Attachment can be experimentally induced toward an ideal rather than actual group

Evidence

In the United States, Schatz et al. (1999) measured this critical mode of identification (i.e., attachment without glorification) directly with items such as “If I criticize the United States, I do so out of love for my country” and “I express my love for America by supporting efforts at positive change.” It might be argued that these are compound items that simultaneously probe extent of attachment and willingness to criticize the in-group. We supplement this methodology in two ways. In Study 1 we measured attachment and glorification. Then we isolated attachment without glorification by statistically controlling glorification scores when examining the effects of attachment. In Study 2 we experimentally induced attachment without glorification by focusing the participants’ attachment on the way the group should ideally be rather than on the current image they have of the group. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 135

Categorization

• QUESTION: The experimental induction — focusing attachment on the group as it should ideally be — bears directly on whether glorification is a one-way ratchet or can be shifted back toward attachment.
• XREF: connects to: Framing attachment around ideals rather than current traits raises group-based guilt. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 128; Attachment and glorification positively correlate as shared group identification. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 39; Critical attachment primes stronger group-based guilt than conventional attachment. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 113 (+1 more)

Related

• Framing attachment around ideals rather than current traits raises group-based guilt. (similarity 0.91)
• Glorification’s correlation to attachment suppresses attachment’s observable effects. (similarity 0.89)
• Attachment only predicts in-group guilt once glorification is statistically removed. (similarity 0.89)
• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. (similarity 0.89)
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness (similarity 0.88)
• Attachment and glorification positively correlate as shared group identification. (similarity 0.88)
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.87)
• Critical attachment produces guilt through refusing to exonerate the group (similarity 0.87)
• Attachment and glorification form two distinct latent factors (similarity 0.87)
• Attachment makes individuals vulnerable to guilt over in-group misdeeds. (similarity 0.87)
• Critical attachment primes stronger group-based guilt than conventional attachment. (similarity 0.87)
• Glorification and attachment separately predict reactions to national misdeeds (similarity 0.86)
• Focusing on the ideal rather than actual image of a nation reduces glorification (similarity 0.86)
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. (similarity 0.86)
• Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. (similarity 0.85)

Broader Connections

• Framing attachment around ideals rather than current traits raises group-based guilt. #expands (0.95) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 128
• Critical attachment primes stronger group-based guilt than conventional attachment. #qualifies (0.85) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 113
• Attachment and glorification positively correlate as shared group identification. #corroborates (0.75) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 39