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

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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Willingness to make costly sacrifices for participants who forsake their fused groups for sacred values in frontline (study 1) and online (study 3) studies.
Fig. 2
Fig. 3: Perceived physical versus spiritual formidability for ISIS, Spain and USA.
Fig. 4: Average (descriptive) rank of physical and spiritual formidability in study 1 for Peshmerga (n = 19), Iraqi Army Kurds (n = 17) and Sunni Arab militia (n = 20).
Fig. 5: Slopes of multiple regression analysis of costly sacrifices on intergroup differences in physical and spiritual formidability (own group versus ISIS).

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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

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

    Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

Affiliations

Authors

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott Atran.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Figures 1–19, Supplementary References

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Supplementary Video 1

Peshmerga Fighter

Supplementary Video 2

ISIS Fighter

Supplementary Video 3

Value vs Group

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gómez, Á., López-Rodríguez, L., Sheikh, H. et al. The devoted actor’s will to fight and the spiritual dimension of human conflict. Nat Hum Behav 1, 673–679 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0193-3

Download citation

Further reading