Ceremonial Behavior

Abstract

Ceremonial behavior is a form of social behavior: the culturally patterned, convention-governed, often causally opaque action we call ritual, from a graduation to a religious rite. Cognitive psychology asks not what a ritual means but how the mind produces, parses, and transmits action detached from means–end reasoning. This article develops four mechanisms: a parsing account in which ritualized action engages a precaution-tuned system that breaks behavior into small, rigid units (Boyer and Liénard); a ritual-stance account in which causal opacity leads observers to copy faithfully as convention (Kapitány, Nielsen, and Legare); a bonding account in which synchrony and shared arousal fuse participants into a group (Konvalinka, Whitehouse, and Xygalatas); and a regulation account in which ritual dampens anxiety and supports self-control (Lang and Norton). A worked example and three interactive demonstrations make each manipulable.

Keywords: ceremonial behavior, ritual, social behavior, causal opacity, overimitation

Ritual is among the few behaviors found in every human society, and it is among the strangest for a cost-minimising account of action to explain. A graduate crosses a stage to collect a blank folder; a mourner washes a body that medicine can no longer help; a fan wears the same unwashed socks through a winning streak. The actions are often effortful, repetitive, and disconnected from any physical outcome they could plausibly bring about, yet they are performed with care and felt to matter. That combination—conspicuous cost, causal opacity, and deep significance—is what makes ceremonial behavior a problem for the cognitive sciences rather than only for anthropology.

What cognitive psychology brings to ritual is a shift in the question. Classical social theory asked what rituals do for a society; the psychology of ritual asks what the mind must be doing to generate behavior of this kind, to recognise it in others, and to pass it on with such high fidelity. Those questions have answers that can be studied experimentally: the way observers parse an opaque action sequence, the way children overimitate its causally irrelevant steps, the way moving in time with others raises cooperation, and the way performing a fixed routine lowers physiological anxiety. The sections below take these mechanisms in turn, after placing ceremonial behavior within the broader category of social behavior under which it is classified.

What Ceremonial Behavior Is

Ceremonial behavior, in the sense cognitive psychology studies it, is action whose form is governed by convention rather than by a transparent physical goal. A useful working definition treats a behavior as ritualized to the degree that it is causally opaque—an observer cannot read off why its particular steps should produce their nominal effect—and stipulated—its correct performance is defined by tradition or authority rather than by efficiency (Kapitány & Nielsen, 2015; Legare & Souza, 2012). This definition is deliberately broad. It covers religious rites, but equally the secular ceremonies of graduation and inauguration, everyday greetings and toasts, sports superstitions, and the private routines by which people manage grief or anxiety (Hobson et al., 2018). What unites them is not content but a shared cognitive signature: rigidity, repetition, a sense that the sequence must be done right, and a detachment from instrumental reasoning.

That signature is what distinguishes a ritual from an ordinary instrumental act. When a person boils water to make tea, each step has a legible causal role, and a step that contributes nothing can be dropped. When the same person performs a ritual, steps that contribute nothing physically are nonetheless preserved and felt to be obligatory. The psychology of ceremonial behavior is largely the study of how the mind treats actions that fall on the opaque, stipulated side of this line—how it generates them, how it interprets them in others, and how it transmits them across generations with remarkable fidelity.

The anthropological tradition supplied the first taxonomy of these forms, and its vocabulary still frames the field. Arnold van Gennep analysed the rite of passage that moves a person between social statuses as a three-part structure—separation, a transitional middle phase, and incorporation—and Victor Turner developed the liminality of that middle phase, the betwixt-and-between condition in which ordinary distinctions are suspended and participants feel an intense, egalitarian solidarity he called communitas. These descriptive categories are not themselves cognitive explanations, but they name the recurring shapes that the mechanisms below must account for.

In the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary, Ceremonial Behavior is a descriptor filed under Social Behavior and, on a second branch, under culture. The placement is apt: ceremonial behavior is social through and through. Even a solitary ritual is defined by shared conventions, is learned from others, and typically signals something to a real or imagined audience. The remainder of this article takes the mechanisms of ceremonial behavior in turn—parsing, the ritual stance and its transmission, social bonding, and emotional regulation—and connects each to the cognition it requires.

Ceremonial Behavior and Cognition

The modern study of ritual is organised less by competing grand theories than by a set of complementary mechanisms, each tied to a distinct cognitive system. One line asks how the mind generates and parses ritualized action and finds a link to the evolved system for handling potential hazards. A second asks how observers interpret an action they cannot explain, and locates the answer in a default stance toward causally opaque behavior that also governs how rituals are learned and transmitted. A third asks how ritual binds people together, and points to interpersonal synchrony, shared arousal, and identity fusion. A fourth asks what ritual does for the individual who performs it, and finds measurable effects on anxiety and self-regulation. These mechanisms are not rivals; a single rite can parse as a precaution routine, be copied under the ritual stance, bond its participants, and calm its performer at once. The sections below work through them, beginning with the deep evolutionary observation that ritualization is older than human culture.

Table 1

Cognitive Mechanisms of Ceremonial Behavior

Parsing: ritualization and the precaution system

The oldest thread in the study of ritual is biological. The ethologist Niko Tinbergen described how, over evolutionary time, ordinary movements become ritualized into stereotyped, exaggerated, and repeated displays that serve communication—a process he analysed as the emancipation of a behavior from its original cause (Tinbergen, 1952). Ethological ritualization is only an analogy to human ceremony, not the same thing, but it establishes a crucial point: rigid, repetitive, formalised action has deep roots and a recognisable signature long before culture elaborates it.

Pascal Boyer and Pierre Liénard built a cognitive account on exactly that signature. They noted that the features defining ritualized action—rigidity, repetition, a concern with order, boundaries, and purity, and the parsing of ordinary behavior into unusually small gestural units—appear together in three otherwise unrelated places: in cultural rituals, in the routines of young children, and in the intrusive rituals of obsessive–compulsive disorder (Boyer & Liénard, 2006). Their explanation is that ritualized action engages an evolved hazard-precaution system tuned to potential threats such as contamination, predation, and social harm. Once this system is activated, attention narrows to low-level action units, which overloads working memory and temporarily crowds out the intrusive thoughts about danger that the system itself generates. On this view the strange form of ritual—why it fixates on small steps done in a prescribed order—is a direct consequence of how the precaution system parses behavior. Demo 1 contrasts how the mind parses an instrumental sequence with how it parses a causally opaque, ritualized one.

The ritual stance and cultural transmission

If ritualized action is causally opaque, how does an observer interpret it? Rohan Kapitány and Mark Nielsen argue that people adopt a ritual stance: when an action’s physical goal is not legible—when the sequence is causally opaque or marked by conventional cues—observers stop trying to read it instrumentally and instead encode it as a convention to be reproduced exactly (Kapitány & Nielsen, 2015). The ritual stance is the hinge between ritual and learning, because its most striking behavioral consequence is overimitation: children, far more than other apes, faithfully copy even the causally irrelevant steps of a demonstrated action, and they do so more when the action is opaque and framed as conventional. Cristine Legare and colleagues show that children and adults treat the number of a ritual’s procedural features, its repetition, and its links to the supernatural as cues to its efficacy and its obligatory, convention-governed status (Legare & Souza, 2012; Watson-Jones & Legare, 2016).

This is where ritual connects to the broader machinery of culture. Legare and Nielsen argue that imitation and innovation are the dual engines of cultural learning: high-fidelity imitation preserves hard-won practices that no individual could reinvent, while innovation improves them, and ritual is imitation’s purest case because its opacity forces exact copying rather than selective, goal-directed reconstruction (Legare & Nielsen, 2015; Legare, 2017). Michael Rossano makes the complementary case that ritual is the chief device by which social norms are transmitted and reinforced, because its collective, attention-focusing, memorable form stamps shared expectations into participants (Rossano, 2012). Nielsen situates the whole pattern developmentally, arguing that children’s readiness to overimitate and to treat conventions as binding is the social glue that makes cumulative culture possible (Nielsen, 2018). Demo 3 reconstructs how the number of ritual-marking cues drives judgements of a ritual’s efficacy.

Social bonding: synchrony, arousal, and fusion

Much ceremonial behavior is collective, and a large experimental literature shows that its collective form does real social work. Scott Wiltermuth and Chip Heath found that having people move in synchrony—walking in step, singing together—raised their subsequent cooperation and willingness to sacrifice for the group, even in economic games with real stakes (Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009). The effect is not merely attitudinal. Measuring heart rate during a fire-walking ritual in a Spanish village, Ivana Konvalinka, Dimitris Xygalatas, and colleagues found that the arousal of performers and that of related spectators became synchronised, so that the bodies of onlookers tracked the physiological state of the fire-walkers to whom they were socially close (Konvalinka et al., 2011). Xygalatas and colleagues went on to show, with a high-ordeal Mauritian ritual, that taking part in—or even witnessing—an extreme, painful rite increased prosocial behavior, measured as anonymous donations to the local temple (Xygalatas et al., 2013).

Harvey Whitehouse offers a theory of why intensity matters. In his account of identity fusion, rare but emotionally searing rituals—initiations, ordeals—fuse a person’s individual identity with the group’s so completely that they will defend it at great personal cost, whereas frequent, low-arousal rituals instead build the broad, doctrinally shared identity of large religions (Whitehouse & Lanman, 2014). Robert Sosis and Candace Alcorta frame the same bonding function in evolutionary terms: the very costliness of religious ritual—its time, pain, and foregone alternatives—makes it a hard-to-fake signal of commitment, which is why costly rites reliably mark the boundaries of cooperative groups (Sosis & Alcorta, 2003). Demo 2 makes the synchrony–bonding relationship concrete with an illustrative index.

Emotional regulation in the individual

The fourth mechanism returns to the solitary performer. Martin Lang, Xygalatas, and colleagues showed experimentally that inducing anxiety makes spontaneous behavior more ritualized—more repetitive, more rigid, and more redundant—which fits the precaution account and suggests ritual is a natural response to threat (Lang et al., 2015). The relationship runs the other way too: in a field study of Hindu Marathi practitioners in Mauritius, performing religious ritual in a temple lowered physiological markers of anxiety, measured through heart-rate variability, relative to a control setting (Lang et al., 2020). Michael Norton and Francesca Gino found that simple, idiosyncratic rituals performed after a loss—the death of a loved one, the end of a relationship, even a lost lottery—reduced grief, and that the effect was carried by a restored feeling of control (Norton & Gino, 2014). Beyond dampening distress, ritual appears to support self-regulation directly: Veronika Rybanska and colleagues found that a structured, ritual-like activity program improved young children’s ability to delay gratification and to regulate their behavior (Rybanska et al., 2018). Taken together with the integrative review of the field (Hobson et al., 2018), these results show ceremonial behavior to be not only a social instrument but a cognitive and affective one, acting on the person who performs it.

Worked Example

The mechanisms become concrete in three small exercises, each matching one of the demonstrations.

The ritual stance (interpretation). Whether an observer parses an action instrumentally or adopts the ritual stance turns on two cues—whether the action’s physical goal is legible (transparent) or opaque, and whether it is marked as conventional (stipulated by tradition) or merely personal:

- Transparent goal, not conventional: instrumental — read as a means to an end; causally useless steps are dropped. - Opaque goal, conventional marking: ritual stance — encoded as convention and copied faithfully, including causally irrelevant steps (overimitation). - Opaque goal, not conventional: puzzlement — the observer seeks a hidden instrumental reason before defaulting to copying. - Transparent goal, conventional marking: mixed — the convention is honoured but the useless steps are still recognised as optional.

Only the opaque-and-conventional case yields the full ritual stance and the overimitation that drives high-fidelity transmission. Demo 1 lets the reader set the two cues and read off how the action is parsed.

Synchrony and bonding (illustrative index). The synchrony findings are experimental and categorical, but their shape can be captured with a deliberately simple index. Let s be the proportion of a group moving in time together, from 0 (everyone out of step) to 1 (perfect synchrony), and define an illustrative relative-bonding index B = s², so that bonding rises faster than synchrony itself:

- Out of step, s = 0.0: B = 0.0² = 0.00 — no synchrony-based bonding. - Half in step, s = 0.5: B = 0.5² = 0.25 — modest bonding. - Near-perfect, s = 0.9: B = 0.9² = 0.81 — disproportionately strong bonding. - Perfect synchrony, s = 1.0: B = 1.0² = 1.00 — maximal bonding.

The index is illustrative, not a published metric, but it captures the literature’s qualitative claim: the social payoff of collective ritual is concentrated at high synchrony, which is why ceremonies go to such lengths to coordinate movement and sound. Demo 2 plots B against s.

Ritual-efficacy cues (counting). Legare and Souza found that people judge a ritual more efficacious as it accumulates conventional cues. Represent efficacy as the count of cues present, from 0 to 5—repetition of actions, a specified number of steps, performance at a prescribed time, use of special objects, and a third-party expert officiant:

- 1 cue present: score 1 — low perceived efficacy; the procedure reads as ordinary action. - 3 cues present: score 3 — moderate perceived efficacy. - 5 cues present: score 5 — high perceived efficacy; the procedure reads as a potent, convention-governed rite.

Counting conventional cues is a faithful summary of how efficacy judgements track ritual markers, which is what makes perceived efficacy tractable as a variable. Demo 3 presents the five cues and returns the score.

Discussion

Read across its mechanisms, ceremonial behavior is not one phenomenon but a convergence of several cognitive systems on a single, recognisable form of action. The parsing account explains the strange morphology of ritual—its rigidity, repetition, and fixation on small steps—as the signature of a precaution system, and it earns its keep by predicting the otherwise puzzling resemblance between cultural ritual, childhood routine, and obsessive–compulsive symptoms (Boyer & Liénard, 2006). The ritual-stance account explains how an action no one can justify instrumentally is nonetheless transmitted with high fidelity, by showing that causal opacity switches observers from instrumental reasoning to faithful copying (Kapitány & Nielsen, 2015; Legare & Nielsen, 2015).

These individual-level mechanisms meet the social functions that anthropology long emphasised. Synchrony, shared arousal, and identity fusion give a cognitive and physiological grounding to the old claim that collective ritual binds groups, replacing assertion with measured cooperation, coupled heart rates, and donations (Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009; Konvalinka et al., 2011; Xygalatas et al., 2013). The regulation findings show that ritual also pays the individual who performs it, in lowered anxiety and firmer self-control (Lang et al., 2015; Norton & Gino, 2014; Rybanska et al., 2018). The honest summary is that these accounts are complementary. A single rite recruits several systems at once, and explaining it at the level of action parsing does not explain away its bonding or its regulation; each mechanism is the context for the others (Hobson et al., 2018).

Current Directions

The most active front is the move from the laboratory to the field without giving up measurement. Where early experiments manipulated synchrony in the lab, recent work instruments real rituals: heart-rate monitors on fire-walkers and their spectators (Konvalinka et al., 2011), physiological and behavioral measures around high-ordeal rites (Xygalatas et al., 2013), and heart-rate-variability recordings of anxiety before and after temple ritual (Lang et al., 2020). A second front is developmental and cumulative-cultural: treating children’s overimitation and deference to convention not as a quirk but as the mechanism that lets human culture ratchet, and testing how ritual structure feeds both the faithful-copying and the self-regulation sides of that process (Legare, 2017; Nielsen, 2018; Rybanska et al., 2018). A third is theoretical consolidation: integrative frameworks now try to specify which features of a ritual predict which outcomes—when intensity produces fusion versus doctrinal identity, when repetition buys efficacy judgements, when routine buys anxiety relief—so that the field’s separate mechanisms can be tested against one another rather than in isolation (Whitehouse & Lanman, 2014; Hobson et al., 2018). The common thread is that ceremonial behavior has become an experimental subject, studied with the same tools as memory or attention, while keeping its connection to the social life that gives it meaning.

Common Misconceptions

Ceremonial behavior means religious ritual.

Religion is one domain of ritual, not its definition. The cognitive signature of ceremonial behavior—causal opacity, rigidity, repetition, convention—appears equally in secular ceremonies, greetings, sports superstitions, and the private routines people use to manage grief and anxiety (Hobson et al., 2018; Norton & Gino, 2014).

A ritual is effective because its steps physically work.

Ritualized action is defined precisely by its causal opacity—its steps are not explained by any physical outcome they produce. Its effects are psychological and social: judged efficacy tracks the number of conventional cues present, not any mechanical result (Legare & Souza, 2012; Kapitány & Nielsen, 2015).

Children copy only the useful parts of what adults do.

On the contrary, children overimitate: they faithfully copy even the causally irrelevant steps of a demonstrated action, and they do so more when the action is opaque and marked as conventional. This high-fidelity copying is a feature, not a bug—it is what makes cumulative culture possible (Legare & Nielsen, 2015; Nielsen, 2018).

Ritual is a uniquely human, purely cultural invention.

Formalised, repetitive display has deep evolutionary roots: ethologists described the ritualization of animal signals long before cultural ritual is layered on top. The animal case is an analogy rather than the same phenomenon, but it shows the morphology of ritual is older than culture (Tinbergen, 1952; Boyer & Liénard, 2006).

Glossary

Causal opacity.

The property of an action whose steps cannot be read as a means to its nominal end; the defining cognitive feature of ritualized behavior and the cue that triggers the ritual stance.

Ceremonial behavior.

Culturally patterned, convention-governed action—ritual—whose form is detached from transparent instrumental goals; the subject of this article and a MeSH descriptor filed under social behavior.

Collective effervescence.

Durkheim’s term for the heightened shared emotion generated by assembled participants in a rite; an early account of ritual’s group-bonding power that modern synchrony and fusion research makes measurable.

Communitas.

Victor Turner’s term for the intense, egalitarian solidarity felt by participants during the liminal phase of a ritual, when ordinary social distinctions are suspended.

Costly signaling.

The evolutionary account in which the time, pain, and expense of ritual make it a hard-to-fake signal of commitment, reliably marking the boundaries of cooperative groups.

Identity fusion.

A visceral sense of oneness with a group, produced by rare, emotionally intense rituals, that leads members to defend the group at great personal cost; contrasted with the doctrinal identity built by frequent low-arousal rites.

Interpersonal synchrony.

Moving or vocalising in time with others, as in marching, dancing, or chanting; experimentally raises cooperation and is a core bonding ingredient of collective ceremony.

Liminality.

The transitional middle phase of a rite of passage, in which the participant is between social statuses; introduced by van Gennep and developed by Turner.

Overimitation.

The tendency, pronounced in human children, to copy even the causally irrelevant steps of a demonstrated action; the behavioral consequence of the ritual stance and an engine of high-fidelity cultural transmission.

Precaution system.

An evolved hazard-detection system, tuned to contamination, predation, and social threat, that Boyer and Liénard argue generates the small-unit parsing and repetition characteristic of ritualized action.

Rite of passage.

A ceremony marking a change of social status—birth, initiation, marriage, death—analysed by van Gennep as a three-part structure of separation, liminal transition, and incorporation.

Ritual efficacy.

The perceived power of a ritual to bring about its intended end; judged to rise with the number of conventional cues present—repetition, specified steps, special objects, prescribed time, and an officiant—rather than with any physical mechanism.

Ritual stance.

The default interpretive posture toward a causally opaque, conventionally marked action: encoding it as a convention to be reproduced exactly rather than as a means to an end.

Ritualization.

In ethology, the evolutionary process by which an ordinary movement becomes a stereotyped, exaggerated communicative display; an analogy that locates the morphology of ritual before human culture.

Social behavior.

Action directed at or shaped by other members of one’s species; the MeSH parent category under which ceremonial behavior is filed, since even solitary ritual is learned from and signals to others.

Key Researchers

Pascal Boyer

(Washington University in St. Louis). Cognitive anthropologist whose precaution-system and action-parsing account, developed with Pierre Liénard, explains the rigid, repetitive morphology of ritualized behavior and its kinship with childhood routines and obsessive–compulsive symptoms. ORCID · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Émile Durkheim

(1858–1917) (University of Paris). Founding sociologist whose The Elementary Forms of Religious Life framed collective ritual as the engine of social solidarity and “collective effervescence,” the foundational account the modern psychology of ritual still builds on. Wikipedia

Arnold van Gennep

(1873–1957) (independent scholar, France). Ethnographer and folklorist whose Les rites de passage established the tripartite structure—separation, liminal transition, incorporation—that underpins modern ritual theory. Wikipedia

Cristine H. Legare

(University of Texas at Austin). Developmental psychologist who studies ritual cognition, the evaluation of ritual efficacy, and imitation and innovation as the dual engines of cumulative cultural learning. Google Scholar

Mark Nielsen

(University of Queensland). Developmental psychologist whose work on overimitation and the ritual stance shows how children’s deference to causally opaque convention underpins the transmission of culture. ORCID · Google Scholar

Victor Turner

(1920–1983) (University of Chicago). Cultural anthropologist and theorist of the ritual process, who developed the ideas of liminality and communitas—the intense solidarity of participants suspended between social statuses. Wikipedia

Harvey Whitehouse

(University of Oxford). Anthropologist whose modes-of-religiosity theory and account of ritual-driven identity fusion explain how rare, intense rites and frequent, low-arousal ones build different kinds of group commitment. ORCID · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Dimitris Xygalatas

(University of Connecticut). Anthropologist and cognitive scientist whose field and physiological studies of extreme rituals document synchronised arousal between performers and spectators and the prosocial effects of high-ordeal rites. Google Scholar · Faculty page

Frequently Asked Questions

What is ceremonial behavior?

Ceremonial behavior is culturally patterned, convention-governed action—ritual—whose steps are detached from any transparent physical goal. It ranges from religious rites and rites of passage to secular ceremonies, greetings, superstitions, and private routines, and cognitive psychology studies how the mind generates, interprets, and transmits action of this kind.

How does a ritual differ from an ordinary, instrumental action?

An instrumental action is causally transparent: each step has a legible role, and useless steps can be dropped. A ritual is causally opaque and stipulated by convention: its steps are preserved and felt to be obligatory even when they produce no physical result. This opacity is the defining cognitive feature that distinguishes ceremonial from instrumental behavior.

Why do people copy even the useless steps of a ritual?

Because causal opacity switches observers into the ritual stance, in which an action is encoded as a convention to be reproduced exactly rather than as a means to an end. The result is overimitation—faithful copying of causally irrelevant steps—which is especially strong in human children and is thought to be the mechanism behind high-fidelity cultural transmission.

How do rituals create social bonds?

Through several routes. Moving in synchrony raises cooperation and willingness to sacrifice for the group; shared physiological arousal couples performers and spectators, as measured by synchronised heart rates in a fire-walking rite; and rare, emotionally intense rituals fuse individual and group identity so strongly that members will defend the group at great cost.

Why does performing a ritual reduce anxiety?

Enacting a fixed, repeatable routine engages an evolved precaution system, narrowing attention to small action units and crowding out intrusive worry. Field and laboratory studies find that ritual lowers physiological markers of anxiety and restores a sense of control, which is why rituals proliferate around uncertain, high-stakes events.

What makes a ritual seem effective?

Perceived efficacy tracks conventional cues rather than any physical mechanism. People judge a ritual more potent as it accumulates markers such as repetition of actions, a specified number of steps, performance at a prescribed time, special objects, and a recognised officiant. The more such cues are present, the more efficacious and obligatory the procedure is judged to be.

Do non-human animals have ceremonial behavior?

Not in the human cultural sense, but ethologists describe ritualization—the evolution of ordinary movements into stereotyped, exaggerated communicative displays. This is an analogy rather than the same phenomenon, but it shows that the rigid, repetitive morphology of ritual has evolutionary roots older than human culture.

Is ceremonial behavior still an active research area?

Very much so. Contemporary work instruments real rituals with physiological and behavioral measures, studies children’s overimitation as the engine of cumulative culture, and builds integrative frameworks that predict which features of a ritual produce which social and psychological outcomes.

References

Boyer, P., & Liénard, P. (2006). Why ritualized behavior? Precaution systems and action parsing in developmental, pathological and cultural rituals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(6), 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X06009332

Hobson, N. M., Schroeder, J., Risen, J. L., Xygalatas, D., & Inzlicht, M. (2018). The psychology of rituals: An integrative review and process-based framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(3), 260–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317734944

Kapitány, R., & Nielsen, M. (2015). Adopting the ritual stance: The role of opacity and context in ritual and everyday actions. Cognition, 145, 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.08.002

Konvalinka, I., Xygalatas, D., Bulbulia, J., Schjødt, U., Jegindø, E.-M., Wallot, S., Van Orden, G., & Roepstorff, A. (2011). Synchronized arousal between performers and related spectators in a fire-walking ritual. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(20), 8514–8519. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016955108

Lang, M., Krátký, J., Shaver, J. H., Jerotijević, D., & Xygalatas, D. (2015). Effects of anxiety on spontaneous ritualized behavior. Current Biology, 25(14), 1892–1897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.05.049

Lang, M., Krátký, J., & Xygalatas, D. (2020). The role of ritual behaviour in anxiety reduction: An investigation of Marathi religious practices in Mauritius. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1805), 20190431. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0431

Legare, C. H. (2017). Cumulative cultural learning: Development and diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(30), 7877–7883. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620743114

Legare, C. H., & Nielsen, M. (2015). Imitation and innovation: The dual engines of cultural learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(11), 688–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.005

Legare, C. H., & Souza, A. L. (2012). Evaluating ritual efficacy: Evidence from the supernatural. Cognition, 124(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.004

Nielsen, M. (2018). The social glue of cumulative culture and ritual behavior. Child Development Perspectives, 12(4), 264–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12297

Norton, M. I., & Gino, F. (2014). Rituals alleviate grieving for loved ones, lovers, and lotteries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031772

Rossano, M. J. (2012). The essential role of ritual in the transmission and reinforcement of social norms. Psychological Bulletin, 138(3), 529–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027038

Rybanska, V., McKay, R., Jong, J., & Whitehouse, H. (2018). Rituals improve children’s ability to delay gratification. Child Development, 89(2), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12762

Sosis, R., & Alcorta, C. (2003). Signaling, solidarity, and the sacred: The evolution of religious behavior. Evolutionary Anthropology, 12(6), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.10120

Tinbergen, N. (1952). “Derived” activities: Their causation, biological significance, origin, and emancipation during evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 27(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1086/398642

Watson-Jones, R. E., & Legare, C. H. (2016). The social functions of group rituals. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415618486

Whitehouse, H., & Lanman, J. A. (2014). The ties that bind us: Ritual, fusion, and identification. Current Anthropology, 55(6), 674–695. https://doi.org/10.1086/678698

Wiltermuth, S. S., & Heath, C. (2009). Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological Science, 20(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02253.x

Xygalatas, D., Mitkidis, P., Fischer, R., Reddish, P., Skewes, J., Geertz, A. W., Roepstorff, A., & Bulbulia, J. (2013). Extreme rituals promote prosociality. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1602–1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612472910