Glorification’s correlation to attachment suppresses attachment’s observable effects.

Evidence

Teasing apart the effects of attachment and glorification poses a methodological challenge. The two modes of identification are conceptually similar (both refer to identification with a group) and empirically positively correlated. Thus, a manipulation that elicits one mode of identification is likely to elicit the other mode as well. Because glorification suppresses the effects of attachment on identification, a manipulation that elicits attachment and glorification simultaneously would be powerless to test our core hypothesis that attachment without glorification causes group-based guilt. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 96

Categorization

• QUESTION: The claim that glorification suppresses attachment — is this suppression statistical or causal? Relevant to the reader’s threshold and reversibility questions.
• XREF: connects to: Attachment and glorification form two distinct latent factors — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 58; Attachment only predicts in-group guilt once glorification is statistically removed. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 95; Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 7 (+4 more)

Related

• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. (similarity 0.95)
• Attachment only predicts in-group guilt once glorification is statistically removed. (similarity 0.94)
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness (similarity 0.93)
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. (similarity 0.91)
• Attachment makes individuals vulnerable to guilt over in-group misdeeds. (similarity 0.91)
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.90)
• Glorification and attachment separately predict reactions to national misdeeds (similarity 0.90)
• Attachment and glorification positively correlate as shared group identification. (similarity 0.90)
• Attachment and glorification form two distinct latent factors (similarity 0.90)
• Glorification predicts defensive denial of the in-group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.90)
• Attachment can be experimentally induced toward an ideal rather than actual group (similarity 0.89)
• Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification. (similarity 0.89)
• Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. (similarity 0.89)
• Ingroup glorification, not attachment, triggers moral disengagement and reduced justice demands. (similarity 0.88)
• Critical attachment produces guilt through refusing to exonerate the group (similarity 0.88)

Broader Connections

• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. #expands (0.95) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 44
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness #expands (0.90) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 7
• Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification. #expands (0.90) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 138
• In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt #expands (0.90) — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the In-group, 49
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups #expands (0.85) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115