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.

Is terrorism just another form of criminal activity, as many nations’ justice systems assume? We offer an initial answer using face-to-face interviews and structured surveys in thirty-five Spanish prisons. Recent theories of extreme sacrifice inform this direct observational and comparative study. Islamist terrorists display levels of self-sacrifice for their primary reference group similar to that of Latino gangs, but greater willingness to sacrifice for primary values than other inmates (non-radical Muslims, Latino gangs, and delinquent bands). This disposition is motivated by stronger perceived injustice, discrimination, and a visceral commitment to such values (risk/radicalization factors). Nevertheless, state authorities, prison staff, and families are (protective/de-radicalization) factors apt to reduce willingness to sacrifice and keep foreign fighters, now being released in large numbers, from returning to terrorism.

As ordinary citizens increasingly moderate online forums, blogs, and their own social media feeds, a new type of censoring has emerged wherein people selectively remove opposing political viewpoints from online contexts. In three studies of behavior on putative online forums, supporters of a political cause (e.g., abortion or gun rights) preferentially censored comments that opposed their cause. The tendency to selectively censor cause-incongruent online content was amplified among people whose cause-related beliefs were deeply rooted in or "fused with" their identities. Moreover, six additional identity-related measures also amplified the selective censoring effect. Finally, selective censoring emerged even when opposing comments were inoffensive and courteous. We suggest that because online censorship enacted by moderators can skew online content consumed by millions of users, it can systematically disrupt democratic dialogue and subvert social harmony.

Esta es la versión de autor del artículo publicado en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in: El acceso a la versión del editor puede requerir la suscripción del recurso Access to the published version may require subscriptionÞò п®»¼» »¬ ¿´òae ͳ·´·²¹ Ê¿´·¼¿¬» ̸± «¹¸¬ ͱ½·¿´ Ð §½¸±´±¹ § îðïí w îðïí ر¹®»º» Ы¾´·¸·²¹