Ingroup Glorification, Moral Disengagement, and Justice in the Context of Collective Violence

Abstract

What aspects of ingroup identification can lead people to resist justice for the victims of their ingroup's mistreatment? In three studies carried out in the US and UK, in which participants read reports of mistreatment of prisoners and civilians by coalition troops in the Iraq war, ingroup glorification, but not ingroup attachment or other individualdifference variables, was a key predictor of lesser demands for justice, but only when the perpetrators belonged to the ingroup. This effect of glorification was mediated by two moral disengagement mechanisms focusing on the outgroup: minimization of the emotional suffering of the victims' families, and explicit dehumanization of the victim group. These findings further reinforce the difference between glorification and other forms of ingroup identification, demonstrating that glorification is problematic in maintaining and fostering intergroup relations, because of its connection to moral disengagement.

“It was only harmless banter!” The development and preliminary validation of the moral disengagement in sexual harassment scale

“…Maitner, Mackie, and Smith (2007), for example, found that people experience increased satisfaction about aggressive in-group actions following the use of exonerating cognitions to excuse and justify this behavior. Numerous studies report that individual moral disengagement strategies such as attribution of blame (e.g., Doosje & Branscombe, 2003;Roccas et al, 2006) and dehumanization (e.g., Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006;Leidner et al, 2010) are frequently used to inhibit or attenuate negative groupbased emotions. Thus, based on previous empirical findings, it was predicted that the MDiSH would be negatively correlated or uncorrelated with group-based guilt, shame, anger, and sympathy but would be positively correlated with positive affect (measured as happiness) about an ambiguous case of hostile work environment harassment.…”

We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup

“…Outgroup threat (Castano & Giner-Sorola, 2006;Cehajic et al, 2009;Cuddy et al, 2007;Delgado et al, 2009;Pereira et al, 2009;Tam et al, 2007;Zebel et al, 2008) . Social dominance orientation (Esses et al, 2008;Hodson & Costello, 2007;Leidner et al, 2010) . Right-wing authoritarianism (Hodson & Costello, 2007;Leidner et al, 2010 .…”

“…Social dominance orientation (Esses et al, 2008;Hodson & Costello, 2007;Leidner et al, 2010) . Right-wing authoritarianism (Hodson & Costello, 2007;Leidner et al, 2010 . Ingroup identification Paladino et al, 2004) .…”

“…Measuring this difference in ingroup identification, 80 VAES ET AL. Leidner, Castano, Zaiser and Giner-Sorolla (2010) showed that only ingroup glorification, but not ingroup attachment, was linked to outgroup dehumanisation. Specifically, these authors showed that high levels of ingroup glorification made people resist justice for the victims of their ingroup's mistreatment.…”

“…For these individuals, ingroup superiority is a given and discriminating against others is a way to attain or maintain group dominance. Therefore it should not come as a surprise that research has mostly found that outgroup dehumanisation is exacerbated among high-SDO individuals (see, for example, Esses, Veenvliet, Hodson, & Mihic, 2008;Hodson & Costello, 2007;Leidner et al, 2010).…”