Stubberfield, Tricia (2013) Responses to criticism directed at groups normatively protected from criticism: Does breaking the rules lead to negative social consequences? Coursework Masters thesis, University of Southern Queensland. (Unpublished)
Abstract
The “David and Goliath” rule has been coined for the tendency to perceive groups relatively low in status and power as less normatively permissible to criticise compared to groups relatively high in status and power. Indeed, it has been consistently found that minority group members (e.g., racial minorities, the disabled) receive less negative feedback than majority group members (Harber, 1998, 2004; Harber, Stafford, & Kennedy, 2010; Hastorf, Northcraft, & Picciotoo, 1979). What is less clear, however, is whether the criticism of a David group - a less appropriate target of criticism - compared to the criticism of a Goliath group, is met with negative social ramifications such as negativity, less agreement with the comments, and downgrading of the critic in terms of likeability and personality evaluations. Therefore, the current thesis seeks to address this gap by investigating whether there are negative social consequences for violating the David and Goliath rule and the psychological mechanisms that lead people to make those decisions. More specifically, the aims of the current thesis are threefold: (1) to examine whether critical comments directed towards a David group (low status and power) arouses greater defensiveness compared to critical comments directed towards a Goliath group (high status and power), (2) to examine whether voicing the comments publicly or not would impact responses to the critical comments, and (3) to explore the psychological underpinnings underlying responses to the criticism of David and Goliath groups. Ninety-five undergraduate psychology students (female = 70, male = 25) aged between 17 and 51 volunteered to participate in the study in exchange for course credit. Participants were exposed to critical comments allegedly made about either immigrants (a David group) or celebrities (a Goliath group). Participants were then informed that the comments were either voiced publicly or not. The critical comments were then rated in terms of negativity, agreement with the comments, constructiveness, and damage. The critic’s likeability and personal traits (e.g., friendliness, intelligence) were also evaluated. It was hypothesised that critical comments directed towards immigrants would elicit greater defensiveness (e.g., less agreement, more negativity) than critical comments directed towards celebrities. In other words, breaking the David and Goliath rule would lead to negative social consequences. It was also predicted that breaking the David and Goliath rule publicly would elicit greater defensiveness compared to a private rule violation. In line with the hypothesis, critical comments directed towards immigrants (a relatively low status and power group) were seen as more negative and were agreed with less than those about celebrities (a relatively high status and power group). The comments were also seen as doing more damage to the group and the critic was evaluated more negatively and deemed less likeable when directing comments towards immigrants compared to celebrities. Contrary to predictions, regardless of whether criticisms were directed at immigrants or celebrities, the critic was seen as equally constructive. However, criticisms voiced to a public audience were perceived as more constructive than criticisms kept private. No support was offered for the hypothesis that critics would be more severely downgraded if they voiced their criticism of a David group in public as opposed to keeping it private. Finally, the findings offered some support for the notion that breaking the David and Goliath leads to greater defensiveness because the comments are seen to be doing more damage to the David group. The current thesis provides evidence that there are negative social consequences for breaking a rule pertaining to the criticism of social groups. The findings of the study presented hold a number of important implications including the delivery of negative feedback to members of groups relatively low in status and power. Such implications, specifically within the context of the provision of healthcare services, along with future research recommendations are discussed.
|
Statistics for this ePrint Item |
| Item Type: | Thesis (Non-Research) (Coursework Masters) |
|---|---|
| Item Status: | Live Archive |
| Additional Information: | Current UniSQ staff and students can request access to this thesis. Please email research.repository@unisq.edu.au with a subject line of SEAR thesis request and provide: Name of the thesis requested and Your name and UniSQ email address |
| Faculty/School / Institute/Centre: | Historic - Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences - School of Psychology, Counselling and Community (1 Jul 2013 - 31 Dec 2014) |
| Supervisors: | Carla Jeffries |
| Qualification: | Master of Psychology (Clinical) |
| Date Deposited: | 02 Oct 2025 01:04 |
| Last Modified: | 02 Oct 2025 01:04 |
| Fields of Research (2008): | 17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences > 1799 Other Psychology and Cognitive Sciences > 179999 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences not elsewhere classified |
| Fields of Research (2020): | 52 PSYCHOLOGY > 5299 Other psychology > 529999 Other psychology not elsewhere classified |
| URI: | https://sear.unisq.edu.au/id/eprint/52794 |
Actions (login required)
 |
Archive Repository Staff Only |
