Moral disengagement from in-group wrongdoing can be countered through awareness-raising communications.

Evidence

Exonerating cognitions were strongly negatively related to feelings of guilt. This finding is consistent with recent research that has measured or manipulated use of exonerating cognitions, showing their influence on guilt (Miron, Branscombe, & Schmitt, 2006). Thus there is growing evidence that such cognitions are related to moral disengagement from immoral acts committed by one’s in-group. This finding is of importance because it could point to possible ways to help conflicting groups in their path toward reconciliation. So far little research has been done on resistance to moral disengagement, but an experiment on this topic led to encouraging results: McAlister (2001) showed that hearing brief communications about the meaning of moral disengagement versus communications in support of military action affected opinions about U.S. bombing campaigns in Iraq and Yugoslavia. Thus people can be made aware of the significance of communications that encourage moral disengagement from the in-group’s wrongdoings and lead them to greater resistance to accepting acts that conflict with their own moral values. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 136

Categorization

• QUESTION: This raises the reader’s own question #3: can glorification-driven defensiveness be reversed, or is disengagement resistance distinct from reversing established glorification? The reconciliation implication is suggestive but the ratchet question remains open.
• XREF: Reversal of moral disengagement parallels the question of reversing glorification back to attachment — directly relevant to the reader’s project on convertibility. — connects to: Moral disengagement mechanisms enable justification of in-group harm. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 47; Moral critiques of in-group misdeeds reduce defensive reactions better than pragmatic arguments; Moral disengagement techniques can be explicitly unmasked and reversed (+1 more)

Related

• Moral disengagement mechanisms enable justification of in-group harm. (similarity 0.89)
• Moral disengagement mediates glorification’s suppression of justice demands (similarity 0.86)
• Perceived in-group moral violations trigger defensive cognitive distortions. (similarity 0.86)
• Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification. (similarity 0.85)
• Ingroup glorification, not attachment, triggers moral disengagement and reduced justice demands. (similarity 0.85)
• Moral disengagement strategies only mediate glorification’s effect for ingroup-perpetrated violence (similarity 0.82)
• Defensive moral disengagement after in-group wrongdoing is not universal or deterministic (similarity 0.82)
• Divine legitimization of group advantage removes accountability for causing harm. (similarity 0.82)
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. (similarity 0.81)
• Glorifying one’s own group drives dehumanization of victims and lowered justice demands. (similarity 0.81)
• Conflict both demands belief in in-group morality and creates urgent need to question it (similarity 0.80)
• Ingroup glorification uniquely predicts resistance to justice for outgroup victims, via moral disengagement. (similarity 0.80)
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups (similarity 0.80)
• In-group perpetrated misdeeds ironically heighten victim dehumanization (similarity 0.80)
• Witnessing in-group wrongdoing shifts accessible moral foundations toward loyalty and authority. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Moral disengagement techniques can be explicitly unmasked and reversed #corroborates (0.88)
• 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
• Moral critiques of in-group misdeeds reduce defensive reactions better than pragmatic arguments #exemplifies (0.75)
• Seeing fellow humans as needing help can break through moral disengagement #corroborates (0.72) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 652