Spontaneous processing of functional and non-functional action sequences

Nielbo, Kristoffer Laigaard; Sørensen, Jesper

doi:10.1080/2153599x.2010.550722

Cited by 41 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When a person observes an actor interacting with physical objects, those objects are evaluated as more special and desirable when they are subjected to noninstrumental ritual-like actions, compared with instrumental control actions . Unlike instrumental actions, which are knowable in their causal relevance, the noninstrumental actions of ritual are causally opaque Legare & Souza, 2012Nielbo & Sørensen, 2011). In other words, the link between action (e.g., reciting a holy prayer over beads) and outcome (e.g., absolution of sins) is in principle unknowable.…”

Section: Proposition 1: Lacking Affiliation Increases Ritualistic Behmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This form of event segmentation, akin to object segmentation, is a naturally occurring cognitive process that economizes perception and guides attention (Newtson, 1976;Zacks & Swallow, 2007;Zacks, Tversky, & Iyer, 2001). We suggest that the sensory experience of engaging in sequenced actions that are rigid, formal, and repetitive, as well as the motor control required to enact these actions with care, leads to a regular stream of event segmentation, which makes ritual more attention grabbing and more memorable than nonritualized actions (Boyer & Liénard, 2006;Nielbo & Sørensen, 2011). Top-down perception, however, refers to information processing that is first driven by cognition and goals, in which a stimulus is first framed by various expectations and interpretations (rule driven).…”

Section: Organizing a Framework Of Ritual: Bottom-up And Top-down Promentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike other behaviors, rituals are typically chunked into units of segmented action, which then become sequenced, patterned, and repeated in fixed or bounded ways (Boyer & Liénard, 2006;Nielbo & Sørensen, 2011. In contrast to habits or routines, which may change each time they are performed, rituals tend to be invariable in their performance (Rappaport, 1999;Smith & Stewart, 2011).…”

Section: The Defining Features Of Ritualmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The psychology of rituals: An integrative review and process-based framework

Hobson¹,

Schroeder²,

Risen³

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, ritual has been studied from broad sociocultural perspectives, with little consideration of the psychological processes at play. Recently, however, psychologists have begun turning their attention to the study of ritual, uncovering the causal mechanisms driving this universal aspect of human behavior. With growing interest in the psychology of ritual, the current paper provides an organizing framework to understand recent empirical work from social psychology, cognitive science, anthropology, behavioral economics, and neuroscience. Our framework focuses on three primary regulatory functions of rituals: regulation of (1) emotions, (2) performance goal states, and (3) social connection. We examine the possible mechanisms underlying each function by considering the bottom-up processes that emerge from the physical features of rituals and top-down processes that emerge from the psychological meaning of rituals. Our framework, by appreciating the value of psychological theory, generates novel predictions and enriches our understanding of ritual and human behavior more broadly.

show abstract

Section: Proposition 1: Lacking Affiliation Increases Ritualistic Behmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Organizing a Framework Of Ritual: Bottom-up And Top-down Promentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Defining Features Of Ritualmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The psychology of rituals: An integrative review and process-based framework

Hobson¹,

Schroeder²,

Risen³

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While goal demotion is mentioned as a quality of ritual by a number of authors Legare & Souza, 2012;Rossano, 2012;, very few have studied it empirically (but see: Fux, Eilam, Mort, Keren, and Lawson (2013); Mitkidis, Lienard, Nielbo, and Sørensen (2014); Nielbo and Sørensen (2011). Many authors acknowledge the importance of goal demotion and suggest that identifying goal demotion is a function of the fact that ritualized actions "...are not justified by the purported goals of the performed sequences of action" Rappaport, 1999), or as a "disturbance of the goal structure ... and [or] removal of the goal" (Nielbo & Sørensen, 2011). Here I argue that these definitions are not distinct enough from that of causal opacity.…”

Section: [Causal Opacity] Belongs To the Level Of Concrete Psycho-pmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…) • How rituals influence the identity of group members (Cheung & Chi-mei Li, 2011;Hermanowicz & Morgan, 2013;Legare & Wen, 2014;Mann, Feddes, Doosje, & Fischer, 2016) • The ways in which rituals interact with emotions and physiology Fischer et al, 2014;Konvalinka et al, 2011;Lang, Krátký, Shaver, Jerotijević, & Xygalatas, 2015;Zohar & Felz, 2001) • The featural qualities determining efficacy of rituals (H. Barrett, 2002;J. Barrett & Lawson, 2001;Legare & Souza, 2012Sørensen, 2007b;Sørensen, Lienard, & Feeny, 2006) • Theoretical understanding of rituals as informed by biological/evolutionary theory (Atran & Henrich, 2010;Blute, 2006;Palmer & Pomianek, 2007;Purzycki & Sosis, 2013;Shaver & Sosis, 2014) • The relationship between ritual, and learning and culture (Rossano, 2012;Wilks, Kapitány, & Nielsen, 2016) However, the study of rituals as it relates to how we understand and interact with objects has received relatively little attention (Keren, Boyer, Mort, & Eilam, 2013;Vohs, Wang, Gino, & Norton, 2013), as has the study into how we actually perceive and cognitively understand rituals (Nielbo & Sørensen, 2011.…”

Section: What Is Ritual Cognition?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ritual cognition: ritualized action and artefact

Kapitány¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The following dissertation is an in-depth examination of the cognition and behaviour associated with ritualized action. Within the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) framework considerable resources have been devoted to understanding how rituals influence the way groups form, and how they influence the behaviour of individuals with respect to in-and out-group members (though other dimensions of ritual-related topics are discussed hereafter). However, as evinced by the publication record, very little effort has been devoted to understanding how we cognitively and behaviourally respond when rituals are directed towards objects and artefacts.That this question has been overlooked is not a trivial academic matter. Rituals are ubiquitous across cultures, and while the vast majority of rituals are performed for the benefit of an individual or a group, a vast subset therein are performed toward objects, and thereby influence the way in which we interact with them. Wedding bands, birthday cakes, flags, holy water, and entire buildings (to name but a few) are all made unique via ritual action. What is it about such actions that bestow upon objects their status? Why and how does this come about? And can it be explained through wholly ordinary cognitive mechanisms?In my introduction I outline the most relevant theories, which both inform and challenge our nascent understanding of object-directed rituals. I make suggestions as to which theories have the most promise in examining these questions. Further, I attempt to provide a theoretical and operational definition which is not merely a descriptive constellation of general features, but a definition which proposes a causal pathway of action. In so doing, I elevate the role of 'causal opacity' and 'goal demotion' to greater prominence (above featural qualities like repetition, redundancy, formality, and stereotypy). The following chapters sequentially present evidence for this definition, as well as exploring other important cognitive aspects associated with ritual cognition. RITUAL COGNITION 3In chapter two I establish a robust protocol for examining the manner in which ritualized actions influence our cognitions. I challenge the methods and conclusions of prior work that has examined the role objects and artefacts play in ritual sequences. I examine predications made by the 'ritual stance', a theoretical framework for explaining ritual cognition, and find support for a nuanced picture of ritual cognition when ritualized actions are directed toward objects.In chapter three I extend the findings of chapter two, and more clearly demarcate the unique role of goal demotion. I find support for the claim that causal opacity and goal demotion are separable, and account for different kinds of responses among participants.Further, I examine the ways our memory (and by extension, our perception) is influenced by ritualized action.In chapter four I examine all previous findings in more ecologically valid settings. I examine the behaviour of children (in two distinct and ortho...

show abstract

Cognitive and Evolutionary Approaches to Religion

McCauley¹

2016

The Blackwell Companion to Naturalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spontaneous processing of functional and non-functional action sequences

Cited by 41 publications

References 24 publications

The psychology of rituals: An integrative review and process-based framework

The psychology of rituals: An integrative review and process-based framework

Ritual cognition: ritualized action and artefact

Cognitive and Evolutionary Approaches to Religion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About