Studies conflict on whether high identification predicts more or less guilt

Evidence

The authors concluded that high identifiers are more likely than low identifiers to employ a variety of defensive reactions and thus are less likely to experience group-based guilt. However, there has been little support for their hypothesis that highly attached members experience less group-based guilt than their low attachment counterparts. A recent review (Branscombe, 2004) indicates that the relationship between group identification and guilt varies across studies: Identification was sometimes positively related to group-based guilt (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 2004), sometimes negatively related to it (Doosje et al., 1998), and sometimes there was no overall relationship between the two variables (Branscombe, Slugoski, & Kappen, 2004). — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 23

Categorization

• XREF: This inconsistent single-dimension identification-to-guilt mapping is the empirical hole that motivates the attachment/glorification split this paper proposes — directly relevant to the reader’s tipping-point question. — connects to: In-group identification relates to collective guilt in a non-linear fashion. — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 25; The identification-guilt relation is curvilinear and inverted U-shaped, not linear. — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 65; High identification with a group suppresses collective guilt, not only enables it. — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 63 (+10 more)

Related

• Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. (similarity 0.94)
• High identification with a group suppresses collective guilt, not only enables it. (similarity 0.93)
• Group identification can both enable and block feelings of group-based guilt (similarity 0.92)
• Guilt grows monotonically harder to feel as identification strengthens (similarity 0.92)
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness (similarity 0.91)
• In-group identification relates to collective guilt in a non-linear fashion. (similarity 0.90)
• Affective group attachment, not mere membership perception, drives non-linear responses to collective guilt (similarity 0.90)
• Escalating Israeli-Palestinian conflict did not alter how identification modes predict group guilt (similarity 0.90)
• Strongly identified group members resist collective guilt more than weakly identified ones. (similarity 0.90)
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.89)
• Framing attachment around ideals rather than current traits raises group-based guilt. (similarity 0.89)
• Highly identified group members minimize collective guilt by morally reinterpreting ingroup wrongs (similarity 0.88)
• Critical attachment primes stronger group-based guilt than conventional attachment. (similarity 0.88)
• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. (similarity 0.88)
• Guilt differences between high and low identifiers emerge only on ambiguous history (similarity 0.88)

Broader Connections

• Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. #expands (0.90) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 25
• Strongest ingroup identifiers are least likely to feel collective guilt #corroborates (0.85) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1170
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness #qualifies (0.85) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 7
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. #corroborates (0.85) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 48
• Escalating Israeli-Palestinian conflict did not alter how identification modes predict group guilt #qualifies (0.75) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 80
• Framing attachment around ideals rather than current traits raises group-based guilt. #corroborates (0.70) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 128