Focusing on the ideal rather than actual image of a nation reduces glorification

Evidence

Note that the tasks in the two experimental conditions were very similar: Participants listed those characteristics of Israel they associated with their attachment. The two statements used in both conditions (“I love Israel” and “viewing myself as an Israeli is important to me”) were taken from the attachment scale used in Studies 1 and 2. However, the two experimental conditions differed in their focus: In the conventional attachment condition, participants focused on the actual attributes of Israel; in the critical attachment condition, participants focused on desired or ideal attributes of Israel. In both cases we expected that participants would list positive attributes of the Israeli group, but we expected these attributes to be different in content and to refer to the actual group in the former condition and to the ideal group in the latter condition. To ascertain that thinking about one’s attachment to the ideal image of Israel lowers glorification, we examined the responses of 30 additional students who completed either the ideal (critical attachment) or the actual (conventional attachment) versions of the task and then completed the measure of glorification. Participants in the ideal condition (M 3.27, SD 0.58) expressed less glorification than those in the conventional attachment condition (M 4.15, SD 0.65), t(28) 3.94, p .005, confirming the effectiveness of the manipulation. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 108

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Directly relevant to the reader’s purpose on whether glorification can be reversed: this manipulation shows that reframing attachment around the ideal (not actual) image lowers glorification in the moment, suggesting at least a reversible, context-dependent component of glorification rather than a pure one-way ratchet.
• QUESTION: This is a brief lab manipulation, not intergroup contact/reconciliation. Does long-term reconciliation work via the same mechanism of shifting focus from actual to ideal group image?
• XREF: connects to: Glorification means national in-group superiority and deference to its symbols and rules. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 35

Related

• Attachment can be experimentally induced toward an ideal rather than actual group (similarity 0.86)
• Attachment items express love and commitment while glorification items assert superiority and leader deference (similarity 0.85)
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.84)
• Attachment and glorification form two distinct latent factors (similarity 0.83)
• Glorification means national in-group superiority and deference to its symbols and rules. (similarity 0.82)
• Glorification and attachment separately predict reactions to national misdeeds (similarity 0.82)
• In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt (similarity 0.81)
• Uncritical in-group glorification, not mere attachment, drives justification of wrongdoing (similarity 0.81)
• National attachment and glorification are independent modes of identification. (similarity 0.81)
• Attachment and glorification positively correlate as shared group identification. (similarity 0.81)
• Framing attachment around ideals rather than current traits raises group-based guilt. (similarity 0.81)
• Attachment and glorification are distinct facets of national identification. (similarity 0.80)
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups (similarity 0.80)
• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. (similarity 0.80)
• Glorification’s correlation to attachment suppresses attachment’s observable effects. (similarity 0.80)