<p>The closest thing I can think of to what you are talking about is loosely referred to as 'Push-Pull'. It happens in a lot of unhealthy relationships and is a favorite tactic of so-called pickup artists. Used appropriately it can be healthy, but it is typically a manipulation tactic. <a href="https://outofthefog.website/top-100-trait-blog/2015/11/4/push-pull" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://outofthefog.website/top-100-trait-blog/2015/11/4/push-pull</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-21T01:29:52.107Z
This reminds me of the cycle of abuse
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-20T15:15:49.440Z
2019-03-20T15:15:49.440Z
Damien DuPont
<p><strong>Sugarcoat</strong> also fits. If this is intentional in order to have them under control, this can be said as a form of <strong>manipulation</strong>. </p>

<p>A reverse effect that the actor may not be aware of that the recipient chose to remember the good information only. This can be described as <strong>cherrypick</strong>. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-20T12:03:12.120Z
2019-03-21T01:29:20.010Z
2019-03-21T01:29:20.010Z
Ooker
<p>I'm not sure it has an established name, (perhaps "lead with the negative",  "bad news first", or “get the bad news out of the way”) but <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167213509113" rel="nofollow noreferrer">research</a> suggests that people prefer to hear the bad news before the good ones... even though that might lower their chances of changing behavior in reaction to the bad news. (For a free but longer summary of the study see <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/ulterior-motives/201406/why-hearing-good-news-or-bad-news-first-really-matters" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this PT page</a>).</p>

<p>The body of research in this area is fairly thin though, so I wouldn't put too much stock in it.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-22T04:39:18.483Z
2019-03-22T04:46:03.250Z
2019-03-22T04:46:03.250Z
got trolled too much this week
<p>It sounds like a variant on the <a href="https://www.findlay.edu/blog/feedback-sandwich-approach" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>sandwich technique</strong></a>, which is advocated by some as the preferred way to deliver critical feedback to a person, like a student or employee. The sandwich technique can be defined as:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>...offer[ing] a piece of negative feedback “sandwiched" between two positive
  ones, thus easing the blow of the critique.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Note that this technique is criticized, because people might not remember the crucial middle critical part of the message, because of the <strong><a href="https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/decision-making/recency-effect/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">recency effect</a></strong>: our brains are hardwired to remember the first and last bits of a conversation whilst glossing over the middle part (source: <a href="https://www.weq.io/post/why-the-sandwich-feedback-doesnt-work-and-what-to-do-instead" rel="nofollow noreferrer">WeQ</a>).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-20T11:29:34.980Z
2019-03-20T16:10:24.913Z
2019-03-20T16:10:24.913Z
AliceD
<p>Say a manager emailing the people under her in a way that to them feels degrading, and putting down. But at the end of the email its encouraging/uplifting type saying I know you are intelligent and capable people. </p>

<p>So is there a name of this type of behavior to attack/degrade then at the end say something nice? </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-22T13:52:42.713Z
Thank you everyone for you help. Gave me quite a bit to lookup. Appreciate it.
Edward Byrds
<social-psychology><terminology><behavior>
What is it called to attack a person then say something uplifting?
Edward Byrds
# What is it called to attack a person then say something uplifting?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-03-20)

Say a manager emailing the people under her in a way that to them feels degrading, and putting down. But at the end of the email its encouraging/uplifting type saying I know you are intelligent and capable people.

So is there a name of this type of behavior to attack/degrade then at the end say something nice?

**Tags:** social-psychology, terminology, behavior

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you everyone for you help. Gave me quite a bit to lookup. Appreciate it.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-03-20. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

It sounds like a variant on the [**sandwich technique**](https://www.findlay.edu/blog/feedback-sandwich-approach), which is advocated by some as the preferred way to deliver critical feedback to a person, like a student or employee. The sandwich technique can be defined as:

> ...offer[ing] a piece of negative feedback “sandwiched" between two positive
> ones, thus easing the blow of the critique.

Note that this technique is criticized, because people might not remember the crucial middle critical part of the message, because of the **[recency effect](https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/decision-making/recency-effect/)**: our brains are hardwired to remember the first and last bits of a conversation whilst glossing over the middle part (source: [WeQ](https://www.weq.io/post/why-the-sandwich-feedback-doesnt-work-and-what-to-do-instead)).


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-03-20. Score: 2

The closest thing I can think of to what you are talking about is loosely referred to as 'Push-Pull'. It happens in a lot of unhealthy relationships and is a favorite tactic of so-called pickup artists. Used appropriately it can be healthy, but it is typically a manipulation tactic. <https://outofthefog.website/top-100-trait-blog/2015/11/4/push-pull>

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: This reminds me of the cycle of abuse  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-03-20. Score: 1

**Sugarcoat** also fits. If this is intentional in order to have them under control, this can be said as a form of **manipulation**.

A reverse effect that the actor may not be aware of that the recipient chose to remember the good information only. This can be described as **cherrypick**.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-03-22. Score: 1

I'm not sure it has an established name, (perhaps "lead with the negative", "bad news first", or “get the bad news out of the way”) but [research](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167213509113) suggests that people prefer to hear the bad news before the good ones... even though that might lower their chances of changing behavior in reaction to the bad news. (For a free but longer summary of the study see [this PT page](https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/ulterior-motives/201406/why-hearing-good-news-or-bad-news-first-really-matters)).

The body of research in this area is fairly thin though, so I wouldn't put too much stock in it.


---

