Ingroup glorification, not attachment, triggers moral disengagement and reduced justice demands.

Evidence

Building on the literature on the various forms of identification with the ingroup, and particularly the work by Roccas et al. (2006), we hypothesized and found that glorification should lead to greater use of moral disengagement strategies and, in turn, to a lesser desire to reestablish justice, when individuals are confronted with an ingroup-committed atrocity. Importantly, as opposed to glorification, attachment did not lead to any of these effects. If anything, attachment seemed to predict these variables in the opposite direction—a trend consistent with findings by Roccas et al. — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 113

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. — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the In-group, 80

Whereas ingroup glorification is expected to moderate moral disengagement and ultimately justice because of identity concerns, ingroup attachment should not have the same effects. Because ingroup attachment does not assume ingroup superiority and allows for constructive criticism of the ingroup, highly attached people are not as threatened by ingroup misdeeds as high glorifiers. Therefore, even though attachment might show a zero-order positive relation to psychological defenses in response to ingroup-committed atrocities, when controlling for glorification this relation should disappear or even become negative. Likewise, attachment should not accompany reduced demands for justice, when controlling for glorification; if anything, attachment should affect demands for justice positively. — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 35

Categorization

• DEFINE: Crucial conceptual distinction: attachment (loyal identification) does not produce the moral-disengagement ceiling; glorification specifically does, and the two may even run opposite directions.
• XREF: Connects to the reading purpose: this is the precise glorification-vs-attachment threshold variable isolating when protective solidarity flips into moral disengagement. — connects to: Group glorification suppresses demands for justice for ingroup violence — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 49; Moral disengagement mediates glorification’s suppression of justice demands — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 57; Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 138 (+13 more)
• corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 113; Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the…, 80; Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 35

Broader Connections

• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups #corroborates (0.90) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115
• Glorifying one’s own group drives dehumanization of victims and lowered justice demands. #corroborates (0.85) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2118
• Moral disengagement mechanisms enable justification of in-group harm. #expands (0.82) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 47
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. #corroborates (0.78) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 2
• Glorification predicts defensive denial of the in-group’s moral violations. #corroborates (0.72) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 42