Consensual Qualitative Research on Free Associations for Criticism and Self-Criticism

Introduction

Criticism is defined as “an opinion given about something or someone, esp. a negative opinion, or the activity of making such judgments” (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus, 2019, pg. 327) and has generally negative connotations. Criticism was widely studied by Gottman (1994) in relation to couples and couple therapy. He labeled criticism one of the four “horsemen of the apocalypse” (Gottman, 1994, p. 72). It is important to distinguish between criticism and constructive complaints – criticism is an attack on a person’s character or personality and often involves blame as well, while constructive complaints focus on a specific behavior (Gottman, 1994). Similarly, Baron (1988) differentiates between two types of criticism—constructive and destructive.

Constructive criticism is feedback that is specific, not harsh and is not about a character trait or personality. Destructive criticism does not follow any of these principles (Baron, 1988). In the work environment, destructive criticism tends to occur because the person delivering the criticism is angry and upset and cannot hold back their emotions any longer. At this point, the manner in which the criticism is delivered is influenced by emotions that have built up over a longer period of time (Baron, 1988). In such cases it is not unusual for destructive criticism to be sarcastic in tone. This kind of criticism triggers more negative interactions (Liden & Mitchell, 1985). Destructive criticism can also be used instead of personal conflict and hidden motives, such as different values or personal dislike (Neuman & Baron, 1998). When harsh criticism is given, the recipient considers his or her own actions, along with the motives behind the criticism and the future implications for the relationship with the person delivering it (Ilgen & Davis, 2000). We also know that criticism from others is a very powerful trigger of a cortisol stress response (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004).

Some people are not only criticized by others, but often engage in self-criticism or almost constant self-criticism, which becomes part of their personality. These people are more prone to depression (Blatt & Zuroff, 1992; Greenberg & Watson, 2005), social anxiety (Cox, Fleet, & Stein, 2004), drug abuse (Blatt, 1991), and many other forms of psychopathology. In addition, self-criticism affects the incidence and persistence of psychopathology (Falconer, King, & Brewin, 2016). Self-criticism can be described as a general sensitivity to negative perceptions about ourselves (Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997) or as harsh and constant examination and judgement of ourselves, accompanied with feelings such as worthlessness, guilt, inadequacy, and failure (Blatt & Zuroff, 1992). Shahar (2015) developed an even more detailed description of this phenomenon: self-criticism is a constant intensive relationship with the self. This relationship involves high expectations of a high performance, which is usually unachievable. If these conditions are not met, individuals become hostile and contemptuous of themselves (Shahar, 2015). According to Falconer, King, and Brewin (2016), self-criticism develops in early childhood and is caused by a lack of supportive relationships. Self-criticism is considered to be a relatively stable personality characteristic (Hermanto et al., 2016) and the most severe forms are very hard to change (Werner, Tibubos, Rohrmann, & Reiss, 2019). For some people self-criticism emerges only in some situations or at certain stages of their lives (Whelton, Paulson, & Marusiak, 2007). But research has indicated that various compassionate interventions or psychotherapy can improve clients’ conditions and reduce self-criticism (Kirby, Tellegen, & Steindl, 2017). Self-criticism has a significant impact on clinical practice and we therefore require better knowledge and understanding of this area of study (Halamová, 2018).

Previous research findings related to criticism and self-criticism

Whelton and Henkelman (2002) conducted a verbal analysis of forms of self-criticism. The aim of the study was to document different types of verbal behaviors participants used when criticizing and to compare healthy participants with participants vulnerable to depression. During the first part, the data was subjected to a phenomenological analysis and eight categorical clusters were created from the self-criticism transcripts. The categories were: “demands and orders; exhorting and preaching; explanations and excuses; inducing fear and anxiety; concern, protection, and support; description; explore/puzzle/existential; and self-attack and condemnation” (Whelton & Henkelman, 2002, p. 89).

Destructive criticism, task outcomes and appraisals, and relation to competitiveness was studied by Raver, Jensen, Lee, & O’Reilly (2012). They suggested that people who received destructive criticism were more prone to think the feedback giver had harmful intentions, distrusted and blamed the person giving the feedback, and were more likely to feel angry. Their findings also indicate that competitiveness plays a big part in task outcome. They found that if highly competitive people receive destructive feedback, their motivation to work harder increases. But they also observed a difference among people with low competitiveness. However, task outcome was not reflected in increased intent to work harder. After receiving destructive criticism, highly competitive people performed worse, but following constructive criticism they outperformed low competitive individuals. In contrast people with low competitiveness performed better at tasks after receiving destructive criticism (Raver, Jensen, Lee, & O’Reilly, 2012).

A study by Fong et al. (2018) focused on constructive criticism or constructive feedback. They pointed out that many studies concentrate on the destructive part of criticism, and that only a few studies focus on the other part. They also stressed that constructive feedback can help individuals recover from failure and improve learning. In order to better understand perceptions of constructive feedback they conducted several focus groups. The researchers developed a process model with three main aspects so as to gain a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of constructive criticism. These three main aspects of constructive criticism are: 1. the person who gives feedback must be deserving of respect and the reason for giving the criticism needs to be a caring one; 2. it is important that the message reflects good intentions, focuses on the problem and provides guidance for improvement; 3. understanding of the feedback needs to be reflected in change of emotions and motivation and therefore change in work can occur (Fong et al., 2018).

As we mentioned above, self-criticism plays an important role in various mental disorders. Wernere et al. (2019) analyzed the literature from 2012 and 2018 to gain an understanding of self-criticism and psychopathology. They found a positive connection between self-criticism and “symptoms of eating disorders, social anxiety disorder, and personality disorders as well as to psychotic symptoms or interpersonal problems” (Werner et al., 2019, p. 530). Two main treatments were identified—emotion focused therapy and compassion focused therapy. Both treatments reduced self-criticism in the non-clinical and clinical samples. However, some forms of self-criticism were hard to change (Werner et al., 2019).

Similarly to self-criticism, the research on perceiving compassion is growing. Some researchers see self-compassion as the antidote to self-criticism (e.g. Gilbert & Procter, 2006; Greenberg, 2011) and therefore a better means of treating self-criticism, but it is also important to understand self-compassion. Baránková, Halamová and Koróniová (2019) explored compassion from a non-expert perspective. The results support a multidimensional definition of compassion with compassion being described as a mixture of non-specified positive emotions and specified negative emotions (mainly fear, remorse, and sadness). In addition, compassion was related to empathy and, in terms of behaviors, compassion was found to be beneficial and support mental closeness and interest.

A study of associations for compassion and self-compassion among psychology students indicated the terms contained further dimensions: Emotional, Cognitive, Behavioral and Evaluative Aspects of compassion/self-compassion (Halamová, Baránková, Strnádelová, & Koróniová, 2018). The most frequently represented domain for both compassion and self-compassion was the Emotional Aspect. Participants perceived compassion as mainly consisting of empathy; the emotions of love, sadness, and remorse; cognitive understanding; and behavioral displays of help and physical or mental closeness. Self-compassion was viewed primarily in terms of the positive emotions of love and calmness; the negative emotions of unhappiness, sadness, and remorse; cognitive understanding; and behavioral displays of self-help through the provision of self-support and self-assurance.

To the best of our knowledge, there has been no research analyzing first associations for criticism and self-criticism. Also, there is very little qualitative research on criticism and self-criticism which would help us gain a deeper understanding of what people associate these concepts with and how people understand these concepts. On top of that, self-criticism plays a key role in psychopathology and therefore it is important to learn how people perceive criticism and self-criticism.

Aim of the study

Our aim was to categorize the first three association words students of psychology produced in relation to the stimulus words criticism and self-criticism. We were interested in which associations participants related to criticism and self-criticism, whether participants conceptualized these two concepts in the same categories and whether the categories would be equally important for each concept.

Methods

Results

In total 688 free associations, from 151 participants, were coded and assigned to one of four domains. Criticism consisted of 348 coded phrases and self-criticism of 342phrases. During the analysis all the researchers agreed to exclude associations not related to the subject matter. Ten associations were excluded from the self-criticism construct (e.g. general knowledge) and seven were excluded from criticism (e.g. grey). For both constructs four domains were created. Criticism was assigned 8 subdomains, 18 categories, and 6 characteristics. Self-criticism was assigned 7 subdomains, 14 categories, and 6 characteristics. Details of the data categorization with specific examples for criticism can be found in Appendix 1, and for self-criticism in Appendix 2.

The behavioral aspects domain consisted of all content relating to behavior, such as behavior manifestation, motivation to improve, and how to deal with criticism and self-criticism. This domain included progress, change, constructive and negative expressions, specific acts, and changing mindset. Associations found in both concepts for this domain were progress, change, motivation, help, and advice. The cognitive aspects domain consisted of all thought-related associations. All of these were linked to evaluation and so only one subdomain emerged. Afterwards two main categories were created: content and form. Content consisted of all associations describing the product of the evaluation process. Forms included all the associations describing all types of evaluation. A third category emerged in relation to criticism: Evaluation of Importance. This category consisted of all the associations that evaluated criticism as important. Examples of Content associations allocated to this category were negative feedback, evaluation, and excessive criticism. While for Form they included perception, biased, excessive and justified. For Evaluation of Importance, they were essential and important associations. The Precondition domain contained anything leading to and causing criticism and self-criticism. Both internal and external sources were identified as categories. Internal sources included all associations connected to the person and his/her characteristics, while external sources consisted of all the sources of criticism that are dependent on the environment, other people, and things. Examples of internal sources were weakness, me, laziness, and low self-esteem. Examples of external sources were family, work, relationships, and enemy. The Emotional Aspects domain included all feeling and emotion associations or images. Criticism consisted only of negative associations, while self-criticism had a small number of positive emotions such as love, self-love, and happiness. Examples of negative associations were hate, anger, fear, and sorrow.

Behavioral Aspects was the most represented domain in relation to criticism (f =125; 36%). It consisted of four subdomains, Motivational Function (e.g. being better), Aggression Expressions (e.g. attack), Behavioral Expressions (e.g. lecturing), and How to Handle Criticism (e.g. advice, ability to accept). Cognitive Aspects was the second most represented domain (f =104; 30%). Only one subdomain was created—Evaluation, which was divided into three categories—Content, Form, and Evaluation of Importance. Both content and form had three characteristics—negative, neutral, and constructive. Examples of content were: negative (e.g. underlining mistakes, negative feedback), neutral (e.g. evaluation, analysis) and constructive (e.g. another point of view), while examples of form were: negative (e.g. harsh, excessive), neutral (e.g. truth, adequate) and constructive (e.g. justified, constructive). A third category was created for criticism—Evaluation of Importance. This category consisted of a small number of associations (e.g. important, essential). The third most represented domain was Preconditions (f =69; 20%). This domain had two subdomains— Internal (e.g. self-worth) and External (e.g. rival, enemy) sources. The least frequent domain relating to criticism was emotional aspects (f =48; 14%), which had only one subdomain— Emotions. This subdomain contained two categories: general negative emotions (e.g. bad feelings) and specific negative emotions (e.g. fear). For a comparison of criticism in percentages see Chart 1.

Behavioral Aspects was the most frequently represented domain relating to self-criticism (f =133; 39%) and contained three subdomains. These subdomains were Motivational Function (e.g. improvement, new beginnings), Behavioral Expressions (e.g. lecturing), and How to Handle Criticism (e.g. discipline, understanding). The second most frequent domain was Preconditions (f =87; 25%). The subdomains contained within Preconditions were Internal (e.g. laziness, low self-esteem) and External (e.g. family, relationships) sources. The third most frequent domain relating to self-criticism was Cognitive Aspects (f =74; 22%). Cognitive Aspects include only one subdomain – Evaluation, which was divided into two categories: Content and Form. Both included three characteristics: neutral (e.g. content – self-analysis, form – being objective), negative (e.g. content – too much criticism, form – biased), and constructive (e.g. content – reality, form – constructive). The least represented domain relating to self-criticism was Emotional Aspects (f =48; 14%), containing only one subdomain: Emotions. In contrast to criticism, some positive emotions emerged in this concept, producing two categories: Positive Emotions (e.g. self-love) and Negative Emotions (e.g. hate, pity).

A comparison of the percentages for self-criticism can be seen in Figure 2. A more detailed comparison of each domain is given in Table 1. To improve clarity, only the domain, subdomains, and categories are included in table 1.

Figure 1

Share of each criticism domain.

Figure 2

Share of each self-criticism domain.

Discussion

The goal of our study was to explore and categorize the first three associations for two constructs—criticism and self-criticism. Both constructs are highly significant for well-being as well as psychopathology and so obtaining more in-depth knowledge about these concepts is very desirable. We were interested in whether any patterns would emerge within these constructs, and whether they could be conceptualized in the same terms.

The same domains emerged for both concepts during coding—Behavioral Aspects, Cognitive Aspects, Preconditions, and Emotional Aspects. However, differences can be found in the saturation of each domain. Behavioral Aspects was the most frequent domain and Emotional Aspects was the least frequent domain for both concepts, and the second and third domains differed for each concept. Differences were also found at the subdomain and category level.

Conclusion

Our research supports the finding that criticism and self-criticism are multidimensional concepts. The data were categorized into four domains, which were the same, for both concepts. The most frequent domain—Behavioral Aspects—and the least frequent domain – Emotional Aspects—was the first domain for both criticism and self-criticism. However, the second and third most frequent domains differed according to concept. Cognitive Aspects came second in relation to criticism and Preconditions came third. But for self-criticism the second and third domains were in the reverse order. Criticism and self-criticism were mainly viewed in terms of behavior. These behaviors were both negative and positive. Behavioral Aspects also had the most subdomains. Cognitive Aspects and Preconditions were a significant part of criticism and self-criticism. That means that if we are to better understand these concepts, we require more research into form, content, and the triggers of criticism and self-criticism.