Engaging in extreme activism in support of others’ political struggles: The role of politically motivated fusion with out-groups

Abstract

Humans are a coalitional, parochial species. Yet, extreme actions of solidarity are sometimes taken for distant or unrelated groups. What motivates people to become solidary with groups to which they do not belong originally? Here, we demonstrate that such distant solidarity can occur when the perceived treatment of an out-group clashes with one’s political beliefs (e.g., for Leftists, oppressive occupation of the out-group) and that it is driven by fusion (or a feeling of oneness) with distant others with whom one does not share any common social category such as nationality, ethnicity or religion. In Study 1, being politically Leftist predicted European-Americans’ willingness to engage in extreme protest on behalf of Palestinians, which was mediated by fusion with the out-group. Next, in Study 2, we examined whether this pattern was moderated by out-group type. Here, Norwegian Leftists fused more with Palestinians (i.e., a group that, in the Norwegian context, is perceived to be occupied in an asymmetrical conflict) rather than Kurds (i.e., a group for which this perception is less salient). In Study 3, we experimentally tested the underlying mechanism by framing the Kurdish conflict in terms of an asymmetrical occupation (vs. symmetrical war or control conditions) and found that this increased Leftist European-Americans’ fusion with Kurds. Finally, in Study 4, we used a unique sample of non-Kurdish aspiring foreign fighters who were in the process of joining the Kurdish militia YPG. Here, fusion with the out-group predicted a greater likelihood to join and support the Kurdish forces in their fight against ISIS, insofar as respondents experienced that their political orientation morally compelled them to do so (Study 4). Together, our findings suggest that politically motivated fusion with out-groups underpins the extreme solidary action people may take on behalf of distant out-groups. Implications for future theory and research are discussed.

Recent advances, misconceptions, untested assumptions, and future research agenda for identity fusion theory

“…One of the most fundamental innovations of this period is the notion that it is possible to be fused with different types of entities. In addition to the traditional conception of identity fusion, as the relation that an individual develops with a group (the ingroup, but also an outgroup that, e.g., is oppressed, see Kunst et al, 2018), people can fuse with another individual as his/her romantic partner (Joo & Park, 2017; Walsh & Neff, 2018), his/her sibling (Vázquez, Gómez, Ordoñana, Swann, & Whitehouse, 2017), or a political leader (Kunst, Dovidio, & Thomsen, 2019). But individuals can also fuse with an animal (Buhrmester, Burnham, et al, 2018), a trademark (Hawkins, 2019), or a value or conviction , as religion (Fredman, Bastian, & Swann, 2017).…”

“…Several researchers have found other potential causes of fusion. Kunst et al (2018) showed that political struggles (e.g., oppressive occupation of the outgroup) that clash with people's political beliefs might lead to fusion with groups to which individuals do not belong. Carnes and Lickel's (2018) manifest that perceiving that the group shares core moral beliefs or convictions can also cause fusion.…”

“…What they do seems to be determined by the kind of entity they are fused with as well as by some situational factors (e.g., Fredman et al, 2017; Misch, Ferguson, & Durnham, 2018; Newson, Buhrmester, & Whitehouse, 2016; Vázquez et al, 2017). For instance, people who strongly fuse with an outgroup that is victim of unjust treatment, like the Palestinians or the Kurds, are more willing to participate in extreme forms of protest on behalf of the group (Kunst et al, 2018); whereas people who fuse with an activity related to a brand are more willing to spread negative world‐of‐mouth, to boycott the brand, and to avoid repurchasing the brand after a market disruption or a brand transgression (Hawkins, 2019). In contexts where the group's essence is threatened, strongly fused persons are especially likely to maximize the ingroup's advantage over the outgroup even at the expense of personal costs (Buhrmester, Newson, Vázquez, Hattori, & Whitehouse, 2018).…”

“…With respect to the moderators, it has been discovered that strongly fused individuals are particularly willing to sacrifice for the group when the essence of the group is threatened (Buhrmester, Newson, et al, 2018). Fused individuals are also more willing to go to the extremes for the group when they feel morally compelled to do so than when they do not experience any feelings of moral obligation (Kunst et al, 2018). In contrast, strongly fused individuals reduce their willingness to fight and die for their group when they learn that other ingroup members would self‐sacrifice for it due to their moral principles and emotions toward the group as opposed to a pragmatic calculus about the costs and benefits associated to self‐sacrificial behavior (Paredes, Briñol, & Gómez, 2018).…”

“…Hence, identity fusion will be especially predictive when self‐sacrificial behavior is group‐oriented, but other variables can outperform fusion in predicting self‐sacrificial behavior if the goal is to protect one's values (Gómez et al, 2017). On the other hand, ideals and values could be causal antecedents of fusion (Carnes & Lickel, 2018; Kunst et al, 2018) or they can interact with fusion to stimulate pro‐group behavior as the devoted actor model states (Gómez et al, 2017; Sheikh, Gómez, & Atran, 2016; Vázquez, López‐Rodríguez, Martínez, Atran, & Gómez, 2020).…”