Article

Armed Forces & Society

2019, Vol. 45(1) 45-58
ª The Author(s) 2017
Identity Fusion in U.S. Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Military Members DOI: 10.1177/0095327X17737021
journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

Roland Hart1 and Steven L. Lancaster2

Abstract
Identity fusion, the visceral sense of interconnectedness between oneself and the
members of a group, has been associated with military service anecdotally and
examined among foreign military groups. However, no study to date has explored
fusion and its relationship with functioning among U.S. military members. The aims
of this study were (1) to examine the incremental predictive validity of fusion, (2) to
examine the relationship between fusion and pro- and antisocial in-group behaviors,
and (3) to determine how one’s attitude toward their military service may affect
fusion. Data were collected via self-report using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk soft-
ware. Results indicated that fusion predicted progroup beliefs and in-group helping
behaviors above and beyond other indicators of military identity. Further, satisfac-
tion with the military mediated the relationship between fusion and willingness to
give time to other veterans. Identifying an important mediator of fusion expands
upon earlier work in the field and suggests routes for future inquiry.

Keywords
identity, fusion, veterans, military, progroup

Across a range of military conflicts, the connection between military personnel is

often described as brotherly or like family (Fredman et al., 2015; Swann et al., 2014).
This level of connection is consistent with recent research in the area of identity
fusion or the melding of oneself with members of a group—creating an instinctual

1
New York University, New York, NY, USA
2
Department of Psychology, Bethel University, St. Paul, MN, USA

Corresponding Author:
Steven L. Lancaster, Department of Psychology, Bethel University, 3900 Bethel Drive, St. Paul,
MN 55112, USA.
Email: steven-lancaster@bethel.edu
46 Armed Forces & Society 45(1)

sense of interconnectedness (Swann & Buhrmester, 2015). While some research has
explored aspects of military identity (Griffith, 2002; Johansen, Laberg, & Martinus-
sen, 2014; Lancaster & Hart, 2015) and military personnel are often used as anec-
dotal examples of fusion, no research has examined the role of fusion specifically in
U.S. military members and veterans. This lack of empirical study is particularly
surprising given that two of the strongest predictors of fusion: negative shared
experiences (Jong et al., 2015) and performing physical rituals together (Buhrme-
ster & Swann, 2015) are primary characteristics of military service.
The strong bonds that military service members share have been studied in the
context of social identity theory and, to a lesser extent, identity fusion, although
these theories are not mutually exclusive (Newson et al., 2016; Whitehouse &
Lanman, 2014). Although fusion somewhat overlaps with social identity theory
(group identification and self-categorization) in that it “assumes that interpersonal
relationships and the meaningful memories created within them play a key role in
solidifying the bond between members and the group” (Buhrmester & Swann,
2015, p. 2), fusion differs in important theoretical ways. Primarily, fusion and
group identification are distinct in that those who are fused retain their sense of
personal agency; with group identification, however, the personal self fades as
identification increases (Hornsey, 2008; Swann & Buhrmester, 2015), that is,
social identification theory posits that personal identity diminishes as group iden-
tity becomes more salient, while fused individuals retain both their personal and
their social identities which together influence behavior (Swann, Jetten, Gomez,
Whitehouse, & Bastian, 2012). Additionally, those who are fused experience the
group members as individuals and as close, personal connections, whereas in
social identity theory’s group identification and self-categorization, others are
replaceable and anonymous in-group members (see Buhrmester & Swann, 2015,
for a full review of these constructs). In other words, social identification theory
suggests that group members behave on behalf of and for their collective, and
members are linked through their shared identification (Turner, Hogg, Oakes,
Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). However, fused individuals feel a deep sense of
connection to both their group and the individuals within the group (Gomez
et al., 2011). In summary, what makes fusion unique in the study of cohesion is
(1) identities are bound with other individuals within a group, becoming a central
component to one’s personal self-concept; (2) one’s personal identity is main-
tained while coinciding with their group membership; and (3) members feel a
profound sense of “oneness” with other members, which influences behavior
(Newson et al., 2016; Swann et al., 2012; Whitehouse & Lanman, 2014).
Beyond the study of identity, unit cohesion has been the focus of extensive
research in military populations (see Oliver, Harman, Hooever, Hayes, & Pandhi,
1999); however, the influence of fusion on behavior remains unstudied in U.S.
military and veteran populations. The standard model—the central theoretical
approach to group cohesion in the military—describes four related and interacting
bonds in a group: peer (horizontal), leader (vertical), organizational, and
Hart and Lancaster 47

institutional (Siebold, 2007, 2011). These four levels map on to the hierarchical
structure of the military. Horizontal or peer bonds take place among members of
the same or similar rank, and vertical or leader bonds between commanders and
their subordinates within a group, such as a company or platoon. These two levels
of bonding make up what is known as primary group cohesion. Secondary group
cohesion is broader and constitutes broader organizational (e.g., between a com-
pany and battalion) and institutional bonds (i.e., the entire military branch). Group
cohesion has been found to influence morale, group pride, trust, commitment,
cooperation, and performance in accomplishing tasks (MacCoun & Hix, 2010;
McClure & Broughton, 2000). Similar to the distinction between self-
categorization and fusion, a key difference between cohesion and fusion lies in
how group members view each other: Cohesion leads group members to find a
sense of identification with other group members they have not necessarily met
(MacCoun & Hix, 2010; Swann, Gómez, Seyle, Morales, & Huici, 2009). While
both cohesion and fusion involve strong group bonds that influence behavior,
fusion requires a deep, interpersonal relationship with specific people within a
group, whereas cohesion alone does not (Gomez et al., 2011; McClure &
Broughton, 2000). It is important to note that, theoretically, group cohesion and
fusion can be accordant; the way in which fusion influences behavior is not
necessarily at odds with primary group cohesion. Rather, fusion is a more intense,
additional bond (e.g., “my platoon is my family”) that exists beyond an institu-
tional or organizational level (Gomez et al., 2011; Swann et al., 2009).
Burhmester and Swann (2015) reviewed a large body of research that provided
empirical support for the distinction between fusion and identification. For example,
Gomez and colleagues (2011) used factor analysis to distinguish these concepts, and
additionally showed that high fusion, but not high identification, was associated with
a willingness to sacrifice for one’s group, even when the respondent’s well-being
was threatened. Similar work has shown that fusion is more likely than identification
to predict a willingness to sacrifice one’s life for the protection of group members or
to donate money to support group members (Buhrmester et al., 2012; Swann,
Gómez, Dovidio, Hart, & Jetten, 2010). Similar findings show that fusion exists
cross-culturally, with greater fusion consistently being associated with more extreme
behaviors (e.g., Atran and Sheikh, 2015; Sheikh et al., 2014; Yoo, Swann, & Kim,
2014). At the same time, there is growing empirical support for the importance of
military identity as well as the relationship between identity and psychosocial out-
comes (e.g., Griffith, 2002). Given this work, it is essential to demonstrate that
fusion is able to uniquely predict important outcomes beyond other established
measures of military identity.
The military seems to be a likely environment for the development of fusion
when considering the familial nature of the military. Bonding experiences during
difficult training, relying on one another during difficult deployments, and the
shared culture of the military may provide an ideal environment for fusion. A
number of researchers have used military and paramilitary groups as an exemplar
48 Armed Forces & Society 45(1)

of the construct. For example, Whitehouse, McQuinn, Buhrmester, and Swann

(2014) studied the formation of identity fusion among Libyan revolutionaries and
reported strong family-like bonds between fighters and their battalions. Similarly,
Atran, Sheikh, and Gomez (2014) found that fused Moroccans with strong sacred
values were more willing to make extreme sacrifices for their group and to fight
against materially stronger armed forces. Fredman et al. (2015) introduced fusion
with an example of a World War II B-17 bomber crew and their pact to never
abandon each other, ultimately leading to all of them dying together when only one
member’s death was inevitable. Given that fusion has been used anecdotally for U.S.
service members, and shown empirically in non-U.S. military and paramilitary
samples, it is surprising that no published research has empirically studied fusion
among U.S. military members and veterans, despite the seemingly rich environment
for fusion to form.
Gómez and colleagues (2011) recently developed and validated a self-report
assessment of fusion with the goal of increasing and improving research in this area.
The original version of this measure taps into feelings of fusion with one’s nation
using items such as “I am one with my country” and “My country is me.” The items
are adaptable for different groups and were modified to reference members of the
military as outlined below. This measure has been shown to strongly predict the
endorsement of extreme progroup behaviors, has exhibited strong reliability and
validity (Gómez et al., 2011), and has demonstrated utility in a variety of samples
(see Gómez et al., 2011; Swann et al., 2012; Whitehouse et al., 2014). Given the
significant impact of pro- and antisocial behaviors, better prediction of these out-
comes via fusion could be important both in applied settings (such as reintegration
programs) and in broadening our understanding of maladaptive postmilitary
functioning.
The aim of the current study was to empirically explore the role of identity fusion
among U.S. military members and its association with psychological functioning.
Similar to previous work (Gómez et al., 2011), we hypothesized that fusion would
demonstrate incremental predictive validity through a series of stepwise regressions.
Seeing the military as a family and having a deep sense of connection to the military
was initially tested, with fusion being subsequently added, to demonstrate that fusion
was affecting outcome variables above and beyond other measures of identity.
Second, we hypothesized that fusion among participants would be positively related
to extreme progroup behaviors (e.g., willingness to die for others) and in-group
helping behaviors (e.g., willingness to help veterans; Buhrmester et al., 2012;
Gómez et al., 2011; Swann et al., 2010). This hypothesis was tested through the
effects fusion has on progroup and in-group helping behaviors while controlling for
other indices of group identification. Finally, we hypothesized that participants’
attitude toward their time in the military may potentially affect their memories of
their service history and their relationships with other members of the military. For
example, positive regard toward service could inflate endorsement of fusion items,
as those who feel positively about the military may be inclined to endorse greater
Hart and Lancaster 49

connection to veterans regardless of fusion. Thus, we sought to examine the role of

regard toward the military separately and predicted that regard toward the military
would mediate identity fusion with our outcome variables of interest.

Method
Participants
Post–9/11, military veterans (i.e., meeting the official designation per the Code of
Federal Regulations as a Veteran—180 days on active duty since 2001) and service
members (military members who did not meet veteran status) completed an online
survey (N ¼ 246). This time frame was chosen to focus only on veterans who had
served voluntarily and relatively recently. The sample was primarily male (72.4%)
and White (76.0%) with a mean age of 33.37, SD ¼ 7.60. Other common ethnic
groups were African American/Black (n ¼ 20, 8.1%), Hispanic (n ¼ 19, 7.7%), and
Asian American (n ¼ 15, 6.1%). Army service was most common (n ¼ 96, 39.0%),
then Air Force (n ¼ 54, 22.0%), Navy (n ¼ 53, 21.5%), Marine Corps (n ¼ 34,
13.8%), and nine participants reported serving in the Coast Guard (3.7%). In terms of
military deployments, 63.0% (n ¼ 155) reported a deployment as part of Operation
Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation New Dawn (two operations
in Afghanistan); 9.8% (n ¼ 24) reported other deployments since 2001.

Procedure
We developed an online survey (administered via Qualtrics software) and posted it
on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) system, where participants completed the
survey in exchange for payment. MTurk is a service that connects researchers and
developers with a population of survey takers (“workers”). The workers, who must
be at least 18 years old, sign up for MTurk through Amazon and are paid to complete
tasks based on their background, expertise (e.g., translation work), and demo-
graphics. Researchers and developers post their surveys as “Human Intelligence
Tasks” (HIT); a worker’s HIT total displays the number of accepted tasks they have
completed and can determine their eligibility for other projects. Previous research
has shown the MTurk community to largely mirror the general population (Chandler
& Shapiro, 2016). The project was described as a survey of military-related attitudes
and explicitly stated that eligible participants must have served, or are currently
serving, in the U.S. military between 2001 and the present day. Given the nature of
the project (any Mturk worker with one approved HIT could view the project), a
number of validation measures were included in the survey. Participants first com-
pleted an item asking about their military service (i.e., whether and how they met
“veteran” status). Then, we asked a series of questions about the military (e.g., the
location of their branch service academy) to validate veteran status or service mem-
bership. A total of 523 individuals accessed the survey. Of those, 222 accessed the
informed consent page but failed to continue. Given the project setup, we are unable
50 Armed Forces & Society 45(1)

Table 1. Bivariate and Partial Correlations for All Measures.

M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Satisfaction

1. Fusion 18.80 (4.79) — .66** .68** .39** .29** .52** .67**

2. Family 11.63 (5.15) .46** — .63** .29** .24** .38** .55**
3. Connect 11.15 (4.63) .57** .53** — .34** .21** .47** .45**
4. Help—Money 188.54 (106.08) .25** .14* .22* — .59** .38** .33**
5. Help—Time 4.15 (2.14) .11 .10 .07 .55** — .25** .31**
6. Pro Group Beh. 3.65 (1.31) .46** .27** .40** .32** .18* — .29**
Note. Correlations above the axis are bivariate while those below the axis are partial correlations which
account for overall satisfaction towards one’s time in the military.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

to determine whether these were individuals who did not qualify or were simply not
interested in the project. Further groups were eliminated for completing the
informed consent but failing to answer any other items (n ¼ 27), failing to complete
the survey (n ¼ 17), responding randomly to the items (n ¼ 5), answering multiple
validation items incorrectly (n ¼ 5), or failing the embedded attention tasks (n ¼ 1;
incorrectly responding to an item embedded in a survey that specifically told them
how to respond to that item).
Participants were then asked to complete the measure of military identity (which
included the fusion items), a measure of extreme progroup beliefs, a measure of in-
group benevolence, and, finally, a demographic questionnaire. Means and SDs for
all participants are presented in Table 1. Participation averaged around 10 min, and
participants were paid US$1.00 after completion.

Measures
Military identity. Military identity was assessed using a revised version of the Warrior
Identity Scale (Lancaster & Hart, 2015) which is designed to examine multiple
dimensions of military-related identity. The scale provides four options from 1
(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) on 38 items related to military identity.
For the current study, we retained a 3-item scale of seeing the military as a family
(e.g., “By leaving the military I lost a family”; Cronbach’s a in this sample was .69)
and a 6-item scale of feeling connected to the military (e.g., “Only other veterans can
truly understand me”; Cronbach’s a in this sample was .83). These scales were
chosen as they are most conceptually similar to fusion and thus would provide the
strongest case for incremental predictive validity.

Military fusion. This scale was created for the current project by adapting the verbal
measure of identity fusion as described in Gomez et al. (2011). This measure was
designed to quickly and efficiently assess fusion using a 7-item format. The items
were “I am one with the military,” “I feel immersed in the military,” “I have a deep
Hart and Lancaster 51

emotional bond with the military,” “The military is me,” “I’ll do for them military
more than any other veteran would do,” “I am strong because of the military,” and “I
make the military strong.” The original scale asked participants to rate each item on
a scale from 0 to 6. However, in the current study, the fusion items were included in
the identity scale described above and thus were assessed using options from 1
(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s a for the 7-item measure was
.91, which is somewhat higher than the value of .82 originally reported by Gomez
et al. (2011).

Extreme progroup behavior. For this measure, we adapted the 7-item measure Swann
et al., (2009) developed to examine endorsement of willingness to fight and die for
their group to make it applicable to military members. Sample items include “I
would fight someone insulting or making fun of veterans as a whole” and “I would
sacrifice my life if it saved another veteran’s life.” Each of the items is rated on a 7-
point scale from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree), and consistent with previous
work, an aggregate total score is formed; Cronbach’s a in this sample was .87
(Swann et al., 2009).

In-group helping behavior. We developed a 2-item measure in which participants are

asked how they would respond in terms of monetary and time-related obligations if
both a civilian and a veteran, who have equal needs, asked for assistance after a local
disaster. Given a limited resource (500 dollars for the monetary item and 10 hours
for the time item), they are forced to allocate the resource between the veteran, the
civilian, and themselves. Given the fixed amount of resources, any allocation to the
veteran necessarily reduces amount given to self and civilian. Scores for allocation
to veterans for each item were separately utilized as an index of willingness to assist
members of the in-group.

Military satisfaction. We developed a 1-item measure to assess participants overall

rating of their military experience. For this item, they were asked to indicate
“Overall, how would you rate your experience in the military” on a 5-point scale
from very negative to very positive.

Results
Overall, most participants reported a generally positive view of their time in the
military with most selecting positive (n ¼ 126) or very positive (n ¼ 63) on the 1-
item measure of satisfaction. Additionally, on our measures of in-group helping
behaviors, participants allocated significantly more money to a veteran in need
(M ¼ 188.54, SD ¼ 106.06) than a civilian, M ¼ 120.12, SD ¼ 80.06, t(245) ¼
9.27, p < .001. Further, participants also allocated significantly more time to a
veteran in need (M ¼ 4.15, SD ¼ 2.14) than a civilian, M ¼ 3.00, SD ¼ 1.89,
t(245) ¼ 5.96, p < .001.
52 Armed Forces & Society 45(1)

To test our first hypothesis, that fusion would demonstrate incremental predic-
tive validity, we ran a series of regressions in which extreme progroup behaviors
and our two measures of in-group helping were the dependent variables. For these
regressions, measures of identity (seeing the military as a family and a deep sense
of connection to the military) were entered in the first step of their respective
regressions, while fusion was entered in the second step (see Tables 2 and 3 for
full results). A significant relationship between fusion and the dependent variable
would demonstrate that fusion predicted additional variance above and beyond
identity. In the first regression, both connection, t(242) ¼ 2.93, p ¼.004, and
fusion, t(242) ¼ 5.14, p < .001, significantly predicted extreme progroup beha-
viors. After accounting for fusion, seeing the military as family did not predict
progroup behaviors, t(242) ¼ .859, p ¼ .39, while fusion was maintained as a
significant predictor, t(242) ¼ 6.62, p < .001. For willingness to give money to
veterans, neither connection, t(242) ¼ 1.64, p ¼.103, nor family, t(242) ¼ 0.73,
p ¼.467, were significant predictors, while fusion significantly predicted money in
both regressions, t scores of 3.76 (p < .001) and 4.48 (p < .001), respectively.
Similarly, for willingness to give time to veterans, neither connection, t(242) ¼
0.33, p ¼ .738, nor family, t(242) ¼ 1.15, p ¼ .251, were significant predictors,
while fusion significantly predicted time in both regressions, t scores of 3.21
(p ¼ .002) and 2.77 (p ¼ .006), respectively.
As is clear from the regression equations, the data support our second hypothesis
that fusion would predict indices of progroup behaviors (see Table 1 for full detail of
bivariate correlations). To test our third hypothesis, that these effects would be
partially influenced by one’s satisfaction with their time in the military, we con-
ducted a series of partial correlations which controlled for the effects of their overall
perception of the military. As can be seen in Table 1, after controlling for rating of
their military experience, fusion was no longer a significant predictor of willingness
to volunteer time to help other veterans.
To follow-up these partial correlations, we ran mediation analyses using a boot-
strapping procedure in which satisfaction with military experience was entered as
the mediator, fusion as the independent variable, and extreme progroup and in-group
helping behaviors as the dependent variables. Using the PROCESS macros (Hayes,
2013), we set for 5,000 bootstraps using the 95% confidence interval. We tested
mediation using both the Sobel test and the 95% confidence intervals. Confidence
intervals which do not “cross” zero are considered to demonstrate significant effects.
Results indicated that ratings of military experience fully mediated the relationship
between fusion and willingness to give time to other veterans (Sobel z ¼ 2.37, p ¼
.02; indirect effect 95% confidence interval [.01, .11]). Considering the correlations
between fusion and extreme progroup behavior and willingness to give money also
decreased after controlling for ratings of military experience, we also tested a med-
iational model for these two variables. However, the relationship between fusion and
these variables was not significantly mediated for either extreme progroup behaviors
or giving money (Sobel z ¼ 1.76 and 1.46, respectively).
 Table 2. Hierarchical Regressions for Connection to the Military and Military Fusion.

Time Money Extreme Progroup

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Variable B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b

Connection .11(.03) .21** .02(.04) .03 8.69(1.56) .34** 3.39(2.07) .13 .15(.02) .47** .07(.02) .22**
Fusion .12(.04) .27** 6.67(1.78) .30** .10(.02) .38**
R2 .04 .08 .11 .16 .22 .30
Change in R2 .039 .049 .076
F for change in R2 11.33** 10.29** 30.96** 14.10** 69.62** 26.44**
Note. Connection to the military was entered in Step 1 (Model 1) of the regression, while fusion was entered in Step 2 (Model 2).**p < .01.

Table 3. Hierarchical Regressions for Seeing the Military as a Family and Military Fusion.

Time Money Extreme Progroup

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Variable B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b

Family .25 (.06) .24** .10 (.09) .09 14.90 (3.15) .29** 2.95 (4.04) .06 .24 (.04) .38** .04 (.05) .06
Fusion .10 (.04) .23** 7.80 (1.74) .35** .13 (.02) .48**
R2 .06 .09 .08 .15 .15 .28
Change in R2 .029 .070 .131
F for change in R2 15.31** 7.65** 22.38** 20.07** 41.44** 43.77**
Note. Seeing the military as a family was entered in Step 1 (Model 1) of the regression, while fusion was entered in Step 2 (Model 2).
**p < .01.

53
54 Armed Forces & Society 45(1)

Discussion
The goal of the current study was to explore identity fusion among a sample of U.S.
military veterans and service members and to better understand how attitudes
towards one’s service and the military affects fusion and behavior. Fusion demon-
strated incremental predictive validity above and beyond two indices of group
identification. As expected, identity fusion among military members was posi-
tively associated with both extreme progroup beliefs and in-group helping beha-
viors. While fusion is clearly associated with veteran behavior, it appears that
satisfaction with time in military service significantly mediates at least some of
these relationships.
Our results differ from Gomez et al. (2011) in that both fusion and identification
predicted extreme pro-group behaviors. They argue “ . . . although identified indi-
viduals may know what they can do for the group, they hesitate to make extreme
sacrifices for other group members” (p. 930). One potential explanation is that most
of the initial work in fusion has focused on fusion with those in one’s country or
religion. Another plausible explanation for these differences is that military mem-
bers not only have previously considered the fact they may have to die for others but
often pride themselves on a willingness to do so. Our findings indicate that the
relationship between fusion and identification may be moderated by the group type,
and the role of group type warrants further study.
The findings of this work suggest that identity fusion among military members
does play a role in veteran attitudes and beliefs but is strongly dependent upon one’s
feelings toward their time in service. If these experiences are positive, evidence
suggests military members will endorse a greater willingness to help other veterans
and act in extreme ways to help other members of the military. Further research is
necessary to determine the relationship between explicitly negative military experi-
ences and fusion. Consistent with previous work (Buhrmester et al., 2012; Gómez
et al., 2011; Swann et al., 2010), extreme progroup behavior was still significantly
related to fusion after controlling for satisfaction, indicating that identity fusion is
indeed predictive of endorsing progroup behavior.
While this research is an important initial step in understanding military identity
fusion, this study contains a number of notable limitations. Although a brief quiz was
used to discourage nonmilitary members from completing this study, participants
were not required to show proof of military service, and thus military status is not
known. Additionally, given the nature of the MTurk sampling, it is unclear how
representative this group is to the larger military population. The study was further
limited in design by the exclusive use of self-report measures (some of which were
very brief), fixed order survey items (which may lead to unknown effects of order),
and by the cross-sectional nature of the design and analyses. Furthermore, regard
toward the military was measured retrospectively with no empirical way of assessing
regard during time of service. Finally, this study was somewhat limited by the scales
used. The reliability of the seeing the military as a family subscale was low relative
Hart and Lancaster 55

to the Warrior Identity Scale validation study (see Lancaster & Hart, 2015), and the
extreme progroup behavior measure (Swann et al., 2009) has yet to undergo a formal
validation study. With these considerations in mind, future work on fusion would
benefit from more established measures of extreme progroup behaviors, and replica-
tion could produce reliability at previously observed levels.
Our results suggest that fusion shares an important relationship with in-group
attitudes in U.S. military veterans and warrants further examination. Military fusion
differs from other forms of identity fusion in that military service is more similar to a
vocation than a nationality but also has lifelong implications (Once a Marine, always
a Marine, etc.), that is, it has elements of both being a temporally limited experience
as well as a potentially permanent part of identity. This may be related to the U.S.
military emphasizing organizational boundaries and distinctive values since becom-
ing an all-volunteer force in 1973—a change that is believed to have shifted military
service from an institutional format to an occupation (Janowitz, 1975; Moskos,
1986). Future research should explore predictors of identity fusion development
during military service time, as the mechanism in which people become fused is
still relatively unknown (Gomez et al., 2011). Previous work has implicated the role
of ritual, combat experiences, and seeing group members as family (Buhrmester &
Swan, 2014; Whitehouse et al., 2014), and these may be important avenues in this
line of research. The field would further benefit from meaningful “cutoff” scores for
fusion, which would allow for additional, between-group analyses. Additionally,
further work is necessary to clarify the relationship between fusion and other indices
of military identity. For example, how fusion and group identification may each
contribute to the veteran experience with a specific focus on the development of
each type of identification.
Additional research is necessary to explore potential mediators between fusion
and relevant outcomes. A number of researchers (Buhrmester & Swann, 2014;
Gomez et al., 2011; Swann et al., 2014) have emphasized the fact that strong fusion
can lead to sense of group invulnerability and invincibility, which may be particu-
larly relevant for military members. Other possible mediators include familial-like
bonds that may carry a sense of duty, leading to extreme progroup behaviors. That is
to say that fused individuals construe other group members as living extensions of
themselves, like family members, and feel obligated to act on their behalf.
A number of important questions remain unanswered in regard to the impor-
tance of fusion in a military sample. First, we found fusion to be associated with
the endorsement of both pro- and potentially antisocial behaviors. Thus, examina-
tion of positive versus potentially dysfunctional outcomes of fusion and how, if
necessary, fusion can be adapted for civilian life will greatly add to this field.
Second, research has shown strong fusion can trigger negative emotions and inter-
ventions aimed at “defusing” problematic or extreme aspects of fusion may be
clinically relevant for those working with veteran and military populations. While
this idea requires additional inquiry and has yet to be explored in military popula-
tions, Buhrmester and Swann (2014) argue that defusing individuals engaging in
56 Armed Forces & Society 45(1)

antisocial or extreme behaviors is prudent. Fused individuals may be resistant to

defusion due to an emotional investment with members of their group, but dis-
rupting the process through which a person engages in harmful behavior to them-
selves or others is clinically imperative. Further, Swann and colleagues (2014)
note fusion may strengthen in response to cultural events such as holidays. The
potential waxing and waning of fusion (especially around American holidays such
as the Fourth of July and Veterans Day) may lead to important insights about the
malleability of this construct. Finally, no study to date has directly assessed
the interaction or distinction between group cohesion and fusion. Understanding
the potential compounding effects, or the factors that lead to cohesion but not
fusion, could provide insight into the predictors of extreme behaviors, both
positive and problematic, performed by military members.
This study is the inaugural work quantifying and examining the role of identity
fusion among U.S. military veterans and service members. Identity fusion has
demonstrated its influence over the beliefs and endorsed behaviors of veterans and
service members beyond other measures of military identity. This initial step
encourages future work with a range of possibilities such as the relationship between
fusion and identification, the exploration of how fusion forms among veterans, how
it is maintained following service, and how it may be potentially advantageous or
disadvantageous. While there is clearly much work to be done, identity fusion
predicts important pro- and antisocial outcomes in military members and warrants
further study as a domain of military identification.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Atran, S., Sheikh, H., & Gomez, A. (2014). Devoted actors sacrifice for close comrades and
sacred cause. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 17702–17703.
Atran, S., & Sheikh, H. (2015) Dangerous terrorists as devoted actors. In: V. Zeigler-Hill, L.
Welling, & T. Shackelford (eds) Evolutionary Perspectives on Social Psychology.
Springer, Cham: Evolutionary Psychology.
Buhrmester, M. D., Gómez, Á., Brooks, M. L., Morales, J. F., Fernandez, S., & Swann, W. B.
Jr. (2012). My group’s fate is my fate: Identity fused Americans and Spaniards link
personal life quality to outcome of ‘08 elections. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
34, 527–533. doi:10.1080/01973533.2012.732825
Buhrmester, M. D., & Swann, W. B. (2015). Identity Fusion. Emerging Trends in the Social
and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. 1–15.
Hart and Lancaster 57

Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016). Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced con-
venience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 53–81.
Fredman, L. A., Buhrmester, M. D., Gomez, A., Fraser, W. T., Talaifar, S., Brannon, S. M., &
Swann, W. B. (2015). Identity fusion, extreme pro-group behavior, and the path to defu-
sion. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 468–480.
Gómez, A., Brooks, M. L., Buhrmester, M. D., Vázquez, A., Jetten, J., & Swann, W. B. Jr.
(2011). On the nature of identity fusion: Insights into the construct and a new measure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 918–933. doi:10.1037/a0022642
Griffith, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis of cohesion’s relation to stress, well-being, identifica-
tion, disintegration, and perceived combat readiness. Military Psychology, 14, 217–239.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical
review. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 204–222.
Janowitz, M. (1975). The all-volunteer military as a “sociopolitical” problem. Social Prob-
lems, 22, 432–449. doi:10.1525/sp.1975.22.3.03a00100
Johansen, R. B., Laberg, J. C., & Martinussen, M. (2014). Military identity as predictor of
perceived military competence and skills. Armed Forces & Society, 40, 521–543.
Jong, J., Whitehouse, H., Kavanagh, C., & Lane, J. (2015). Shared negative experiences lead
to identity fusion via personal reflection. PLoSONE, 10, 1–12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.
0145611
Lancaster, S. L. P., & Hart, R. (2015). Military identity and psychological functioning: A pilot
study. Military behavioral health, 3, 83–87.
MacCoun, R. J., & Hix, W. M. (2010). Unit cohesion and military performance||. In sexual
orientation and U.S. Military personnel policy: An update of RAND’s 1993 study. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND.
Mcclure, P., & Broughton, W. (2000). Measuring the cohesion of military communities.
Armed Forces & Society, 26, 473–487.
Moskos, C. C. (1986). Institutional/occupational trends in armed forces: An update. Armed
Forces & Society, 12, 377–382. doi:10.1177/0095327x8601200303
Newson, M., Buhrmester, M., & Whitehouse, H. (2016). Explaining lifelong loyalty: The role
of identity fusion and self-shaping group events. PLoS One, 11, e0160427.
Oliver, L. W., Harman, J., Hoover, E., Hayes, S. M., & Pandhi, N. A. (1999). A quantitative
integration of the military cohesion literature. Military Psychology, 11, 57–83.
Qualtrics [computer software]. (2015). Provo, Utah: Author.
Sheikh, H., Atran, S., Ginges, J., Wilson, L., Obeid, N., & Davis, R. (2014). The devoted actor
as parochial altruist: Sectarian morality, identity fusion, and support for costly sacrifices.
Cliodynamics, 5, 23–40.
Siebold, G. L. (2007). The essence of military group cohesion. Armed Forces & Society, 33,
286–295.
Siebold, G. L. (2011). Key questions and challenges to the standard model of military group
cohesion. Armed Forces & Society, 37, 448–468.
58 Armed Forces & Society 45(1)

Swann, W. B., & Buhrmester, M. D. (2015). Identity fusion. Current Directions in Psycho-
logical Science, 24, 52–57. doi:10.1177/0963721414551363
Swann, W. B., Buhrmester, M. D., Gómez, A., Jetten, J., Bastian, B., Vázquez, A., . . . Zhang,
A. (2014). What makes a group worth dying for? Identity fusion fosters perception of
familial ties, promoting self-sacrifice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106,
912–926. doi:10.1037/a0036089
Swann, W. B. Jr., Gómez, A., Dovidio, J. F., Hart, S., & Jetten, J. (2010). Dying and
killing for one’s group: Identity fusion moderates responses to intergroup versions of
the trolley problem. Psychological Science, 21, 1176–1183. doi:10.1177/0956797
610376656
Swann, W. B. Jr., Gómez, A., Seyle, C. D., Morales, J. F., & Huici, C. (2009). Identity fusion:
The interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 995–1011. doi:10.1037/a0013668
Swann, W. B., Jetten, J., Gómez, A., Whitehouse, H., & Bastian, B. (2012). When group
membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119,
441–456. doi:10.1037/a0028589
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Redis-
covering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Whitehouse, H., McQuinn, B., Buhrmester, M., & Swann, W. B. (2014). Brothers in arms:
Libyan revolutionaries bond like family: Fig. 1. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences U.S.A, 111, 17783–17785. doi:10.1073/pnas
Whitehouse, H., & Lanman, J. A. (2014). The ties that bind us: Ritual, fusion, and identifi-
cation. Current Anthropology, 55, 000–000.
Yoo, J. J., Swann, W. B., & Kim, K. K. (2014). The influence of identity fusion on patriotic
consumption: A cross-cultural comparison of Korea and the U.S. The Korean Journal of
Advertising, 25, 81–106.

Author Biographies
Roland Hart is a junior research scientist at the New York University Family
Translational Research Group. His interests include military mental health, PTSD,
psychophysiology, and aggression.
Steven L. Lancaster is an associate professor of psychology at Bethel University.
His research interests include PTSD, event centrality, models of stress-response, and
post-event identity.