Cited by 78Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyParanormal Experiences and BeliefsDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Searching for Control: Priming Randomness Increases the Evaluation of Ritual Efficacy

Open access
Legare, Cristine H., Souza, André L.·2014·Cognitive Science

Abstract

Reestablishing feelings of control after experiencing uncertainty has long been considered a fundamental motive for human behavior. We propose that rituals (i.e., socially stipulated, causally opaque practices) provide a means for coping with the aversive feelings associated with randomness due to the perception of a connection between ritual action and a desired outcome. Two experiments were conducted (one in Brazil [n = 40] and another in the United States [n = 94]) to evaluate how the perceived efficacy of rituals is affected by feelings of randomness. In a between‐subjects design, the Scramble Sentence Task was used as a priming procedure in three conditions (i.e., randomness, negativity, and neutral) and participants were then asked to rate the efficacy of rituals used for problem‐solving purposes. The results demonstrate that priming randomness increased participants' perception of ritual efficacy relative to negativity and neutral conditions. Implications for increasing our understanding of the relationship between perceived control and ritualistic behavior are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cogs.12077

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bradley M., 1999, Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings (Technical Report C‐1)
  2. Underwood G., 1996, Implicit cognition
  3. 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.308 · DOI
  4. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.206 · DOI
  5. Womack M., 1992, Why athletes need ritual: A study of magic among professional athletes, Sport and religion, 191

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Legare, C. H., & Souza, A. L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Concordia University (US)
Corresponding author
Legare, Cristine H.
Venue
Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-08-13
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
152-161
ISSN
  • 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
  • 1551-6709
OpenAlex
W2051180076
Cited by
78
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/I005455/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
ritual efficacy, perceived control, randomness, uncertainty, priming, ritual behavior, negativity
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Brazil, Ceremonial Behavior, Humans, Internal-External Control, United States, Uncertainty

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