Apologizing for Intergroup Criticism Reduces Rejection of Public Health Officials' Pro-Vaccine Messages.

Compared to other medical experts, public health officials face added scrutiny of their pro-vaccine messages due to distrust of the US federal government. We consider reactions to such critical messages through the lens of conversational norms. Conversational pragmatics suggest that polite communication is essentially cooperative in nature, avoiding criticism of the other or excessive praise of the self.

Respecting Conversational Norms Improves Reception of Expert Messages Among Unvaccinated Individuals.

The association of medical experts with politically left-leaning cities and states early in the COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated vaccine hesitancy in right-leaning states of the US. Criticism from outside experts violates rules of communication between social groups (i.e.

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.