Why punish critical outgroup commenters? Social identity, general norms, and retribution

Group members are more likely to punish criticism of the ingroup when it is provided by outgroup members than by fellow ingroup members. Although this effect could reflect a response to threats to social identity, there may be a general conversational norm proscribing intergroup criticism of any kind. In this case, uninvolved bystanders should also punish individuals who criticize other groups. Past studies of these effects have largely relied on self-reports, making it unclear which theoretical account best explains punishment behaviour. Additionally, the motives underlying punishment of intergroup criticism have not been systematically investigated. Punishment could be intended to inform the commenter that such criticism is inappropriate (i.e., a consequentialist motive) or simply enact revenge (i.e., a retributionist motive). We conducted a registered experiment (N > 800) to examine whether (1) uninvolved bystanders punish intergroup criticism as much as intergroup criticism of their own group, and (2) punishment of intergroup criticism is motivated by consequentialist or retributionist motives. Results revealed more negative reactions to and greater punishment of intergroup criticism compared to intragroup criticism. These effects were actually stronger when the participant was a bystander compared with a member of the targeted group. This finding strongly supports the existence of a conversational norm proscribing intergroup criticism. Protection of social identity resulted in more negative reactions to and punishment of any criticism targeting the ingroup, independent of the source. Finally, punishment extended to situations in which the commenter did not learn of the punishment, consistent with a retributionist motive.