The “Constitutive Relevance of Models” (CRoM) Test
A Tool for Transferring Constructs and Virtues between Psychological and Anthropological Theories of Ritual
In: Method & Theory in the Study of ReligionSearch for other papers by Ryan G. Hornbeck in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Justin L. Barrett in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
This paper introduces a tool designed to mitigate a longstanding challenge to developing social anthropological theories of ritual – how to generate enough comparable case studies for rigorously testing the predictive strength and generalizability of the theory under scrutiny. Our “constitutive relevance of models” (CRoM) test identifies structural continuities between anthropological and psychological theoretical models of ritual phenomena that would justify sharing some analytical tools between models. With this test, anthropologists can in certain cases draw on a psychological theory construct’s superior empirical tractability to more efficiently identify instances of ritual phenomena that are suitable for developing and testing their own anthropological models. To demonstrate, we apply a CRoM test to validate the use of a construct developed under a psychological theory of ritual, Lawson and McCauley’s “ritual form hypothesis,” to search for case studies suitable for assessing the theoretical claims that anthropologist Roy Rappaport made for “highly sacred” rituals.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Asprem, Egil & Ann Taves (2018). Explanation and the study of religion. In: B. Stottard (ed.), Method Today: Redescribing Approaches to the Study of Religion, 133–157. London: Equinox Press.
-
Barrett, Justin L., Ryan G. Hornbeck, Brianna B. Bleeker, Skylar Barrett, & Chenfeng Hao (2017). Ritual imbalance in contemporary China: A ritual form theory analysis. In R. G. Hornbeck, J. L. Barrett, & M. Kang (eds.), Religious Cognition in China, 111–124. New York: Springer International.
-
Bokulich, Alisa (2008). Reexamining the Quantum-Classical Relation: Beyond Reductionism and Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Boone, Worth and Gualtiero Piccinini (2016). The cognitive neuroscience revolution. Synthese 193: 1509–1534.
-
Boyer, Pascal & Pierre Liénard (2006). Why ritualized behavior? Precaution systems and action parsing in developmental, pathological and cultural rituals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (6): 595–613.
-
Brooks, Alison W., Juliana Schroeder, Jane L. Risen, Francesca Gino, Adam D. Galinsky, Michael I. Norton & Maurice E. Schweitzer (2016). Don’t stop believing: Rituals improve performance by decreasing anxiety. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 137: 71–85.
-
Craver, Carl F. (2007). Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Craver, Carl F. & Lindley Darden (2013). In Search of Mechanisms: Discoveries Across the Life Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Douglas, Mary (1966). Purity and Danger. London: Routledge.
-
Festinger, Leon (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
-
Glennan, Stuart (2017). The New Mechanical Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Glennan, Stuart & Phyllis Illari (eds.) (2018). The Routledge Handbook of Mechanisms and Mechanical Philosophy. New York: Routledge.
-
Harmon-Jones, Eddie, Cindy Harmon-Jones & Nicholas Levy (2015). An action-based model of cognitive-dissonance processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24: 184–189.
-
Hedström, Peter & Petri Ylikoski (2010). Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 49–67.
-
Hindriks, Frank (2006). Tractability assumptions and the Musgrave-Maki typology. Journal of Economic Methodology 13 (4): 401–423.
-
Hobson, Nicholas M., Juliana Schroeder, Jane L. Risen, Dimitris Xygalatas, & Michael Inzlicht (2017). The psychology of rituals: An integrative review and process-based framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review 22 (3): 1–25.
-
Hornbeck, Ryan G., Brianna B. Bentley, & Justin L. Barrett (2015). Examining special patient rituals in a Chinese cultural context: A research report. Journal of Cognition and Culture 15: 530–541.
-
Hornbeck, Ryan G. & Justin L. Barrett (2020). Ritual forms and ritual stuff: Implications of Lawson and McCauley’s Ritual Form Hypothesis for material culture. Ethos 48 (1): 129-146.
-
Keas, Michael (2018). Systematizing the theoretical virtues. Synthese 195 (6): 2761–2793.
-
Kendig, Catherine E. (2015). What is proof of concept research and how does it generate epistemic and ethical categories for future scientific practice? Science and Engineering Ethics 22: 735–753.
-
Lawson, E. Thomas & Robert N. McCauley (1990). Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Leach, Edmund (1954). Political Systems of Highland Burma. London: Bell & Son.
-
Liénard, Pierre & Pascal Boyer (2006). Whence collective rituals? A cultural selection model of ritualized behavior. American Anthropologist 108 (4): 814–827.
-
Mäki, Uskali (2000). Kinds of assumptions and their truth: shaking an untwisted F-twist. Kyklos 53: 317–335.
-
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1948). Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays. Glencoe: The Free Press.
-
Malley, Brian & Justin L. Barrett (2003). Does myth inform ritual? A test of the Lawson-McCauley hypothesis. Journal of Ritual Studies 17 (2): 1–14.
-
McCauley, Robert N. & E. Thomas Lawson (2002). Bringing Ritual to Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Needham, Rodney (1975). Polythetic Classification: Convergence and Consequences. Man 10: 349–369.
-
Páez, Dario, Bernard Rimé, Nekane Basabe, Anna Wlodarczyk & Larraitz Zumeta (2015). Psychosocial Effects of Perceived Emotional Synchrony in Collective Gatherings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108 (5): 711–729.
-
Prychitko, Emily (2019). The causal situationist account of constitutive relevance. Synthese. DOI:10.1007/s11229-019-02170-4.
-
Rappaport, Roy (1968). Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven: Yale University Press.
-
Rappaport, Roy (1999). Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Sun, Ron (ed.) (2012). Grounding Social Sciences in Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
-
Taves, Ann (2009). Religious Experience Reconsidered: A Building Block Approach to the Study of Religion and Other Special Things. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
-
Taves, Ann (2014). Building Blocks of Sacralities: A New Basis for Comparison across Cultures and Religions. In R. F. Paloutzian, C. L. Park (eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 138–164. New York: Guilford.
-
Taves, Ann (2016). Revelatory Events: Three Case Studies of the Emergence of New Spiritual Paths. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
-
Turner, Victor (1967). Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
-
Woodward, James (2003). Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Woodward, James & Christopher Hitchcock (2003). Explanatory generalizations, Part II: Plumbing explanatory Depth. Nous, 37 (2): 181–199.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 596 | 194 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 34 | 5 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 89 | 12 | 0 |
The “Constitutive Relevance of Models” (CRoM) Test
A Tool for Transferring Constructs and Virtues between Psychological and Anthropological Theories of Ritual
In: Method & Theory in the Study of ReligionSearch for other papers by Ryan G. Hornbeck in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Justin L. Barrett in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
This paper introduces a tool designed to mitigate a longstanding challenge to developing social anthropological theories of ritual – how to generate enough comparable case studies for rigorously testing the predictive strength and generalizability of the theory under scrutiny. Our “constitutive relevance of models” (CRoM) test identifies structural continuities between anthropological and psychological theoretical models of ritual phenomena that would justify sharing some analytical tools between models. With this test, anthropologists can in certain cases draw on a psychological theory construct’s superior empirical tractability to more efficiently identify instances of ritual phenomena that are suitable for developing and testing their own anthropological models. To demonstrate, we apply a CRoM test to validate the use of a construct developed under a psychological theory of ritual, Lawson and McCauley’s “ritual form hypothesis,” to search for case studies suitable for assessing the theoretical claims that anthropologist Roy Rappaport made for “highly sacred” rituals.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 596 | 194 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 34 | 5 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 89 | 12 | 0 |
