Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations.

Evidence

The authors examined the relationships between 2 modes of national identification (attachment to the in-group and the in-group’s glorification) and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations among Israeli students. Data were collected during a period of relative calm in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as well as during a period of great intensification of this conflict. As expected, in Study 1, the 2 modes of identification had contrasting relationships with group-based guilt: Attachment was positively related whereas glorification was negatively related to group-based guilt for in-group’s past infractions. Glorification suppressed the attachment effect but not vice versa. Both relationships were mediated by the use of exonerating cognitions. In Study 2, group-based guilt for the in-group’s current wrongdoings was increased by priming critical rather than conventional attachment to the in-group, suggesting a causal effect of mode of identification on the experience of negative group-based emotions. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 2

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the two modes of national identification and their contrasting valence toward in-group’s moral violations — the foundational design of this study.
• XREF: This is the foundational source for the attachment/glorification distinction; connects to the reader’s broader research on whether attachment can convert into glorification. — connects to: Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 138; 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 but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115 (+9 more)
• QUESTION: Study 2 primed ‘critical’ vs ‘conventional’ attachment — worth chasing how critical attachment relates to glorification, and whether the priming crossed into glorified territory.

Related

• Glorification and attachment separately predict reactions to national misdeeds (similarity 0.94)
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness (similarity 0.94)
• Glorification predicts defensive denial of the in-group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.94)
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. (similarity 0.94)
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups (similarity 0.92)
• In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt (similarity 0.92)
• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. (similarity 0.92)
• Attachment and glorification form two distinct latent factors (similarity 0.90)
• Glorification’s correlation to attachment suppresses attachment’s observable effects. (similarity 0.90)
• Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification. (similarity 0.90)
• Attachment makes individuals vulnerable to guilt over in-group misdeeds. (similarity 0.90)
• Critical attachment primes stronger group-based guilt than conventional attachment. (similarity 0.89)
• Studies conflict on whether high identification predicts more or less guilt (similarity 0.89)
• Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. (similarity 0.89)
• Framing attachment around ideals rather than current traits raises group-based guilt. (similarity 0.89)

Broader Connections

• Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification. #expands (0.95) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 138
• In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt #corroborates (0.92) — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the In-group, 49
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness #corroborates (0.90) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 7
• Glorification predicts defensive denial of the in-group’s moral violations. #corroborates (0.90) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 42
• Glorification and attachment separately predict reactions to national misdeeds #corroborates (0.88) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 90
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups #expands (0.85) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. #expands (0.85) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 48
• Highly identified group members minimize collective guilt by morally reinterpreting ingroup wrongs #expands (0.80) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2278
• Affective group attachment, not mere membership perception, drives non-linear responses to collective guilt #qualifies (0.72) — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 26