Article

Strength in numbers: A survival strategy that helps explain social bonding and commitment

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

We seek strength in numbers as a survival strategy, so it seems unlikely that social bonds would make us want to intentionally die. However, our deep desire to be protected may explain our attraction to exaggerated notions of intentional self-sacrifice – even though research on suicide terrorists, kamikaze pilots, and cult members suggests they were not actually dying for their group.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

... Fusion has been a consistently better predictor of self-reported willingness to fight and die for the group than identification (e.g., Gomez, Brooks, et al., 2011;, with few exceptions (Kavanagh et al., 2019), and hence seems to offer a stronger sense of collective security. Indeed, fusion likely evolved as a kind of "social glue," enabling fused people to remain united as a group in the face of danger despite the strong urge to flee as individuals (Whitehouse, 2018a), thereby offering protection from physical harm and self-preservation (Lankford, 2018) and providing an effective safe-haven function for group members. This sense of collective security is manifested in the way fused actors perceive their group; for instance, fusion to a group (with embedded shared sacred values) positively predicted perceived in-group formidability, in which fused groups were perceived as more capable and stronger than their enemies (Vazquez et al., 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Identity fusion is traditionally conceptualized as innately parochial, with fused actors motivated to commit acts of violence on out-groups. However, fusion’s aggressive outcomes are largely conditional on threat perception, with its effect on benign intergroup relationships underexplored. The present article outlines the fusion-secure base hypothesis, which argues that fusion may engender cooperative relationships with out-groups in the absence of out-group threat. Fusion is characterized by four principles, each of which allows a fused group to function as a secure base in which in-group members feel safe, agentic, and supported. This elicits a secure base schema, which increases the likelihood of fused actors interacting with out-groups and forming cooperative, reciprocal relationships. Out-group threat remains an important moderator, with its presence “flipping the switch” in fused actors and promoting a willingness to violently protect the group even at significant personal cost. Suggestions for future research are explored, including pathways to intergroup fusion.
... Finally, Lankford (2018) believes that fusion only relates to reported willingness to die for the group, but not to real willingness to die for it. It is difficult to address this fair criticism empirically, since we cannot ask individuals who already gave their lives for a group if they were fused. ...
Article
Full-text available
Just a decade ago, two psychologists, Swann, and Gómez, developed a new theoretical framework to explain extreme pro‐group behaviors: identity fusion theory. Identity fusion refers to a visceral feeling of oneness with a group that motivates individuals to do extraordinary self‐sacrifices on behalf of the group or each of its members. Since the formulation of the theory, interdisciplinary researchers of the five continents have conducted dozens of studies on identity fusion, both in laboratory and field settings. Research has deepened into the causes, consequences, underlying mechanisms, and applications of identity fusion. The development of fusion‐based research has been steadfast and very prolific. Hence, the first section of the current manuscript includes an updated overview of this fast growing literature. This increasing interest for the theory has, however, been accompanied by a series of misconceptions and untested research assumptions, which we address in the second and third sections of the paper, concluding with a final section suggesting a future research agenda. Our aim is to help those interested in knowing more about identity fusion or about the causal mechanisms that lead individuals to risk their life and personal well‐being for a group discarding common misconceptions as well as formulating more precise and nuanced hypotheses for future research.
Article
Full-text available
Some 29 interactions between chimpanzees Pan troglodytes and leopards Panthera pardus were observed or inferred in the tropical rainforest of the Tai National Park, Cote d'Ivoire. Chimpanzees chased away leopards in nine cases, rescued alarm calling chimpanzees in 11 cases, nine times leopards attacked chimpanzees, injuring six of them and killing four. Predation by leopards is estimated to be the first cause of mortality in the Tai chimpanzees and individual chimpanzees may experience a risk of predatory attack of 0.30 per year and a mortality risk of 0.055 per year. Tai chimpanzees adapt specifically their grouping patterns to food availability and to predation: with abundant food and low predation, party size increases and mixed parties are more frequent, whereas with the same food condition but with high predation, party size decreased and all-male party types increase. -from Author
Chapter
Does the human mind include psychological adaptations that were selected because they fostered the competitive advantage of ancestral groups, even if they harmed the individuals that bore those adaptations? This notion of group selection is the default folk theory of evolution among most nonbiologists, and even among many biologists until the 1960s, when the theory was shown to be at best improbable and at worst incoherent. Nonetheless group selection refuses to die, and has recently been endorsed by a few prominent biologists and anthropologists. I show that the intuitive appeal of group selection is based on multiple confusions. First, group psychology—the phenomenon in which people identify and make sacrifices for their group—should not be equated with group selection. Second, the size, power, influence, or geographic spread of a group over the course of history (the loose analogue of fitness in cultural evolution) is not analogous to an increase in the number of copies of a replicator in biological evolution. Finally, the appeal of group selection rests on an unexamined and highly implausible assumption: that the groups most victorious in violent combat were those that practiced the greatest degree of kindness and generosity within their own societies. I conclude that the theory of natural selection should be invoked in its rigorous sense of the differential representation of replicators across generations, and that “group selection” is a pernicious concept in evolutionary psychology, guaranteed to confuse.
Article
Academic debates persist about the psychology of suicide terrorists, with one view being that they are psychologically healthy individuals who primarily engage in altruistic self-sacrifice to serve their family, organization, or cause. Some proponents of this view now argue that suicide attackers are actually responding to their evolved sacrificial tendencies. However, the present review questions this hypothesis. For one thing, it appears inconsistent with the evidence on which individuals become suicide bombers and why. More broadly, research from the animal kingdom suggests that there is an important limit to “selfless” or “altruistic” behavior among non-human mammals, which appear to have been naturally selected to save themselves rather than deliberately give up their lives to protect offspring from predation, infanticide, or starvation. Furthermore, kin selection theory suggests that intentional self-sacrifice would be maladaptive for virtually all mammals, including human beings, and that ...
Article
The Myth of Martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers, Rampage Shooters, and Other Self-Destructive Killers proposes that suicide terrorists are psychologically and behaviorally similar to other people who commit suicide, due to a range of individual, social, and situational factors. Some commentators agree, while others are skeptical, given the lack of information about many attackers' lives. However, the book's position is not simply based on individual case studies; it is also supported by other independent assessments, the confirmation of empirical predictions, the paucity of contradictory evidence, and new applications of evolutionary theory. It is undisputed that human beings behave as the author suggests; it is unknown if they behave as the conventional wisdom suggests. Those who argue that suicide terrorists are psychologically normal and altruistically sacrificing their lives for an ideological cause should bear the burden of proof for those claims.
Article
For years, scholars have claimed that suicide terrorists are not suicidal, but rather psychologically normal individuals inspired to sacrifice their lives for an ideological cause, due to a range of social and situational factors. I agree that suicide terrorists are shaped by their contexts, as we all are. However, I argue that these scholars went too far. In The Myth of Martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers, Rampage Shooters, and Other Self-Destructive Killers, I take the opposing view, based on my in-depth analyses of suicide attackers from Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and North America; attackers who were male, female, young, old, Islamic, and Christian; attackers who carried out the most deadly and the least deadly strikes. I present evidence that in terms of their behavior and psychology, suicide terrorists are much like others who commit conventional suicides, murder-suicides, or unconventional suicides where mental health problems, personal crises, coercion, fear of an approaching enemy, or hidden self-destructive urges play a major role. I also identify critical differences between suicide terrorists and those who have genuinely sacrificed their lives for a greater good. By better understanding suicide terrorists, experts in the brain and behavioral sciences may be able to pioneer exciting new breakthroughs in security countermeasures and suicide prevention. And even more ambitiously, by examining these profound extremes of the human condition, perhaps we can more accurately grasp the power of the human survival instinct among those who are actually psychologically healthy.