In-group glorifiers linguistically minimize accounts of their own side’s atrocities in written summaries.

Evidence

In-group glorifiers’ defensive responses also emerged in their communication about the events. … When asked to summarize in writing the events described in the fictitious article, in-group glorifiers who read about the USA (in-group) being responsible for the torture and death of several Iraqis (as compared to those who read about an out-group being responsible) tended to minimize the events, as indicated by a greater use of negative connectives (e.g., however, but, although) and a lesser use of positive connectives (e.g., and, because). … They also used words that minimized the intentionality of the actions and the perception of causality (Slawuta, Leidner, & Castano, forthcoming). — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the In-group, 55

Categorization

  • SHARE: Good for a colleague working on linguistic analysis of moral disengagement - the connective-word coding scheme is a tangible method.
  • XREF: connects to: High glorifiers minimize and deflect their own group’s atrocities. — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 26; In-group glorification drives dehumanization and minimization which reduce justice support for own-side atrocities. — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the…, 54; Counter-jihad writers systematically minimize documented Muslim wartime deaths — Matt Carr, You Are Now Entering Eurabia, 47 (+6 more)

Broader Connections