Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T14:54:51.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Individual difference in acts of self-sacrifice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Michael N. Stagnaro
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511. michael.stagnaro@yale.edurebecca.littman@yale.edudrand@mit.edu
Rebecca Littman
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511. michael.stagnaro@yale.edurebecca.littman@yale.edudrand@mit.edu
David G. Rand
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511. michael.stagnaro@yale.edurebecca.littman@yale.edudrand@mit.edu


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.

Open Peer Commentary
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.)


Atran, S. (2003) Genesis of suicide terrorism. Science 299(5612):1534–39. doi: 10.1126/science.1078854.Google Scholar
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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
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.Google 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.Google Scholar
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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Moskalenko, S. & McCauley, C. (2011) The psychology of lone-wolf terrorism. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 24(2):115–26.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D. & Nowak, M. A. (2012) Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature 498:427–30.Google 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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. A. (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 119(1):322.Google 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.Google Scholar
Weatherston, D. & Moran, J. (2003) Terrorism and mental illness: Is there a relationship? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 47(6):698713.Google Scholar
White, G. L., Fishbein, S. & Rutsein, J. (1981) Passionate love and the misattribution of arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41(1):56.Google 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.Google Scholar