Emotional minimization and explicit dehumanization mediate glorification’s effect on justice

Evidence

Study 1 supported our hypotheses. In the ingroup-perpetrator condition, the multiple mediation analyses indicated that the negative effect of glorification on justice was mediated by moral disengagement strategies. This pattern supports our claim that emotional minimization and explicit dehumanization can function as moral disengagement strategies when confronted with ingroup transgressions, affecting behavioral intentions such as demands for justice. In addition to providing support for the hypothesized process, results also confirmed that, controlling for glorification, attachment to the ingroup does not enhance moral disengagement strategies or lessen demands for justice. If anything, and consistent with what was found by Roccas et al. (2006), attachment showed an opposite effect to that of glorification on one of the moral disengagement strategies, minimization. — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 57

Categorization

• QUESTION: Roccas et al. (2006) found attachment shows the opposite effect on minimization from glorification — worth chasing that source to nail down the direction of the effect.
• XREF: connects to: In-group glorification drives dehumanization and minimization which reduce justice support for own-side atrocities. — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the…, 54; Official injustice compounds wrongdoing when judges dehumanize victims as primitive. — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 29; Glorification uniquely suppresses justice demands when the perpetrator is one’s own group — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 49 (+12 more)

Broader Connections

• Moral disengagement mediates glorification’s suppression of justice demands #corroborates (0.92) — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 57
• Ingroup glorification, not attachment, triggers moral disengagement and reduced justice demands. #corroborates (0.90) — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 113
• Moral disengagement reduces victims’ perceived suffering and thus the desire for justice #expands (0.85)
• Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification. #corroborates (0.85) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 138
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups #corroborates (0.85) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115
• Diffusion of responsibility, distortion of harm, and dehumanization each neutralize moral restraint #expands (0.82) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 62
• Glorification uniquely predicts reduced justice judgments toward outgroup victims in British participants. #exemplifies (0.80) — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 102
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. #expands (0.78) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 48
• Glorification predicts defensive denial of the in-group’s moral violations. #expands (0.78) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 42
• Glorification and attachment separately predict reactions to national misdeeds #qualifies (0.75) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 90