Group identification can both enable and block feelings of group-based guilt

Evidence

The relationship between identification with one’s national group and the experience of group-based guilt presents an inherent contradiction: On the one hand, group-based guilt is by definition “guilt by association” (Doosje et al., 1998). That is, it refers to feeling guilty for deeds that a person did not commit—feelings that arise because people are associated with the perpetrators by virtue of their common group membership. To feel morally implicated in immoral acts performed by in-group members, individuals need at the very least to self-categorize as members of the perpetrating group (Branscombe et al., 2002; Doosje et al., 1998). Among people who do not evade the relevant self-categorization, those who are attached to the group should be most susceptible to group-based emotions. Thus, one may expect that individuals who are most highly identified with a group to be most likely to feel group-based guilt. … On the other hand, those who are highly identified should also be the most motivated to defend their group identity (Branscombe et al., 2002). Extensive research indicates that individuals who identify with their group tend to feel that the group is good and moral (e.g., Janis, 1982; Staub, 1997). When group members are confronted with negative information regarding their group, they often reinterpret this information in ways that protect their ability to derive a positive social identity from their group membership (Mummendey, Klink, Mielke, Wenzel, & Blanz, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). According to this line of reasoning, identification with a group should lead to legitimization of the group’s actions and consequently should be negatively related to people’s feelings of group-based guilt. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 16

On the one hand, identification is a prerequisite for feeling personal responsibility for the in-group’s harmful acts. On the other hand, identification leads to viewing the group in the best possible light and hence it is associated with the rejection of group guilt (Doosje et al., 1998). … On the basis of these diverse theoretical perspectives, we suggest a distinction between two modes of identification: glorification and attachment. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 133

Although we agree with Doosje et al. (1998) that identification with the national ingroup is likely to be associated with reduced collective guilt, we contend that identification can also have the opposite effect of increasing collective guilt. We refer to these opposing effects as the paradox of group identification. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 948

There are multiple strategies that may be adopted by members of a broad social group (such as Australians) when they are confronting some historical issue. Different subsets of high Australian identifiers might be expected to either repudiate or exhibit collective guilt, because there are many ways for high identifiers to achieve a positive social identity. If they believe that their group is committed to humanitarian norms, and that the faults of the past are inconsistent with the current image of their group, then the strategy of denying the harm may not be favored. Under these circumstances, group members may seek to repair the harm in order to restore or establish a positive image of their group. In short, identification with a perpetrating group is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon. Therefore, its impact on collective guilt can be expected to be complex. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 829

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes the theoretical paradox the attachment/glorification distinction is built to resolve — group-based guilt as guilt-by-association yields opposite predictions from identification-as-defensiveness.
• XREF: This pays off the earlier chapter note that identification measures conflate salience with stable traits and that high identifiers resist guilt more - the paradox unpacks that by splitting identification into attachment vs. glorification. — connects to: Identification relates to collective guilt along a nonlinear inverted-U curve. — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 15; Guilt requires self-categorizing as a group member — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 20; In-group identification relates to collective guilt in a non-linear fashion. — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 25 (+34 more)
• corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 16; Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 133; Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 948 (+1 more)
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source

Broader Connections

• Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. #corroborates (0.95) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 25
• Studies conflict on whether high identification predicts more or less guilt #corroborates (0.85) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 23
• Strongest ingroup identifiers are least likely to feel collective guilt #exemplifies (0.80) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1170
• Highly identified group members minimize collective guilt by morally reinterpreting ingroup wrongs #exemplifies (0.78) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2278
• Highly identified group members resist feeling collective guilt by reinterpreting events #exemplifies (0.78) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2278
• Mild group identifiers feel guilty when harm is distant and done by others #exemplifies (0.78) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1069
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness #expands (0.75) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 7
• Framing attachment around ideals rather than current traits raises group-based guilt. #qualifies (0.72) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 128
• Collective emotions like group anger and guilt arise from ingroup appraisals #expands (0.72) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2264