Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T20:35:42.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The functions of ritual in social groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2016

Rachel E. Watson-Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712. watsonjones@austin.utexas.edulegare@austin.utexas.eduhttp://www.rachelwatsonjones.comhttp://www.cristinelegare.com
Cristine H. Legare
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712. watsonjones@austin.utexas.edulegare@austin.utexas.eduhttp://www.rachelwatsonjones.comhttp://www.cristinelegare.com

Abstract

Ritual cognition builds upon social learning biases that may have become specialized for affiliation within social groups. The adaptive problems of group living required a means of identifying group members, ensuring commitment to the group, facilitating cooperation, and maintaining group cohesion. We discuss how ritual serves these social functions.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Norenzayan et al. make a compelling argument that cultural evolution has selected for beliefs and behaviors that increase group solidarity and reduce intragroup conflict. Over time, groups that had religious beliefs and behaviors that promoted intragroup prosociality had a competitive advantage over other groups. Prosocial religions also made it possible to increase group size through outsourcing third-party monitoring of exchanges to Big Gods.

As social networks have increased in size over human history, rituals have allowed groups to remain cohesive, while reducing the need for physical and social proximity. Rituals, which we define as socially stipulated, causally opaque group conventions (Legare & Souza Reference Legare and Souza2012; Reference Legare and Souza2014), are central to the cultural evolution of prosocial religions. The role of ritual in cultural evolution raises compelling questions about the process by which the elements of rituals were aggregated and honed to address the adaptive problems of group living. Here, we discuss how the social functions of ritual solve adaptive problems associated with group living. Ritual is a distinctly human predisposition – a psychologically prepared, culturally inherited, species-specific behavior. We propose that the evolution of ritual cognition builds upon selective social learning biases that may have become increasingly specialized for affiliative functions within social groups.

Engaging in rituals serves a variety of functions that solve adaptive problems associated with group living. First, rituals provide a means of identifying in-group members. Engaging in approved social etiquette and participation in group-specific ceremonies allow identification of in-group members, who are more likely to cooperate and less likely to free-ride than out-group members. Engaging in rituals also demonstrates commitment to in-group values. Rituals often include costly actions, in terms of time and energy expenditure as well as pain and sacrifice, that operate as reliable signals that convey commitment to the group. Individuals who demonstrate commitment to in-group values through ritual participation are more likely to be trusted in cooperative endeavors. Hence, rituals facilitate cooperation with social coalitions. Finally, rituals function as mechanisms of social group cohesion, which, in turn, fosters the longevity of social groups. The term social cohesion implies a form of attachment among group members that allows them to think and act as a group (Legare & Watson-Jones Reference Legare, Watson-Jones and Buss2015).

Group cohesion over time requires mechanisms for high fidelity transmission of group beliefs, values, and practices. We propose that the social stipulation and causal opacity of rituals make them ideally suited to high fidelity cultural transmission and inhibition of individual level innovation (Legare et al. Reference Legare, Wen, Herrmann and Whitehouse2015). Ritual behaviors lack a potentially knowable physical causal structure linking actions to outcomes (Humphrey & Laidlaw Reference Humphrey and Laidlaw1994). Causal opacity may be associated with a key facet of cultural learning that Norenzayan et al. identify: A “willingness to rely on faith in cultural traditions – over personal experience or intuition” (sect. 2.3, para. 1).

Where does the motivation to attend to group consensus, prestigious individuals, and individuals displaying CREDs come from in the context of ritual? We propose that selective social learning biases are motivated by affiliative goals that are adaptive in the context of group living (Herrmann et al. Reference Herrmann, Legare, Harris and Whitehouse2013; Legare et al. Reference Legare, Wen, Herrmann and Whitehouse2015; Watson-Jones et al. Reference Watson-Jones, Legare, Whitehouse and Clegg2014; Watson-Jones et al., Reference Watson-Jones, Whitehouse and Legarein press).

How did ritual cognition evolve? Rituals are cultural adaptations to the problems of group living that are built upon reliably developing features of our social group cognition. Through descent with modification, the motivation to affiliate with social groups and selective social learning biases may have become increasingly interconnected because of their downstream adaptive effects on social group behavior. Evolutionary feedback between learning mechanisms and the environment may have produced our species-specific ritual behavioral phenotype. The phenotypes that emerged from group living may have been selected for by an ongoing process of cumulative cultural evolution (Henrich Reference Henrich2009; Liénard & Boyer Reference Liénard and Boyer2006; Richerson & Boyd Reference Richerson and Boyd2005).

Ritual forms may differ between large- and small-scale societies. For example, there is evidence for two basic clusters of ritual dynamics, or “modes of religiosity” – a low-frequency, high-arousal cluster linked to the formation of small cohesive communities (imagistic mode) and high frequency, low-arousal cluster associated with larger, more centralized social morphology (doctrinal mode) (Atkinson & Whitehouse Reference Atkinson and Whitehouse2011). Big Gods are likely only associated with the doctrinal mode of religious transmission. Big Gods and CREDs increase in importance when it becomes impractical to monitor interactions on a large scale. As ritual coevolved with the expansion of social groups, concepts surrounding moralizing high gods could then act as reinforcers of social norms through their ability to punish individual transgressions that might damage the cohesion and cooperation of the community.

The problem of coordinated and cooperative group action is one of the greatest challenges of social group living (Tooby et al. Reference Tooby, Cosmides and Price2006). Rituals increase within group functioning by providing a means of identifying in-group members, displaying group commitment, facilitating cooperation with coalitions, and increasing social group cohesion. The social functions of ritual have allowed human groups to increase the scale of cooperation, facilitate collective action, and through incorporating concepts of supernatural punishment, promote prosociality. The selective social learning mechanisms associated with ritual cognition may have become increasingly specialized for affiliative functions within social groups. The social-stipulation and causal opacity of ritual also facilitate high fidelity cultural transmission over time.

References

Atkinson, Q. D. & Whitehouse, H. (2011) The cultural morphospace of ritual form: Examining modes of religiosity cross-culturally. Evolution and Human Behavior 32:5062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J. (2009) The evolution of costly displays, cooperation and religion: Credibility enhancing displays and their implications for cultural evolution. Evolution and Human Behavior 30:244–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, P. A., Legare, C. H., Harris, P. L. & Whitehouse, H. (2013) Stick to the script: The effect of witnessing multiple actors on children's imitation. Cognition 129:536–43.Google Scholar
Humphrey, C. & Laidlaw, J. (1994) The archetypal actions of ritual: A theory of ritual illustrated by the Jain rite of worship. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Legare, C. H. & Souza, A. L. (2012) Evaluating ritual efficacy: Evidence from the supernatural. Cognition: 124:115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legare, C. H. & Souza, A. L. (2014) Searching for control: Priming randomness increases the evaluation of ritual efficacy. Cognitive science 38:152–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legare, C. H. & Watson-Jones, R. E. (2015) The evolution and ontogeny of ritual. In: The handbook of evolutionary psychology, vol. 2, ed Buss, D. M., pp. 1141–67. Wiley.Google Scholar
Legare, C. H., Wen, N. J., Herrmann, P. A. & Whitehouse, H. (2015) Imitative flexibility and the development of cultural learning. Cognition 142:351–61.Google Scholar
Liénard, P. & Boyer, P. (2006) Whence collective rituals? A cultural selection model of ritualized behavior. American Anthropologist 108:814–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerson, P. J. & Boyd, R. (2005) Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tooby, J., Cosmides, L. & Price, M. E. (2006) Cognitive adaptations for n-person exchange: The evolutionary roots of organizational behavior. Management Decision Economics 27:103–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson-Jones, R. E., Legare, C. H., Whitehouse, H. & Clegg, J. M. (2014) Task-specific effects of ostracism on imitative fidelity in early childhood. Evolution and Human Behavior 35(3):204–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson-Jones, R. E., Whitehouse, H., & Legare, C. H. (in press) In-group ostracism increases high fidelity imitation in early childhood. Psychological Science. doi: 10.1177/0956797615607205.Google Scholar