Cited by 75Action Observation and SynchronizationStudy and Philosophy of ReligionReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

Spontaneous processing of functional and non-functional action sequences

Nielbo, Kristoffer L., Sørensen, Jesper·2011·Religion, Brain & Behavior

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

Crossref · 10.1080/2153599x.2010.550722

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • 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
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