The target article attempts to explain why groups create and maintain historical myths about their ancestral past. It provides a functional explanation and argues that historical myths are strategically produced by clever individuals to signal fitness interdependence to the group members and, by that, motivate them to commit to the group. The full model proposes a process in which historical myths first signal continuity, which, in turn, signals sustained cohesion and cooperation, which, in turn, cues fitness interdependence, which, in turn, motivates coalitional investment. The argument that historical myths’ function is coalition building is convincing. The social identity approach, however, provides a more parsimonious, more complete, and empirically better-supported explanation of how historical myths serve coalition building – without a central role of fitness interdependence.

In a social identity-based explanation, the continuity represented in the myths boosts social identification, which, in turn, increases the members’ commitment to and solidarity with the group. The empirical evidence supporting this explanation and testing every step in the process is robust. Perceived continuity boosts identification with one's group (Sani et al., Reference Sani, Bowe, Herrera, Manna, Cossa and Miao2007; Sani, Bowe, & Herrera, Reference Sani, Bowe and Herrera2008). Identification, in turn, increases commitment to and cooperation within groups (Ellemers, Reference Ellemers, Hogg and Terry2001), even in troubled times (Haslam et al., Reference Haslam, Ryan, Postmes, Spears, Jetten and Webley2006). A wealth of research testifies that a salient social identity encourages people from the same group to seek agreement (Haslam, Oakes, Reynolds, & Turner, Reference Haslam, Oakes, Reynolds and Turner1999), coordinate their behavior (Turner & Oakes, Reference Turner, Oakes and Paulus1989), and collaborate with each other (van Knippenberg & Ellemers, Reference van Knippenberg, Ellemers, Haslam, van Knippenberg, Platow and Ellemers2003). The mere idea of group membership is enough to elicit a sense of duty to help the group and fellow group members (Baron, Ritov, & Greene, Reference Baron, Ritov and Greene2013). The critical characteristic of historical myths is the long, continuous group history, which, according to the social identity approach, is sufficient to promote identification with and then commitment to the group. According to the target article, this critical characteristic of long history is just a proxy to signal cooperation and, eventually, fitness interdependence.

Social identity and social categorization theories can render historical myths effective through additional mechanisms, too. Made salient by the long group history, social identity leads to depersonalization and allows group members’ perspectives to become unified and interchangeable with other group members (Turner, Reference Turner and Tajfel1982). This is what can create the link between past and present members, and this is how the myths’ reference to ancestral cooperation can impact motivation today. In addition, sustained intergroup cooperation depicted in historical myths highlights intragroup similarity, which induces self-categorization with the group (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, Reference Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, Doosje, Ellemers, Spears and Doosje1999) and can thus prompt behaviors more in line with the perceived (and desired) group norm of cooperation (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, Reference Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell1987).

Through the common ingroup identity model (Gaertner & Dovidio, Reference Gaertner and Dovidio2000), the social identity approach can also explain the coalition-building function of historical myths not just within but between different groups. Historical myths can tell a story of a shared origin of two groups and, through that, attempt to recategorize members of the two groups as also part of an overarching superordinate group with the ensuing superordinate group identity.

The target article argues that the observation that historical myth production is particularly active when groups change by “fission and fusion” supports the claim about the unique role of fitness interdependence cues. But such times of “fission and fusion” are clearly times of group discontinuity. Perceived group discontinuity is an identity threat that motivates people to defend their identity. Leveraging ancestral history appears to be an effective approach. Research shows that existential threats to the group motivate the feeling of collective self-continuity, explaining both ingroup protection and negative outgroup attitudes (Smeekes & Verkuyten, Reference Smeekes and Verkuyten2013), and perceived continuity can indeed reassure against identity threats (Jetten & Wohl, Reference Jetten and Wohl2012).

The target article claims that social identity theory cannot explain all the typical characteristics of historical myths, like the role of “ancestral origin.” This view stems from looking at social identity merely as a tool for self-esteem manipulation or a remedy for existential threat. Social identity, however, encompasses different motives, including continuity, meaning, and distinctiveness motives (Vignoles, Reference Vignoles, Luyckx, Schwartz and Vignoles2011). The length of the group's existence signals continuity and, as the authors say, “perennial entity.” Such a perennial entity is an ultimate entitativity cue, showing that the group is a real, meaningful entity, and such perception comes with an increased sense of unity, similarity, interaction, and cohesion within the group (Campbell, Reference Campbell1958). Empirical findings confirm that continuity increases the group's perceived entitativity, which then boosts social identity (Sani et al., Reference Sani, Bowe and Herrera2008). In addition, people want their groups to be distinguishable from other groups, and the lack of perceived distinctiveness is a form of identity threat (Branscombe et al., Reference Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, Doosje, Ellemers, Spears and Doosje1999). A unique ancestral myth can be the perfect response to such distinctiveness motivation.

Signaling fitness interdependence can still be a functional component of historical myths, even if not their universal defining feature. For example, while the social identity approach may sufficiently explain how historical myths increase current members’ commitment, encourage their support for change, and facilitate the merging of different groups, fitness interdependence cues can be mostly useful when recruiting prospective individual members from the outside. Exploring the possible interaction between social identity motives and fitness interdependence could also be fruitful. While those highly identified with their group should less likely be influenced by fitness interdependence cues, weakly identified members may be more susceptible, receptive to, and, therefore, more likely to be strategically targeted by the myths that utilize them.

In summary, to the extent that historical myths represent a unique cultural phenomenon that serves universal social and societal functions of coalition building, the social identity approach offers a more comprehensive explanation for how historical myths work compared to the proposed model solely based on fitness interdependence.