National attachment and glorification are independent modes of identification.

Evidence

Note, however, that the two modes of identification are distinct from each other. Thus, it is possible to glorify the group without being particularly attached to it and it is possible to be attached to the group without necessarily glorifying every aspect related to the group. The latter mode of identification is of particular interest to us: It denotes a positive attachment to the group coupled with a critical approach to its possible shortcomings. In the terminology proposed by Staub (1989), people who complement their high affective attachment to their nation with low glorification are critical loyalists. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 40

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes the core attachment/glorification distinction and the ‘critical loyalist’ concept this paper is built around.
• XREF: This is the foundational source the reader’s research depends on — the attachment/glorification taxonomy and its separability. — connects to: Attachment to country is one component of national identification — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 24; Attachment and glorification are distinct facets of national identification. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 142; Attachment and glorification positively correlate as shared group identification. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 39 (+1 more)

Related

• Attachment and glorification are distinct facets of national identification. (similarity 0.93)
• Attachment to country is one component of national identification (similarity 0.92)
• Glorification and attachment separately predict reactions to national misdeeds (similarity 0.91)
• Attachment and glorification positively correlate as shared group identification. (similarity 0.90)
• Glorification means national in-group superiority and deference to its symbols and rules. (similarity 0.89)
• Attachment and glorification form two distinct latent factors (similarity 0.88)
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.87)
• Glorification predicts defensive denial of the in-group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.87)
• National glorification but not attachment blocks critical evaluation of ingroup wrongdoing. (similarity 0.86)
• Attachment can be experimentally induced toward an ideal rather than actual group (similarity 0.85)
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness (similarity 0.85)
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. (similarity 0.84)
• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. (similarity 0.84)
• In-group glorification drives justification of wrongdoings while attachment drives guilt (similarity 0.83)
• Glorification’s correlation to attachment suppresses attachment’s observable effects. (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Attachment and glorification are distinct facets of national identification. #corroborates (1.00) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 142
• Glorification and attachment separately predict reactions to national misdeeds #expands (0.90) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 90
• Attachment and glorification positively correlate as shared group identification. #contradicts (0.85) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 39