Moral disengagement mediates glorification’s suppression of justice demands

Evidence

In the ingroup-perpetrator condition, the multiple mediation analyses indicated that the negative effect of glorification on justice was mediated by moral disengagement strategies. This pattern supports our claim that emotional minimization and explicit dehumanization can function as moral disengagement strategies when confronted with ingroup transgressions, affecting behavioral intentions such as demands for justice. In addition to providing support for the hypothesized process, results also confirmed that, controlling for glorification, attachment to the ingroup does not enhance moral disengagement strategies or lessen demands for justice. If anything, and consistent with what was found by Roccas et al. (2006), attachment showed an opposite effect to that of glorification on one of the moral disengagement strategies, minimization. — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 57

Categorization

• QUESTION: The reader is hunting for the precise threshold/ceiling on protective solidarity — attachment here consistently fails to reduce justice, while glorification does.
• XREF: connects to: Group glorification suppresses demands for justice for ingroup violence — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 49; Ingroup glorification, not attachment, triggers moral disengagement and reduced justice demands. — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 113; 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 (+3 more)

Related

• Ingroup glorification, not attachment, triggers moral disengagement and reduced justice demands. (similarity 0.94)
• Emotional minimization and explicit dehumanization mediate glorification’s effect on justice (similarity 0.93)
• Group glorification suppresses demands for justice for ingroup violence (similarity 0.92)
• Group glorification suppresses justice via moral disengagement whereas attachment does not (similarity 0.92)
• Moral disengagement strategies only mediate glorification’s effect for ingroup-perpetrated violence (similarity 0.91)
• Glorifying one’s own group drives dehumanization of victims and lowered justice demands. (similarity 0.90)
• Glorification enables moral disengagement while attachment resists in-group wrongdoing justification. (similarity 0.90)
• Glorification uniquely suppresses justice demands when the perpetrator is one’s own group (similarity 0.88)
• Moral disengagement mechanisms enable justification of in-group harm. (similarity 0.88)
• Ingroup glorification uniquely predicts resistance to justice for outgroup victims, via moral disengagement. (similarity 0.88)
• In-group glorification reduces justice responses only when the in-group is the perpetrator. (similarity 0.86)
• Moral disengagement from in-group wrongdoing can be countered through awareness-raising communications. (similarity 0.86)
• In-group glorification drives dehumanization and minimization which reduce justice support for own-side atrocities. (similarity 0.86)
• Bernhard Leidner et al. — Ingroup Glorification, Moral Disengagement, and Justice in the Context of Collective Violence (similarity 0.84)
• In-group perpetrated misdeeds ironically heighten victim dehumanization (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Moral disengagement reduces victims’ perceived suffering and thus the desire for justice #corroborates (0.85)
• Moral disengagement mechanisms enable justification of in-group harm. #expands (0.80) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 47
• Adopting or abandoning moral disengagement shifts later aggressive conduct. #responds-to (0.80) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 273