New insights into the psychology of individuals and large groups in a world of changing conflicts

Abstract

The character of armed conflict has changed dramatically. The use of overwhelming force no longer brings victory and success. Under what conditions do supposedly weaker conflict actors ‘outpower’ stronger actors? This article argues that, throughout human history, those most willing to engage in and sustain extreme conflict have not been rational actors but ‘devoted actors’ driven by faith in defending or advancing their non-negotiable ‘sacred values’, whether religious or secular. Bringing into dialogue insights from large group psychology, neuroscience, and epigenetics with political science, this article demonstrates how two factors can help explain apparently non-rational elements of human functioning during armed conflict: first, the biological substrate helps elucidate why and how rational actor models seem to underestimate the influence of ‘right and wrong’ in people’s behaviour; second, the complex psychology of large groups often drives people to engage in action that may not be in their own individual interests.

Change in armed conflict: An introduction

“…The methods are guided by the logic of direct or indirect coercion, or serve to mobilize people, and can be supported by instruments of war, such as military equipment. Alderdice (2023) in this Special Issue demonstrates how this dimension connects with actors: conflict dynamics can change to favour weaker actors if they successfully employ methods such as guerrilla tactics that military capabilities cannot outpower. Conflict actors frequently invent new methods.…”

“…Rugo (2023) in this Special Issue studies such experienced and perceived harm, which exists at the level of individuals and of societies since it damages their social fabric. Finally, as Alderdice (2023) highlights in this Special Issue, both physical and non-physical harm can induce long-term harm to a society's structure, resulting from conflict's 'cumulative impact' (ICRC, 2016: 10). Dursun-Özkanca (2023) in this Special Issue captures such changing impact in a frozen conflict, where harm persists even if weapons are silenced.…”

“…Integrating them facilitates a more holistic view that goes beyond static, snapshot or unidirectional representations of change while foregrounding their general application. Placing the articles into dialogue with each other shows that adding psychology (Alderdice, 2023) and the arts (Rugo, 2023) to political science approaches illuminates the role perceptions and experiences of conflict dynamism have in a way that positivist approaches do not capture (Della Porta and Keating, 2008). Likewise, contrasting, for instance, Nogales and Oldiges (2023)' quantitatively oriented research on Nigeria's conflict dynamics with Dursun-Özkanca (2023)'s qualitative work on Cyprus's conflict reveals how both add to our understanding of territorial changes.…”

“…Rugo (2023) demonstrates how the arts embrace the affective and the emotional that shape people's perceptions and experiences which influence behaviour in conflict. These include perceptions of what Alderdice (2023) terms 'devoted actors', to whom sacred values rather than material gains are at stake. Perceptions and experiences matter to understand change in the dimension of the individual or the group (actors), and of the locales of conflict (environments).…”

“…He shows that art practice and research can contribute to an understanding of layered narratives used by various actors in conflict that resist political science approaches because arts unpacks the subtleties of experiences and perceptions. Finally, speaking to Rugo (2023)'s emphasis on the personal and the affective, Alderdice (2023) reminds the reader to take emotions seriously since conflict is about human relationships -or their breakdown. Alderdice (2023)'s analysis extends to the next generation: today's conflicts trigger tomorrow's traumas.…”