Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-wh2kg Total loading time: 1.072 Render date: 2022-06-27T20:27:41.588Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Individual difference in acts of self-sacrifice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Michael N. Stagnaro
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511. michael.stagnaro@yale.edurebecca.littman@yale.edudrand@mit.eduhttp://www.rebeccalittman.com/https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Ix83B_YAAAAJhttp://www.daverand.org/
Rebecca Littman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511. michael.stagnaro@yale.edurebecca.littman@yale.edudrand@mit.eduhttp://www.rebeccalittman.com/https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Ix83B_YAAAAJhttp://www.daverand.org/
David G. Rand
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511. michael.stagnaro@yale.edurebecca.littman@yale.edudrand@mit.eduhttp://www.rebeccalittman.com/https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Ix83B_YAAAAJhttp://www.daverand.org/

Abstract

Whitehouse's model explains when people engage in self-sacrifice, but not who is most likely to do so. We propose incorporating individual differences, such as cognitive style (one's inclination toward intuition versus deliberation), and argue that individuals who rely on intuition may be more likely to (1) develop group identity fusion after an emotional experience and (2) engage in pro-social self-sacrifice.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atran, S. (2003) Genesis of suicide terrorism. Science 299(5612):1534–39. doi: 10.1126/science.1078854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atran, S. (2011) Who becomes a terrorist today? In: The ethics and efficacy of the global war on terrorism, ed. Webel, C. & Arnaldi, J. A., pp. 4558. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batson, C. D., Kennedy, C. L., Nord, L. A., Stocks, E. L., Fleming, D. Y. A., Marzette, C. M., Lisher, D. A., Hayes, R. E., Kolchinsky, L. M. & Zerger, T. (2007) Anger at unfairness: Is it moral outrage? European Journal of Social Psychology 37(6):1272–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bear, A. & Rand, D. G. (2016) Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113(4):936–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassidy, J. & Shaver, P. R. (2010) Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications, 2nd edition. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. & Frankish, K. E. (2009) In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(3):223–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everett, J., Ingbretsen, Z., Cushman, F. A. & Cikara, M. (2017) Deliberation erodes cooperative behaviour – Even towards competitive outgroups, even when using a control condition, and even when controlling for sample bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 73:7681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Frederick, S. (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(4):2542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, M. A. (2007) Uncertainty–identity theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 39:69126.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Möller-Leimkühler, A. (2018) Why is terrorism a man's business? CNS Spectrums 23(2):119–28. doi: 10.1017/S1092852917000438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moskalenko, S. & McCauley, C. (2011) The psychology of lone-wolf terrorism. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 24(2):115–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J. & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015a) On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making 10(6):549–63.Google Scholar
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A. & Koehler, D. J. (2015b) Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24(6):425–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. (2018) Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition. Available online June 20, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, G., Ross, R. M., Koehler, D. J. & Fugelsang, J. A. (2016) Atheists and agnostics are more reflective than religious believers: Four empirical studies and a meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 11(4):e0153039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rand, D. G. (2016) Cooperation, fast and slow: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychological Science 27(9):1192–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rand, D. G. & Epstein, Z. G. (2014) Risking your life without a second thought: Intuitive decision-making and extreme altruism. PLOS ONE 9(10):e109687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D. & Nowak, M. A. (2012) Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature 498:427–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rand, D. G., Tomlin, D., Bear, A., Ludvig, E. A. & Cohen, J. D. (2017) Cyclical population dynamics of automatic versus controlled processing: An evolutionary pendulum. Psychological Review 124(5):626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G. & Greene, J. D. (2012) Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141(3):423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sloman, S. A. (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 119(1):322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swami, V., Voracek, M., Stieger, S., Tran, U. S. & Furnham, A. (2014) Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition 133(3):572–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weatherston, D. & Moran, J. (2003) Terrorism and mental illness: Is there a relationship? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 47(6):698713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, G. L., Fishbein, S. & Rutsein, J. (1981) Passionate love and the misattribution of arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41(1):56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, O., Karadöller, D. Z. & Sofuoglu, G. (2016) Analytic thinking, religion, and prejudice: An experimental test of the dual-process model of mind. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 26(4):360–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Individual difference in acts of self-sacrifice
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Individual difference in acts of self-sacrifice
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Individual difference in acts of self-sacrifice
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *