Theoretical and empirical work links traditionalism with greater sensitivity toward threats in multiple domains (Claessens, Fischer, Chaudhuri, Sibley, & Atkinson, Reference Claessens, Fischer, Chaudhuri, Sibley and Atkinson2020; Hibbing, Smith, & Alford, Reference Hibbing, Smith and Alford2014), including pathogens (Murray & Schaller, Reference Murray and Schaller2012; Samore, Fessler, Sparks, & Holbrook, Reference Samore, Fessler, Sparks and Holbrook2021; Samore et al., Reference Samore, Fessler, Sparks, Holbrook, Aarøe, Baeza and Wang2022; Tybur et al., Reference Tybur, Inbar, Aarøe, Barclay, Barlow, Barra and Žeželj2016), violence (Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini, & Kenrick, Reference Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini and Kenrick2006), and culturally transmitted information about hazards in general (Fessler, Pisor, & Holbrook, Reference Fessler, Pisor and Holbrook2017; Samore, Fessler, Holbrook, & Sparks, Reference Samore, Fessler, Holbrook and Sparks2018). Researchers have proposed that culturally and/or biologically evolved mental mechanisms may adaptively link traditionalism and threat sensitivity when traditional norms reliably ameliorate the costs of particular threats. Such linkages could result in stable dispositions over individual lifespans, and/or facultative adjustments in response to the frequency of threat cues. Given widespread variation in the extent to which people conform to traditions – and the connection with political preferences in large-scale democracies (Duckitt, Bizumic, Krauss, & Heled, Reference Duckitt, Bizumic, Krauss and Heled2010; Jost, Federico, & Napier, Reference Jost, Federico and Napier2009) – understanding potentially causal antecedents of that variation has substantial real-world relevance.

The bifocal stance theory (BST) and cultural action framework advanced in the target article bear substantially on the question of how traditionalism and threat sensitivity may be connected, and provide a useful lens for bringing greater theoretical clarity to the potential evolutionary underpinnings of that connection. Specifically, the extent to which individuals adopt the instrumental versus ritual stance in response to traditional norms may structure the individual-level relationship between traditionalism and threat sensitivity.

One pathway by which the traditionalism–threat sensitivity relationship could obtain is if specific norms have culturally evolved to instrumentally address recurrent threats in the local environment. For example, in the face of pathogen threats, some traditional norms (those related to food handling, greetings, etc.) may effectively reduce the risk of infection (Murray, Fessler, Kerry, White, & Marin, Reference Murray, Fessler, Kerry, White and Marin2017; Tybur et al., Reference Tybur, Inbar, Aarøe, Barclay, Barlow, Barra and Žeželj2016). Per the BST, if individuals explicitly engage in the instrumental stance toward such norms, then threat-sensitive individuals will frequently adopt them. Even though these traditions' threat-mitigating mechanisms are resolvable (Whitehouse, Reference Whitehouse2011), not all individuals embrace them. Rather, adoption depends on the precise cost–benefit structure of a given tradition, and this varies across individuals and contexts (Gul et al., Reference Gul, Kupfer, Elmas, Kose, Koskun and Keesmekers2021; Samore et al., Reference Samore, Fessler, Sparks and Holbrook2021; Tybur, Lieberman, Fan, Kupfer, & de Vries, Reference Tybur, Lieberman, Fan, Kupfer and de Vries2020) – in part as a function of individual differences in threat sensitivity.

If, in fact, individuals assume an instrumental stance toward many threat-mitigating norms, then the observed correlation between traditionalism and threat sensitivity may reflect individual cost–benefit analyses on a norm-by-norm basis, rather than a general tendency to embrace traditions in the face of threats. The extent to which traditions writ large associate with sensitivity to a wide range of threats would thus depend in part on the frequency with which the ameliorating functions of traditional norms are perceived to be resolvable, and the frequency with which the norms, or observations of their enactment, trigger the instrumental stance.

Despite the instrumental benefits of some traditions in the face of particular threats, the causal mechanisms of cultural practices are often opaque (Henrich, Reference Henrich2011; Zwirner & Thornton, Reference Zwirner and Thornton2015), and this is true even when the underlying instrumentality is in theory resolvable (see sect. 2.4.2 in the target article). It is possible that, if a sufficient proportion of traditions are (accurately or not) viewed as instrumentally effective, whether within conscious awareness or not, more threat-sensitive individuals may more often make inductive bets (Barrett, Reference Barrett2015) that the cost–benefit structure of practicing traditions is favorable for them. However, although the proportion of a given culture's threat-relevant norms that are adopted via the instrumental stance is an empirical question, the apparent frequency of both causal opacity and perceived unresolvability suggests that the instrumental stance is unlikely to be the sole – or even the primary – basis of the threat-sensitivity/traditionalism association. Rather, this association likely largely arises via a greater tendency to adopt ritual stances and faithfully copy traditional practices as a function of threat sensitivity.

Consistent with Jagiello et al.'s perspective (see sect. 2.3 in the target article) on the possible functional logic underlying the ritual stance wherein rituals maintain cooperation, reciprocity, and social cohesion despite a lack of instrumental effect, the practice of traditional norms can indirectly mitigate threats by increasing social support. For example, endorsing traditions may signal in-group identity for the purposes of cooperation, and/or facilitate coordination via shared, long-standing markers (McElreath, Boyd, & Richerson, Reference McElreath, Boyd and Richerson2003). While the benefits of cooperation and coordination are diffuse, they plausibly include cost mitigation in the face of threats, for example by eliciting resource buffering and care during times of illness or injury; defense against hostile out-group members; and so on. In this view, the indirect social benefits of traditional norms may loom larger in the (often unconscious) cost–benefit calculations of more threat-sensitive individuals. Greater threat sensitivity may thus associate with traditionalism via an increased tendency to adopt the ritual stance, leading to a broad embrace of the practice of traditional norms.

While the above questions are not yet settled, future research testing the proposed evolutionary link between traditionalism and threat sensitivity could benefit from adopting perspectives derived from BST, and attending to the pathways specified in the cultural action framework. Specifically, a deeper understanding of whether individuals adopt an instrumental or ritual stance in response to potentially threat-mitigating traditional norms – and the extent to which those norms are perceived as resolvable – may shed light on whether traditionalism and threat sensitivity are broadly linked as has been posited, or instead narrowly linked in particular circumstances when instrumental functions and causal transparency align. Of course, consistent with the ability for flexible oscillation between stances proposed by Jagiello et al., these possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Rather, the precise configurations likely vary across contexts at the level of the individual, group, and physical environment, among others.