Attachment only predicts in-group guilt once glorification is statistically removed.

Evidence

Of particular interest in our studies is the notion of critical attachment—attachment with relatively low-level glorification. In Study 1, we captured this conjunction by statistically controlling for glorification when examining the relationship between attachment and group-based guilt. In these studies, the zero-order correlation of attachment to guilt was nearly zero. The correlation of attachment to group-based guilt became positive only after glorification was controlled for. This is consistent with our reasoning that critical attachment is positively related to group-based guilt. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 95

Categorization

• DEFINE: Introduces ‘critical attachment’ as the named conjunction of high attachment and low glorification.
• XREF: connects to: Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 44; Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 7; In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the…, 49 (+2 more)

Related

• Attachment makes individuals vulnerable to guilt over in-group misdeeds. (similarity 0.95)
• Glorification’s correlation to attachment suppresses attachment’s observable effects. (similarity 0.94)
• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. (similarity 0.94)
• Critical attachment produces guilt through refusing to exonerate the group (similarity 0.92)
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness (similarity 0.92)
• Critical attachment primes stronger group-based guilt than conventional attachment. (similarity 0.90)
• Attachment can be experimentally induced toward an ideal rather than actual group (similarity 0.89)
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. (similarity 0.89)
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.88)
• Framing attachment around ideals rather than current traits raises group-based guilt. (similarity 0.87)
• Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. (similarity 0.87)
• Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification. (similarity 0.86)
• Affective group attachment, not mere membership perception, drives non-linear responses to collective guilt (similarity 0.86)
• Glorification and attachment separately predict reactions to national misdeeds (similarity 0.86)
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups (similarity 0.86)

Broader Connections

• Glorification’s correlation to attachment suppresses attachment’s observable effects. #expands (0.90) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 96
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness #expands (0.85) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 7
• Attachment makes individuals vulnerable to guilt over in-group misdeeds. #qualifies (0.85) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 43
• In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt #corroborates (0.80) — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the In-group, 49