Content uploaded by Ronald Fischer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ronald Fischer
Content may be subject to copyright.
How Do Rituals Affect Cooperation?
An Experimental Field Study Comparing Nine Ritual Types
Ronald Fischer &Rohan Callander &
Paul Reddish &Joseph Bulbulia
Published online: 11 May 2013
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Collective rituals have long puzzled anthropologists, yet little is known
about how rituals affect participants. Our study investigated the effects of nine
naturally occurring rituals on prosociality. We operationalized prosociality as (1)
attitudes about fellow ritual participants and (2) decisions in a public goods game.
The nine rituals varied in levels of synchrony and levels of sacred attribution. We
found that rituals with synchronous body movements were more likely to enhance
prosocial attitudes. We also found that rituals judged to be sacred were associated
with the largest contributions in the public goods game. Path analysis favored a model
in which sacred values mediate the effects of synchronous movements on prosocial
behaviors. Our analysis offers the first quantitative evidence for the long-standing
anthropological conjecture that rituals orchestrate body motions and sacred values to
support prosociality. Our analysis, moreover, adds precision to this old conjecture
with evidence of a specific mechanism: ritual synchrony increases perceptions of
oneness with others, which increases sacred values to intensify prosocial behaviors.
Keywords Cooperation .Entitativity .Evolution .Religion .Ritual .Sacred values
Collective rituals are deliberate social behaviors whose means-end purposes cannot
be readily inferred from the action sequences of participant behaviors (Konvalinka et
al. 2011). Rituals appear to be useless, or worse (Atran 2002). The universal prom-
inence of collective rituals, their costs, and the lack of straightforward instrumental
benefits render this peculiar domain of social interaction among the most fascinating
and poorly understood areas of human psychology and culture.
Hum Nat (2013) 24:115–125
DOI 10.1007/s12110-013-9167-y
R. Fischer :R. Callander
School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
P. Reddish
LEVYNA: Laboratory for Experimental Research of Religion, Masaryk Uni versity, Brno, Czech Republic
J. Bulbulia (*)
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington,
New Zealand 6410
e-mail: joseph.bulbulia@vuw.ac.nz
A tradition in social anthropology conjectures that rituals harbor tacit social func-
tions, affecting cooperative outcomes by coordinating the motivations, values, and
judgments of ritual participants (Durkheim 1995; Ehrenreich 2006; Levitin 2008;
McNeill 1995; Radcliffe-Brown 1922). Anthropologists have identified synchronized
actions and sacred values as core elements in the mechanisms by which rituals express
cooperative motivations and actions. Following recent convention, we identify such
cooperative orientations and behaviors using the term prosociality,notingthatmuch
remains to be discovered about this complex domain of human thought and interaction.
Why should collective rituals affect prosociality? A century ago, Emile Durkheim
conjectured that: “the [ritual] group has an intellectual and moral conformity . . .
everything is common to all. Movements are stereotyped; everybody performs the
same ones in the same circumstances, and this conformity of conduct only translates
the conformity of thought. Every mind being drawn into the same eddy, the individ-
ual type nearly confounds itself with that of the race”(1995:18). Durkheim suggested
that synchronized activities both draw upon and enhance “intellectual”and “moral”
conformity. By moving together as a unit, participants think and value themselves as
a unit, which enriches their subsequent cooperation.
Recent laboratory experiments offer some preliminary evidence for this action-
synchrony conjecture. Studies investigating synchronous behaviors among pairs
(dyadic synchrony and mimicry) show that partners who match each other’s postures,
motions, and vocalizations tend to express higher levels of subjective liking, tend to
sense enhanced oneness with others (entitativity), and tend to become more charitable
(Campbell 1958; Hove and Risen 2009; Miles et al. 2009; Valdesolo and DeSteno
2011; van Baaren et al. 2003,2004). Notably, prosocial effects from synchrony have
been found to extend beyond synchronous pairs to synchronous groups. For example,
Wiltermuth and Heath (2009) varied synchronous activities among groups of three
and found increased cooperation in groups that moved or vocalized together com-
pared with asynchronous and passive groups. Evidence for cooperative effects from
naturally occurring rituals, however, remains scarce (lamented in Haidt et al. 2008;
for indirect evidence, see Sosis and Ruffle 2004).
Intriguingly, Durkheim speculated that rituals affect cooperation not merely from
behavioral synchrony but also by reinforcing conceptions of the “sacred,”which he
defined as “things set apart and forbidden”(Durkheim 1995:47). Durkheim’s theory
of ritually supported cooperation, then, points beyond shared body movements to
shared sacred values. Following Durkheim, contemporary researchers operationalize
“sacred values”as “those values that a moral community treats as possessing
transcendental significance that precludes comparisons, trade-offs, or indeed any
mingling with secular values”(Tetlock 2003:320). In line with Durkheim’s predic-
tions, psychologists have observed that sacred values are strongly linked to prosocial
judgements and decision-making (Ginges et al. 2009; Tetlock 2003), and that sincere
respect for sacred values reduces moral outrage (Atran et al. 2007). Moreover sacred
values embedded in moral convictions have been shown to be strong predictors of
social behaviors: knowing about another’s sacred values facilitates accurate predic-
tions for how another will behave (Skitka 2010). Collectively, the research on sacred
values offers initial support for a model in which rituals that intensify sacred values
will amplify prosocial judgments and behaviors. Quantitative evidence linking ritual
cooperation to sacred values, however, is currently lacking.
116 Hum Nat (2013) 24:115–125
To better understand how rituals affect cooperation, we investigated nine naturally
occurring rituals that varied in synchronous movements and sacred values. Based on
Durkheim’s ideas we specifically evaluated two hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Synchronous movements will be associated with higher levels of
prosociality.
Hypothesis 2: Sacred values will mediate a ritual’s prosocial effects.
To measure the effects of rituals on social attitudes (stated prosociality) we applied
standard psychometric scales both before and after ritual activities. To measure the
effects of rituals on cooperative behaviors (revealed prosociality) we administered a
public goods game after ritual activities.
Method
Participants
A total of 113 participants from nine different community groups participated in our
study. The nine groups were all based in Wellington, New Zealand, the country’s
capital. New Zealand is an affluent island democracy 2,250 km east of Australia, and
home to four million citizens of mainly European decent. The mean age of our sample
was 31.12 years (SD=11.23); 49.6% were male; 73.4% identified themselves as New
Zealand European.
We sampled groups that, based on prior familiarity, would vary in our dimensions
of interest. Thus we sought a range of (ostensibly purposeless) activities that varied in
levels of body synchrony and sacred attributions. Our preliminary survey revealed
that naturally occurring rituals exhibit greater complexity than what is captured by the
synchrony versus not-synchrony dichotomy. We therefore sought a subtler coding
scheme. Specifically, we categorized activities based on three types of behavior
matching. Exact synchrony applied to activities whose participants deliberately
matched each other’s movements and/or vocalizations in time for more than 30 min
(Yoga, Buddhist chanting, Kirtan [Hindu devotional singing]). Complementary syn-
chrony applied to activities whose participants performed movements and/or vocal-
izations that were not exactly matched in time but were nevertheless complementary
to a shared ritual goal, for more than 30 min (Capoeira [Brazilian martial arts];
Brazilian drumming group; choir; Christian church service). No synchrony ap-
plied to activities whose participants did not perform movements/vocalisations
that were matched in time or that were complementary to a shared ritual goal
(cross-country running group; social poker). This coding scheme was developed
during the authors’meetings, based on preliminary field observations of the
ritual groups.
Procedure
We contacted community groups and sought permission for the study from the group
or session leader. Our initial list of approximately fifteen groups presented a range of
activities varying along the sacred and synchrony dimensions. We obtained consent
Hum Nat (2013) 24:115–125 117
to conduct the study from nine of these groups. We did not explore the reasons for the
non-participation of the remaining groups who declined.
We used a pre-post design to examine the effects of rituals on stated prosociality.
Participants completed all psychological measures prior to the activity; then they
participated in the activity as usual. Immediately following their activity, participants
played an economic game and then completed the post-activity questionnaire. After
the experiment, participants received their payments, which varied depending on how
the public goods game was played. Finally, participants were debriefed. During each
ritual activity, the second author took notes at five-minute intervals on levels of
synchrony, using standard protocols for field observation (non-participant observa-
tions; Fetterman 1998). The other three authors then coded each activity from these
notes as either exact or complementary synchrony, or no synchrony. We discussed
this coding as a group. Because coding was based on clear behavioral properties
(whether partners performed behaviors in exact synchrony, partial synchrony, or
without synchrony) and because there was no disagreement in coding among the
authors, we did not seek independent ratings for our coding scheme.
Measures
Economics Game We used a standard public goods game to measure cooperation
between ritual participants (Wiltermuth and Heath 2009). The game was played only
once. Participants played in groups of 3–5 individuals. Identities were obscured, and
all play was strictly anonymous. Participants were told that they had been given
$5.00, which they were free to distribute in 50-cent increments to a “public invest-
ment,”if/as they desired. Participants were told that all money put into the public
investment would be doubled and then distributed equally among all participants in
their group. Participants were told that there was no requirement to contribute: the
money was theirs, to use as they preferred.
Entitativity We used six items to test perceived merging of self with others, an effect
that researchers call entitativity (see Denson et al. 2006; Lakens 2010; Lickel et al.
2000). Questions included: “To what extent do you/other people consider this group a
coherent group?”and “If people know that you are part of this group they can get a
feeling of who you are as a person.”Items were rated on a five-point scale (1 = Not at
all, 5=Very much). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.74 (Time 1) and 0.77 (Time 2).
Trust We used three items from an established trust measure (Pearce et al. 1994;
Jarvenpaa et al. 1998): “I can rely on people in this group,”“We have confidence in
one another in this group;,”and “Overall, the people in my group are very trustwor-
thy.”We also used the Inclusion of Other in the Self scale (IOS; Aron et al. 1992). The
z-transformed items formed a single factor (eigenvalue=2.93 and 3.11, α=0.82 and
0.84 at times 1 and 2, respectively).
Sacred Values Three items were used to measure sacred values (Tanner et al. 2009):
“This activity is something that you cannot value in terms of money,”“This activity is
something that we should not sacrifice no matter how high the benefits,”and “This
activity concerns things or values that are untouchable and should never be violated.”
118 Hum Nat (2013) 24:115–125
Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “completely disagree”to
“completely agree”(α=0.79 and 0.84 at times 1 and 2, respectively). At the time of
data collection, the scale we used was the only psychometrically validated scale
available to measure sacred values. The scale shows good validity and reliability, and
it captures core aspects of the experimental and sociological literature on sacred
values (Tanner et al. 2009).
Control Variables We included demographic questions (age, gender, ethnicity), a
question about the length of time each participant had been participating in the group
activity (varying from“less than a month”to “5 or more years”), and a question about
the frequency of participation (varying from“once a month”to “daily”). Demographic
variables were not meaningfully related to the main variables of interest (details
available upon request). Frequency of practice, however, was significantly correlated
with our dependent variables. We controlled for demographic variables in all analyses
(details available on request).
Results
To test the effect of synchrony on revealed prosociality, we regressed the amount
donated to the common pool (Fig. 1) as the dependent variable on length of time and
frequency of participation (step 1) and synchrony (step 2). After controlling for
participation length and frequency, synchrony significantly explained an additional
4.9% of variance in revealed prosociality (F
1,103
=5.69; p<0.05; β=0.23). This result
shows that exactly behaviorally synchronous activities were associated with higher
levels of prosocial behavior.
To test the effect of synchrony on psychological process variables, we used 3 × 2
mixed effects ANOVA with synchrony (exact synchrony, complementary synchrony,
and no synchrony) as a between-subject variable and time (pre- or post-activity) as a
within-subject variable.
Fig. 1 Average contributions of nine ritual groups in a public goods game
Hum Nat (2013) 24:115–125 119
Entitativity A main effect for synchrony emerged: F
1, 102
=11.04, p<0.001, partial
η
2
=0.18, with entitativity higher in synchrony groups (M=3.69, SD=0.68) and
complementary synchrony groups (M=3.67, SD = 0.45) than in no-synchrony groups
(M=3.14, SD=0.59). The main effect of time and the time× synchrony interaction
effect were not significant (F< 1.5). This finding supports the hypothesis that syn-
chrony increases perceptions of merging of self with others (Hypothesis 1).
Trust A significant effect of synchrony on trust emerged: F
1, 102
=3.30, p<0.05, partial
η
2
=0.061, with the lowest trust found among non-synchronous groups (M=−0.12),
intermediate trust among complementary synchrony groups (M=0.49), and highest
levels of trust among groups with full synchrony (M=1.07). No other significant main
or interaction effect emerged (p>0.30). This finding supports the hypothesis that
synchronous activities are associated with higher levels of explicit trust (Hypothesis 1).
Direct Sacred Values We found a significant main effect of synchrony on sacredvalues:
F
2,97
=17.54, p<0.001, partial η
2
=0.27. No other effect was significant. Greater
synchrony was associated with greater sacred values (M=3.16, 4.20, and 4.47 for no
synchrony, complementary synchrony, and exact synchrony, respectively). This result
suggests that greater synchrony is positively associated with an activity’s perceived
sacred values (clarifying a mechanism for Hypothesis 2, see below: “Process Model”).
Process Model
To test the process mechanism by which synchrony increases prosociality, we estimated a
path model in MPlus (Muthén and Muthén 1998–2010). Our initial model used synchrony
(as coded in discussion among the authors) as the exogenous variable predicting trust,
entitativity, and sacred values (all at time 2, controlling for time 1), which in turn predict
cooperative behaviors. [Note: controlling for length and frequency of participation did not
change any of our findings, it only reduced the degrees of freedom.] The initial model
provided a poor fit: χ
210
=54.95, p<0.001; CFI = 0.55, RMSEA=0.21, SRMR=0.11. A
revised model (Fig. 2) provided a good fit: χ
29
=13.69, p=0.13; CFI=0.95, RMSEA=
0.07, SRMR= 0.06. On this revised model, synchrony predicted trust, entitativity, and
sacred values. Entitativity also predicted sacred values, but only sacred values predicted
cooperative behavior in the economic game, thus supporting Hypothesis 2.
The path model that best fits the data, then, is one in which feelings of belonging to
a distinct and coherent group (entitativity) intensify sacred values, which in turn
increases cooperative behaviors in a public goods game. Overall, the model suggests
a powerful boost to revealed prosociality from synchronous activities that are
associated with sacred values.
Discussion
Limitations
Of the innumerable rituals known to humanity, we have considered only nine. Our
selection, moreover, is from a peaceful, affluent, egalitarian, twenty-first-century
120 Hum Nat (2013) 24:115–125
democracy. The extent to which our findings generalize remains uncertain. Future
field studies should consider the cooperative effects of rituals in different cultural and
political settings. Studies among foragers may be important for evaluating evolution-
ary hypotheses. Yet because forager societies vary, and evolve, we must not load all
our hopes for ultimate explanations on that horizon.
We operationalized prosociality as reported social attitudes (stated prosociality)
and as other directed behavior in an economic game (revealed prosociality). Although
such measures are the gold standard for current cooperation research, we expect
future researchers will improve on these measures. It remains uncertain, for example,
how far monetary behaviors predict non-monetary forms of cooperation. We
operationalized sacred values as moral absolutes. We note that sacred values include
religious targets, but they may also include distinctly non-religious targets such as
rationalism, humanism, justice, democracy, truth, scientific method, beauty, and
others. As the reviewer who made this point commented, “I wonder if Fischer et al.
would get the same effect in a sample of scientific humanists—readers of Human
Nature, say—half of whom chanted the closing lines of The Origin of Species in
unison and the other half sang in unison.”Though made somewhat in jest, we think
the reviewer makes an important point: researchers should not equate sacred values
with religious values. Secular groups with strong goal orientations offer an important
target for future ritual research.
Findings and Significance
Our study brings quantitative support to a long-standing but untested hypothesis that
collective rituals combining synchronous body movements and sacred values evoke
especially powerful prosociality attitudes and behaviors. Our analysis furthermore
clarifies this hypothesis with preliminary evidence for a mechanism. We found that
behavioral synchrony modulates sacred values through feelings of oneness (or
“entitativity”), which, in turn, enhances cooperative exchange in an economics game.
Intriguingly, the model that best fits the data also shows a significant inverse
relationship between frequency of ritual practice and cooperation in the economic
Fig. 2 Path analysis shows that synchrony influences prosocial sentiments (entitativity), which influences
sacred values to support donations in a public goods game. Frequency of practice is, curiously, negatively
associated with such donations
Hum Nat (2013) 24:115–125 121
game. A hypothesis predicting this effect comes from Harvey Whitehouse’sModes
Theory, according to which rarely performed rituals elaborate especially powerful
personal commitments (Whitehouse 2004). Although none of the rituals we investi-
gated can be counted as rarely performed (all were performed at least one per month),
our findings nevertheless suggest that frequency may somewhat impair ritual’s power
for supporting cooperative behaviors—revealed prosociality. Clarifying the negative
relationship between frequency and prosocial behaviors offers yet another interesting
horizon for future research.
Why should synchrony and sacred values affect cooperation? We speculate that
synchronous behaviors might operate on implicit perception/action systems, such that
partners, in seeing and acting as a unity, perceive themselves to be a unity, which
elevates a sense of sacredness and expresses higher levels of cooperation. Something
approaching this idea seems to be at the basis of Durkheim’s conjecture that a ritual’s
“conformity of conduct only translates the conformity of thought. Every mind being
drawn into the same eddy, the individual type nearly confounds itself with that of the
race”(1995:18). A distinct, and narrower, variant of the perception/action hypothesis
holds that by acting as a single unit that is promoting a shared goal, partners receive
immediate sensory feedback affording information specifically relevant to cooperative
prediction. This narrower version of the goal-specific perception-action hypothesis
would help to explain the added boost that partners receive from enhancements to
sacred values. Acting for sacred values, collectively, provides a record of cooperative
action and thus offers evidence of cooperative responses downstream. Though such
processes, if they exist, are likely worked out tacitly, the explicit reasoning behind such
effects might run something like this: “If we have acted for each other in a ritual, why not
in a market?”(Notably, Reddish et al. 2013 have laboratory evidence indicating strong
interactions from synchronous behaviors and collective goal orientations.)
An intriguing evolutionary hypothesis about the effects of musical rituals on
cooperative outcomes comes from Hagen and Bryant (2003), who argue that group
synchrony boosts participants’confidence in the group’s ability and willingness to
respond to a threat in a coordinated fashion, which in turn motivates individuals to
assign a high value-weighting to the ritual activity and to maintaining the integrity of
a group. We find this conjecture plausible, even if judgments about the efficiency of a
collective response to threat do not receive further clarification from our analysis.
How might ritual enhancements to cooperation survive against free-rider threats? A
commitment-signalling model suggests that partners who perceive each other’sinvest-
ments in acting for sacred values use these costly displays as signals that index
cooperative motivations. Such indexical signals reliably predict cooperative futures
(Irons 2001;Sosis2003). Following Schelling, however, we note that many evolution-
ary problems of cooperation are probably better modelled as coordination problems with
risk (stag hunts) rather than as free-rider dilemmas (Alvard and Nolin 2002; Schelling
2006). We have argued elsewhere that sacred rituals manifest design features that are
suited for addressing coordination problems with risk, whose solutions do not rely on
interpersonal signalling and detection (Bulbulia 2012). Of course, the commitment-
signalling model remains compatible with the risky coordination model. It would be
remarkable, indeed, if there were only one road leading to the Rome of human
cooperation. We must, in any event, set aside further speculation about how to answer
ultimate “Why synchrony?”and “Why sacred values?”questions. Our data reveal
122 Hum Nat (2013) 24:115–125
cooperative effects, but they do not afford clear answers for why such effects should
evolve and be conserved. Put another way, our analysis is consistent with, but does not
conclusively vindicate, the evolutionary hypothesis that rituals evolve to support coop-
eration. Future studies are needed to evaluate hypotheses for the evolutionary dynamics
that have endowed us with the manifold ritual practices that pervade human social life.
The importance of our study consists in this: we show that synchronous rituals are
associated with higher levels of cooperation, offering support for Hypothesis 1.
Secondly, we find that sacred rituals are associated with increased levels of cooper-
ation, offering support for Hypothesis 2. Thirdly, we extend the synchrony/sacred
conjecture with evidence for a proximate mechanism by which (a) synchronous
actions (b) enhance feelings of oneness (entitativity)to(c) intensify sacred values,
thus (d) increasing prosocial behaviors.
Wider Significance
Although anthropologists and psychologists share a common interest—humans—the
disciplines of anthropology and psychology are often opposed. Our study, one of many in
the rapidly expanding field of experimental anthropology, suggests their mutual rele-
vance. By bringing psychological methods to the field, we were able to offer quantitative
support for a long-standing, but untested, anthropological conjecture that naturally
occurring collective rituals recruit behavioral synchrony and sacred values to increase
prosociality. By quantifying key variables and effects, moreover, we found a specific
mechanism for ritual cooperation: behavioral synchrony modulates prosocial sentiments,
which increase sacred values to enhance prosocial exchange. Generally, then, our study
shows how quantitative methods can be employed to test anthropological conjectures,
helping to resolve what might otherwise prove to be interminable debates.
Our study also reveals the importance of field research for psychological science.
Despite a surge of psychological interest in the effects of behavioral synchrony on
social cognition, psychologists have yet to consider how body synchrony interacts
with strongly held social values. Our analysis suggests that sacred values may be the
vital missing link in the mechanisms by which naturally occurring rituals affect
cooperative exchange. More generally, this finding illustrates how psychologists
may improve their models by taking to the field and examining variables that cannot
be readily manipulated in laboratory environments.
It is fitting that evidence for Durkheim’s ritual theory comes in the centenary of his
Elementary Forms of The Religious Life. It is widely known that in this work, Durkheim
proposed a model for ritual cooperation. Less familiar, however, is the scientific reserve
with which Durkheim presented his model. We see this reserve, mixed with optimism, in
Durkheim’s unpretentious plea for new collaborative science:
[T]here is a whole science that must be formed, a complex science that can
advance but slowly and by collective labour, and to which the present work
brings some fragmentary contributions in the nature of an attempt (Durkheim
1995:32–33).
Although anthropological and psychological methodologies might appear to be
strange bedfellows, we believe that experimental anthropology will increasingly clarify
Hum Nat (2013) 24:115–125 123
questions that have been the subject of long-standing anthropological debates, whose
answers have also eluded laboratory psychologists. Durkheim’s century awaits us.
Acknowledgments We are grateful to Diana Boer for her helpful comments. We are grateful to the editor
of Human Nature, Jane Lancaster, and to four anonymous referees for their helpful comments and
encouragement. For financial support, we are grateful to a Victoria University URF Grant 8-3046-108855.
References
Aron, A., Aron, E., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of
interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.
Atran, S. (2002). In Gods we trust: The evolutionary landscape of religion. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Atran, S., Axelrod, R., & Davis, R. (2007). Sacred barriers to conflict resolution. Science, 317, 1039–1140.
Alvard, M. S., & Nolin, D. A. (2002). Rousseau’s whale hunt? Coordination among big-game hunters.
Current Anthropology, 43(4), 533–559.
Bulbulia, J. (2012). Spreading order: religion, cooperative niche construction, and risky coordination
problems. Biology and Philosophy, 27(1), 1–27.
Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as
social entities. Behavioral Science, 3,14–25.
Denson, T. F., Lickel, B., Curtis, M., Stenstrom, D. M., & Ames, D. R. (2006). The roles of entitativity and
essentiality in judgments of collective responsibility. Group Processes Intergroup Relations., 9(43),
41–61.
Durkheim, E. (1995). The elementary forms of the religious life. New York: Free Press. Originally
published in 1912.
Ehrenreich, B. (2006). Dancing in the Streets. New York: Metropolitan.
Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ginges, J., Hansen, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2009). Religion and support for suicide attacks. Psychological
Science, 20(2), 224–230. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02270.x.
Haidt, J., Patrick Seder, J., & Kesebir, S. (2008). Hive psychology, happiness, and public policy. The
Journal of Legal Studies, 37, S153–S156.
Hagen, E., & Bryant, G. (2003). Music and dance as a coalition signaling system. Human Nature, 14(1),
21–51.
Hove, M., & Risen, J. (2009). It’s all in the timing: interpersonal synchrony increases affiliation. Social
Cognition, 27(6), 949–960.
Irons, W. (2001). Religion as hard-to-fake sign of commitment (pp. 292–309). New York: Russell Sage.
Jarvenpaa, S., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual
teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14,29–64.
Konvalinka, I., Xygalatas, D., Bulbulia, J., Schjodt, U., Jegindo, E. M., Wallot, S., et al. (2011).
Synchronized arousal between performers and related spectators in a fire-walking ritual. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(20), 8514–8519. doi:10.1073/pnas.1016955108.
Lakens, D. (2010). Movement synchrony and perceived entitativity. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
46, 701–708.
Levitin, D. J. (2008). The world in six songs: How the musical brain created human nature. New York:
Dutton.
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, N. (2000). Varieties of
groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–
246.
McNeill, W. H. (1995). Keeping together in time: Dance and drill in human history. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Miles, L. K., Nind, L. K., & Macrae, C. N. (2009). The rhythm of rapport: interpersonal synchrony and
social perception. Cognition, 190, 585–589.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (1998–2010). Mplus User’s Guide, version 6. Los Angeles: Muthén &
Muthén.
124 Hum Nat (2013) 24:115–125
Pearce, J. L., Branyiczki, I., & Bakacsi, G. (1994). Person-based reward systems: a theory of
organizational reward practices in reform-communist organizations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15, 261–282.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1922). The andaman islanders. New York: Free Press.
Reddish, P., Bulbulia, J., & Fischer, R. (2013). Does synchrony promote generalized prosociality? Religion,
Brain and Behavior Science.. doi:10.1080/2153599X.2013.764545.
Schelling, T. (2006). Micromotives and Macrobehavior (Kindle edition). New York: W. W. Norton.
Originally published in 1978.
Skitka, L. J. (2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4,
267–281.
Sosis, R. (2003). Why aren’t we all Hutterites? Human Nature, 14(2), 91–127.
Sosis, R., & Ruffle, B. (2004). Religious ritual and cooperation: testing for a relationship on Israeli
Religious and Secular Kibbutzim. Current Anthropology, 44(5), 713–722.
Tanner, C., Ryf, B., & Hanselmann, M. (2009). Geschuetzte Werte Skala (GWS): Konstruktion und
Validierung eines Messinstrumentes (Sacred value scale: construction and validation of a measurement
scale). Diagnostica, 55, 174–183.
Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 7, 320–324.
Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2011). Synchrony and the social tuning of compassion. Emotion, 11,
262–266.
van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., & Kawakami, K. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior.
Psychological Science, 15(1), 71–74.
van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., & Steenaert, B. (2003). Mimicry for money: behavioral consequences of
imitation. Journal of ExperimentalSocialPsychology,39(4), 393–398. doi:10.1016/S0022-
1031(03)00014-3.
Whitehouse, H. (2004). Modes of religiosity: A cognitive theory of religious transmission. Lanham:
AltaMira Press.
Wiltermuth, S. S., & Heath, C. (2009). Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological Science, 20(1), 1–5.
Ronald Fischer is a Reader in Psychology in the Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research at Victoria
University of Wellington. He has published over 100 articles and book chapters on cultural differences in
psychological processes, cultural values and research methods, working in Brazil, East Africa and South
East Asia.
Rohan Callander has recently completed his Master’s degree in psychology at Victoria University, New
Zealand. His thesis is titled, “The Effects of Collective Group Rituals on Prosociality.”
Paul Reddish received his PhD in psychology from Victoria University, New Zealand. His thesis was
“Why Sing and Dance? An Examination of the Cooperative Effects of Group Synchrony.”Reddish is
currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Laboratory for Experimental Research of Religion (LEVYNA) at
Masaryk University in the Czech Republic, the world's first experimental laboratory in the study of religion
(http://www.levyna.cz).
Joseph Bulbulia teaches in the Religious Studies Programme at Victoria University of Wellington, New
Zealand, and publishes widely in evolutionary religious studies. He is president-elect of the International
Association for the Cognitive Science of Religion; a fellow of the Religion Cognition and Culture Unit at
Aarhus University, Denmark; and a principal investigator at LEVYNA, Masaryk University, Czech
Republic.
Hum Nat (2013) 24:115–125 125