Peran status sosial sebagai moderator pada pengaruh keanggotaan kelompok terhadap evaluasi kritik
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh keanggotaan kelompok terhadap intergroup sensitivity effect (ISE) yang dimoderatori oleh status sosial sumber kritik. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian eksperimen dengan desain faktorial 2 (keanggotaan kelompok: ingroup vs outgroup) x 2 (status sosial: status sosial tinggi vs status sosial rendah) dengan between subjects design. Target kritik adalah mahasiswa Universitas Indonesia. Isi kritik berkaitan dengan kurangnya fasilitas yang terdapat di Universitas Indonesia. Sumber kritik ingroup adalah pimpinan eksekutif dan staf Universitas Indonesia, sementara sumber kritik outgroup adalah pimpinan eksekutif dan staf Universitas Gadjah Mada. Status sosial sebagai moderator divariasi berdasarkan jabatan di universitas. Partisipan dalam penelitian ini berjumlah 400 orang. Analisis data yang digunakan adalah two ways analysis of variance (ANOVA). Berdasarkan hasil analisis, keanggotaan kelompok menjadi prediktor dalam perbedaan evaluasi kritik yang disampaikan ingroup dan outgroup. Status sosial sumber kritik juga diterbukti dapat meningkatkan evaluasi outgroup menjadi lebih positif.
Keywords
References
Echterhoff, G. & Kopietz, R. (2017). Shared reality in intergroup communication: increasing the epistemic authority of an out-group audience. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 146(6), 806-825.
Elder, T. J., Sutton, R. M., & Douglas, K. M. (2005). Keeping it to Ourselves: Effects of Audience Size and Composition on Reactions to Critics of the Ingroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(3), 231–244.
Esposo, S. R., Hornsey, M. J., & Spoor, J. R. (2013). Shooting the messenger: Outsiders critical of your group are rejected regardless of argument quality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 386- 395.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 575-604.
Hornsey, M. J. (2005). Why being right is not enough: Predicting defensiveness in the face of group criticism. European review of social psychology, 16(1), 301-334.
Hornsey, M. J., Robson, E., Smith, J., Esposo, S., & Sutton, R. (2008). Sugaring the pill: Assessing rhetorical strategies designed to minimize defensive reactions to group criticism. Human Communication Research, 34, 70–98.
Hornsey, M. J., Trembath, M., & Gunthorpe, S. (2004). ‘You can criticize because you care’: Identity attachment, constructiveness, and the intergroup sensitivity effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(5), 499-518.
Hornsey, M.J. & Esposo, S. (2009). Resistance to group criticism and recommendations for change: Lessons from the intergroup sensitivity effect. Social and Personality Psychology Compas, 3(3), 275-291.
Hornsey, M.J. & Imani, A. (2004). Criticizing groups from the inside and the outside: An identity perspective on the intergroup sensitivity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 365-383.
Hornsey, M.J. (2008). Social identity theory and selfcategorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, (2), 204-222.
Hornsey, M.J., Oppes, T. & Svensson, A. (2002).“It’s OK if we say it, but you can’t”: Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 293-307.
Khoo, B.L.Z. & See, Y.H.M. (2014). Mortality salience and evaluations of in-group versus out-group critics: The role of criticism legitimacy and perceived threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 242- 254.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 97(6), 992.
Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (1998). Intergroup relations: Insights from a theoretically integrative approach. Psychological review, 105(3), 499.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management review, 25(4), 706-725.
Myers, D.G. (2012). Social Psychology 11 edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Packer, D. J. (2008). On being both with us and against us: A normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 50–72.
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 99(5), 771.
Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2017). Social power and social class: Conceptualization, consequences, and current challenges. Current opinion in psychology, 18, 26-30.
Schmid, P.C. & Amodio, D.M. (2016). Power effects on implicit prejudice and stereotyping: The role of intergroup face processing. Social Neuroscience.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An intergrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Wilder, D., & Simon, A. F. (2001). Affect as a cause of intergroup bias. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes, 153-172.
Yap, A. J., Wazlawek, A. S., Lucas, B. J., Cuddy, A. J., & Carney, D. R. (2013). The ergonomics of dishonesty: The effect of incidental posture on stealing, cheating, and traffic violations. Psychological science, 24(11), 2281-2289.
Article Statistic
Abstract view : 568 timesPDF (Bahasa Indonesia) views : 510 times
Dimensions Metrics
Article History
Submited : 26 June 2019Published : 15 October 2019
How To Cite This :
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2019 Risna Febriani, Rizka Halida, Amarina Ariyanto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
