Article

The devoted actor’s will to fight and the spiritual dimension of human conflict

  • Nature Human Behaviourvolume 1pages673679 (2017)
  • doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0193-3
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published:

Abstract

Frontline investigations with fighters against the Islamic State (ISIL or ISIS), combined with multiple online studies, address willingness to fight and die in intergroup conflict. The general focus is on non-utilitarian aspects of human conflict, which combatants themselves deem ‘sacred’ or ‘spiritual’, whether secular or religious. Here we investigate two key components of a theoretical framework we call ‘the devoted actor’—sacred values and identity fusion with a group—to better understand people’s willingness to make costly sacrifices. We reveal three crucial factors: commitment to non-negotiable sacred values and the groups that the actors are wholly fused with; readiness to forsake kin for those values; and perceived spiritual strength of ingroup versus foes as more important than relative material strength. We directly relate expressed willingness for action to behaviour as a check on claims that decisions in extreme conflicts are driven by cost–benefit calculations, which may help to inform policy decisions for the common defense.

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Payne, S. Obama: US misjudged the rise of the Islamic State. Washington Post (2014).

  2. 2.

    Quadrennial Defense Review Report (US Department of Defense, 2006).

  3. 3.

    Quadrennial Defense Review 2014 (US Department of Defense, 2014).

  4. 4.

    Arreguín-Toft, I. How the weak win wars: a theory of asymmetric conflict. Int. Secur. 26, 93–128 (2001).

  5. 5.

    Atran, S. & Ginges, J. Religious and sacred imperatives in human conflict. Science 336, 855–857 (2012).

  6. 6.

    Atran, S., Axelrod, R. & Davis, R. Sacred barriers to conflict resolution. Science 317, 1039–1040 (2007).

  7. 7.

    Swann, W. B. Jr., Jetten, J., Gómez, Á., Whitehouse, H. & Bastian, B. When group membership gets personal: a theory of identity fusion. Psychol. Rev. 119, 441–456 (2012).

  8. 8.

    ARTIS Research. Theoretical frames on pathways to violent radicalization. http://www.artisresearch.com/articles/ARTIS_Theoretical_Frames_August_2009.pdf (Office of Naval Research, 2009).

  9. 9.

    Davis, R. Hamas, Popular Support and War in the Middle East (Routledge, Oxford, 2016).

  10. 10.

    Tetlock, P. Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 320–324 (2003).

  11. 11.

    Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D. & Shikaki, K. Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 7357–7360 (2007).

  12. 12.

    Dehghani, M. et al. Sacred values and conflict over Iran’s nuclear program. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 5, 540–546 (2010).

  13. 13.

    Gómez, A. et al. On the nature of identity fusion: insights into the construct and a new measure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100, 918–933 (2011).

  14. 14.

    Sheikh, H., Gómez, Á. & Atran, S. Empirical evidence for the devoted actor model. Curr. Anthropol. 57, S204–S209 (2016).

  15. 15.

    Ginges, J., Atran, S., Sachdeva, S. & Medin, D. Psychology out of the laboratory: the challenge of violent extremism. Am. Psychol. 66, 507–519 (2011).

  16. 16.

    Atran, S. The devoted actor: unconditional commitment and intractable conflict across cultures. Curr. Anthropol. 57, S192–S203 (2016).

  17. 17.

    Atran, S. & Hamid, N. Paris: the war ISIS wants. NYR Daily (2015).

  18. 18.

    Gavrilets, S. & Richerson, P. Collective action and the evolution of social norm internalization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6068–6073 (2017).

  19. 19.

    Whitehouse, H., McQuinn, B., Buhrmester, M. & Swann, W. B. Jr. Brothers in arms: Libyan revolutionaries bond like family. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 17783–17785 (2014).

  20. 20.

    Atran, S., Sheikh, H. & Gómez, Á. Devoted actors sacrifice for close comrades and sacred cause. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 17702–17703 (2014).

  21. 21.

    Sanín, F. G. & Wood, E. J. Ideology in civil war. J. Peace Res. 51, 213–226 (2014).

  22. 22.

    Jurgensmeyer, M. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (California Univ. Press, Berkeley, 2003).

  23. 23.

    McPherson, J. For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1997).

  24. 24.

    Fritz, S. Frontsoldaten: The German Soldier in World War II (Univ. Kentucky Press, Lexington, 1995).

  25. 25.

    Varshney, A. Nationalism, ethnic conflict, and rationality. Perspect. Politic. 1, 85–99 (2003).

  26. 26.

    Collier, P. & Hoeffler, A. Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 56, 563–595 (2004).

  27. 27.

    Hoover Green, A. Repertoires of Violence Against Noncombatants: The Role of Armed Groups and Ideologies. PhD thesis, Yale Univ. (2011).

  28. 28.

    Atran, S. in Beyond Convergence: World Without Order (eds. Matfees, H. & Miklaucic, M.) 61–88 (National Defense Univ., 2016).

  29. 29.

    Fukuyama, F. The Origins of Political Order (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2012).

  30. 30.

    Humphreys, M. & Weinstein, J. M. Who fights? The determinants of participation in civil war. Am. J. Polit. Sci 52, 436–455 (2008).

  31. 31.

    Atran, S., Axelrod, R., Davis, R. & Fischhoff, B. Challenges in researching terrorism from the field. Science 355, 352–354 (2017).

  32. 32.

    Toynbee, A. A Study of History (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1934).

  33. 33.

    Darwin, C. Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (D. Appleton, New York, 1872).

  34. 34.

    Buckley, C. & Xiaobo, L. Chinese dissent who won Nobel while jailed, dies at 61. New York Times (2017).

  35. 35.

    Baron, J. & Spranca, M. Protected values. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 70, 1–16 (1997).

  36. 36.

    Swann, W. B. Jr., Seyle, C., Gómez, Á., Morales, J. F. & Huici, C. Identity fusion: the interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96, 995–1011 (2009).

  37. 37.

    Jiménez, J. et al. The dynamic identity fusion index: a new continuous measure of identity fusion for web-based questionnaires. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 34, 215–228 (2016).

  38. 38.

    Swann, W. B. Jr. et al. Contemplating the ultimate sacrifice: identity fusion channels pro-group affect, cognition, and moral decision-making. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 106, 713–727 (2014).

  39. 39.

    Gómez, Á. & Vázquez, A. The power of ‘feeling one’ with a group: identity fusion and extreme pro-group behaviours. Int. J. Soc. Psychol. 30, 481–511 (2015).

  40. 40.

    Stouffer, S. et al. Studies in Social Psychology in World War II (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1949).

  41. 41.

    Smith, R. B. Why soldiers fight. Part I. Leadership, cohesion and fighter spirit. Qual. Quant. 18, 1–32 (1983).

  42. 42.

    Gómez, Á., López-Rodríguez, L., Vázquez, A., Paredes, B. & Martínez, M. Morir y matar por un grupo o unos valores. Estrategias para evitar, reducir y/o erradicar el comportamiento grupal extremista. Anu. Psicol. Juríd 6, 122–129 (2016).

  43. 43.

    Öcalan, A. Prison Writings: The PKK and the Kurdish Question in the 21st Century (Pluto Press, London, 2011).

  44. 44.

    Taylor, H. & Moyer, J. Islamic state fighter publicly executes own mother; Syrian activists say. Washington Post (2016).

  45. 45.

    Ahlul Bayt News Agency. ISIS militant executes own father in Mosul for insulting Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. http://en.abna24.com/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2016/10/13/785201/story.html (2016).

  46. 46.

    Fessler, D., Holbrook, C. & Snyder, J. K. Weapons make the man (larger): formidability is represented as size and strength in humans. PLoS ONE 7,e32751 (2012).

  47. 47.

    Holbrook, C., López-Rodríguez, L., Fessler, D., Vázquez, A. & Gómez, Á. Gulliver’s politics: conservatives envision potential enemies as readily vanquished and physically small. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. doi:10.1177/1948550616679238 (2016).

  48. 48.

    Bowles, S. & Polanía-Reyes, S. Economic incentives and social preferences: substitutes or complements? J. Econ. Lit. 50, 368–425 (2012).

  49. 49.

    Graham, J. & Haidt, J. in The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil (eds. Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P.) 11–31 (American Psychological Association, 2012).

  50. 50.

    Ginges, J. & Atran, S. War as a moral imperative (not just practical politics by other means). Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 2930–2938 (2011).

  51. 51.

    Fiske, A. & Rai, T. S. Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End and Honor Social Relationships (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2015).

  52. 52.

    Kahane, G., Everett, J., Earp, B., Farias, M. & Savulesco, J. ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition 134, 193–209 (2015).

  53. 53.

    Dollard, J. Fear in Battle (Institute of Human Relations, Yale Univ., 1943).

  54. 54.

    Watson, S. J. Religion and combat motivation in the Confederate armies. J. Mil. Hist 58, 29–55 (1994).

  55. 55.

    Fearon, J. D. Rationalist explanations for war. Int. Org 49, 379–414 (1995).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank everyone who participated in the studies, especially those on the frontline in Iraq. We acknowledge partial funding support from the Minerva Program of the US Department of Defense (ONR N000141310054 and AFOSR FA9550-14-1-0030 DEF), as well as the Office of Naval Research (N00014-16-C-3032), US National Science Foundation (SES 1559387) and Spanish Government (PSI2015-67754-P). Funders had no role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We thank R. Axelrod, B. Fischhoff, X. Lois, J. Smith and D. Stone for assistance in developing and informally reviewing this research.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ángel Gómez and Scott Atran contributed equally to this work.

Affiliations

  1. Artis International, 6424 East Greenway Parkway, Suite 100-498, Scottsdale, AZ, 85254, USA

    • Ángel Gómez
    • , Lucía López-Rodríguez
    • , Hammad Sheikh
    • , Jeremy Ginges
    • , Lydia Wilson
    • , Hoshang Waziri
    • , Alexandra Vázquez
    • , Richard Davis
    •  & Scott Atran
  2. Departamento de Psicología Social y de las Organizaciones, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, UNED, C/ Juan del Rosal, No. 10, 28040, Madrid, Spain

    • Ángel Gómez
  3. Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de Almería, Cañada de San Urbano s/n, 04120, Almería, Spain

    • Lucía López-Rodríguez
  4. Department of Psychology, New School for Social Research, 66 West 12th Street, New York, NY, 10011, USA

    • Hammad Sheikh
    •  & Jeremy Ginges
  5. Centre for the Resolution of Intractable Conflicts, CRIC, Department of Politics and International Relations and Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford, Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TD, UK

    • Richard Davis
    •  & Scott Atran
  6. School of Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University, Coor Hall, 975 South Myrtle Avenue, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

    • Richard Davis
  7. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institut Jean Nicod—Ecole Normale Supérieure, 29 Rue d’Ulm, 75005, Paris, France

    • Scott Atran
  8. Gerald Ford School of Public Policy and Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    • Scott Atran

Authors

  1. Search for Ángel Gómez in:

  2. Search for Lucía López-Rodríguez in:

  3. Search for Hammad Sheikh in:

  4. Search for Jeremy Ginges in:

  5. Search for Lydia Wilson in:

  6. Search for Hoshang Waziri in:

  7. Search for Alexandra Vázquez in:

  8. Search for Richard Davis in:

  9. Search for Scott Atran in:

Contributions

S.A. conceived and directed frontline investigations and was overall project director. Á.G. conceived and directed online studies. S.A. and Á.G. managed project communication. Á.G. and L.L.-R. prepared online protocols and collected online data. S.A. and H.S. prepared frontline protocols. S.A., L.W. and H.W. collected frontline data. S.A., H.S., J.G. and A.V. participated in refining and developing online protocols and experimental design. Á.G., J.G., L.W., H.W. and R.D. participated in developing frontline protocols and experimental design. Á.G., H.S. and L.L.-R. initiated data analysis. S.A., Á.G. and J.G. initiated manuscript preparation. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott Atran.

Electronic supplementary material

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Figures 1–19, Supplementary References

  2. Life Sciences Reporting Summary

    Life Sciences Reporting Summary

  3. Supplementary Video 1

    Peshmerga Fighter

  4. Supplementary Video 2

    ISIS Fighter

  5. Supplementary Video 3

    Value vs Group