National glorification and attachment differentially predict support for intergroup conflict resolution: Scrutinizing cross‐country generalizability

Abstract

Research on national identity distinguishes between national glorification and attachment. We tested whether glorification and attachment differentially predicted support for military and diplomatic conflict resolution strategies (CRS) in response to international conflicts. Using data collected in seven countries (

Increased Perceived Safety in Day-to-Day Life Relates to Critical National Identification

“…Lastly, when considering "safety confidence," we raise the exploratory hypothesis that because this aspect of safety combines the anticipation of potential confrontation with a sense of personal safety (as it reflects confidence in one's ability to remain safe), it could be related to both forms of national identification, with a potentially stronger association for glorification. This is consistent with the notion that ingroup glorification, rather than attachment, is linked to more hostile intergroup attitudes (e.g., Leidner, 2015;Li et al, 2023;Roccas et al, 2006;Selvanathan & Leidner, 2020).…”

“…Feeling safe in day-to-day life was related to both increased attachment and glorification (see Table 3). Attachment and glorification were strongly correlated with each other, replicating past work (e.g., Li et al, 2023;Roccas et al, 2006).…”

“…In this way, experiences of peace at one level can have downstream consequences for other levels. Thus, according to this framework, it's possible for personal experiences of peace to influence how people construe their relationship with their national ingroup, a relationship which has been shown to be a robust predictor of attitudes toward conflict within and between nations (Li et al, 2023). By the same logic, it's possible that feelings of negative and positive safety at the personal level can have spillover across levels, influencing broader attitudes towards one's ingroup at the level of the nation.…”

“…Research has shown that glorification is associated with greater expressed justification of past harmful intergroup actions, lower guilt experienced as a result of these actions, greater support for retributive justice and conflict perpetuation (Leidner, 2015;Leidner & Castano, 2012;Leidner et al, 2018Leidner et al, , 2010Li et al, 2016;Roccas et al, 2006;Rovenpor et al, 2019Rovenpor et al, , 2016Selvanathan & Leidner, 2020). Conversely, attachment (when controlling for glorification) leads to generally more positive intergroup responses, such as more expression of guilt, greater support for conflict resolution, and greater support for restorative justice (Leidner et al, 2018;Li et al, 2023;Roccas et al, 2006;Selvanathan & Leidner, 2020). Despite this wealth of research on the social consequences of national attachment and glorification, until the present investigation, little research has considered the antecedents of national attachment and glorification.…”

Identifying stories of ‘us’: A mixed‐method analysis of the meaning, contents and associations of national narratives constructed by Americans

“…A link may be drawn here between glorifying narratives and ingroup glorification (Roccas et al., 2006), which has been associated with systematic denial of ingroup‐perpetrated harms, lack of outgroup perspective taking, dehumanisation of outgroup members and the legitimisation of violence against outgroup members (e.g. Bilali, 2013; Leidner et al., 2010; Li et al., 2023). Importantly, some recent studies have begun to explore how exposure to narratives may shape, direct and contextualise ingroup glorification by providing it with content.…”