physiological arousal on pro-group behavior

18 Pages·2010·0.77 MB·English

JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology ©2010AmericanPsychologicalAssociation
2010,Vol.99,No.5,824–841 0022-3514/10/$12.00 DOI:10.1037/a0020014
Identity Fusion and Self-Sacrifice: Arousal as a Catalyst of Pro-Group
Fighting, Dying, and Helping Behavior
William B. Swann, Jr. A´ngel Go´mez, Carmen Huici,
UniversityofTexasatAustin and J. Francisco Morales
UniversidadNacionaldeEducacio´naDistancia
J. Gregory Hixon
UniversityofTexasatAustin
Identity fusion is a feeling of oneness with the group that induces people to tether their feelings of
personalagencytothegroup.Weaccordinglyproposedthatincreasingtheagencyoffusedpersonsby
elevating autonomic arousal would amplify their tendency to endorse and actually enact pro-ingroup
behavior.In4experiments,increasingautonomicarousalthroughphysicalexerciseelevatedheartrates
andfusion-unrelatedactivityamongallparticipants.Fusedparticipants,however,uniquelyrespondedto
arousalbytranslatingelevatedagencyintoendorsementofpro-groupactivity.Theseeffectsemerged
bothforendorsementofextremebehaviorsforthegroupandforovertbehaviors,specificallyhelping
behavior(donatingmoneytoneedyin-groupmembers),andthespeedwithwhichparticipantsraceda
fusion-relatedavatar.Theeffectsalsogeneralizedacross3differentarousalinductions(dodgeball,wind
sprints,andExercycle).Finally,fusion-relatedagencypartiallymediatedtheinteractiveeffectsoffusion
andarousalonpro-groupbehavior.Apparently,autonomicarousalincreasesagencyandidentityfusion
channelsincreasedagencyintopro-groupbehavior.
Keywords:identityfusion,socialidentity,personalidentity,extremebehavior,self-verification
Why do people sometimes make extraordinary sacrifices for alike.Weassumefurtherthatbecausefusedpersonsarenotmerely
their ingroup? Recent research has suggested that identity fusion identifiedwiththegroupbutareabsolutelycommittedtoit,among
may sometimes underlie such sacrifices. In one series of studies, suchindividuals,increasingagencywillamplifypro-ingroupbehavior
those whose identities were “fused with” their country were par- beyondtheeffectsofidentification.Toputthesepredictionsincon-
ticularlylikelytoendorsefightinganddyingfortheircountry(e.g., text,wecontrastidentityfusionwithgroupidentification.
Swann, Go´mez, Seyle, Morales, & Huici, 2009). Moreover, in a
variation of the classic trolley dilemma, fused persons endorsed
Identification, Identity Fusion, and the Interplay of
saving group members by plunging themselves in front of a
Personal and Social Identities
speeding trolley (Swann, Go´mez, Dovidio, Hart, & Jetten, in
press).Here,weextendthisworkbyaskingifautonomicarousalmay
Both identification and identity fusion are premised on the
augment the pro-group activities of fused persons. We assume that
distinction between personal and group identities (James, 1890/
autonomicarousalwillincreaseagency(i.e.,thecapacitytoinitiate
1950;Tajfel&Turner,1979).Personalidentitiesarederivedfrom
and control intentional behavior) for fused and nonfused persons
thoseaspectsoftheselfthatareuniquetotheindividualself(e.g.,
intelligentorextravert).Socialidentitiesresultfrommembership
insocialgroups(e.g.,Americanorpsychologist)andalignpeople
with other group members. The key difference between identifi-
ThisarticlewaspublishedOnlineFirstJuly12,2010.
WilliamB.Swann,Jr.,andJ.GregoryHixon,PsychologyDepartment, cationandidentityfusionisinhowpersonalandsocialidentities
University of Texas at Austin; A´ngel Go´mez, Carmen Huici, and J. arethoughttointeractwhenpeoplealignthemselveswithagroup.
FranciscoMorales,DepartamentodePsicolog´ıaSocialydelasOrganiza- Inrecentyears,identificationhasoftenbeenconceptualizedas
ciones. Facultad de Psicolog´ıa, Universidad Nacional de Educacio´n a a predominately cognitive process wherein the person ascribes
Distancia,Madrid,Spain. qualities or characteristics of the group to the self (e.g., Turner,
This research and the preparation of this article were supported by Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). According to some
ResearchFundGrantPSI2009-07008fromtheSpanishMinistryofScience
influential theorists working with the social identity theory tradi-
and Innovation to A´ngel Go´mez, William B. Swann, Jr., Carmen Huici,
tion(e.g.,Turner,1985),thereisazero-sumrelationshipbetween
andJ.FranciscoMorales.WethankJolandaJettenandJamiePennebaker
personalandsocialidentities:Themoresocialidentitiesareacti-
forhighlyconstructivecommentsonthisresearch.
vated,thelesspersonalidentitiesareactivated.Oneimplicationof
CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoWilliam
B.Swann,Jr.,PsychologyDepartment,UniversityofTexasatAustin,1 this assumption is that the process of identifying with the group
University Station, A8000, 108 East Dean Keeton, Austin, TX 78712- reducesthecapacityofpeopletothinkofthemselvesasindividual
0187.E-mail:[email protected] actors with personal agendas. Instead, as identification increases,
824
IDENTITYFUSIONANDSELF-SACRIFICE 825
theindividualbecomesdepersonalizedandthepersonalselfisless Incontrast,theonenesswiththegroupthatfusedpersonsfeelis
apt to guide behavior. Although some theorists have taken issue thoughttobebasedontheperceptionofsharedessenceratherthan
withthis“hostiletakeover”conceptualizationoftheidentification confusionofselfandotheroratendencytoincorporatetheother.
process (e.g., Codol, 1975; Deschamps, 1982, 1991; Postmes & AscanbeseeninFigure1,thefusedoption(E)indicatesthatthe
Jetten, 2006; Simon, 2004; Simon & Kampmeir, 2001; Spears, personalselfretainsitsuniquenessandintegritybutiscompletely
2001), it is consistent with principles such as functional antago- immersedintheother.Notethatthiscompletelyimmersedoption
nismaswellassocialidentitytheory’semphasisonthetendency ismoreextremethanthemostextremeoptionintheIOS.Another
for the social context to shape the personal self (Turner, 1985; distinction is that fused persons are not presumed to feel that the
Turneretal.,1987). groupisapartoftheselfasinthemostextremeoptionoftheIOS.
In the tradition of self-verification theory’s assumption of a Instead, fused individuals acknowledge that self–group influence
highly agentic personal self (e.g., Swann, 1983, in press), the is bidirectional: Just as the self may internalize qualities of the
identityfusionapproachdepartsfromthedominantsocialidentity other,sotoomaythegrouprepresentanexternalizationoftheself.
modelbyassumingthatfusedpersonsretainasalientpersonalself Finally, this bidirectional influence process does not result in
andassociatedfeelingsofpersonalagency.Althoughfusioncould confusion of the self and other. To the contrary, for one to be
arisefromasingle,emotionallypowerfulexperiencewithagroup, absolutely committed to the other, one obviously must recognize
inmostinstances,itlikelygrowsoutofseveraldirectorindirect thatthegroupisdistinctfromtheself.
contactswiththemembersoftheingroup,outgroup,orsocietyat Several group researchers (Coats, Smith, Claypool, & Banner,
large.Mostsignificantly,theseexperiencescausefusedpersonsto 2000;Smith&Henry,1996;Tropp&Wright,2001)adaptedthe
developafeelingofonenesswiththegroupandasenseofshared IOS measure to capture the relationship of respondents to their
essence. These sentiments toward the group do not cause fused group.Buildingonthiswork,SchubertandOtten(2002)addedan
persons to lose sight of their personal selves or subjugate the option in which the self and group were completely overlapping.
personalselftothegroup.Instead,thefusionprocessmerelyadds Swannetal.(2009)furthermodifiedthismeasurebycreatingan
group-related action as a potential mode of personal self- identity fusion scale in which participants selected from among
expression. Buttressed by a strong sense of personal agency, five pictures the one that best represented their relationship with
identity-fused individuals become galvanized to act on behalf of thegroup(foradetaileddiscussionofthepsychometricproperties
the group. The result is absolute, unmitigated commitment to ofthefusionscale,seeSwannetal.,2009).
engageinpro-groupactivity.1Itisthusnotsurprisingthatfusion Todate,Swannetal.(2009,inpress)havereportedaseriesof
predicts endorsement of extreme pro-group actions even while 10studiesindicatingthattheirpictorialmeasureofidentityfusion
controllingforidentification(Swannetal.,2009,inpress). predicts endorsement of extreme pro-group behavior even while
Insofar as fusion is associated with feelings of oneness and controlling for identification. One way to summarize these find-
shared essence with another person or group, one would expect ingsistosuggestthatidentityfusionservestofigurativelycockthe
thatitwouldbeatleastsomewhatstable.Yetfusionisnotatrait group-action trigger. If so, then it becomes important to identify
intheclassicalsense,asitmayvarysomewhatwithcontextandis the factors that prompt people to pull the trigger. One set of
specifictoparticulartargetpersonsorgroups(i.e.,fusionwithany variableshasalreadybeenexperimentallydocumented.Inpartic-
givengroupisunrelatedtofusionwithothergroups;Swannetal., ular,totesttheassumptionthatthepersonalandsocialidentitiesof
2009). In addition, there may be considerable variability in how fused persons are integrally connected, Swann et al. (2009) acti-
people translate fusion to the group into behavior. For some vated the personal selves of participants who were fused with
Americans, fusion with country may mean steadfastly defending Spain by providing them with discrepant feedback on personal
Americaagainstcriticism;forothers,itmaymeanbuyingAmer- qualities that were unrelated to the Spanish group identity (e.g.,
ican cars; for still others, it may mean sacrificing their lives in shy,stubborn).Asexpected,activatingthepersonalselvesoffused
wartime. The common element, however, is that relative to non- individuals did indeed raise their endorsement of extreme action
fusedpeople,fusedpeoplearemarkedlymorecommittedtoacting onbehalfofthegroup.Inanotherstudy,theresearchersactivated
onbehalfofthegroup(e.g.,Swannetal.,2009,inpress). participants’ identities by asking them if they would fight to
Toassessidentityfusion,weturnedtoavariationofameasure- defend either themselves (activating their personal identity) or
mentdevicethatwasoriginallydevelopedtoassessattachmentin their group (activating their group identity). Whereas nonfused
closerelationships.Specifically,Aron,Aron,andSmollan(1992) participantsincreasedtheirendorsementofextremeactionforthe
developed a pictorial measure of connectedness to relationship group only when their social self-views were activated, fused
partners that consisted of a series of pictures that represented persons increased their endorsement of extreme action for the
different degrees of overlap between the self and other. The
Inclusion of Other in Self Scale (IOS) is conceptualized as a
continuousmeasureofthedegreetowhichpeoplepossessa“sense 1FollowingEllemers,Spears,andDoojse(2002,p.164),wedistinguish
ofbeinginterconnectedwithanother,”afeelingthatismanifested commitmentfromidentification.Whereascommitmenthistoricallyfeatures
astrongactioncomponent(“Apledgetodo,”“Thestateofbeingbound
by a tendency to view the self as “including resources, perspec-
emotionallyorintellectuallytoacourseofactionortoanotherpersonor
tives,andcharacteristicsoftheother”(Aronetal.,1992,p.598).
persons”), identification often emphasizes a cognitive process (e.g., “A
Within this framework, overlap between the self and other is
processbywhichoneascribestooneselfthequalitiesorcharacteristicsof
understood to grow out of a tendency for the self to incorporate
anotherpersonorgroup”).Thesedefinitionsweretakenfromdictionary-
aspects of the other. Although the overlap is never complete, it .com (http://dictionary.reference.com/). Many phenomena could produce
causes highly interconnected persons to experience confusion re- commitment, including identification, contractual arrangements, ties to
gardingboundariesbetweentheselfandother. specificgroupmembers,orfeelingofonenesswiththegroup(i.e.,fusion).
826 SWANN,GO´MEZ,HUICI,MORALES,ANDHIXON

Self Group Self Group Self Group Self Group Self Group
A B C D E
Figure1. Measureofidentityfusion.From“IdentityFusion:TheInterplayofPersonalandSocialIdentities
inExtremeGroupBehavior”byW.B.Swann,Jr.,A.Go´mez,D.C.Seyle,J.F.Morales,andC.Huici,2009,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, p. 998. Copyright 2009 by the American Psychological
Association.
group when either their personal or their social identities were revealed that arousing experiences produced excitation that en-
activated. Together, these findings provide converging evidence hanced subsequent sexual attraction (Dutton & Aron, 1974;
thatfusionengendersastateofabsolute,unmitigatedcommitment Meston&Frohlich,2003)andsenseofhumor(Cantor,Bryant,&
tothegroup. Zillmann,1974).
Todetermineifnakedarousal(i.e.,arousalunrelatedtothefocal
Arousal as an Amplifier of Emotion group)wouldexaggeratethetendencyoffusedpersonstoadvance
and Pro-Group Behavior theinterestofthefocalgroup,weconductedfourexperiments.All
of our experiments were conducted in Spain, each included a
To illuminate further the mechanisms underlying identity fu-
no-arousalcontrolgroup,andeachincludedmeasuresofidentifi-
sion,inthisreport,wefocusedonanovelstrategyforprompting
cation as well as fusion with the group. In all experiments, we
fused persons to pull the group-action trigger. Given that fused
introduced arousal by having participants exercise. We then as-
individuals are poised to act as agents for the group, any manip-
sessedtheeffectsofourpredictorvariables(fusion,identification,
ulation that increases agency should theoretically increase pro-
andarousal)onendorsementofpro-groupactivity.
groupbehavior(cf.Reicher&Haslam,2006).Onerelativelydirect
Wewerealsointerestedinthegeneralizabilityandspecificityof
meansofincreasingagencyistoincreaseautonomicarousal.That
our findings. To determine if our effects would generalize to
is,consistentwithearlylearningtheories(e.g.,Hull,1943),studies
differentarousalmanipulations,wehadsomeparticipantsexercise
ofnonhumansdemonstratethatarousalofthesympatheticnervous
inagroupdodgeballgame(Experiment1);wehadothersrunwind
system encourages animals to enact responses that they are pre-
sprints(Experiment2)andstillothersrideanExercycle(Experi-
disposed to make (Jacobs & Farel, 1971). Parallel studies with
ments3–4).Toextendtheeffectsoffusionandarousalbeyondthe
humans have revealed that heightened arousal can increase in-
outcome variables examined in past research (i.e., intentions to
group favoritism and stereotyping among highly identified group
fight or die for the group), in Experiments 3–4, we added two
members(e.g.,Branscombe&Wann,1992;Wann&Branscombe,
measuresofactualovertbehavior:howmuchoftheirownmoney
1995).Nevertheless,identificationmaynotmoderatethetendency
participantsdonatedtoneedymembersofthefocalgroupandhow
for arousal to amplify pro-group behaviors that are enacted by
fasttheyracedafusion-relatedavatar(the“Spanishsprinter”).
individualsactingalone,aspastresearchhasshownthatidentifi-
Todetermineifourpredictedeffectswerespecifictoactivities
cation is not strongly related to the tendency for people to act as
associatedwiththegroupwithwhichparticipantswerefused,we
individualsforthegroup(Swannetal.,2009,inpress).Incontrast,
included parallel measures of our dependent variables that were
fusion should moderate the tendency for arousal to amplify pro-
notlinkedtothefocalgroup.Forexample,inExperiments2–3,we
groupbehaviorofindividualsactingalone,evenwhilecontrolling
askedhowwillingparticipantsweretoendorseextremeactionsfor
foridentification.
One further issue of interest here is the generality of the pro- anothergroupofwhichtheyweremembers(Europe)aswellasthe
posed link between arousal and pro-group action among fused focal group (Spain). Further, in Experiment 3, we measured do-
persons.IntheBranscombeandWann(1992)study,forexample, nationstotwoentities,onlyoneofwhichwasrelatedtothefocal
thesourceofarousal(anaggressiveencounterbetweenanAmer- group(Spain);inExperiment4,wemeasuredhowfastparticipants
ican and a Russian) was conceptually analogous to the outcome racedtwoavatars,onlyoneofwhichwasrelatedtothefocalgroup
measure(verbalaggressionagainstRussians).Nevertheless,some (Spain).
attributional models imply that the relationship between arousal Finally, we included several measures that were designed to
and emotion may be quite general. In the most extreme case, the provide information regarding the mechanisms underlying our
sourceofthearousalcouldbecompletelyunrelatedtotheoutcome predictedeffects.Forexample,weexpectedthatphysicalexercise
measure. Zillmann’s (1971) excitation transfer theory, for exam- would increase autonomic arousal. To index arousal, in Experi-
ple, suggests that arousal may produce residual excitement that ments 1–4, we included a measure of heart rate. We were also
serves to intensify later emotional states. Diverse evidence has interested in identifying the psychological mediator of our ex-
supported this proposition. Whereas early studies showed that pectedresults.Wereasonedthatarousalwouldincreaseagencyfor
nonspecific arousal increases outcomes such as aggression (e.g., all participants in our experiments and tested this assumption by
Zillmann, 1971; Zillman & Bryant, 1974), subsequent studies including outcome measures in Experiments 2–4 that were unre-
IDENTITYFUSIONANDSELF-SACRIFICE 827
lated to the focal group. We reasoned further that because fused 0.11, t (cid:1) 5.22, p (cid:2) .001), and two of the Leach et al. scales
participantsregardthegroupasanexternalizationofthepersonal (Solidarity,B(cid:1)0.05,t(cid:1)2.34,p(cid:2).05,andCentrality,B(cid:1)0.057,
self, for such individuals, the elevated agency fostered by the p (cid:2) .001), but the fusion effect was significantly higher than the
arousalmanipulationshouldproduceelevatedagencyforthefocal MaelandAshfortheffect(z(cid:1)3.77,p(cid:2).001),andtheMaeland
group. Agency for the group should, in turn, foster pro-group Ashfortheffectwassignificantlyhigherthantheeffectsofanyof
behavior. To test this meditational hypothesis, we included a theLeachetal.subscales(allzs(cid:3)6.78,ps(cid:2).001).Thesefindings
self-reportmeasureoffusion-relatedagencyinExperiments3–4. justifyouruseoftheMaelandAshforthscaleinourexperiments
Finally, in an effort to test the rival hypothesis that the arousal astherepresentativemeasureofidentification.
manipulationmightworkbyfosteringfeelingsofcompetitiveness, Wewerealsointerestedinthepossibilitythatfusionwouldbe
we included a measure of self-perceived competitiveness in the relatedtocommitmenttothegroupandthatbothvariableswould
lasttwoexperiments. predict endorsement of extreme behavior. To test this prediction,
Weexpectedthatthearousalmanipulationswouldamplifythe inPreliminaryStudy2,wehad276Spanishundergraduates(203
tendency for both fused and nonfused participants to endorse women and 73 men, mean age (cid:1) 34.55 years, SD (cid:1) 8.61)
activities in general (e.g., donations to a group that one is a completeaseven-itemmeasureofcommitmenttothegroup2(e.g.,
member of but not fused with) but that it would selectively adapted from Rusbult & Farrell, 1983; (cid:4) (cid:1) .84); Mael and Ash-
increaseendorsementoffusion-relatedactivities(e.g.,donationsto forth’s(1992)measureofidentification,(cid:4)(cid:1).75;thefusionscale
needySpaniards)amongfusedparticipants.Also,weexpectedthat (37.7%werefusedwiththegroup);andanindexofendorsement
the arousal manipulation would increase heart rate and agency of extreme actions for Spain (as described in Experiment 1 but
amongallparticipantsbutthatself-professedagencyforthegroup ranging from 1 to 6), (cid:4) (cid:1) .88. We first examined the effects of
would mediate the interactive effects of fusion and arousal on fusion and identification by regressing fusion, identification, and
pro-groupbehavioramongfusedpersonsonly. theFusion(cid:5)Identificationinteractiononendorsementofextreme
behaviorforSpain.Theregressionyieldedamaineffectoffusion
Preliminary Studies: Relationship of Fusion to (B(cid:1)0.68,t(cid:1)14.40,p(cid:2).001),showingthatfusedparticipants
expressed higher endorsement of extreme actions for the group
Identification and Commitment
than did nonfused participants (M (cid:1) 2.06, SD (cid:1) 1.04, vs. M (cid:1)
Prior to testing our predictions regarding the effects of fusion 0.63, SD (cid:1) 0.48). The regression also yielded a main effect of
andarousalonpro-groupactivity,weconductedtwopreliminary identification(B(cid:1)0.15,t(cid:1)2.95,p(cid:2).01).However,fusionwas
investigationsthatweredesignedtoprovideadditionalinformation a stronger predictor of endorsement of extreme behavior than
regarding the nature of identity fusion. The first issue was the identificationwas(z(cid:1)7.91,p(cid:2).001).TheFusion(cid:5)Identifica-
relationship of fusion to identification. Although Swann et al. tioninteractionfailedtoreachsignificance(p(cid:3).28).
(2009, in press) provided evidence that fusion is a stronger pre- With this evidence in hand that fusion significantly predicted
dictor of extreme behavior than identification is, as measured by endorsementofextremeactions,weproceededtotestthehypoth-
the scale developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992), more recently esisthatcommitmentwouldberelatedtobothfusionandendorse-
developedscalesmightbebettersuitedforassessingfusion-related mentofextremebehavior.Asexpected,fusionwascloselyrelated
constructssuchasonenesswithandcommitmenttothegroup.For to commitment (B (cid:1) 0.53, p (cid:2) .001). Although both fusion and
example,Leachetal.(2008)haverecentlydevelopedafive-factor commitment predicted endorsement of extreme actions for Spain
scale(described below) that includes some items that specifically (Bs (cid:1) 0.71 and 0.36, respectively, ps (cid:2) .001), fusion was the
refer to commitment and importance of the group (e.g., “I feel stronger of the two (z (cid:1) 5.99, p (cid:2) .001). When both fusion and
committedto[thegroup],”“Being[agroupmember]isanimpor- commitment were included as predictors of extreme actions, the
tantpartofhowIseemyself”;Leachetal.,2008,p.165). effectofbothfusionandcommitmentremainedsignificant(Bs(cid:1)
ToassesstherelativecapacityoftheLeachetal.(2008)scaleto 0.63 and 0.15, respectively, ps (cid:2) .001), but Sobel tests revealed
predictextremebehavior,inPreliminaryStudy1,wehadalarge that the effect of each predictor was significantly reduced (Sobel
sampleofSpanishundergraduates(N(cid:1)1,766,1,293womenand tests (cid:3) 3.49, ps (cid:2) .001). The overall pattern of results therefore
473men,meanage(cid:1)31.53years,SD(cid:1)9.48)completeLeachet providesclearevidencethatfusionandcommitmentarecorrelated
al.’s(2008)measure,MaelandAshforth’s(1992)scale,thefusion and fusion predicts pro-group behavior more strongly than com-
scale,andameasureofendorsementofextremeactionsforSpain mitmentdoes.
(described in the Method section of Experiment 1 below). When Together, the results of the preliminary investigations support
the fusion scale and each of the five Leach et al. scales were our assumption that fusion is an index of alignment with one’s
entered as predictors into a regression with endorsement of ex- group that is related to but distinct from both identification and
treme actions as the criterion, the fusion effect (B (cid:1) 0.27, t (cid:1)
12.89, p (cid:2) .001) and two of the Leach et al. factors were signif-
icant (Centrality, B (cid:1) 0.07, t (cid:1) 4.45, p (cid:2) .001; Solidarity, B (cid:1) 2Theitemswere“IwantmyrelationshipwithSpaintolastaverylong
0.06, t (cid:1) 2.91, p (cid:1) .004) but the other three were not (Self- time,” “I am committed to maintaining my relationship with Spain,” “I
Stereotyping, B (cid:1) 0.03, t (cid:1) 1.82, p (cid:2) .07; Satisfaction and wouldnotfeelveryupsetifmyrelationshipwithSpainweretoendinthe
nearfuture”(reversescored),“ItislikelythatIwillconsiderbecominga
Ingroup, Homogeneity, ps (cid:3) .20). The fusion effect was signifi-
citizenofanothercountrywithinthenextyear”(reversescored),“Ifeel
cantlyhigherthantheeffectsofanyoftheLeachetal.subscales
veryattachedtoSpain—verystronglylinkedtomycountry,”“Iwantmy
(zs(cid:3)6.78,ps(cid:2).001).WhentheMaelandAshforth(1992)scale relationshipwithSpaintolastforever,”“Iamorientedtowardthelong-
wasaddedtotheregression,significanteffectsemergedforfusion termfutureofmyrelationshipwithSpain(forexample,Iimaginebeinga
(B(cid:1)0.26,t(cid:1)12.30,p(cid:2).001),MaelandAshforth’sscale(B(cid:1) citizenofSpainseveralyearsfromnow).”
828 SWANN,GO´MEZ,HUICI,MORALES,ANDHIXON
commitmenttothegroup.Thatis,fusionisastrongerpredictorof group, we modified the rules of the game so that no participants
endorsement of pro-group behavior than are identification and wereeliminated.Instead,thosewhowerestruckbytheballsimply
commitment,andthereispreliminaryevidencethattheimpactof changed teams. After 5 min elapsed, the experimenter instructed
fusiononpro-groupbehaviorismediatedbyatendencyforfusion participantstoproceedtothesecondportionoftheexperiment.
tobolstercommitmenttothegroup. Phase2. Totesttheeffectivenessofthearousalmanipulation,
the experimenter recorded participant’s heart rates again at the
beginning of the second phase of the study. We submitted heart
Experiment 1: Will Increasing Arousal Through
ratestoa2(arousal,control)(cid:5)2(fused,nonfused)(cid:5)2(timing:
Dodgeball Amplify Extreme Behavior for the Group?
Phase1,Phase2,arepeatedmeasuresfactor)mixed-modelanal-
All studies reported here were conducted in Spain because the ysis of variance (ANOVA). An interaction between arousal and
relatively high rate of fusion with their country displayed by timing emerged, F(1, 241) (cid:1) 418.10, p (cid:2) .001, such that in the
Spaniards (approximately 30%–40%) obviated the large samples arousal condition, heart rate increased from Phase 1 to Phase 2,
thatwouldbenecessaryinmanyothercountries(e.g.,Swannetal., F(1,128)(cid:1)634.94,p(cid:2).001(M(cid:1)75.12,SD(cid:1)10.59,vs.M(cid:1)
2009,reportedthatfusionintheUnitedStateswasapproximately 104.94, SD (cid:1) 13.22, respectively). No such increase occurred in
20%).Weincludedthreepredictorvariablesinourdesign:arousal, the control condition from Phase 1 to Phase 2, however, F(1,
fusion,andidentification. 115) (cid:1) 2.28, p (cid:3) .14 (M (cid:1) 72.94, SD (cid:1) 11.98, vs. M (cid:1) 71.93,
SD(cid:1)11.24,respectively).
Theinteractionbetweenarousalandtimingqualifiedtwomain
Method
effects.First,amaineffectoftimingemerged,F(1,241)(cid:1)377.87,
Participants. Twohundredfifty-fourhighschoolstudentsin p (cid:2) .001, such that heart rate increased from Phase 1 to Phase 2
Madrid, Spain, participated as a part of their gym classes. Nine (M (cid:1) 74.10, SD (cid:1) 11.28, vs. M (cid:1) 89.44, SD (cid:1) 20.58, respec-
participantswereexcludedbecausetheywerenotSpanishnation- tively).Second,amaineffectofthearousalmanipulationemerged,
als,leaving245(99girlsand146boys;meanage(cid:1)15.34years, F(1,241)(cid:1)131.19,p(cid:2).001,inthatheartratewashigherinthe
SD(cid:1)0.97)participantsinthefinalsample.Preliminaryanalyses arousalthaninthecontrolcondition(M(cid:1)90.12,SD(cid:1)8.23,vs.
of the findings from this experiment and all subsequent experi- M (cid:1) 73.42, SD (cid:1) 9.29, respectively). No other effects were
mentsrevealednomainorinteractiveeffectsofgender. significant. For example, overall, arousal was unrelated to both
Procedure. Inthisandallexperimentsreportedinthisarticle, fusionandidentification.
participantswereintroducedtoaninvestigationoftherelationship Participants then completed the measures of endorsement of
of arousal to their autonomic responses and emotional reactions. extreme behavior developed by Swann et al. (2009). For the
Withthisknowledgeinhand,participantsenteredthefirstportion measure of willingness to fight for the group, on 7-point scales
ofthetwo-phaseprocedure.Allinstructionsandmeasureswerein rangingfrom(cid:6)3(totallydisagree)to3(totallyagree),participants
Spanish. ratedtheiragreementwiththesefiveitems:“Iwouldfightsomeone
Phase1. BaselineheartrateswererecordedusingaPolarFS1 physically threatening another Spaniard,” “I would fight someone
heartratemonitorwatch(thisdevicewasalsousedinallexperi- insultingormakingfunofSpainasawhole,”“Iwouldhelpothers
mentsreportedinthisarticle).ParticipantsthencompletedSwann get revenge on someone who insulted Spain,” “Hurting other
et al.’s (2009) measure of identity fusion (cf. Schubert & Otten, peopleisacceptableifitmeansprotectingthegroup,”and“I’ddo
2002) and Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) Identification Scale ((cid:4) (cid:1) anythingtoprotectthegroup.”Forthemeasureofwillingnessto
.82). These measures were completed in counterbalanced order dieforthegroup,participantsindicatedtheiragreementwithtwo
withreferencetothegroupSpain.Asinearlierresearchonidentity items: “I would sacrifice my life if it saved another group mem-
fusion, fusion was treated as a dichotomous variable, such that ber’slife”and“Iwouldsacrificemylifeifitgavethegroupstatus
participantswereconsideredfusedonlyiftheyendorsedtheoption ormonetaryreward.”Becausethemeasuresofwillingnesstofight
inwhichtheselfwascompletelyoverlappingwiththegroup(for and die are conceptually overlapping and highly correlated,
a discussion and justification, see Swann et al., 2009). Rate of r(243)(cid:1).63,p(cid:2).001,wecombinedthemintoasinglemeasure
fusion in this sample was 32.7%. The correlation between fusion thatwedubbedendorsementofextremeactionsforthegroup,(cid:4)(cid:1)
andidentificationwaspositivebutmodest,r(243)(cid:1).33,p(cid:2).001 .90. In this experiment and all other experiments reported in this
(as in our earlier work, the correlation rose slightly, r (cid:1) .43, if article,oncompletion,allparticipantsweredebriefedandthanked.
fusionwastreatedasacontinuousscale).
Participants who had been randomly assigned to the control
Results
condition proceeded directly to the second phase of the experi-
ment.Participantswhohadbeenassignedtothearousalcondition To determine if fusion and arousal interactively predicted our
engaged in a group activity (dodgeball) as part of their physical outcome measures while controlling for identification, we per-
education class. The game is played with a single ball that is formed a series of multiple regressions. The predictors were fu-
roughly the size and density of a soccer ball. In the standard sion,arousal,identification,alltwo-wayinteractions,andthetriple
versionofthegame,theobjectiveistoeliminatemembersofthe interaction. Both fusion and arousal were effects coded ((cid:6)1, 1)
opposing team by striking them with the ball, catching a ball and, as suggested by Aiken and West (1991), identification was
thrown by a member of the opposite team, or intimidating oppo- centered.
nents into moving out of bounds while attempting to evade the Endorsement of extreme actions for the group. The pre-
ball.Todiminishfeelingsofcompetitionandencouragemembers dictedinteractionbetweenfusionandarousalemerged,B(cid:1)0.30,
oftheclasstoperceivethattheywereallinthesamesuperordinate t(237)(cid:1)3.70,p(cid:2).001.AsshowninFigure2,fusedparticipants
IDENTITYFUSIONANDSELF-SACRIFICE 829
Figure2. Study1.Extremeactionsforthegroupasafunctionoffusionandarousal.Thefactthattheresponse
scale included zero should not be taken to imply that it reflects a ratio scale in which zero has an absolute
meaning.Imputingmeaningtothesescoresbeyondtheirrelativemagnitudeisakintoassumingthatadevice
withavolumecontrolrangingfrom1–11islouderthanadevicewithavolumecontrolrangingfrom0–10(e.g.,
Blanton&Jaccard,2006;Doran,Murphy,&Reiner,1984).
indicatedstrongerendorsementofextremeactionsforthegroupin ment of extreme actions for the group, B (cid:1) 0.78, t(240) (cid:1) 4.37,
the arousal condition than in the control condition, B (cid:1) 0.49, p(cid:2).001.Incontrast,fornonfusedparticipants,heartrateduring
t(237)(cid:1)3.74,p(cid:2).01.However,nonfusedparticipantswerenot Phase 2 did not predict endorsement of extreme actions for the
influencedbythearousalmanipulation,B(cid:1)0.04,t(237)(cid:1)0.48, group,B(cid:1)0.14,t(240)(cid:1)1.11,p(cid:3).25.Therewasalsoamain
p (cid:3) .72. No interaction between identification and arousal effectofpulseatPhase2,B(cid:1)0.24,t(240)(cid:1)2.93,p(cid:2).01,such
emerged,p(cid:3).18. thatthehigherthepulseatPhase2,thegreatertheendorsementof
TheanalysisalsorevealedaFusion(cid:5)Identificationinteraction, extreme actions for the group. As expected, heart rate at Phase 1
B (cid:1) (cid:6)0.28, t(237) (cid:1) (cid:6)3.70, p (cid:2) .001. Follow-up analyses did not predict the outcome measures. No other effects were
indicated that the tendency for identification to increase endorse- significant.
mentofextremeactionsforthegroupwassignificantamongfused
participants, B (cid:1) 0.33, t(237) (cid:1) 2.48, p (cid:2) .05, but somewhat
Discussion
stronger among nonfused participants, B (cid:1) 0.57, t(237) (cid:1) 7.51,
p(cid:2).001.Thissurprisinginteractionwasapparentlyanomalous,as Our findings revealed that increasing the arousal of fused par-
it did not emerge again in any of the subsequent investigations ticipants through group exercise increased their endorsement of
reportedhere. extreme actions for their group. In contrast, among nonfused
A main effect of fusion also emerged, such that fused partici- participants, endorsement of extreme actions remained uniformly
pants showed more extreme actions for the group than did non- low,evenwhentheywerearoused.
fusedparticipants,B(cid:1)0.79,t(237)(cid:1)9.81,p(cid:2).001(M(cid:1)0.69, Thefactthatfusionbutnotidentificationinteractedwitharousal
SD (cid:1) 1.21, vs. M (cid:1) (cid:6)1.15, SD (cid:1) 1.08, respectively; in all supportsearlierevidence(Swannetal.,2009,inpress)thatthetwo
experiments in this report, the effect of fusion was significant in measures tap fundamentally different constructs. In particular,
both the control and the arousal conditions, all ps (cid:2) .01). A althoughfusedparticipantswerenomorearousedthanwerenon-
marginaleffectofarousalalsoemerged,B(cid:1)0.15,t(237)(cid:1)1.91, fusedparticipantsoverall,whenphysiologicallyaroused,endorse-
p (cid:2) .06, indicating that participants in the arousal condition ment of extreme action for the group increased. It therefore ap-
displayed stronger endorsement of extreme actions for the group pearsthatthefusionmeasureuniquelytapspeople’spropensityto
thandidparticipantsinthecontrolcondition(M(cid:1)(cid:6)0.39,SD(cid:1) individuallyengageinextremeaction.
1.54, vs. M (cid:1) (cid:6)0.73, SD (cid:1) 1.24). Finally, a main effect of Although our findings supported our predictions, interesting
identificationemerged,withhigheridentificationbeingassociated questionsremainregardingthemechanismsunderlyingoureffects
with greater endorsement of extreme actions for the group, B (cid:1) aswellastheirgenerality.First,thegroupnatureofthedodgeball
0.79, t(237) (cid:1) 9.81, p (cid:2) .001. No other main effects were gamemayhaveitselfbeenarousing,asthepresenceofothersmay
significant. bearousing(e.g.,Zajonc,1965).Moreover,thefactthattheother
Covariationbetweenheartrateandendorsementofextreme players were members of the ingroup (Spaniards) might have
actions. To determine if increases in arousal were associated primed “us–them” thinking. These possibilities raise ambiguities
withendorsementofextremeactionsforthegroup,weperformed regarding the role of arousal per se in our findings. In addition,
a stepwise multiple regression. Heart rate during Phase 1 was becauseweonlyaskedparticipantstoexpresstheirwillingnessto
controlledforbyenteringitinthefirststepoftheregression.Inthe endorseextremeactionsforthefocalgroup,thespecificityofthe
secondstep,heartrateduringPhase2,fusion,andtheinteraction arousal effect is unclear. Conceivably, the arousal manipulation
betweenheartrateduringPhase2andfusionwereentered. may have had a very general effect, increasing the tendency of
The predicted interaction between heart rate at Phase 2 and fusedpersonstoendorseextremeactionsforanygroup.
fusion emerged, B (cid:1) 0.18, t(240) (cid:1) 2.23, p (cid:2) .05. As expected, To resolve these ambiguities, we conducted a second experi-
forfusedparticipants,heartrateduringPhase2predictedendorse- ment. To determine if the presence of a group is a necessary
830 SWANN,GO´MEZ,HUICI,MORALES,ANDHIXON
conditionforthearousaleffect,arousalwasintroducedinanon- thearousalmanipulationemerged,F(1,186)(cid:1)118.66,p(cid:2).001,
group setting wherein individual participants ran sprints in isola- in that heart rate was higher in the arousal condition than in the
tion. To determine if the amplifying effects of the arousal were controlcondition(M(cid:1)91.53,SD(cid:1)7.16,vs.M(cid:1)72.25,SD(cid:1)
specifictothegroupwithwhichparticipantswerefused,inaddi- 8.19).Noothereffectsweresignificant.
tiontoassessingparticipants’fusionwithSpainandendorsement
of extreme actions for Spain, we also assessed their fusion with
Results
Europe and endorsement of extreme actions for Europe. We pre-
dicted an interaction between fusion and arousal such that the Endorsementofextremeactions. Todetermineiffusionand
arousal manipulation would increase endorsement of extreme ac- arousal interactively predicted our outcome measures, we per-
tions for the focal group only (i.e., fusion with Spain predicts formed a mixed-model regression analysis. We sought to deter-
actions for Spain only, whereas fusion with Europe predicts ac- mine if (a) arousal interacted with fusion with Spain to predict
tions for Europe only). We expected no such interaction effects extreme actions for Spain (but not for Europe) and (b) arousal
amongnonfusedparticipants. interacted with fusion with Europe to predict extreme actions for
Europe (but not for Spain). To that end, we regressed extreme
Experiment 2: Will Increasing Arousal by actions for Spain and extreme actions for Europe (a repeated
measures variable) on the following predictors: arousal ((cid:6)1, 1),
Running Wind Sprints Amplify Extreme Behavior
fusion with Spain ((cid:6)1, 1), Arousal (cid:5) Fusion With Spain, fusion
for the Group?
withEurope((cid:6)1,1),Arousal(cid:5)FusionWithEurope,andidenti-
We included three predictor variables in our design: arousal, fication with Spain and Europe. Each mean was centered. The
fusion,andidentification.Whereasweintroducedarousalusinga interactions involving identification were paired with the appro-
group task in Experiment 1, in this experiment, we introduced priate country (e.g., identification with Spain was paired with
arousalusinganindividualtask. fusion with Spain), but they were not crossed with mismatched
targets(e.g.,identificationwithSpainwasnotpairedwithfusion
withEurope).
Method
Thepredictedthree-wayinteractionbetweenArousal(cid:5)Fusion
Participants. One hundred ninety Spanish high school stu- With Spain (cid:5) Extreme Actions for Spain and Europe emerged,
dents(69girlsand121boys;meanage(cid:1)15.14years,SD(cid:1)0.94) F(1, 177) (cid:1) 4.83, p (cid:2) .05. To evaluate this interaction, the
participatedasapartoftheirgymclasses. Arousal (cid:5) Fusion With Spain effects were examined separately
Procedure. Three modifications were introduced to the pro- for extreme actions for Spain and Europe, respectively. Arousal
cedureusedinExperiment1.DuringPhase1,weaddedmeasures interacted with fusion with Spain to predict extreme actions for
of fusion and identification in which the reference group was Spain, F(1, 182) (cid:1) 6.64, p (cid:2) .001. As shown in the left side of
Europe.RateoffusionwithSpaininthissamplewas38.4%,and Figure 3A, for fused participants, arousal increased endorsement
rateoffusionwithEuropewas5.8%.Also,degreesoffusionwith ofextremeactionsforSpain,F(1,182)(cid:1)13.62,p(cid:2).001,butfor
Spain and Europe were uncorrelated, r(188) (cid:1) .06, p (cid:3) .40, but nonfused participants, arousal had no impact, F(1, 182) (cid:1) 1.71,
degrees of identification with Spain and Europe were correlated, p(cid:3).19.Alsoasexpected,asshownintherightsideofFigure3A,
r(188)(cid:1).44,p(cid:2).001.Duringthesecondphaseofthestudy,we arousaldidnotinteractwithfusionwithSpaintopredictextreme
also measured participants’ endorsement of extreme actions for actionsforEurope,F(1,182)(cid:1)0.07,p(cid:3).79.
EuropeaswellasSpain((cid:4)s(cid:1).85and.90,respectively).Theorder A second predicted three-way interaction between Arousal (cid:5)
ofthemeasurestargetingSpainandEuropewerecounterbalanced. FusionWithEurope(cid:5)ExtremeActionsforSpainandEuropealso
Finally,wechangedthearousalmanipulationfromagrouptoan emerged,F(1,177)(cid:1)4.36,p(cid:2).05.Toevaluatethisinteraction,
individualtask.Insteadofhavingparticipantsplaydodgeball,we weexaminedtheArousal(cid:5)FusionWithEuropeeffectsseparately
had them run short, 90-s sprints, in which they were to try to forextremeactionsforEuropeandSpain.Arousalinteractedwith
increase their speed with each successive sprint. The correlation fusion with Europe to predict extreme actions for Europe, F(1,
between fusion and identification with Spain was positive but 182)(cid:1)5.36,p(cid:2).01.AsshownintherightsideofFigure3B,for
modest,r(188)(cid:1).40,p(cid:2).001. fused participants, arousal increased endorsement of extreme ac-
To test the effectiveness of the arousal manipulation, we sub- tions for the group, F(1, 182) (cid:1) 4.57, p (cid:2) .05, but for nonfused
mittedheartratestoa2(arousal,control)(cid:5)2(fused,nonfused)(cid:5) participants,arousalhadnoimpact,F(1,182)(cid:1)0.92,p(cid:3).33.In
2 (timing: Phase 1, Phase 2, a repeated measures factor) mixed- contrast, the left side of Figure 3B reveals that arousal did not
model ANOVA of heart rates. An Arousal (cid:5) Timing interaction interact with fusion with Europe to predict extreme actions for
emerged, F(1, 186) (cid:1) 299.77, p (cid:2) .001, such that heart rate Spain, F(1, 182) (cid:1) 0.09, p (cid:3) .78. No higher order interactions
increased from Phase 1 to Phase 2 in the arousal condition, weresignificant,ps(cid:3).15.
F(1,106)(cid:1)450.2,p(cid:2).001(M(cid:1)74.18,SD(cid:1)13.37,vs.M(cid:1) Covariationbetweenheartrateandendorsementofextreme
108.89,SD(cid:1)18.38,respectively),butnotinthecontrolcondition, actions for Spain. To determine if increases in arousal were
F(1,82)(cid:1)2.42,p(cid:3).11,(M(cid:1)73.89,SD(cid:1)10.52,vs.M(cid:1)70.71, associated with endorsement of extreme actions for the group,
SD (cid:1) 9.50, respectively). The interaction between arousal and we performed a stepwise multiple regression. Heart rate during
timing qualified two main effects. First, a main effect of timing Phase 1 was controlled for by entering it in the first step of the
emerged, F(1, 186) (cid:1) 202.87, p (cid:2) .001, such that heart rate regression. In the second step, heart rate during Phase 2, fusion,
increasedfromPhase1toPhase2(M(cid:1)74.05,SD(cid:1)12.18,vs. and the interaction between heart rate during Phase 2 and fusion
M (cid:1) 92.44, SD (cid:1) 24.51, respectively). Second, a main effect of wereentered.
IDENTITYFUSIONANDSELF-SACRIFICE 831
Figure3. Experiment2.ExtremeactionsforthegroupasafunctionofFusionWithSpain(cid:5)Arousal(A)and
asafunctionofFusionWithEurope(cid:5)Arousal(B).
The predicted interaction between heart rate at Phase 2 and 2didnotpredictendorsementofextremeactionsforEurope,B(cid:1)
fusion emerged, B (cid:1) 0.26, t(185) (cid:1) 2.48, p (cid:2) .01. As expected, 0.04,t(185)(cid:1)0.40,p(cid:3).61.Therewasalsoamaineffectofpulse
forfusedparticipants,heartrateduringPhase2predictedendorse- atPhase2,B(cid:1)0.12,t(185)(cid:1)6.79,p(cid:2).001,inthatthehigher
mentofextremeactionsforSpain,B(cid:1)0.51,t(185)(cid:1)2.83,p(cid:2) the pulse at Phase 2, the greater the endorsement of extreme
.01.Incontrast,fornonfusedparticipants,heartrateduringPhase actions for the group. As expected, heart rate at Phase 1 did not
2 did not predict endorsement of extreme actions for Spain, B (cid:1) predicttheoutcomemeasures.
(cid:6)0.01, t(185) (cid:1) 0.69, p (cid:3) .93. There was also a main effect of
pulseatPhase2,B(cid:1)0.26,t(185)(cid:1)1.39,p(cid:2).05,suchthatthe
Discussion
higher the pulse at Phase 2, the stronger the endorsement of
extreme actions for the group. As expected, heart rate at Phase 1 AsinExperiment1,ourfindingsindicatethatraisingthearousal
didnotpredicttheoutcomemeasures. of participants through exercise increased their endorsement of
Covariationbetweenheartrateandendorsementofextreme extreme actions for the group with which they were fused. This
actions for Europe. To determine if increases in arousal were effectwasnotcontingentonexercisinginagroupcontext,forin
associated with endorsement of extreme actions for the group, Experiment2,arousalwasinducedamongparticipantsexercising
we performed a stepwise multiple regression. Heart rate during alone. As in Experiment 1, although fused participants were no
Phase 1 was controlled for by entering it in the first step of the more aroused than nonfused participants were overall, fusion in-
regression. In the second step, heart rate during Phase 2, fusion, teracted with arousal to produce substantial endorsement of ex-
and the interaction between heart rate during Phase 2 and fusion tremebehaviorforthefocalgroup.Atthesametime,identification
wereentered. didnotinteractwitharousalinpredictingendorsementofextreme
The predicted interaction between heart rate at Phase 2 and actionforSpain,thuslendingfurthersupporttothenotionthatthe
fusion emerged, B (cid:1) 0.08, t(185) (cid:1) 3.02, p (cid:2) .01. As expected, fusion measure uniquely taps people’s propensity for extreme
forfusedparticipants,heartrateduringPhase2predictedendorse- behavior.Inshort,whenfusedpersons’agencywasaugmentedby
mentofextremeactionsforEurope,B(cid:1)0.61,t(185)(cid:1)1.99,p(cid:2) physiological arousal, their endorsement of extreme action in-
.05.Incontrast,fornonfusedparticipants,heartrateduringPhase creased.
832 SWANN,GO´MEZ,HUICI,MORALES,ANDHIXON
The results of Experiment 2 also support our expectation that possibilityofusingitasapredictorgivenoursamplesize.Includ-
oureffectswouldbespecifictothegroupwithwhichparticipants ingfusionwithschoolinthefirststepoftheregressionsreported
were fused. That is, there was no evidence of an interaction belowdidnotalterourfindings,however).
betweenarousalandfusionwithSpainwhenweexaminedextreme Inthisexperiment,weaddedanewdependentvariable:partic-
actionsforEurope.Atthesametime,oureffectreplicatedinthat ipants’willingnesstodonatetheirpersonalfundstotwoentities,a
arousaldidfosterendorsementofextremeactionsforEuropewhen fundforneedySpaniardsandafundforahighschoolparty.The
fusionwithEuropewasenteredasapredictorinouranalyses.That amountparticipantschosetodonateeachfundwasrecorded.We
said, this replication effect was based on some cells with small assumed that the needy Spaniard donation would be relevant to
samplesizes.Assuch,wesoughttoreplicatethiseffectinExper- fusion with Spain but that the school party donation would not.
iment3. Finally, to determine if fusion-related agency mediated the pre-
Another goal of Experiment 3 was to learn more about the dictedrelationshipbetweenarousalandtheoutcomemeasures,we
mediators of our predicted arousal effect. By having participants includedthreeitemsthatweredesignedtomeasurethisconstruct.
exercisealoneinExperiment2,wediminishedthelikelihoodthat
the arousal manipulation fostered feelings of competitiveness.
Nevertheless, the fact that we timed participants’ sprints in the Method
arousal condition may have triggered feelings of competitiveness
Participants. One hundred twenty Spanish high school stu-
andthesefeelingsmayhaveproducedoureffectsindependentof
dents(38girls,80boys,andtwowhodidnotindicatesex;mean
the effect of arousal. To rule out this possibility and thereby
age(cid:1)16years,SD(cid:1)0.77)inMadridtookpartinthisexperiment.
strengthen our case that arousal per se produced our effects, in
Procedure. TheprocedurefollowedthatofExperiment2with
Experiment3,wemanipulatedarousalbyhavingparticipantsride
a few modifications. Participants in the arousal condition were
anexercycleinprivatefor10min.Theexperimenterwascareful
brought to the gym individually. During the first phase of the
toavoidanymentionofcompetitionorcomparisonoftheperfor-
experiment, we measured heart rates and then had participants
mance of participants with the performance of other participants.
complete Swann et al.’s (2009) measure of identity fusion and
To determine if our attempts to avoid arousing feelings of com-
MaelandAshforth’s(1992)IdentificationScale((cid:4)(cid:1).74).These
petitiveness were successful, after the arousal manipulation, we
measures were completed in counterbalanced order and with ref-
hadparticipantscompleteameasureoftheirfeelingsofcompeti-
erencetothegroupsSpainandEurope.RateoffusionwithSpain
tivenessatthemoment.Furthermore,inExperiment3,weadded
inthissamplewas39.2%,andrateoffusionwithEuropewas15%.
an additional measure that was designed to tap the construct that
Also,degreesoffusionwithSpainandEuropewereuncorrelated,
we expected to mediate the results: fusion-related agency. We
r(118)(cid:1).10,p(cid:3).27,butdegreesofidentificationwithSpainand
expected that for fused participants, heightened agency produced
Europe were correlated, r(118) (cid:1) .53, p (cid:2) .001. The correlation
bythearousalmanipulationwouldcarryoverontothegroupwith
between fusion and identification with Spain was positive but
which they were fused and this would, in turn, trigger more
modest,r(118)(cid:1).19,p(cid:2).05.
pro-groupbehavior.
Participants who had been randomly assigned to the control
A final goal of Experiment 3 was to determine if our effects
condition proceeded directly to the second phase of the study.
would generalize to an overt behavioral measure of pro-group
Participants who had been assigned to the arousal condition en-
activity. We focused on helping behavior: how much money
gaged in an individual activity (riding a bike) as part of their
participants were willing to donate to needy Spaniards (fusion-
related donation) versus a fund for a party at their high school physical education class. After 10 min elapsed, the experimenter
(fusion-unrelateddonation).Weexpectedthatheightenedfeelings instructed participants to proceed to the second portion of the
of agency produced by the arousal manipulation would increase study.
theextenttowhichallparticipantsdonatedtothehighschoolparty Phase2. Totesttheeffectivenessofthearousalmanipulation,
butthatsuchfeelingswouldmotivateespeciallylargedonationsto the experimenter recorded participant’s heart rates again at the
needySpaniardsamongparticipantswhowerefusedwithSpain. beginning of the second phase of the experiment. We submitted
heart rates to a 2 (arousal, control) (cid:5) 2 (fused, nonfused) (cid:5) 2
(timing: Phase 1, Phase 2, a repeated measures factor) mixed-
Experiment 3: Will Increasing Arousal by Riding an
modelANOVAofheartrates.AnArousal(cid:5)Timing interaction
Exercycle Amplify Pro-Group Behavior for
emerged, F(1, 116) (cid:1) 302.12, p (cid:2) .001, such that heart rate
the Group?
increasedfromPhase1toPhase2inthearousalcondition,F(1,
We included three predictor variables in our design: arousal, 52) (cid:1) 372.83, p (cid:2) .001 (M (cid:1) 78.15, SD (cid:1) 12.00, vs. M (cid:1)
fusion, and identification. In this study, however, we increased 129.04, SD (cid:1) 20.18, respectively), but not in the control
arousal by having participants in the arousal condition ride an condition, F(1, 66) (cid:1) 1.55, p (cid:3) .22 (M (cid:1) 64.57, SD (cid:1) 11.63,
Exercycleinprivateforapproximately10min(pilottestingindi- vs. M (cid:1) 65.79, SD (cid:1) 10.46, respectively).
catedthatthiswasenoughtimetoproducea20%increaseinheart Theinteractionbetweenarousalandtimingqualifiedtwomain
rate). After this, participants completed the same indices of en- effects.First,amaineffectoftimingemerged,F(1,116)(cid:1)337.62,
dorsement of extreme actions for Spain and Europe used in Ex- p (cid:2) .001, such that heart rate increased from Phase 1 to Phase 2
periment2.Inaddition,participantscompletedameasureoffusion (M (cid:1) 70.57, SD (cid:1) 13.55, vs. M (cid:1) 93.72, SD (cid:1) 35.12, respec-
with their high school (fusion with high school was unrelated to tively).Second,amaineffectofthearousalmanipulationemerged,
fusion with Spain, r[118] (cid:1) .04, p (cid:3) .66, and only 9.2% of F(1,116)(cid:1)276.82,p(cid:2).001,inthatheartratewashigherinthe
participantswerefusedwiththehighschool,whichprecludedthe arousalconditionthaninthecontrolcondition(M(cid:1)103.59,SD(cid:1)
IDENTITYFUSIONANDSELF-SACRIFICE 833
13.55,vs.M(cid:1)65.18,SD(cid:1)10.30,respectively).Noothereffects fornonfusedparticipants,arousalhadnoimpact,F(1,112)(cid:1)2.76,
weresignificant. p(cid:3).10.Incontrast,thedataplottedontherightsideofFigure4A
Agency for the group. For the measure of agency, we wrote showthatarousaldidnotinteractwithfusionwithSpaintopredict
threeitemsbasedonHaggardandTsakiris’s(2009)discussionof extremeactionsforEurope,F(1,112)(cid:1)2.34,p(cid:3).12.
the agency construct. Participants responded to three items with Thesecondpredictedthree-wayinteractionbetweenArousal(cid:5)
reference to Spain. On 7-point scales ranging from 0 (totally FusionWithEurope(cid:5)ExtremeActionsforSpainandEuropealso
disagree) to 6 (totally agree), participants rated their agreement emerged,F(1,107)(cid:1)8.66,p(cid:2).01.Toevaluatethisinteraction,
with these items: “I have as much control over the group’s out- weexaminedtheeffectsofarousalandfusionwithEuropesepa-
comesasmyownactions,”“Ifeelresponsibleforwhathappensto rately for extreme actions for Europe and Spain, respectively.
thegroup,”and“Ifeelresponsibleforwhatthegroupdoes.”These Arousal interacted with fusion with Europe to predict extreme
itemsformedacohesivescale,(cid:4)(cid:1).85. actionsforEurope,F(1,112)(cid:1)20.89,p(cid:2).001.Asshownonthe
Outcome variables. In counterbalanced order, participants right side of Figure 4B, for fused participants, arousal increased
completed the same measures of extreme actions for Spain and endorsement of extreme actions for the group, F(1, 112) (cid:1) 8.53,
Europe as were used in Experiment 2, (cid:4)s (cid:1) .93 and .84, respec- p(cid:2).01,butfornonfusedparticipants,arousalhadnoimpact,F(1,
tively. After they were done, to rule out the possibility that the 112)(cid:1)0.40,p(cid:3).63.Incontrast,thegraphdisplayedontheleftside
arousalmanipulationmighttriggerfeelingsofcompetitiveness,we ofFigure4Bindicatesthatarousaldidnotinteractwithfusionwith
had participants answer two questions with regard to how they EuropetopredictextremeactionsforSpain,F(1,112)(cid:1)2.23,p(cid:3)
were feeling at the moment. On scales ranging from 0 (totally .13.Nohigherorderinteractionsweresignificant,ps(cid:3).19.
disagree) to 6 (totally agree), they indicated their level of agree- Covariation between heart rate and endorsement of extreme
mentwiththestatements“Ilovecompetition”and“WhenIplaya behaviors for Spain. To determine if increases in arousal were
game, I always play to win.” Responses to these two items were associated with endorsement of extreme actions for the group,
closelyassociated,(cid:4)(cid:1).86. we performed a stepwise multiple regression. Heart rate during
Finally,astheexperimentwasostensiblydrawingtoaclose,the Phase1wascontrolledintheregressionbyenteringitinthefirst
experimenterrevealedthathewasabletopayeachparticipant€10 step.Inthesecondstep,heartrateduringPhase2,fusion,andthe
(approximately$12.50)forhisorherparticipation.Hethenindi- interaction between heart rate during Phase 2 and fusion were
cated,incounterbalancedorder,thattheparticipantshadtheoption entered.
of donating €5 or a portion of that amount to a fund for needy The predicted interaction between heart rate at Phase 2 and
Spaniards and the other €5 or a portion of that amount to a high fusionemerged,B(cid:1)0.53,t(115)(cid:1)5.54,p(cid:2).001.Asexpected,
schoolpartythatwouldbeoccurattheendoftheschoolyear.The forfusedparticipants,heartrateduringPhase2predictedendorse-
amountparticipantschosetodonatewasrecorded. mentofextremeactionsforSpain,B(cid:1)1.45,t(115)(cid:1)7.39,p(cid:2)
.001.Incontrast,fornonfusedparticipants,heartrateduringPhase
2 did not predict endorsement of extreme actions for Spain, B (cid:1)
Results
0.15,t(115)(cid:1)1.09,p(cid:3).45.Therewasalsoamaineffectofpulse
Endorsementofextremeactions. Todetermineiffusionand atPhase2,B(cid:1)0.52,t(115)(cid:1)4.30,p(cid:2).001,andthehigherthe
arousal interactively predicted our outcome measures, we per- pulse at Phase 2, the greater the endorsement of extreme actions
formed the same mixed-model regression analysis reported for for the focal group. As expected, heart rate at Phase 1 did not
Experiment 2. Once again, we sought to determine if (a) arousal predicttheoutcomemeasures.
interacted with fusion with Spain to predict extreme actions for Covariation between heart rate and endorsement of extreme
Spain (but not for Europe) and (b) arousal interacted with fusion behaviorsforEurope. Todetermineifincreasesinarousalwere
with Europe to predict extreme actions for Europe (but not for associated with endorsement of extreme actions for the group,
Spain). We accordingly regressed extreme actions for Spain and we performed a stepwise multiple regression. Heart rate during
extremeactionsforEurope(arepeatedmeasuresvariable)onthe Phase 1 was controlled for in the regression by entering it in the
following predictors: arousal ((cid:6)1, 1), fusion with Spain ((cid:6)1, 1), firststep.Inthesecondstep,heartrateduringPhase2,fusion,and
Arousal (cid:5) Fusion With Spain, fusion with Europe ((cid:6)1, 1), theinteractionbetweenheartrateduringPhase2andfusionwere
Arousal(cid:5)FusionWithEurope,andidentificationwithSpainand entered.
Europe.Eachmeanwascentered.Theinteractionsinvolvingiden- The predicted interaction between heart rate at Phase 2 and
tification were paired with the appropriate country (e.g., identifi- fusionemerged,B(cid:1)0.37,t(115)(cid:1)5.79,p(cid:2).001.Asexpected,
cation with Spain was paired with fusion with Spain), but they forfusedparticipants,heartrateduringPhase2predictedendorse-
werenotcrossedwithmismatchedtargets(e.g.,identificationwith mentofextremeactionsforEurope,B(cid:1)0.37,t(115)(cid:1)2.10,p(cid:2)
SpainwasnotpairedwithfusionwithEurope). .05.Incontrast,fornonfusedparticipants,heartrateduringPhase
Thepredictedthree-wayinteractionbetweenArousal(cid:5)Fusion 2didnotpredictendorsementofextremeactionsforEurope,B(cid:1)
With Spain (cid:5) Extreme Actions for Spain and Europe emerged, (cid:6)0.03, t(115) (cid:1) 0.30, p (cid:3) .73. There was also a main effect of
F(1, 107) (cid:1) 39.79, p (cid:2) .001. To evaluate this interaction, we pulseatPhase2,B(cid:1)0.45,t(115)(cid:1)5.62,p(cid:2).001,andthehigher
examined the effects of arousal and fusion with Spain separately the pulse at Phase 2, the greater the endorsement of extreme
for extreme actions for Spain and Europe, respectively. Arousal actionsforthefocalgroup.Asexpected,heartrateatPhase1did
interacted with fusion with Spain to predict extreme actions for notpredicttheoutcomemeasures.
Spain,F(1,112)(cid:1)54.70,p(cid:2).001.Asshownontheleftsideof Agency as mediator of the impact of arousal on extreme
Figure 4A, for fused participants, arousal increased endorsement actionsforSpain. Priortoconductingthemeditationalanalysis,
ofextremeactionsforthegroup,F(1,112)(cid:1)59.37,p(cid:2).001,but we examined the impact of our predictor variables on fusion-