Why being right is not enough: Predicting defensiveness in the face of group criticism

Criticism of a group can be a catalyst for reform and positive change. Despite this, group-directed criticisms can sometimes face high levels of defensiveness, and can do so even if the comments have objective merit. In this article I review research on group-directed criticism and formulate a model designed to predict when and why people will express defensiveness in the face of criticisms of their group. I argue that, when deciding how to respond to group criticism, people weigh up three independent sets of considerations: (1) attributions about the motives and agenda of the critic (“why would they say that?”), (2) questions about whether the critic had obeyed identity-related rules in the timing and delivery of their criticism (“was it appropriate for them to say that?”), and (3) questions about whether it is in the long-term interests of the individual and the group for them to express support for the criticisms (“strategically, what is the best way for me to respond?”). Practical implications of the model for promoting positive and open communication within and between groups are discussed.