Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt.

Evidence

The predicted positive relations between attachment and groupbased guilt, however, might be eliminated by positive relations between attachment and glorification. Glorification may suppress these relations, with a net result of inconsistent relations between attachment to the national group and group-based guilt, as indeed has been found in the collective guilt literature. To reveal the predicted positive relations between attachment and group-based guilt, we need to control for the glorification effect. To reiterate, we predict that it is those who are attached to the nation without glorifying it who are the most susceptible to feelings of groupbased guilt. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 44

Attachment to one’s ingroup was positively related, whereas glorification of one’s ingroup was negatively related to feelings of guilt. After controlling for the effect of using exonerating cognitions (in the mediated model), the relationship between collective guilt and both aspects of identification was lower. A Sobel test confirmed that these reductions were statistically significant. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 965

Categorization

• XREF: Speaks to the reader’s question: attachment and glorification can coexist and confound — glorification acts as a suppressor on the attachment-guilt pathway. — connects to: Affective group attachment, not mere membership perception, drives non-linear responses to collective guilt — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 26; Attachment makes individuals vulnerable to guilt over in-group misdeeds. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 43; In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the…, 49 (+6 more)
• QUESTION: Why was this not a ‘one-way ratchet’ framing? The suppressor logic implies both could coexist in one individual rather than trajectories between modes.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 44; Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 965

Broader Connections

• Attachment only predicts in-group guilt once glorification is statistically removed. #corroborates (0.98) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 95
• In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt #expands (0.85) — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the In-group, 49
• 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