, 2001). So if there are groups in society that are routinely protected from criticism, this can have positive and negative implications. It can have positive implications in the sense that members of these groups are not buffeted emotionally and psychologically by high levels of negative feedback.

It can have negative implications in the sense that some groups may not be called upon to confront their weaknesses and failures. Although well-intentioned, this “protection” may allow sub-optimal behaviours to survive. The ironic consequence of this is that groups that are considered off-limits to criticism may struggle to thrive and to grow. The aim of this thesis is to examine the notion that social conventions (or rules) that govern communication of criticism exist. More specifically, I examine whether there are social consequences if someone breaks such convention and criticises a group that society views as off-limits to criticism.

In the following section I discuss the initial research conducted to examine how people respond to group-directed criticism. I then review research that investigated the differential treatment of groups in society and the reluctance to communicate criticism to relatively lower status and power groups. Furthermore, evidence that suggests breaking a rule relating to the criticism of certain groups would be met with consequences will be discussed. Finally, I review the method and results of an experiment designed to examine how people respond to criticism of a group as a function of (1) the target group (David versus Goliath) and (2) whether the criticism is voiced publicly or not.

Responses to Group-Directed Criticism: The Intergroup Sensitivity Effect There are the universally accepted rules associated with communication that apply in various relationships (Argyle, Henderson, & Furnham, 1985).