Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification.

Evidence

In our studies, glorification and attachment effects on groupbased guilt were mediated by the use of exonerating cognitions. Glorification was positively related to the use of exonerating cognitions. Thus, people who glorify their in-group (e.g., blind patriots, nationalists) can avoid feeling morally responsible for their in-group’s wrongdoings because they interpret the harmful events in ways that justify the in-group’s actions, just as suggested by Doosje et al. (1998). In contrast, attachment to the in-group does not lead to such group-enhancing cognitions. Attachment (when glorification was controlled for) was correlated to lower justification of the in-group’s transgressions. This relationship suggests that those who are cognitively and emotionally involved with their group are to some extent also concerned with its moral standing and are reluctant to justify moral violations on the part of in-group members. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 138

One conclusion that we can draw from the theoretical body of work on nationalism, intergroup relations, social identity and, more specifically, from the set of findings reviewed above, is that glorification of the ingroup is highly problematic. Once you distinguish between attachment to the in-group and glorification, it is the latter that predicts the use of moral disengagement strategies, and these, in turn, predict behavioral intentions with respect to the pursuit of justice that are, in my view, problematic. I have focused primarily on dehumanization and minimization of the suffering, but of course these are only two among several strategies: moral justification (we do it to prevent greater suffering), the use of euphemism (collateral damage), minimization of the events (this is not really torture). — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the In-group, 80

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The clean dissociation — glorifiers justify, the attached refuse to justify wrongdoing BECAUSE of their emotional investment — demonstrates that in-group caring is not a slippery slope to partisan blindness but its opposite; a key empirical anchor for the reader’s foundational framework.
• XREF: This is the direct cross-check to the reader’s stated purpose: Castano’s review converges with Leidner et al. that glorification—not generic identification—is the threshold variable driving moral disengagement. — connects to: Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 2; 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; Glorification predicts defensive denial of the in-group’s moral violations. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 42 (+12 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 138; Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the…, 80

Related

• Ingroup glorification, not attachment, triggers moral disengagement and reduced justice demands. (similarity 0.95)
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. (similarity 0.92)
• Glorification predicts defensive denial of the in-group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.91)
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness (similarity 0.91)
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups (similarity 0.90)
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.90)
• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. (similarity 0.90)
• In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt (similarity 0.90)
• Moral disengagement mediates glorification’s suppression of justice demands (similarity 0.90)
• Group glorification suppresses demands for justice for ingroup violence (similarity 0.90)
• Glorification and attachment separately predict reactions to national misdeeds (similarity 0.89)
• Glorification’s correlation to attachment suppresses attachment’s observable effects. (similarity 0.89)
• Moral disengagement mechanisms enable justification of in-group harm. (similarity 0.89)
• Perceived in-group moral violations trigger defensive cognitive distortions. (similarity 0.89)
• Group glorification suppresses justice via moral disengagement whereas attachment does not (similarity 0.88)

Broader Connections

• In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt #corroborates (0.95) — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the In-group, 49
• Ingroup glorification, not attachment, triggers moral disengagement and reduced justice demands. #corroborates (0.95) — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 113
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups #corroborates (0.88) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness #corroborates (0.85) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 7
• Moral disengagement mediates glorification’s suppression of justice demands #expands (0.85) — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 57
• Moral disengagement can make harm exilarating and not always sustainable #qualifies (0.72)