Critical attachment primes stronger group-based guilt than conventional attachment.

Evidence

To test the hypothesis that priming critical attachment induces stronger group-based guilt than priming conventional attachment, we compared the mean level of group-based guilt associated with Israel’s current treatment of its Arab minority in the two groups. As predicted, the mean score of group-based guilt was significantly higher in the critical attachment condition (M 3.57, SD 0.78) than in the conventional attachment condition (M 3.24, SD 0.74), t(87) 2.05, p .05. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 113

Categorization

• XREF: 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; Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 25; 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 (+7 more)

Related

• Critical attachment produces guilt through refusing to exonerate the group (similarity 0.94)
• Priming critical versus conventional attachment primes categorically distinct group attributes. (similarity 0.92)
• Attachment makes individuals vulnerable to guilt over in-group misdeeds. (similarity 0.92)
• Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. (similarity 0.90)
• Framing attachment around ideals rather than current traits raises group-based guilt. (similarity 0.90)
• Attachment only predicts in-group guilt once glorification is statistically removed. (similarity 0.90)
• Affective group attachment, not mere membership perception, drives non-linear responses to collective guilt (similarity 0.90)
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.89)
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness (similarity 0.89)
• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. (similarity 0.88)
• Studies conflict on whether high identification predicts more or less guilt (similarity 0.88)
• Group identification can both enable and block feelings of group-based guilt (similarity 0.87)
• Attachment can be experimentally induced toward an ideal rather than actual group (similarity 0.87)
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. (similarity 0.86)
• Glorification’s correlation to attachment suppresses attachment’s observable effects. (similarity 0.86)

Broader Connections

• Framing attachment around ideals rather than current traits raises group-based guilt. #expands (0.92) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 128
• Priming critical versus conventional attachment primes categorically distinct group attributes. #expands (0.85) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 111
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups #qualifies (0.80) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115
• In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt #qualifies (0.78) — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the In-group, 49
• Strongest ingroup identifiers are least likely to feel collective guilt #qualifies (0.75) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1170