Explaining lifelong loyalty: The role of identity fusion and self-shaping group events

Pledging lifelong loyalty to an ingroup can have far-reaching behavioural effects, ranging from ordinary acts of ingroup kindness to extraordinary acts of self-sacrifice. What motivates this important form of group commitment? Here, we propose one especially potent answer to this question–the experience of a visceral sense of oneness with a group (i.e., identity fusion). In a sample of British football fans, a population in which high levels of lifelong loyalty are thought to be common, we first examined the hypothesised relationship between fusion and perceptions of lifelong loyalty to one’s club. We further explored the hypothesis that fusion and lifelong loyalty are not merely a reflection of past time investment in a group, but also reflect a deeper, memory-based process of feeling personally shaped by key group events, both euphoric and dysphoric. We found broad support for these hypotheses. Results suggest that feeling personally self-shaped by club events (e.g., crucial wins and losses), rather than time invested in the club, leads to greater identity fusion to one’s club. In turn, fusion engenders a sense of lifelong club loyalty. We discuss our findings in relation to the growing literature on the experiential origins of intense social cohesion

Life engagement test. Outcomes measurement tool: employment & skills – sense of purpose.

The Life Engagement Test is designed to measure purpose in life, defined in terms of how much a person engages in activities that are personally valued

Measuring the Experience and Perception of Suffering

Purpose: Assess psychometric properties of scales developed to assess experience and perception of physical, psychological, and existential suffering in older individuals. Design and Methods: Scales were administered to 3 populations of older persons and/or their family caregivers: individuals with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and their family caregivers (N = 105 dyads), married couples in whom 1 partner had osteoarthritis (N = 53 dyads), and African American and Hispanic caregivers of care recipients with AD (N = 121). Care recipients rated their own suffering, whereas caregivers provided ratings of perceived suffering of their respective care recipients. In addition, quality of life, health, and functional status data were collected from all respondents via structured in-person interviews. Results: Three scales showed high levels of internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity. The scales were able to discriminate differences in suffering as a function of type of disease, demonstrated high intra-person correlations and moderately high inter-person correlations and exhibited predicted patterns of association between each type of suffering and indicators of quality of life, health status, and caregiver outcomes of depression and burden. Implications: Suffering is an important but understudied domain. This article provides valuable tools for assessing the experience and perception of suffering in humans