The identification-guilt relation is curvilinear and inverted U-shaped, not linear.

Evidence

In the present work, we have investigated an alternative to the predominant assumption of a linear relationship between identification (measured by group-level selfinvestment and self-definition) and collective guilt. Following Klein et al. (2011), we have argued that a quadratic relation would be able to integrate the contrasting findings from different previous studies. Specifically, an inverted U-shaped relationship would allow for less feelings of guilt among low identifiers but also among high identifiers at the same time. This quadratic relationship could account for the theoretical reasoning that identification is necessary for eliciting collective emotions but that it will also motivate defensive strategies to protect a positive image of the in-group. — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 65

Categorization

• QUESTION: Exactly matches the reader’s hunt for an inflection/‘tipping point’ where self-investment stops predicting guilt and reverses direction — flag for examination of where the curve peaks.
• XREF: The curvilinear reconciliation of opposing findings is the same integration move the reader’s own attachment-vs-glorification tipping-point research is attempting. — connects to: Identification relates to collective guilt along a nonlinear inverted-U curve. — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 15; In-group identification relates to collective guilt in a non-linear fashion. — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 25; Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 25 (+2 more)

Related

• Identification relates to collective guilt along a nonlinear inverted-U curve. (similarity 0.95)
• In-group identification relates to collective guilt in a non-linear fashion. (similarity 0.92)
• High identification with a group suppresses collective guilt, not only enables it. (similarity 0.91)
• Guilt grows monotonically harder to feel as identification strengthens (similarity 0.90)
• Group-based guilt peaks at medium self-investment and drops at high levels (similarity 0.90)
• Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. (similarity 0.90)
• Group self-investment relates to collective guilt in an inverted-U curve. (similarity 0.90)
• Studies conflict on whether high identification predicts more or less guilt (similarity 0.88)
• Affective group attachment, not mere membership perception, drives non-linear responses to collective guilt (similarity 0.88)
• Group self-investment predicts guilt up to a tipping point where further investment suppresses it (similarity 0.87)
• Group identification can both enable and block feelings of group-based guilt (similarity 0.86)
• Torsten Masson and Markus Barth — The identification-guilt paradox revisited – Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between group-level self-investment and group-based guilt (similarity 0.86)
• Guilt requires self-categorizing as a group member (similarity 0.85)
• Strongly identified group members resist collective guilt more than weakly identified ones. (similarity 0.85)
• Highly identified group members minimize collective guilt by morally reinterpreting ingroup wrongs (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• In-group identification relates to collective guilt in a non-linear fashion. #corroborates (0.95) — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 25
• 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
• High identification with a group suppresses collective guilt, not only enables it. #corroborates (0.85) — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 63
• Studies conflict on whether high identification predicts more or less guilt #corroborates (0.80) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 23