Adopting the ritual stance: The role of opacity and context in ritual and everyday actions
Open accessAbstract
Rituals are a pervasive and ubiquitous aspect of human culture, but when we naïvely observe an opaque set of ritual actions, how do we come to understand its significance? To investigate this, across two experiments we manipulated the degree to which actions were ritualistic or ordinary, and whether or not they were accompanied with context. In Experiment 1, 474 adult participants were presented with videos of novel rituals (causally opaque actions) or control actions (causally transparent) performed on a set of objects accompanied with neutral-valance written context. Experiment 2 presented the same video stimuli but with negative and aversive written context. In both experiments ritualized objects were rated as physically unchanged, but more 'special' and more 'desirable' than objects subjected to control actions, with context amplifying this effect. Results are discussed with reference to the Ritual Stance and the Social-Action hypothesis. Implications for both theories are discussed, as are methodological concerns regarding the empirical investigation of ritual cognition. We argue that causally opaque ritual actions guide the behavior of naïve viewers because such actions are perceived as socially normative, rather than with reference to supernatural intervention or causation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Other people who are part of a ritual may become more meaningful because the meaning or value inherent to the ritual is extended to them.
“In the case of ritual, just as an activity or goal can become more meaningful because it is incorporated into a ritual (Kapitány & Nielsen, 2015), we suggest that other people who are part of the ritual may also become more meaningful.”
From The Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework (2018) · cites this paper as Kapitány & Nielsen, 2015
Objects are evaluated as more special and desirable when subjected to noninstrumental ritual-like actions compared with instrumental control actions.
“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 (Kapitány & Nielsen, 2015).”
From The Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework (2018) · cites this paper as Kapitány & Nielsen, 2015
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 60 · Cited by 116
- Authors
- Kapitány, R., & Nielsen, M.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Kapitány, Rohan
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-12
- Volume
- 145
- Pages
- 13-29
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1649633230
- Cited by
- 116
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 76.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP140101410)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Keywords
- ritual action, context effects, ritual objects, social norms, everyday action
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Ceremonial Behavior, Cognition, Culture, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Social Perception, 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