Group glorification suppresses justice via moral disengagement whereas attachment does not

Evidence

As expected, in the model, glorification positively predicted emotional minimization and explicit dehumanization. Both the minimization strategy and the dehumanization strategy affected justice negatively. Although the total (zero-order) effect of glorification on justice was significant, once the mediators were included, the direct effect was not significant. Attachment, in line with our expectations, had no effect on justice (β = .04, t = 0.46, p > .05). Overall, this model explained 41% of the variance in justice, confirming our mediational hypothesis. — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 56

Categorization

• 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; Ingroup glorification uniquely predicts resistance to justice for outgroup victims, via moral disengagement. — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 14; Glorification uniquely suppresses justice demands when the perpetrator is one’s own group — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 49 (+16 more)

Broader Connections

• Ingroup glorification, not attachment, triggers moral disengagement and reduced justice demands. #corroborates (1.00) — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 113
• Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification. #corroborates (0.95) — 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 (0.95) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115
• Moral disengagement mediates glorification’s suppression of justice demands #expands (0.95) — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 57
• Uncritical in-group glorification, not mere attachment, drives justification of wrongdoing #corroborates (0.95) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. #corroborates (0.92) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 2
• Group glorification suppresses demands for justice for ingroup violence #corroborates (0.92) — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 49
• Emotional minimization and explicit dehumanization mediate glorification’s effect on justice #expands (0.88) — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 57
• In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt #expands (0.88) — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the In-group, 49
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness #expands (0.88) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 7
• Moral disengagement strategies only mediate glorification’s effect for ingroup-perpetrated violence #qualifies (0.85) — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 123
• Moral disengagement mechanisms enable justification of in-group harm. #expands (0.85) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 47
• Framing attachment around ideals rather than current traits raises group-based guilt. #qualifies (0.78) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 128