Priming critical versus conventional attachment primes categorically distinct group attributes.

Evidence

We first analyzed the contents of the group attributes associated with attachment to Israel in the two experimental conditions. This was done to test whether the ideal versus actual manipulation produced two distinct sets of group attributes. Overall, participants wrote 191 different attributes. Two coders, blind to the experimental condition under which the attribute originated and to the research hypotheses, independently derived content categories from the list. Agreement between the two coders was 94%. As can be seen in Table 2, there was almost no overlap between the attributes mentioned by participants in the two experimental conditions. Participants in the conventional attachment condition portrayed their image of the current attributes of their group. They mentioned positive attributes such as in-group solidarity, geography and folklore, and Judaism. These attributes are related to the perceived meaning and traits of being an Israeli. Those in the critical attachment condition were prompted to list the attributes in which the current image of their in-group is discrepant from the ideal image. They mentioned ideal–actual discrepancies in areas such as interpersonal relations, welfare state, quality of governance, and peace and security. These discrepancies are related to hopes and desires for a better society in which the welfare of all is taken into account. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 111

Categorization

• XREF: This directly advances the reading purpose — it shows the construct validity of the critical/conventional attachment split, foundational for the attachment-glorification distinction being researched. — connects to: Critical attachment produces guilt through refusing to exonerate the group — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 91; Critical attachment primes stronger group-based guilt than conventional attachment. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 113

Related

• Critical attachment primes stronger group-based guilt than conventional attachment. (similarity 0.92)
• Critical attachment produces guilt through refusing to exonerate the group (similarity 0.86)
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.85)
• Framing attachment around ideals rather than current traits raises group-based guilt. (similarity 0.84)
• Attachment can be experimentally induced toward an ideal rather than actual group (similarity 0.84)
• Attachment makes individuals vulnerable to guilt over in-group misdeeds. (similarity 0.84)
• Attachment only predicts in-group guilt once glorification is statistically removed. (similarity 0.83)
• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. (similarity 0.81)
• Attachment items express love and commitment while glorification items assert superiority and leader deference (similarity 0.81)
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness (similarity 0.81)
• Affective group attachment, not mere membership perception, drives non-linear responses to collective guilt (similarity 0.80)
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. (similarity 0.80)
• Studies conflict on whether high identification predicts more or less guilt (similarity 0.80)
• Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. (similarity 0.80)
• Glorification’s correlation to attachment suppresses attachment’s observable effects. (similarity 0.79)