Individuals often become aware of in-group transgressions, whether directed at members of the in-group (e.g., unfair internal policies) or out-groups (e.g., torture). Understanding the ways people deal with such situations can lend insights into when unjust in-group behavior will be allowed to continue. Recent work demonstrates that when individuals become aware of transgressions that violate their personal values, they experience psychological discomfort, which they are motivated to reduce (intragroup dissonance). The present research tests whether in-group identification is associated with the efficacy and choice of strategies for dealing with such discomfort. In Experiment 1, participants received information that an in-group (the United States) violated a personal value (preserving civilian life in war) and were then given an opportunity to affirm valued aspects of the self (Self-Affirmation condition), valued aspects of the in-group (Group-Affirmation), or no opportunity to affirm. Whereas the affirmation strategies were equally effective among low identifiers, group-affirmation was particularly effective for reducing discomfort among high identifiers. In Experiment 2, participants were induced to increase or decrease identification with an in-group (the United States), learned that the group did or did not violate a personal value (providing basic healthcare to citizens), and then subsequently given an opportunity to choose between two strategies: activism to change the behavior of the group and out-group derogation. Relative to those in the low-identification condition, participants in the high identification condition were more likely to choose out-group derogation over activism, to deal with the discomfort. Implications for understanding responses to in-group transgression are discussed.