Criticism in Relationships

Giving Criticism

Criticism is a speech act that can be useful but difficult to hear. How criticism is communicated affects whether or not it is perceived to be constructive or destructive. In general, recipients respond more positively to criticism that is specific, clear, and communicated in conjunction with positive evaluations (e.g., “When we make dinner plans, you are frequently late; I love having the chance to see you, but would enjoy it more if you show up at the time we agree on”) than criticism that is negative, general, and vague (e.g., “It irritates me that you are always showing up late”). Nonverbally, constructive criticism is communicated with calm, positive nonverbal affect in contrast to loud and/or hostile nonverbal cues. Additionally, criticism communicated in private tends to get a better response from the recipient than public evaluation. The content of criticism also matters. Recipients are more likely to respond positively to criticism that they perceive to be accurate and fair, that contains suggestions for action, and that reflects concern for the individual.

Although criticism has an instrumental purpose (i.e., encouraging change or personal development), effectively communicating criticism also requires attention to what it says about the individual and the relationship. Criticism can be a face-threatening activity that undermines the desired social identity of the recipient. For example, criticizing a friend's late behavior may challenge his or her desired identity as a good friend and responsible person. Both positive face (the desire for approval or to be perceived as competent) and negative face (the desire for autonomy or freedom from imposition) may be threatened by criticism. Criticism indicates disapproval (e.g., “You are not being a considerate friend”) and may suggest that the recipient should behave in a particular way (e.g., “You should stop showing up late”). Certain topics of criticism (e.g., personal characteristics) threaten face more than others (e.g., behaviors) perhaps because the former are more stable and less likely to change. Both linguistic politeness strategies such as apologies, hedges (e.g., possibly, maybe), or claims of common ground through emphasis on commonalities as well as nonverbal politeness strategies (e.g., smaller gestures, positive facial expressions, softer voice) can mitigate the threat to face inherent in criticism.

...