RUNNING HEAD: Psychology of Rituals Currently in press at Personality and Social Psychology Review The psychology of rituals: An integrative review and process-based framework

Traditionally, ritual has been studied from broad sociocultural perspectives, with little consideration of the psychological processes at play. Recently, however, psychologists have begun turning their attention to the study of ritual, uncovering the causal mechanisms driving this universal aspect of human behavior. With growing interest in the psychology of ritual, the current paper provides an organizing framework to understand recent empirical work from social psychology, cognitive science, anthropology, behavioral economics, and neuroscience. Our framework focuses on three primary regulatory functions of rituals: regulation of (1) emotions, (2) performance goal states, and (3) social connection. We examine the possible mechanisms underlying each function by considering the bottom-up processes that emerge from the physical features of rituals and top-down processes that emerge from the psychological meaning of rituals. Our framework, by appreciating the value of psychological theory, generates novel predictions and enriches our understanding of ritual and human behavior more broadly. Psychology of Rituals 3 The psychology of rituals: An integrative review and process-based framework Ritual actions do not produce a practical result on the external world—that is one of the reasons why we call them ritual. But to make this statement is not to say that ritual has no function ... it gives members of the society confidence, it dispels their anxieties, and it disciplines their social organizations. —George C. Homans, Anxiety and Ritual, 1941 Rituals pervade human life. Whether through religion, business, politics, education, athletics, or the military, they are central to the most meaningful traditions and cultural practices around the world. In rituals, the most ordinary of actions and gestures become transformed into symbolic expressions, their meaning reinforced each time they are performed (van Gennep, 1909). The repeated kneeling and bowing of religious prayer signals commitment to God and provides solace; a team’s pregame ritual of putting equipment on from left-to-right (and not right-to-left) empowers athletes to perform at their best; and marriage rites during the wedding ceremony seal the bond between two people. Rituals are a fundamental part of the human experience, and are therefore of interest to researchers who study human behavior across multiple disciplines. Ritual has been a popular topic in the social sciences, particularly among cultural anthropologists and sociologists (e.g., Durkheim, 1915; Geertz, 1973; Levi-Strauss, 1955). Over the past century, the study of ritual has benefited primarily from broad cultural analyses and ethnographic research (e.g., Collins, 2004; Gerholm, 1988; Kapferer, 2004; Lewis, 1980). During this time, the micro-level perspective took a backseat to broader macro-level accounts. As a result, there is much less known about the psychological and neural bases of ritual, which operate at the level of the individual, compared to what is known about its social and cultural functions, which operate at a societal or group level. Psychology of Rituals 4 To begin to address this theoretical and empirical gap, here we consider the individualbased regulatory functions of rituals, focusing on how they are represented psychologically. We take the position that the elaborate rituals observed in the real world, which have been central to shaping human experience, build on basic neuro-cognitive, affective, and motivational processes. We propose that the study of ritual should no longer be exclusive to anthropologists and cultural ethnographers. This view is gaining momentum as more psychologists and cognitive scientists, operating at lower levels of analysis, begin to test the underlying cognitive and affective underpinnings of ritual. To bring this research to the next stage, the principle goal of the current paper is to provide an organizing framework to situate the psychological functions of ritual. We apply our framework in order to: (a) develop a comprehensive definition of ritual, (b) propose a set of rituals’ regulatory functions that will serve to organize prior and future empirical work, (c) review recent empirical findings related to these psychological functions, (d) propose a common set of underlying psychological processes involved in these functions and (e) generate novel ideas and testable hypotheses from these process-based accounts. With a growing interest in the psychology of ritual, the time is ripe for our integrative review and framework. The defining features of ritual Developing a framework for the psychological functions of ritual first requires a clear definition of what does—and does not—constitute a ritual. Definitions of ritual abound in the social sciences (Bell, 1997; Boyer & Liénard, 2006; Humphrey & Laidlaw, 1994), and differ widely depending on their focus (e.g., Bell, 1992; Bell, 1997; Collins, 2009; Turner, 1969), resulting in incompatible theoretical approaches (Beattie, 1966). Here we put forth a definition that we believe is compatible with most prior empirical research and theorizing, but that has the additional advantage of addressing the individual psychology of ritual. Psychology of Rituals 5 First, rituals are distinguished by a specific set of physical features pertaining to the characteristic aspects of the individual actions that compose them, which tend to be structured in rigid, formal, and repetitive ways (Foster, Weigand, & Baines, 2006; Rossano, 2012; Tambiah, 1979). Unlike other behaviors, rituals are typically chunked into units of segmented action, which then become sequenced, patterned, and repeated in fixed or bounded ways (Boyer & Liénard, 2006; Liénard & Boyer, 2006; Nielbo & Sørensen, 2011, 2015). In contrast to habits or routines, which may change each time they are performed, rituals tend to be invariable in their performance (Rappaport, 1999; Smith & Stewart, 2011). Because of this invariability, rituals typically require a “scrupulous adherence” to rules, whereby sticking exactly to the script is imperative (Dulaney & Fiske, 1994, p. 245). Second, the invariability of its performance is also linked to certain psychological elements that come with performing the ritual, typically enhancing its meaning. Consider, for instance, the animal slaughter rituals common to the Islamic and Judaic traditions: preparations are performed using exactly the same set of steps in exactly the same order. Here, the specificity of the ritual is linked to the purpose of purifying the meat. When even the smallest detail is missing or out of place, such as a quick blade movement in the wrong direction, the entire ritual fails and the meat becomes forbidden to eat (for an anthropological account of ritualistic food restrictions, see Douglas, 1966). In this way, the rules of the ritual cannot be relaxed because the actions themselves have significant meaning to the performer. To constitute a ritual, a set of behaviors must include characteristic physical features (e.g., rigid, repetitive action sequences) as well as certain psychological features (i.e., the user must interpret the ritual to have a purpose or meaning). Moreover, the meaning inherent in ritual is often acted out through overt symbolic expression (Radcliffe-Brown, 1939; Turner, 1967). Psychology of Rituals 6 Unsurprisingly then, they are often associated with the idea of self-transcendence and sanctity, with strong links to religion and spiritualism (Bell, 1997; Geertz, 1973; Turner, 1967). Consider, for example, that a habit and ritual action might appear, at first glance, identical in structure, but the ritual is different (and thus considered to be ritual) because it is imbued with a sense of meaning, whereas the habit is not. Indeed, some of our most important rituals would simply appear arbitrary and trivial if the symbolism and meaning were removed. The 21gun salute during a military funeral service, rather than bestowing the highest honor to a fallen comrade, would be nothing more than group of soldiers firing into the air. The final element of ritual serves as the connecting piece between the physical and psychological features. By having (i) segmented, rigid, formal, and repetitive actions (physical) and (ii) symbolic value (psychological), rituals also tend to be goal-demoted (Boyer & Liénard, 2006). That is, rituals either lack overt instrumental purpose, or their constitutive actions themselves are not immediately causally linked to the stated goal of the ritual (Herrmann, Legare, Harris, & Whitehouse, 2013; Legare & Souza, 2012; Rappaport, 1999). This “causal opaqueness” (Kapitány & Nielsen, 2015, 2016; Legare & Souza, 2012, 2014) results in features that are impervious to rational hypothesis-testing, often displaying features that appear arbitrary, characterized by unnecessary repetition and stereotypy (Rutherford, 2006; Smith & Stewart, 2011; Sosis & Ruffle, 2004). For example, setting a table to prepare for a meal is typically not considered to be a ritual. The specific placement and ordering of silverware and plate ware is unimportant, just so long as they are arranged on the table in a practical manner for eating. Contrast this with the same behavior of table-setting that occurs during religious holidays such as Jewish Passover. The Passover Seder dinner is a lengthy ritual feast involving a table-setting practice – called the Seder table – that requires precise placement of certain items that are Psychology of Rituals 7 utilized at exact times over the course of the dinner (in fact, Seder is roughly translated as “order, arrangement”). This example illustrates how, on ordinary occasions, a mundane behavior may be non-ritualistic, but at another time becomes highly ritualized with the addition of certain noninstrumental features. Combining these separate features, then, we define ritual as (a) predefined sequences characterized by rigidity, formality, and repetition that are (b) embedded in a larger system of symbolism and meaning, but (c) contain elements that lack direct instrumental purpose. Importantly, though all three features are present in ritual, they may be weighted differently depending on the context and the function served, as we will later see. Some rituals, for instance family rites during the holiday season, may be highly symbolic and meaningful but less rigid; whereas others, like those marked by certain psychopathologies, may be less meaningful but completely invariant and rule-bound. As dissimilar as these features appear to be, we argue that disparate forms of rituals share common psychological processes (for similar views see Dulaney & Fiske, 1994; Lang, Krátký, Shaver, Jerotijević, & Xygalatas, 2016). Organizing a framework of ritual: Bottom-up and top-down processing We organize our working framework as follows. A combination of the three definitional features generates a ritual experience (distinguishable from non-ritual one). The ritual’s physical and psychological features lead to bottom-up and top-down processing, respectively, and the combined processing regulates one or more psychosocial states, which results in both individual and social-based outcomes (see Table 1). There are many other frameworks in psychology that use this type of bottom-up and top-down categorization of psychological mechanisms (e.g., Reicher, 1969; Navon, 1977; Ochsner et al., 2009; Chiesa, Serretti, & Jakobsen, 2013; Awh, Belopolsky, & Theeuwes, 2012). Here, we propose that the integration of both bottom-up and Psychology of Rituals 8 top-down information processing can explain the varied psychosocial consequences of ritual. In other words, we propose that ritual is the convergence of the two levels of mental processing – ‘where top-down meets bottom-up.’ (Sarter, Givens, & Bruno, 2000, p. 147). Bottom-up perception refers to the processing of stimulus features as they come in, combining the individual parts to create a whole (data-driven). Bottom-up processing includes the recruitment of perceptual, attentional, and memory stimulus features tied to the ritual or the surrounding environment. These processes derive from the sensorimotor elements of ritual – the experience or enactment of particular physical actions. Because they are comprised of highly stereotyped action sequences (characterized by rigidity, formality, and repetition), rituals tend to be parsed into segmented action units. This form of event segmentation, akin to object segmentation, is a naturally occurring cognitive process that economizes perception and guides attention (Newtson, 1976; Zacks & Swallow, 2007; Zacks, Tversky, & Iyer, 2001). We suggest that the sensory experience of engaging in sequenced actions that are rigid, formal and repetitive, as well as the motor control required to enact these actions with care, leads to a regular stream of event segmentation, which makes ritual more attention-grabbing and more memorable than nonritualized actions (Boyer & Liénard, 2006; Nielbo & Sørensen, 2011). Top-down perception, on the other hand, refers to information-processing that is first driven by cognition and goals, in which a stimulus is first framed by various expectations and interpretations (rule-driven). Top-down processing is associated with the integration of these physical motoric features into broader narratives, appraisals, and interpretations. This contextdependent processing that is done before, during, and after ritual performance involves the elaboration of stimulus properties into meaning appraisals, which often reaffirms the purpose of completing the rite in the first place. Ritualistic sequences, by virtue of being perceived as Psychology of Rituals 9 special, are more than the arbitrary physical movements that comprise them. Instead, the actions are interpreted as a practice that is meaningful, providing context and connecting a person to something that is bigger than themselves – their ancestry, familial traditions, cultural and religious groups, nature, immortality, and more. The separation of ritual from other ordinary, more mundane behaviors affords it a special status (Bell, 1997; Berggren & Stutz, 2010). This unique quality of ritual means that the behaviors performed are inherently more valuable than other behaviors. This heightened value or meaning communicates a clear signal to oneself (selfsignaling) or other people (social signaling) that something of significance has been done. Recent computational modeling offers insight into how the bottom-up and top-down processes combine during ritual. Using data simulation techniques, the basic action units of ritual i) allow for greater allocation of attentional resources (i.e., bottom-up) and ii) can be modulated by culturallymediated meaningful experiences (i.e., top-down), what researchers call “cultural priors” (Nielbo & Sørensen, 2015). This enhanced integration distinguishes cultural rituals from, say, the ritualized behaviors typical of pathology. We can look at the behavior of ritualistic prayer as an example of a combination of bottom-up (i.e., biased attention and physical movement) and top-down (i.e., value signaling and meaning transference) psychological processing. A person who prostrates during the Islamic Salat at precisely timed moments is engaging in rigid, fixed physical actions. The stereotyped, repeated movements segment the prayer event and automatically grab the person’s attention, focusing their experience on the precise completion of the correct sequences. In other words, the bottom-up sensorimotor processing of the controlled segmented ritual actions leads to biased attention. At the same time, doing the ritual correctly signals to the person, and perhaps to others, that they are a devoted Muslim who prays the right way according to the Quranic scripture. In Psychology of Rituals 10 this way, when done properly, the basic movements that comprise the prayer become much more than mere physical movements; they are imbued with sanctity and meaning, each time they are performed. This enhances the value of the ritual experience. In the rest of the paper we show how such cases of ritual can be dissected into their constituent psychological processes. We intend to show that all forms of ritual, no matter how different they may appear on the surface, are a result of some combination of these bottom-up and top-down psychological processes. Thus, rather than seeing the various expressions of ritual as distinct cultural phenomena merely called by the same name, our framework will allow researchers to think about a common underlying psychological basis that unites all types of ritual. Our position is that each ritual will involve varying degrees of bottom-up and top-down processing, rather than a fixed amount in every context. These relative weightings, which are determined by the specific purpose served by the ritual, will alter the psychological experience for the person, and ultimately lead to different outcomes in the ritual experience. Ritual’s regulatory functions Despite rituals’ lack of clear instrumental purpose, it is now well-known that rituals serve many psychological functions (e.g., Boyer & Liénard, 2006; Watson-Jones & Legare, 2016). Leveraging this past work, we propose that rituals’ diverse functions can be categorized into three regulatory categories. Rituals can regulate (1) emotions, (2) performance goal states, and (3) social connection to others. Though listed separately for the purpose of our conceptual framework, there is considerable overlap between the three functions. We address this point throughout the paper and offer examples of when a ritual may serve multiple functions simultaneously. Rappaport formally pieced together the notion of ritual as a type of regulatory process, Psychology of Rituals 11 recognizing that rituals are enacted at times as a way to monitor and maintain various psychological and sociocultural states (1967, 1971). He saw rituals as a type of cybernetic or monitoring control system – not unlike the feedback system of a thermostat – for individual and group behaviors. This thinking closely aligns with cybernetic control models in psychology and neuroscience (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Friston, 2002; Gray & McNaughton, 2000; Powers, 1971): Fluctuating psychosocial states are first detected and then compared against an ideal (future) reference state. If a discrepancy is found to exist, the ritual is triggered, closing off the loop and resolving the discrepancy (Rappaport, 1971). Here, we draw on cybernetic control theory to better understand the regulatory function of rituals. If rituals indeed function to regulate emotions, performance goal states, and social connections, at least two propositions must be true: first, experiencing an emotional, goaldriven, or social deficit should elicit more ritualistic behavior (“Proposition 1”), and second, enacting rituals should thereby reduce such aforementioned deficits (“Proposition 2”). Although many studies demonstrate beneficial consequences of rituals for improving emotional well-being, performance, and affiliation, fewer test the strong version of these propositions, which requires examining the consequences of rituals under conditions of deficit. For example, performing interpersonal rituals can improve closeness in groups even when the group members do not reveal any explicit need for connection or belonging (Páez, Basabe, Ubillos, & Gonzalez-Castro, 2007; Ruffle & Sosis, 2007; Sosis & Ruffle, 2003; Wen, Herrmann, & Legare, 2016). Although these studies and others do not provide strong evidence for rituals’ regulatory functions via cybernetic control processes (that is, they do not directly address one of our two propositions), we believe they still provide suggestive evidence that rituals might be functional. We therefore categorize the empirical studies in each proceeding section as Psychology of Rituals 12 providing relatively stronger or weaker evidence for ritual’s regulatory functions. Stronger evidence satisfies one of the two propositions that directly follow from a cybernetic control model; weaker evidence simply shows a beneficial consequence of ritual. Experimental data are particularly valuable for demonstrating causality in either category. For each function, we describe the bottom-up and top-down psychological processing most likely responsible. After each section, we discuss testable predictions that follow from the identified processes. We consider, for example, how manipulating a ritual’s physical and psychological features will be useful for understanding how bottom-up and top-down processing, respectively, lead to the proposed regulatory functions. Moreover, we leave room for rituals to evolve over time. Because rituals are done frequently (sometimes every day for a person’s life), the experience will be different as changes in psychological processing unfold. From a psychological perspective, a ritual being done for the first time is dramatically different than the same ritual being done for the thousandth time. Our framework accounts for the dynamic nature of ritual and makes specific predictions related to these changes.