What happens in the minds of people attending large collective rituals? Current theory predicts that rituals regulate a) social connections, b) emotions and c) serve important goals of active participants in ritual, explaining the survival of rituals despite the time and effort costs involved (Hobson et al., 2018; Legare & Nielsen, 2020). Experimental studies have isolated individual features of rituals and their psychological correlates (Hobson et al., 2017). Significant attention has been paid to the effects of so-called extreme rituals on performers that engage in high ordeal acts, such as fire-walking, blood-letting, or public piercings (Kapitany et al., 2020). These performances have created much discussion about their evolutionary utility and function, given objectives risks and costs for performers (including injury, poisoning, food restriction, etc.) without immediately apparent benefits (Henrich, 2009). Importantly, the majority of participants in widely-performed rituals are not active performers, but observe the performance and may participate by praying or asking for favours from performers (throughout this article we refer to individuals in this role as spectators). Spectators may experience rituals differently (Bulbulia et al., 2013; Fischer et al., 2014), requiring greater attention to the psychological states of spectators. Focusing on spectators who do not engage in central activities of a collective ritual is the first major contribution of our study.
Second, research needs to measure a broader set of psychological reactions in the field, because a) remembered emotions and cognitions may not correspond to psychological states experienced during the ritual (Xygalatas, Schjoedt, et al., 2013), b) rituals may simultaneously affect various psychological states (Boyer & Liénard, 2020; Hobson et al., 2018) through c) complex and non-linear relations. There is now ample evidence that rituals fulfil three major functions (Hobson et al., 2018):
1) they increase social connection among participants and communities (Reddish et al., 2014, 2016; Xygalatas, Mitkidis, et al., 2013),
2) they regulate emotions (Atkinson & Whitehouse, 2011; Fischer et al., 2014; Kapitany et al., 2020; Kavanagh et al., 2019; Páez et al., 2015; Whitehouse et al., 2017) and
3) they modulate task and performance orientations (Gelfand et al., 2020; Mogan et al., 2019; Reddish et al., 2013).
An open question is whether and how these processes may be related. Researchers have tended to focus on one or two selected functions and analysed ritualistic effects in isolation in order to test specific theories. For example, both seminal experiments (Bastian, Jetten, & Ferris, 2014; Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009) and longitudinal field studies (Singh et al., 2020; Snodgrass et al., 2017) have demonstrated that ritualistic behaviors increased social connectedness and emotional reactions, but crucially, the associations between these two outcomes of social connectivity and emotional responding were not tested.
Network analyses as recently developed within psychology and related fields are ideal tools for understanding the conceptual relationships between constructs and allow bottom-up insights into the mental representations of individuals. By providing both graphical and statistical insights into the mental maps of experiences, it becomes possible to integrate and extend theory without superimposing ontological relationships onto data using causal models with restrictive assumptions (as commonly applied with latent variable models). Network structures illustrate the ‘mental maps’ of spectators and how cognitions are statistically linked during a ritual. In a way such networks can be thought of as switchboards showing active connections between cognitions during the ritual which contrasts with typical approaches via regression or experimental studies that test whether a single node is connected to another node (possibly controlling for other node effects, an experimental approach). We advance current understanding of ritual by focusing on a) spectators of a widely celebrated extreme ritual, b) measuring a broader set of emotions and cognitions in situ and c) constructing the network structure of how individual experience and perceive ritual in action; in order to identify more central and peripheral cognitions and advance theorizing about ritualistic functions. Therefore, we shift the focus away from testing isolated theoretical predictions and rather focus on how and how strongly various variables are associated during a collective extreme ritual.
Ritual theories and their conceptual connections
To briefly outline examples of the reciprocal relationships between the three ritualistic functions across different areas of science, Durkheim’s (1995) classic ‘collective effervescence’ hypothesis of social cohesion involves both emotional dynamics and social connection, with possible complex feedback cycles in which ritualistic behaviour may induce emotional states which strengthen group cohesion or reversely, group cohesion levels facilitate faster spreading of emotional states (Hopkins et al., 2016; Liebst, 2019; Niedenthal & Brauer, 2012; Páez et al., 2015; van Kleef & Fischer, 2016). Similarly, social cohesion and performance/goal regulation can be mutually reinforcing by providing feedback on effective cooperation which in turn strengthens social connections (Mogan et al., 2019; Reddish et al., 2013). Equally, emotion regulation and motor performance reinforce each other (Beatty & Janelle, 2020; Molden & Dweck, 2006) (see the outer boxes in Figure 1).
A schematic overview of key processes and mechanisms (cf. Hobson et al., 2017)
Note: The circle connects the three evolutionary salient functions of ritual discussed by Hobson et al. (2017). The three boxes outside the circle describe how the functions may be reciprocally related. The rectangular inner box features three major theoretical approaches (costly signalling, uncertainty management theory, belief/meaning systems as cognitive priors) that may underlie and facilitate the three ritual functions. Table 1 elaborates on the theoretical linkages further.
* this is a simplified statement summarizing the two conditions for the stability of costly rituals (ignoring the public-private ritual distinction for believers vs non-believers; see Sosis, 2003)
What theories could instantiate these three functions (see inner box in Figure 1 & Table 1)? First, various versions of signalling theory (BliegeBird & Smith, 2005; Bulbulia & Sosis, 2011; Sosis, 2003) predict that social coordination is risky (e.g., open to defection & exploitation), which in turn predicts the emergence of signalling systems that provide information on the trustworthiness of the interaction partners. Second, one core mechanism shaping signalling is existential uncertainty: greater contextual and individual uncertainty increases the need for clearer signals of credibility and trustworthiness (Henrich et al., 2019; Hogg et al., 2010). Costliness of rituals tends to increase with various parameters of uncertainty (Sosis, 2003). Previous studies demonstrated that groups with costly rituals survive longer (Sosis & Bressler, 2003) and ritual participation increases with higher levels of economic uncertainty (Chen, 2010; Norris & Inglehart, 2004) and intergroup conflict (Henrich et al., 2019; Sosis et al., 2007). In uncertain environments, groups offer various tangible and intangible benefits, which increases the risk of freeriders. To deter freeriders, groups raise costly barriers (e.g., rituals) to ensure that only strongly committed individuals join and profit from the group. Hence, benefits from group membership need to outweigh any direct or indirect costs for insiders, but costs need to exceed any benefits for outsiders. In the context of religious ritual, the underlying belief system provides epistemic benefits about the state of the world that are shared by believers but not by outsiders. Current cognitive models suggest that sensory inputs cannot efficiently be processed without well-structured predictive priors (top-down meaning systems) (Clark, 2013; Fischer & Tasananukorn, 2018). Therefore, meaning systems are not only necessary for understanding and performing ritual, but may also operate as potential benefits, entering the cost-benefit equation of costly signalling (Sosis, 2003). Culturally anchored belief systems serving as shared cognitive priors that structure experiences may reinforce and sustain costly signalling under uncertainty.
Focusing on emotional dynamics, ritual evoke strong emotions. On one hand, Modes theory (Whitehouse, 2004) proposed that rare dysphoric rituals trigger vivid memories which create strong social bonds via shared experiences (Atkinson & Whitehouse, 2011; Kapitany et al., 2020). In contrast, empirical studies found that emotional reactions are decoupled from memory and physiological states (Bulbulia et al., 2013; Xygalatas, Schjoedt, et al., 2013) and emotional dynamics relate to social connection via collective meaning created around the experience (Hopkins et al., 2016; Livingstone et al., 2011; Páez et al., 2015), akin to Durkheim’s collective effervescence. In addition, extreme rituals also evoke positive emotional states (Bulbulia et al., 2013; Fischer et al., 2014), resulting in complex patterns of both positive and negative emotional reactions (Atkinson & Whitehouse, 2011; Kapitany et al., 2020). This raises the question - how are positive and negative emotional processes related when observing extreme rituals? Are emotions dissociated (decoupled) or inversely linked (spectators experiencing either positive or negative states)? This is not a trivial question, especially for more complex emotional experiences such as awe, which is an intense and transformative emotion that involves feeling small and insignificant, and is linked to both positive and negative feelings (Keltner & Haidt, 2003). Awe can be triggered by experiences that defy everyday explanations (Shiota et al., 2007) common in religious rituals (Valdesolo & Graham, 2014). Given that awe has been shown to increase social bonding (Nelson-Coffey et al., 2019; Shiota et al., 2007), it begs the question whether experiences of awe relate directly to social connection or whether emotional processes triggered by awe activate social connections. These are some of the yet unaddressed questions that can be tackled via network analyses.
Previous research has focused primarily on (high-ordeal) performers in ritual. What is the role of spectators during extreme ritual? First of all, any high-ordeal performances are only functional if perceived by others, that is socially relevant information is being transmitted about desirable qualities of the performer as well as group relevant information (Henrich, 2009). Without spectators (receivers), there are no signals (Shannon, 1948). Second, this information needs to be decoded, requiring the availability of structured belief systems that allow the efficient decoding of relevant information within the specific social context. Conscious experience requires culturally shared top-down priors that structure and organize sensory input (predictive coding) (Clark, 2013). For a ritual to be maintained it needs to be integrated into a coherent meaning structure and narrative that is shared and understandable by community members. Therefore, participants independent of their role as high-ordeal performer or spectators need to share some basic understanding for the ritual to take place. The typical human reaction to intervene in case of harm (e.g., stopping a performer from piercing their body tissue with a sword) would interfere with the performance of an extreme ritual. Third, meaning systems are learned (Bandura, 1971) and observation of ritual performance is one of the most efficient ways for transmitting culturally shared meaning systems (Rossano, 2012). Fourth, spectators are not passive recipients of information, but are also evaluators of the spectacle. Authenticity and efficacy of ritualistic performance and the supernatural status of the performer are often of major concern for participants (for broader discussions: Chan, 2006; Erekosima & Eicher, 1981; Wang, 1999): Does the ritual follow culturally validated and consensually recognized forms that mark its performances as correct, true and authentic, therefore marking it as effective (for related work, see Legare & Souza, 2012)? This fourth point connects our argument back to the first and second point: spectators are participants that through their presence and (emotional and behavioural) reactions validate the ritual performance. Put simply, without spectators there is no spectacle (ritual).
Table 1 presents the core variables and how they are connected to various theories and frameworks of ritual.
Table 1
Overview of key variables and theoretical dynamics of relevance for spectators
|
Framework
|
Variables
|
Relevant theoretical dynamics
|
Emotion regulation
|
Positive affect;
negative affect;
awe;
pain perceptions
|
Collective effervescence: gathering in large social groups leads increases in affective arousal, which in turn increase social connection (Durkheim, 1995; Liebst, 2018); ‘The very fact of congregating is an exceptionally powerful stimulant. Once the individuals are gathered together, a sort of electricity is generated from their closeness and that quickly launches them to an extraordinary height of exaltation.’ (Durkheim, 1995, p. 217-218);
Social learning theories: observation of rituals provides reliable information on cultural norms & values, moulding emotion experiences according to observed norms in others (Bandura, 1971; Rossano, 2012);
Modes theory: Relative rare & high arousing rituals create strong emotional memories of the event (imagistic mode of religious ritual; Whitehouse, 2004)
Costly signalling theory: credible signals of group commitment that are ‘difficult to fake’ by high ordeal participants invoke strong emotional reactions in spectators, incl. recognition of cost & benefits expressed in the spirit possession displays symbolizing the presence of supernatural powers that protect those present at the ritual (Sosis, 2003)
|
Social connection
|
Social identification with increasing levels of social distance (family/friends; performers; other believers not present);
Identity fusion with high-ordeal performers & shrine (institutional context);
Behavioral indicators of commitment to institution & performers (donations, walking with high-ordeal performers)
|
Costly signalling theory: credible signals of group commitment that are ‘difficult to fake’ by high-ordeal participants increase group commitment & deter free-riders (Sosis, 2003, Singh et al., 2020), these connections should be particularly strong with performers, the institution and other group members
Modes theory: Relative rare & high arousing rituals create strong social connection through shared memory of participants & spectators (imagistic mode of religious ritual; Whitehouse, 2004), should increase both social connection & identify fusion with performers & other group members
Empathy theory: Social connection to key performers by kin-related spectators induce stronger emotional sensitivity & subsequent emotional coupling (Konvalinka et al., 2011), strengthening of linkages between connection to kin & social group connections
|
Performance Regulation
|
Behavioral performance regulation – petitions to high-ordeal performers to provide blessing, cures, divination, etc.
|
Uncertainty management: ritual participation allows alleviation of existential uncertainty through confirmation of belief systems & repetitive actions that capture attention & modulate emotional arousal (Boyer & Lienard, 2006; Boyer & Liénard, 2020; Hogg et al., 2010; Karl & Fischer, 2018; Lang et al., 2015);
Social learning theory: Observing other group members during the ritual serves as a core learning opportunity for shared cultural norms (including how to behave, what to believe, how to express emotions) (Rossano, 2012)
|
Meaning & Uncertainty
|
Belief systems of ritualistic efficacy & authenticity;
Need for closure (uncertainty management)
|
Uncertainty management theories: Ritual observation decreases existential uncertainty, shared meaning systems in the efficacy & authenticity of supernatural powers increases the palliative effect of ritual (Boyer & Lienard, 2020; Henrich et al., 2019, Hogg et al., 2010, Snodgrass et al., 2017);
Costly signalling theories: Belief systems in the benefits of the ritual action shift cost-benefit ratios in favor of ritual participation for believers vs non-believers, the shifts are more pronounced in conditions of uncertainty which require stronger belief & coherent norms in culturally constructed niches (Bulbulia & Sosis, 2011; Sosis, 2003);
Predictive coding models of belief: Observing ritual performances & reactions of other spectators is important for creating shared meaning systems that maintain the cultural system & help in interpreting the social world (Clark, 2013; Bulbulia & Sosis, 2011; Fischer & Tasananukorn, 2018; Rossano, 2012)
|
In summary, our work focuses on psychological reactions of participants observing an extreme ritual. The key question for our study is – how are experiences and cognitions during rituals related to each other? Previous research typically focused on specific variables in relative isolation – we shift the focus on psychological networks as measured with relevant psychological instruments. A psychological network approach allows us to identify central nodes (variables), their mutual connections (edges) and communities of nodes (clusters) (Costantini et al., 2015; Epskamp et al., 2018), facilitating a more precise identification of core variables within the lived experience of humans and allowing an integration of previously loosely connected theories. We measured variables associated with recently proposed regulatory functions (see Table 1) during a large Buddhist/folk-Daoist ritual attended by over a million spectators annually and which traces its history back to 5,000 year old pre-Chinese Shamanistic practices (Chan, 2006; Cohen, 2001; Fischer & Kruekaew, 2020). This ritual is one popular expression of folk religions that are widespread throughout Southeast and Southern Asia. Studying a large sample in this non-WEIRD context, the emerging psychological networks (‘mental maps’) of participants allow us to point towards plausible cognitive mechanisms that may have played a role for the emergence and maintenance of extreme rituals in modern societies, ultimately shining new light on the psychological conditions that contribute to an understanding of the emergence of institutions and large-scale civilizations around the world.