Cited by 191Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesViolence, Religion, and Philosophy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How Do Rituals Affect Cooperation?: An Experimental Field Study Comparing Nine Ritual Types

Abstract

Collective rituals have long puzzled anthropologists, yet little is known about how rituals affect participants. Our study investigated the effects of nine naturally occurring rituals on prosociality. We operationalized prosociality as (1) attitudes about fellow ritual participants and (2) decisions in a public goods game. The nine rituals varied in levels of synchrony and levels of sacred attribution. We found that rituals with synchronous body movements were more likely to enhance prosocial attitudes. We also found that rituals judged to be sacred were associated with the largest contributions in the public goods game. Path analysis favored a model in which sacred values mediate the effects of synchronous movements on prosocial behaviors. Our analysis offers the first quantitative evidence for the long-standing anthropological conjecture that rituals orchestrate body motions and sacred values to support prosociality. Our analysis, moreover, adds precision to this old conjecture with evidence of a specific mechanism: ritual synchrony increases perceptions of oneness with others, which increases sacred values to intensify prosocial behaviors.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12110-013-9167-y

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  2. Schelling, T. (2006). Micromotives and Macrobehavior (Kindle edition). New York: W. W. Norton. Originally published in 1978.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 191

Metadata

Authors
Fischer, R., Callander, R., Reddish, P., & Bulbulia, J.
Affiliations
  • Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
  • Masaryk University (CZ)
Corresponding author
Bulbulia, Joseph
Venue
Human Nature
Published
2013-05-11
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
115-125
ISSN
  • 1045-6767 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-4776
OpenAlex
W93630498
Cited by
191
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8
FWCI
40.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Violence, Religion, and Philosophy
Keywords
collective ritual, prosocial behavior, sacred values, body movement, public goods game, cooperation, prosocial attitudes
MeSH terms
Adult, Ceremonial Behavior, Cooperative Behavior, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, New Zealand, Social Values, Gift Giving, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review