Both weak and strong group identifiers resist compensation but for opposite reasons

Evidence

Our findings generate new questions that we were not able to answer with the data from our current studies. As we have shown in three studies, there seems to be a quadratic relationship between in-group self-investment and collective guilt. A logical next step would be to test for non-linear relationships between selfinvestment and other variables that are related to the acceptance of guilt, such as the acceptance of responsibility (or the occurrence of defensive beliefs) or the willingness to compensate an out-group for an in-group transgression. Consistent with our theoretical argument, it is reasonable to assume that people with low self-investment (i.e. people only loosely attached to the group) would not be willing to compensate because they might not see it as their obligation to do so. Highly invested persons, on the other hand, might not want to admit to their in-group’s failures by compensating because that would pose a threat to their social identity. — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 70

Categorization

• XREF: Directly continues my tipping-point research on attachment-to-glorification conversion: guilt acceptance peaks at mid-range self-investment, bracketing both ends of the curve. — connects to: Stronger group identification correlates near zero with ingroup bias — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 441; Mere minimal group categorization alone triggers discrimination against outgroups — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 430

Related

• Affective group attachment, not mere membership perception, drives non-linear responses to collective guilt (similarity 0.86)
• Group-based guilt peaks at medium self-investment and drops at high levels (similarity 0.86)
• Group self-investment relates to collective guilt in an inverted-U curve. (similarity 0.86)
• Strongly identified group members resist collective guilt more than weakly identified ones. (similarity 0.86)
• In-group identification relates to collective guilt in a non-linear fashion. (similarity 0.86)
• Identification relates to collective guilt along a nonlinear inverted-U curve. (similarity 0.85)
• Group self-investment predicts guilt up to a tipping point where further investment suppresses it (similarity 0.85)
• High identification with a group suppresses collective guilt, not only enables it. (similarity 0.85)
• Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. (similarity 0.85)
• Studies conflict on whether high identification predicts more or less guilt (similarity 0.85)
• Guilt grows monotonically harder to feel as identification strengthens (similarity 0.84)
• Group identification can both enable and block feelings of group-based guilt (similarity 0.83)
• The identification-guilt relation is curvilinear and inverted U-shaped, not linear. (similarity 0.83)
• Guilt requires self-categorizing as a group member (similarity 0.83)
• Ingroup identification only predicts bias under specific moderating conditions (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Mere minimal group categorization alone triggers discrimination against outgroups #complicates (0.75) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 430
• Stronger group identification correlates near zero with ingroup bias #complicates (0.72) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 441