What makes a group worth dying for?
William B. Swann
University of Texas at Austin
1944
2
What the story of
the bomber crew tells us
Illustrates power of relational ties between
individuals in groups
These relational ties involve family like
allegiances: “brothers in arms”
3
Experts on military
link relational ties to self-sacrifice
“American soldiers in battle don’t fight for what some
president says on TV, they don’t fight for mom, apple pie, the
American flag—they fight for one another.”
Lt. Colonel H. Moore
“…people almost never kill and die for the Cause, but for each
other: for their group…—their brotherhood, fatherland,
motherland, homeland, totem, or tribe.”
S. Atran, 2010. p. 33
Therefore, when it comes to dying for one’s group, relational ties
matter
But what about collective ties?
Social Identity Theory
• For Nazi’s, social category was
everything; his personal qualities and
relationships with guards were nothing
• Exported this idea from other-perception
to self-perception
• To disambiguate impact of
categorization, minimized role of:
• relational ties
• personal self
• emotion
5
Fusion approach builds on classic SIT
Fusion theory enriches analysis of
collective ties with the three influences
Tajfel & Turner de-emphasized,
namely:
• Relational ties
• Personal self
• Emotion
6
What is identity fusion?
Identity fusion is a visceral sense of oneness
with a group
• Personal self remains salient; fused persons feel
that they both strengthen and draw strength from
the group, resulting in elevated personal agency
• Fused persons view the group as “family” and
believe that family membership requires sacrifices
• When a family member is imperiled, they
experience emotions akin to when self is
imperiled (cf. IRT)
• Result: Strongly fused people will make extreme
sacrifices for the group
7
Fusion vs. Identification
• Both rest on the distinction between
personal identity and group identity
• Both involve an alignment of personal
and group identity
• BUT alignment invokes different
processes
8
Unique paths to self-group overlap
Personal
Identity
Collective
Identity
Identification
Depersonalization—
Salient group eclipses
person & relationships
Fusion
Personal selves remain agentic and stable.
Relational ties between group members,
as well as collective ties, motivate progroup action
9
Motivational assumptions
Rationale underlying pro-group behavior
• Identification: Utilitarian--to achieve positive and
distinct social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)
• Fusion: Deontological: e.g., “Anything for family”; not
instrumental
Structural sources of motivation
• Identification: Collective ties
• Fusion:
Collective ties + personal identity +
relational ties
At first blush, fusion seems like identification on steroids,
but …
Galloping is not merely fast walking because: fast vs.
slow twitch fibers, gait differs, galloping horses become
airborne…
10
Measurement of fusion
Pictorial (Swann et al. 2009)
“Choose the option that best represents your relationship with the group”
Fused
Self
Group
Self
Group
Self Group
Self Group Self
Verbal (Gómez et al., 2011)
I am one with my country.
I am strong because of my country.
I make my country strong.
I have a deep emotional bond to my country
Group
Forms of Identity Fusion
Local fusion
Extended fusion
One goal today:
Integrating relational & collective ties accounts
of extreme behavior
• According to identity fusion theory, key is
projecting family ties onto a large collective.
• This projection process causes people who are
strongly fused to the group to react to threats
to members of the collective as if they were
family.
13
Study 1: compared potency of
extended vs. local fusion
Measured two things:
• Extended: To what extent are you willing
to fight/die for your country?
• Local: Which of 10 groups are you most
willing to die for (family, friends, political
party, country)?
14
Participants in 11 countries across
6 continents (Swann, Buhrmester et al., JPSP, 2014)
Continent
Country
N
Europe
Germany
Spain
112
250
Poland
Africa
SouthAfrica
N.Amer. USA
S. Amer. Chile
Australia Australia
Asia
China
Indonesia
Japan
India
TOTAL
147
317
250
181
100
239
642
107
100
2445
Extended fusion predicts pervasive willingness
to fight and die for the country
6
Fusion
fight&die
5
r’s =.33
4
.32 .36
.59 .43 .38
3
2
1
0
.61
.48
.54 .61 .45
Yet local fusion is
more powerful than extended
• Question: Which of 10 groups were
participants most willing to die for?
• Vast majority (86%) nominated
‘family’(local fusion). Range was 79%
[China & Japan] to 96% [Poland]
(Swann, Buhrmester et al., JPSP, 2014)
17
Conclusions and a hypothesis
(a) Worldwide, motivation to sacrifice the
self for large groups (extended fusion) is
higher among strongly fused persons
relative to weakly fused persons
(b) BUT, local fusion (with small groups) is
better predictor of self-sacrifice than
extended fusion (with large groups)
(c) Given “a” and “b”, inducing people to
think of large groups as if they were
small groups should augment extreme
group behavior
18
Perception of shared essence
transforms a large group into a small group
19
Creating a sense of shared essence
by priming shared genes
• Chinese or Indian participants read
one of two articles*:
• Shared Genes condition: “Scientists
Pinpoint Genetic Underpinnings of Race”
• Unshared Genes condition: “Scientists
Reveal that Race has No Genetic Basis”.
* Adapted from Williams & Eberhard, 2008
20
Willingness to fight/die for country as a
function of shared biological essences
(Swann, Buhrmester et al., 2014)
Shared genes
condition
Non-shared
genes condition
Weakly fused (-1 SD)
Strongly fused (+1 SD)
21
Creating a sense of shared essence
by priming shared values
• American participants read one of two
articles:
• Shared core values condition:
“Americans agree on core American
values” (e.g., freedom, liberty, and
democracy).
• Unshared core values condition:
“Americans disagree on core American
values”.
22
Willingness to fight/die for country as a
function of priming of shared social essences
(Swann, Buhrmester et al., 2014)
Weakly Fused (-1 SD)
Strongly Fused (+1 SD)
23
Priming studies showed that
• Experimentally increasing
perception of shared essence can
bolster pro-group behavior
among fused persons
• No direct evidence that familial
ties played a role in this process
• Do familial ties mediate effect of
fusion on pro-group behavior
24
The Boston Marathon bombing
Prospective design
• Time 1: Measured fusion with America
• Time 2a: Bombing occured
• Time 2b: Measured familial ties toward USA
• “Members of my country are like family to me”
• “I see other members of my country as brothers and
sisters”
• “If someone in my country is hurt or in danger, it is
like a family member is hurt or in danger”
• Time 2c: Support behaviors
• Reports of blood donation, actual letters of support
to victims.
One dependent variable: letter to Jeff
Study 3: 54% wrote to Jeff
• Examples:
• “Jeff, thank you so much for helping provide
clues for the authorities. Even though you
were in pain, waking up and wanting to be
sure you shared that information is a true
show of spirit. America is thinking of you.”
• “Jeff, the news images of you and your story
has really moved me. I feel so much for you
and wish you a happy life and wish I could
help in any way. We will all be there for you.”
Perceptions of familial ties mediate
impact of fusion on support for victims
(Buhrmester et al., 2014)
Familial Ties
β= .63**
β= .67**
Fusion (Time 1)
β= .48**
β= .06,
n.s.
Sobel z = 3.42, p<.001
Actions to
support
bombing
victims
The mechanism
underlying impact of familial ties?
• When a family member is imperiled, it is
akin to oneself being imperiled.
• One implication:
For fused persons, threat to group members
invokes emotional reactions that foster pro-group
behavior
30
Summoning-the-death-train paradigm
Conducted in Madrid
5 Spaniards are doing maintenance works in a railway tunnel.
Suddenly, you see that a train is headed their way, and the 5
Spaniards are going to die. You are in another railway tunnel, and if
you flip a switch, the train will divert to the railway track where you
are.
You have two options:
… you can let the train go ahead, killing the 5 Spaniards, or
… you can flip the switch which diverts the train to the railway track
where you are, killing you but leaving the 5 Spaniards unharmed.
In this paradigm, 90% of participants viewed self-sacrifice as the
“moral” response
What do people think as they contemplate self-sacrifice?
(Swann, Gomez, et al., JPSP, 2014)
• Think aloud study:
• Method:
• Participants pondered the dilemma out loud
while we recorded them.
• Later, independent judges rated transcripts.
• Replication of earlier work: The more fused people
were, the more likely they were to endorse selfsacrifice for their countrymen.
32
What were they thinking?
Analysis of audiotapes
•Weakly fused persons
•Distanced themselves from the group members.
•Dispassionately declined to endorse self-sacrifice.
•Strongly fused persons
•Said that the imperiled group members were “like
family.”
•Expressed emotional distress but then quickly
endorsed self-sacrifice.
Emotional engagement meditated the impact of fusion
on the decision to self-sacrifice (Swann, Gomez, et al., JPSP, 2014)
Emotional
Engagement
(rated by
judges)
β= .93***
β= .31***
Fusion
β= .79***
(β= .52, p=.07)
Decision to
self-sacrifice
95% CI: 0.0607, 0.6162, boots = 5000
Conclusions from
the think aloud study
1. Emotional reactions mediated effects of fusion
on endorsement of sacrificing self for group
members.
2. Immediate gut reactions of strongly fused
persons told them what to do.
First hypothesis from think aloud study
If strongly fused persons know immediately that they
should self-sacrifice and weakly fused persons slowly
add up the pluses and minuses, then minimizing time
to reflect should exaggerate fusion effects
Again using the summoning the death train dilemma:
(a) Recruited strongly and weakly fused
participants
(b) Gave them time to reflect on the trolley
dilemma (no time pressure) or hurried them
(time pressure—resource deprivation)
(c) Predictions
36
% of respondents who chose self-sacrifice
For fused persons, resource deprivation increased
self-sacrifice (Swann, Gomez, et al., JPSP, 2014)
Control
Time pressure
N = 607, Fusion X Condition interaction B = .78, OR = 2.18, Wald χ2 = 27.65, p < .001; In
Swann et al., under review
37
Second hypothesis from
think aloud study
If fused persons go with their “gut” response,
then utilitarian considerations that require
reflection should have little impact on their
decision
Utilitarian consideration that we focused on:
number of people saved by sacrificing the self
38
Self-sacrifice as a function of identity fusion and
number of ingroup members (Swann, Gomez, et al., JPSP, 2014)
100
90
79.7
80
76.1
70
57
60
50
Self-sacrifice for 1 ingroup
member
40
Self-sacrifice for 5 ingroup
members
32.1
30
20
10
0
Weakly fused
Strongly fused
39
Third hypothesis from
think aloud study
If, for fused persons, emotional engagement
motivates the decision to self-sacrifice, then
activating the emotional system by increasing
focus on personal self should amplify the effects
of fusion
Tested in 2 ways:
•
Increased arousal
•
Activated personal self
40
For fused persons, increasing arousal
spills over into endorsement of fight/die
for Spain (Swann et al., 2010)
Control
Arousal
Extreme actions for Spain
Extreme actions for Europe
For fused persons, activating self
encourages “selfless” actions
Self-sacrifice
Allow 5 ingroup
members to die
Preliminary conclusions
1. Think alouds indicate that perception of familial ties &
emotional reactions were key to self-sacrifice among
strongly fused participants
2. Minimizing time to reflect exaggerated fusion effects;
for strongly fused, sacrifice is an emotional, “gut”
response
3. Because strongly fused persons “go with the gut”,
utilitarian considerations have less impact
4. Because self-sacrifice is an emotional response for
strongly fused persons, activating emotions through
arousal amplified the effects of fusion
5. In short, deep seated emotions drive effects of fusion
6. If so, fusion may be stable and resistant to change
43
Is fusion irrevocable?
Vazquez, Gomez, Swann, 2015
Pilot studies in the lab
Reactions of Spanish participants to three
historic, group-relevant events
• a positive event (Spain’s victory in the 2010
World Cup)
• two negative events (a corruption scandal
involving the Royal Family and separatist
efforts by Catelonia--a prosperous region of
Spain)
• Before and after event, measured fusion,
fight/die, relational & collective ties to Spain
44
Evidence for stability
1. The rank orderings of the fusion scores of
strongly fused individuals were more stable
(r’s = .60) than those of either moderately or
weakly fused individuals (r’s = .30).
2. Strongly fused individuals remained far more
fused to Spain than weakly fused individuals
3. Negative events did not diminish
a) the extent to which strongly fused intended to
fight and die for their country
b) felt relational ties to their group
45
Evidence for contextual sensitivity
• Average change scores: Strongly fused
were most likely to increase fusion in
response to positive events and
decrease fusion in response to negative
events.
• The effect of a negative historic event
on posttest identity fusion was partially
mediated by weakening of the collective
(but not relational) ties that strongly
fused participants had toward Spain.
46
Does identity fusion matter in
naturally occurring contexts?
Identity fusion in revolutionary Libya
(Whitehouse et al., PNAS, 2014)
Data collected by anthropologists Harvey Whitehouse
& Brian McQuinn
47
Obtaining participants
• McQuinn flew to Misrata in early 2011
during fighting
• Developed a relationship with a local
• Used that relationship to gain access to
members of fighting groups
• Whitehouse arrived several months later
and began trying to entice me to join
them…
48
“Hey Bill, things have almost returned to normal”
49
Methods
• 179 Libyans (all male, Mage = 28 yrs) part of 4
pro-revolution combat units.
• Participants indicated whether their primary
unit role was fighter or logistical supporter
(24% were primarily fighters)
• Participants indicated how fused they were to:
1. Kin (family)
2. Fighting unit (Katiba)
3. Kin VERSUS Katiba
50
Pilot testing:
Fusion with (a) combat unit and (b) kin
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Unit
Kin
Fusion with combat unit VERSUS kin
as a function of combat Role
moderated by
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Logis cal Supporters
50%
Fighters
40%
30%
20%
10%
X2 = 4.1, p < .05
0%
Unit
Kin
Summary
People are far more likely to endorse dying for a relational
group (e.g., family) than a collective group (e.g., country). Yet,
everyday, people die for collective groups. How does this
happen?
1. When people fuse with a group, they come to see group
members as family with whom they share essence, and
these perceptions compel self-sacrifice for the group
2. When group members are imperiled, fused person
experience strong emotional reactions, which mediate their
tendency to sacrifice themselves for the group
3. By encouraging fusion/perception of familial ties, one can
harness an emotional apparatus that originally evolved to
bind people to members of familial groups (with whom they
shared genes) to members of collective groups (with whom
they often do not share genes)
53
Some next steps
• Power of fusion is derived from combination of relational
and collective ties acting together, but there are many
other synergies (values, threats, utilitarian concerns, etc)
• Are relational ties as essential to these synergies as
military historians and anthropologists suggest? For
example, will people fight for values that aren’t supported
by relational ties?
• Identification is associated with outcomes such as selfenhancement and health (Jetten, Haslam et al); fusion is
hedonically neutral. What are implications of this
distinction?
• Fusion and inter-group relations: As Leah Fredman will
discuss later, we’ve begun to examine how relational
and collective combine to trigger outgroup hate
54
Key collaborators
Brock Bastian
(UNSW)
Jolanda Jetten
(Queensland)
Michael Buhrmester
(Oxford)
Sanaz Talifar
(Texas)
Leah Fredman
(Texas)
Alexandra Vázquez
(UNED)
Ángel Gómez
(UNED)
Harvey Whitehouse
(Oxford)
55