Spontaneous processing of functional and non-functional action sequences
Abstract
Characterizing ritual and ritualized behaviors has been a core issue in anthropology and the study of religion for more than a century. Although varying in emphasis, most theories point toward several specific behavioral features that distinguish ritual from instrumental behavior. Specifically, we have chosen to focus on the derivedness from instrumental behavior, intentional underspecification and goal-demotion. In contrast to instrumental or functional behavior (i.e., actions that cohere causally and have a necessary integration of subparts), we propose to view ritual and ritualized action as sub-categories of non-functional behavior (i.e., actions lacking causal coherence and a necessary integration between subparts). New insights in human action processing can help us explain how cognition might vary depending on the type of behavior processed. Using an event segmentation paradigm, we conducted two experiments eliciting differences in participants’ response patterns to functional and non-functional actions. Participants consistently segmented non-functional action sequences into smaller units indicating either an attentional shift to the level of gesture analysis or a problem of representational integration. Experimental studies of non-functional behavior can strengthen explanations of recurrent features of human action processing, such as ritual and ritualized behavior, as well as indicate potential sources and effects of breakdown of the system.
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?
The sensory experience of engaging in sequenced actions that are rigid, formal, and repetitive, and the motor control required to enact them with care, leads to a regular stream of event segmentation, making ritual more attention grabbing and more memorable than nonritualized actions.
“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).”
From The Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework (2018) · cites this paper as Nielbo & Sørensen, 2011
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 75
- Authors
- Nielbo, K. L., & Sørensen, J.
- Affiliations
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Nielbo, Kristoffer L.
- Venue
- Religion, Brain & Behavior
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-02
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 18-30
- ISSN
- 2153-5981 (ISSN-L)
- 2153-599X
- OpenAlex
- W2077979958
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Religion Brain & Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
- Keywords
- ritual, ritualized behavior, event segmentation, gesture analysis, attentional shift
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