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

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

What evidence is required to determine whether infants infer the kinship of third parties? A commentary on Spokes and Spelke (2017)

Research into the cognitive capacities of infants has revealed a rich assortment of competencies that help to structure inferences across multiple content domains. Despite these advances, researchers have paid relatively little attention to a domain crucial to social life: kinship. One recent exception is a set of studies by Spokes and Spelke (2017), who report evidence that 15 to 18-month-old infants expect social affiliation between two babies receiving care from the same adult. The experiments reported by Spokes and Spelke raise the key question of whether infants harbor intuitions regarding kinship-and provide tantalizing hints that they do. But determining whether the infant inferences found in these experiments in fact do implicate a kin-specific psychology is not straightforward, as kinship and social group membership overlap. Researchers need a set of criteria for ascertaining whether individuals (preverbal infants in particular but also children and adults alike) infer kinship-the likely genetic relatedness-between agents based on interactions with a common 3rd party and then use this information to guide expectations of behavior. Here, we consider the nature of evidence that would be needed to establish in principle that infants make inferences specific to kinship. In doing so, we link the developmental literature on infant social cognition to adult kin detection research, which has previously grappled with the question of what evidentiary standards reasonably establish the presence of kin-specific inferences. In light of prior empirical and theoretical work, we advance four criteria for establishing the presence of tacit knowledge of kinship, assess the extent to which the studies presented by S&S meet these criteria, and use the criteria to inform and spark directions for future research

Correlations between variables in Study 2 across conditions are displayed.

<p>Correlations between variables in Study 2 across conditions are displayed.</p

The more Leftist participants’ political orientation was, the more they showed fusion with the out-group and activist identity in terms of Palestine, but not in terms of Kurdistan in Study 2.

<p>The more Leftist participants’ political orientation was, the more they showed fusion with the out-group and activist identity in terms of Palestine, but not in terms of Kurdistan in Study 2.</p

In Study 4, Leftist political orientation predicted more fusion with the Kurdish out-group when aspiring foreign fighters experienced that they had a high moral obligation to support the Kurds.

<p>In Study 4, Leftist political orientation predicted more fusion with the Kurdish out-group when aspiring foreign fighters experienced that they had a high moral obligation to support the Kurds.</p

Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations between variables in Study 1 are displayed.

<p>Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations between variables in Study 1 are displayed.</p

Correlations between variables in Study 3 across conditions are displayed.

<p>Correlations between variables in Study 3 across conditions are displayed.</p

Moderated mediation model in Study 2 is displayed.

<p>*<i>p</i> < .05, **<i>p</i> < .01, ***<i>p</i> < .001. Non-significant paths are displayed in grey.</p

In Study 3, Leftist political orientation predicted more fusion with the Kurdish out-group when they were described as being victims of oppressive occupation but was unrelated to fusion with the out-group in the control and war condition.

<p>^a<i>B</i> = -.01, <i>SE</i> = .04, <i>p</i> = .760, 95% CI [-.10, .07]; ^b<i>B</i> = .03, <i>SE</i> = .05, <i>p</i> = .531, 95% CI [-.07, .14]; ^c<i>B</i> = .13, <i>SE</i> = .05, <i>p</i> = .014, 95% CI [.03, .23].</p