The argument Baumeister et al. present regarding the importance of individual differentiation to prevent pathologies and achieve optimal performance in groups represents an interesting and important advance in our understanding of group behavior. However, there may be contexts, such as the military, in which this individuality may run contrary to the interests of the group, and thus differentiation will diminish, rather than heighten, optimal performance.
Human cooperation evolved, at least in part, to enable people to engage in more effective competition against out-groups. This means that strong selection pressures would have shaped the nature of male coalitionary bonds, which created and sustained groups built around combat (Bowles Reference Bowles2009). Such bonds would have depended less on distinctiveness than on interchangeability because any person who was injured or killed would need to be replaced or compensated for almost immediately to maximize the chances of survival for the rest of the group. Indeed, militaries invests enormous amounts of time and money to break down individual identity, forcing similarity down to clothing and haircut to diminish individuality in favor of group identity. In these contexts, the psychology of intergroup conflict reflects noticeable sex differences; one would expect that the psychological mechanisms undergirding male warriors in particular, designed to effectively counter out-group aggression, would display not only greater comfort with hierarchies, but also much stronger in-group bonds than other tasks might demand (McDonald et al. Reference McDonald, Navarrete and Van Vugt2012; Wrangham & Peterson Reference Wrangham and Peterson1996).
Such an understanding need not be completely inconsistent with the argument put forth by Baumeister et al. because they posit a two-stage model wherein the first stage “emphasizes shared common identity and promotes emotional bonds” (target article abstract). In some domains, such as combat, the second stage, which enhances and benefits from greater individuality in rewards, responsibility, and identification, may never be reached because it runs counter to the interests of the group members both individually and collectively. In many civilian tasks, benefits from collective action may not always be equally distributed. In combat, this distinction may lose power precisely because it may both be impossible to predict who will survive any given engagement, but also because the group must function effectively for individual members to maximize their prospects for survival. Restricting the model to the first bonding phase, without proceeding to the presumptive advantages of the second phase, in this context would likely be the result of the intense pressure demanded by the fear of injury and death; group cohesion under these circumstances increases camaraderie, performance, and retention (MacCoun et al. Reference MacCoun, Kier and Belkin2006). Under such immediate and high risk of death, only sublimation of the individual to the group permits the maximum likelihood of survival for an individual. In combat, individuation would serve only to reduce fitness advantages by calling particular attention to a given person, making them a special target for the enemy or for overthrow by subordinates who object to an uncooperative or nonegalitarian leader (Boehm Reference Boehm1999). In this way, individuation in combat would be advantageous in most circumstances. Specialization may increase efficiency and quality in some contexts, but that only works when specialization can be distributed without causing irreparable harm to any given individual.
One important consideration in this regard relies on the recognition that not all groups are coerced or externally imposed through membership in an identity category such as race or sex; rather, many group memberships appear self-selected. This means that those individuals who might prefer to be differentiated may gravitate toward, and perform best in, groups in which their distinct identity is recognized and acknowledged. Conversely, those who join the military or other collectivist cultures may prefer, and perform best in, environments and cultures in which individual identity is assimilated into a larger whole. In fact, having a mission larger than oneself is often presented as a strong motivation for many joining the service. In this way, a recursive relationship likely exists between the overdetermined nature of a group task, and the degree of internal motivation for psychological differentiation among its participants. As we strive to understand how and why individuals choose the communities and groups they do, from academia through the military, understanding how individuals take on group identity presents an inspiring and daunting challenge for future analysis.
One of the points Baumeister et al. raise revolves around the fact that individuals need to learn to negotiate the notion of the self within complex social systems and organizations. And many of the rewards from individuated group behavior as posited by their model rely on an implicit sense of trust within the group and among its members. While accountability and individual recognition may facilitate that sense of trust in civilian groups, particularly those geared toward work or social tasks, additional features may further bond members of military teams, particularly those who have saved one another's lives, or taken the lives of others in concert. This threshold represents a psychic breach that may be hard for civilians to fully grasp. Small military teams such as those structured into Special Forces units often operate as parts of a single body do; arms may be different from legs, but each needs the others in intrinsic, indivisible ways for the whole to function. In this regard, trust represents a currency far beyond that achieved by accountability or personal rewards; rather, it transcends to become values, such as loyalty, duty, courage, and sacrifice, that become inculcated in an existential manner among all of those members of a given unit.
As scholars seek to extend the implications of this important and interesting model, it is important to keep in mind that not all groups serve the same function. The powerful and enduring pressure of combat represents a unique, albeit common, domain of group membership that may not provide the benefits resulting from individuation that derive from other contexts. The question is then what precipitates the shift from areas where individuation undermines optimal group functioning and performance to those where it might potentiate them. How does this shift take place, and what psychological trade-offs between group benefits and individual satisfaction may it demand?
The argument Baumeister et al. present regarding the importance of individual differentiation to prevent pathologies and achieve optimal performance in groups represents an interesting and important advance in our understanding of group behavior. However, there may be contexts, such as the military, in which this individuality may run contrary to the interests of the group, and thus differentiation will diminish, rather than heighten, optimal performance.
Human cooperation evolved, at least in part, to enable people to engage in more effective competition against out-groups. This means that strong selection pressures would have shaped the nature of male coalitionary bonds, which created and sustained groups built around combat (Bowles Reference Bowles2009). Such bonds would have depended less on distinctiveness than on interchangeability because any person who was injured or killed would need to be replaced or compensated for almost immediately to maximize the chances of survival for the rest of the group. Indeed, militaries invests enormous amounts of time and money to break down individual identity, forcing similarity down to clothing and haircut to diminish individuality in favor of group identity. In these contexts, the psychology of intergroup conflict reflects noticeable sex differences; one would expect that the psychological mechanisms undergirding male warriors in particular, designed to effectively counter out-group aggression, would display not only greater comfort with hierarchies, but also much stronger in-group bonds than other tasks might demand (McDonald et al. Reference McDonald, Navarrete and Van Vugt2012; Wrangham & Peterson Reference Wrangham and Peterson1996).
Such an understanding need not be completely inconsistent with the argument put forth by Baumeister et al. because they posit a two-stage model wherein the first stage “emphasizes shared common identity and promotes emotional bonds” (target article abstract). In some domains, such as combat, the second stage, which enhances and benefits from greater individuality in rewards, responsibility, and identification, may never be reached because it runs counter to the interests of the group members both individually and collectively. In many civilian tasks, benefits from collective action may not always be equally distributed. In combat, this distinction may lose power precisely because it may both be impossible to predict who will survive any given engagement, but also because the group must function effectively for individual members to maximize their prospects for survival. Restricting the model to the first bonding phase, without proceeding to the presumptive advantages of the second phase, in this context would likely be the result of the intense pressure demanded by the fear of injury and death; group cohesion under these circumstances increases camaraderie, performance, and retention (MacCoun et al. Reference MacCoun, Kier and Belkin2006). Under such immediate and high risk of death, only sublimation of the individual to the group permits the maximum likelihood of survival for an individual. In combat, individuation would serve only to reduce fitness advantages by calling particular attention to a given person, making them a special target for the enemy or for overthrow by subordinates who object to an uncooperative or nonegalitarian leader (Boehm Reference Boehm1999). In this way, individuation in combat would be advantageous in most circumstances. Specialization may increase efficiency and quality in some contexts, but that only works when specialization can be distributed without causing irreparable harm to any given individual.
One important consideration in this regard relies on the recognition that not all groups are coerced or externally imposed through membership in an identity category such as race or sex; rather, many group memberships appear self-selected. This means that those individuals who might prefer to be differentiated may gravitate toward, and perform best in, groups in which their distinct identity is recognized and acknowledged. Conversely, those who join the military or other collectivist cultures may prefer, and perform best in, environments and cultures in which individual identity is assimilated into a larger whole. In fact, having a mission larger than oneself is often presented as a strong motivation for many joining the service. In this way, a recursive relationship likely exists between the overdetermined nature of a group task, and the degree of internal motivation for psychological differentiation among its participants. As we strive to understand how and why individuals choose the communities and groups they do, from academia through the military, understanding how individuals take on group identity presents an inspiring and daunting challenge for future analysis.
One of the points Baumeister et al. raise revolves around the fact that individuals need to learn to negotiate the notion of the self within complex social systems and organizations. And many of the rewards from individuated group behavior as posited by their model rely on an implicit sense of trust within the group and among its members. While accountability and individual recognition may facilitate that sense of trust in civilian groups, particularly those geared toward work or social tasks, additional features may further bond members of military teams, particularly those who have saved one another's lives, or taken the lives of others in concert. This threshold represents a psychic breach that may be hard for civilians to fully grasp. Small military teams such as those structured into Special Forces units often operate as parts of a single body do; arms may be different from legs, but each needs the others in intrinsic, indivisible ways for the whole to function. In this regard, trust represents a currency far beyond that achieved by accountability or personal rewards; rather, it transcends to become values, such as loyalty, duty, courage, and sacrifice, that become inculcated in an existential manner among all of those members of a given unit.
As scholars seek to extend the implications of this important and interesting model, it is important to keep in mind that not all groups serve the same function. The powerful and enduring pressure of combat represents a unique, albeit common, domain of group membership that may not provide the benefits resulting from individuation that derive from other contexts. The question is then what precipitates the shift from areas where individuation undermines optimal group functioning and performance to those where it might potentiate them. How does this shift take place, and what psychological trade-offs between group benefits and individual satisfaction may it demand?