Ritual, Religion and the Evolution of Large-Scale Cooperation

The Large-Scale Cooperation Problem

The cooperation frameworks developed in the chapter on the foundations of cooperation explain how reciprocal altruism, kin selection, and indirect reciprocity can sustain cooperation among individuals who interact repeatedly in small groups where relationships are personal, reputations are trackable, and defection is detectable. These mechanisms are powerful and empirically well-supported. They explain a great deal of human cooperative behaviour in small-group contexts.

They do not, however, explain how humans achieve large-scale cooperation among strangers: the coordination of thousands or millions of individuals who have never met, who cannot personally track each other's reputations, and among whom the repeated interaction logic of reciprocal altruism cannot operate directly. Yet humans do achieve this, routinely and at scales that no other species approaches. Modern organisations, cities, nations, and international institutions all represent forms of large-scale cooperation among strangers that require explanation beyond what small-group cooperation mechanisms can provide.

This is what Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (2011) called the large-scale cooperation puzzle: why do humans cooperate with strangers at scales and with a reliability that cannot be explained by the mechanisms that sustain small-group cooperation? Their answer, developed through game-theoretic modelling and cross-cultural research, was that human large-scale cooperation required the co-evolution of specific cultural institutions, including norms, beliefs, and practices, that extended the logic of small-group cooperation to larger scales by creating the conditions under which strangers could be treated as quasi-kin or as members of the same small group for cooperation purposes.

Ara Norenzayan's (2013) work on big gods and large-scale cooperation developed this argument in a specific and empirically productive direction. Norenzayan proposed that the cultural evolution of moralising gods, powerful supernatural agents who monitor human behaviour and punish norm violations, was a key cultural innovation that solved the large-scale cooperation problem by extending the norm enforcement logic of small-group reputation systems to anonymous large-scale interactions. In a small group, defection is detectable and will be punished by other group members whose reputations depend on enforcing norms. In a large anonymous group, defection may not be detectable by any specific human monitor. A moralising god who monitors all behaviour and punishes all violations restores the cooperation-sustaining logic of detection and punishment even in anonymous large-scale interactions.

Norenzayan's cross-cultural research showed that belief in moralising gods predicted cooperative behaviour with anonymous strangers across a wide range of societies, and that experimental priming of god concepts increased cooperation with strangers in ways consistent with the supernatural monitoring hypothesis. The cognitive science of religion that Pascal Boyer (2001) developed provided the cognitive mechanism: supernatural agents are represented using the same social cognition systems, including theory of mind and agent detection, that humans use for reasoning about other humans, making the representation of monitoring supernatural agents cognitively natural and their influence on behaviour genuine rather than merely performative.

For leadership and organisations, the evolutionary analysis of large-scale cooperation has a direct implication: the mechanisms that sustain cooperation in large organisations cannot be the same as those that sustain cooperation in small groups, and the cultural practices that extend small-group cooperation logic to large-scale contexts are not optional luxuries but functional necessities. Ritual is one of the primary cultural technologies through which this extension is achieved.

What Ritual Is: The Evolutionary Definition

Ritual is not easily defined, and the diversity of human ritual behaviour across cultures makes simple definitions inadequate. For evolutionary purposes, the most productive definition focuses on the functional properties that distinguish ritual from other forms of social behaviour rather than on its content or context.

Harvey Whitehouse's (2004) modes of religiosity theory provides the most influential evolutionary framework for understanding ritual. Whitehouse distinguished two fundamental modes of ritual transmission and their associated psychological and social effects. Imagistic mode rituals are infrequent, highly arousing, and emotionally intense: they typically involve physical hardship, sensory overload, or extreme emotional activation, and they produce lasting episodic memories, strong social bonds among co-participants, and deep personal commitment to the group that experienced them together. Doctrinal mode rituals are frequent, routinised, and emotionally moderate: they involve the regular repetition of standardised practices that maintain group cohesion through shared behaviour, reinforce collective identity through repeated enactment, and sustain the cognitive representations of collective belief through regular activation.

Both modes serve cooperation-sustaining functions but through different mechanisms. Imagistic mode rituals produce the kind of intense social bonding that Robin Dunbar and colleagues have associated with elevated endorphin release during shared physical experience: they create the felt sense of deep connection and mutual commitment that sustains extraordinary cooperative behaviour in small groups. Doctrinal mode rituals produce the kind of regularly maintained collective identity and norm reinforcement that sustains cooperation in large groups where personal bonding cannot be scaled.

Cavendish Financial Services had, without designing it as such, developed both modes of ritual. The annual away day functioned as a low-intensity imagistic mode ritual: its shared challenges, informal evening gathering, and departure from the normal work context produced the kind of shared episodic memory and emotional bonding that Whitehouse's framework describes. The monthly all-hands meeting and the Friday gathering functioned as doctrinal mode rituals: their regular repetition maintained collective identity, reinforced cultural norms, and provided the routine enactment of shared belonging that sustains large-group cohesion.

Thomas Reiter's elimination of all three simultaneously removed both modes of ritual from the organisation, which is one reading of the subsequent disengagement data: both the deep bonding that imagistic ritual produces and the routine cohesion that doctrinal ritual maintains disappeared simultaneously, which on this reading may have produced a rate and depth of disengagement beyond what either mode's absence alone would have produced. The case offers no data that could test this.

The Neuroscience of Ritual: Synchrony, Endorphins and Social Bonding

The neuroscience of ritual provides the mechanistic grounding for its evolutionary functions. The most significant finding is that synchronised physical activity, the coordinated movement, vocalisation, or action that ritual typically involves, produces measurable increases in endorphin release and in the social bonding that follows from it.

Emma Cohen and Robin Dunbar and colleagues' (2010) research on synchronised rowing showed that rowers who trained in synchrony with others showed higher pain thresholds after training than those who trained alone, even when the physical demands of the training were identical. Since pain threshold is used as a proxy for endorphin release, this finding suggested that synchronised physical activity produces endorphin release beyond what physical exertion alone produces. Subsequent research by Scott Wiltermuth and Chip Heath (2009) showed that participants who performed synchronised actions with others subsequently showed higher levels of cooperation and willingness to sacrifice personal resources for the group, and reported feeling more like part of the same team, than those who performed the same actions asynchronously. The synchrony itself, independent of the content of the activity, was producing social bonding effects.

Bronwyn Tarr and colleagues' (2015) research on synchronised dancing showed that synchrony and exertion each independently raised pain threshold and social bonding: participants who danced in synchrony with others showed stronger bonding effects than those who danced the same movements asynchronously, with pain threshold, a proxy for endorphin activity, rising alongside bonding. The neurochemical basis of ritual's social bonding function is therefore plausibly the endorphin system: the same system that underlies the social bonding produced by physical contact, laughter, and singing, and Dunbar and colleagues (2012) found that social laughter raises pain threshold, a proxy for endorphin release, with matching social bonding effects.

For organisational ritual, the neuroscience of synchrony explains why the specific form of collective activity matters and not merely its content. A monthly all-hands meeting in which 340 people gather in a shared physical space, respond simultaneously to shared information, laugh together at shared humour, applaud together in recognition of shared achievements, and eat together in shared social space may be producing neurochemical effects that a written email update does not replicate, although the studies cited above concern rowing, dance, laughter, and small tasks, and whether the effect generalises to organisational gatherings has not been directly established. On this argument, the synchrony of physical co-presence, shared response, and collective participation may produce endorphin-mediated social bonding that sustains the cooperation, information sharing, and collective identity that the written update leaves largely untouched.

Thomas Reiter had calculated the cost of the monthly meetings in aggregated staff time and concluded that their productive output did not justify the cost. His calculation was correct within its own framework: the meetings produced no measurable operational output. What it missed was that the meetings were producing something that his framework had no category for: the social bonding, plausibly with a neurochemical component, that sustains the cooperation, trust, and collective identity on which operational output depends. He had eliminated the mechanism and been surprised when the output it was sustaining deteriorated.

Commitment and Credibility: The Costly Ritual Hypothesis

Ritual serves a second major evolutionary function beyond social bonding: it functions as a costly commitment device that makes genuine group membership credible in ways that mere verbal declaration cannot.

William Irons (2001) proposed the costly signalling theory of religion, arguing that religious rituals function as costly signals of genuine commitment to the group and its values. Participation in demanding or time-consuming rituals imposes genuine costs on participants: the time investment of regular attendance, the physical demands of fasting or pilgrimage, the social costs of visible identification with a particular group. These costs are affordable for genuine group members whose long-term access to the group's cooperative benefits justifies the investment, but not for opportunistic free-riders who want the benefits without the commitment. Ritual therefore functions as a costly signal in Zahavi's sense, discussed in the chapter on costly signalling: it sorts genuine committed members from opportunistic free-riders by imposing costs that only genuinely committed members will bear.

Richard Sosis and Eric Bressler's research on nineteenth-century American communes (Sosis and Bressler, 2003) provided empirical support for this argument. Sosis and Bressler compared the longevity of religious and secular communes founded in nineteenth-century America, and found that the costliness of the requirements communes placed on members was associated with longer survival among religious communes. Related research on Israeli kibbutzim (Sosis and Ruffle, 2003) found that religious men who attended synagogue daily were the most cooperative in an economic game, although the authors note that this is a correlation and cannot show that ritual participation caused the cooperation.

For organisations, the costly commitment signalling function of ritual explains why the elimination of organisational rituals produces the specific outcomes it does. When an organisation eliminates its shared rituals it eliminates the costly commitment devices through which genuine organisational membership is signalled and verified. The monthly all-hands meeting, the annual away day, and the Friday gathering at Cavendish were all functioning as commitment devices: participation in them was a regular, visible, costly signal of genuine belonging to the Cavendish community. Their elimination removed the primary mechanism through which genuine commitment was signalled, verified, and reinforced, leaving no alternative mechanism to perform these functions.

One reading of the voluntary turnover that followed is that it reflected this logic. The chapter gives no data on who left or why, so this is interpretation. On this reading, the individuals who left Cavendish after the ritual eliminations were not necessarily those for whom the rituals had been most costly or most demanding. They may have been those for whom the rituals had been most meaningful as commitment signals: for whom participation had been a genuine expression of belonging that the organisation's elimination of the ritual had implicitly devalued. The message that Thomas's efficiency review had unintentionally sent was that the collective enactment of belonging was not worth the cost of ninety minutes per month. Those for whom it had been most worth it may have responded to that message by leaving.

Shared Belief, Collective Identity and the Cognitive Science of Religion

The third major evolutionary function of ritual is the maintenance of the shared cognitive representations, the collective beliefs, values, and identity constructs, that sustain large-group cooperation by creating the sense of common cause and mutual obligation that makes strangers treatable as quasi-kin.

Pascal Boyer's (2001) cognitive science of religion framework proposed that religious concepts are culturally successful because they exploit the cognitive systems that evolved for reasoning about agents, living things, and physical objects in ways that make them memorable, transmissible, and motivationally powerful. Supernatural agents that violate intuitive ontology, such as gods who are omniscient or ancestors who continue to monitor the living after death, are more memorable than agents that fully conform to intuitive expectations, making religious concepts particularly well-suited for cultural transmission and particularly resistant to forgetting or distortion across generations.

For organisations, the cognitive science of religion perspective illuminates why collective rituals that enact shared values and identity are cognitively functional: they are the primary mechanism through which collectively held representations are maintained, updated, and transmitted across the organisation's membership. The monthly all-hands meeting at Cavendish was not merely communicating information. It was enacting the shared cognitive representation of what Cavendish was, what it valued, and who its members were in relation to each other and to the organisation's mission. This enactment was not redundant with the written communication that Thomas proposed as its replacement because collective ritual enactment of shared identity is not the same cognitive process as individual reception of textual information about shared identity.

Jonathan Haidt's (2012) moral foundations theory, discussed in the chapter on moral foundations, connects to this analysis through the loyalty and sanctity foundations. Ritual activates both: the loyalty foundation through the visible demonstration of group membership and collective commitment, and the sanctity foundation through the marking of certain spaces, times, and activities as set apart from ordinary life. The monthly all-hands meeting, the annual away day, and the Friday gathering at Cavendish all had qualities of sanctity marking: they were treated differently from ordinary work activities, they had their own rhythms and norms, and their departure from ordinary work routine marked them as occasions on which the community gathered as a community rather than as a collection of individual workers.

Thomas's efficiency analysis treated these markers as irrational inefficiencies: why should a gathering produce different outputs than ordinary work just because it has a different name and a different day? The evolutionary framework explains precisely why: the difference in framing is not superficial but cognitively functional. The ritual frame activates the evolved systems for collective identity enactment, commitment signalling, and shared belief maintenance in ways that ordinary work activities do not. The same people, in the same building, discussing the same topics, may produce different cognitive and neurochemical outputs depending on whether the interaction is framed as ordinary work or as collective ritual, if, as the framework argues, the evolved systems that ritual activates respond to ritual framing specifically.

Collective Effervescence and the Durkheimian Legacy

Emile Durkheim's concept of collective effervescence, introduced in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life published in 1912, anticipated the evolutionary and neuroscientific account of ritual a century before the mechanistic research caught up with the phenomenological observation. Durkheim described collective effervescence as the heightened emotional state produced when individuals come together in collective ritual activity: the feeling of being part of something larger than oneself, of losing individual boundaries in collective participation, of experiencing the social group as a felt reality rather than an abstract concept.

Durkheim did not have the neurochemical vocabulary to describe the endorphin-mediated social bonding that Cohen, Dunbar, and Tarr's research has since documented. But his phenomenological description of what collective ritual produces in its participants is remarkably accurate to what the neuroscience of synchrony subsequently revealed: the felt sense of expanded social identity, heightened commitment to the group, and genuine emotional connection to fellow participants that synchronised collective activity produces through the endorphin system.

Randall Collins's (2004) interaction ritual chains theory updated Durkheim's framework through sociological analysis, showing that the emotional energy produced by successful collective rituals generates the social solidarity, shared symbols, and group identity that sustain cooperation and commitment between ritual occasions. Collins proposed that organisations are fundamentally chains of interaction rituals: their social fabric is constituted by the patterns of collective ritual interaction that generate and sustain emotional energy, social bonds, and shared identity over time. When the ritual chains are disrupted, the emotional energy and social solidarity they generate dissipates, producing the disengagement, turnover, and coalition fragmentation that Cavendish experienced after Thomas's efficiency review.

For leadership, Collins's interaction ritual chains theory has a specific and practically important implication: the social fabric of an organisation is not produced by its formal structure, its strategy, or its communication systems. It is produced by its ritual interactions: the recurring collective gatherings, shared practices, and synchronised activities that generate emotional energy, reinforce social bonds, and enact shared identity in ways that no structural or strategic intervention can replicate. Leaders who eliminate these interactions in the name of efficiency are not merely removing costs. They are disrupting the generative mechanism of organisational social fabric.

Secular Ritual in Organisational Life

The evolutionary framework for ritual does not require supernatural content to be applicable to organisational contexts. The evolved psychological systems that ritual activates, including endorphin-mediated social bonding through synchrony, costly commitment signalling through shared sacrifice, and collective identity maintenance through shared enactment, are activated by the structural properties of ritual, its collective character, its synchronised form, its departure from ordinary routine, and its marking as collectively significant, rather than by any specific religious content.

Human beings readily create secular equivalents of religious ritual that are argued to perform the same evolved functions through different content. National ceremonies, sporting events, graduation ceremonies, and wedding celebrations all perform ritual functions through secular or semi-secular content. Organisational rituals, including town halls, away days, celebration ceremonies, onboarding rituals, and informal social gatherings, perform the same functions in organisational contexts.

The distinction between genuine organisational ritual and performative organisational ceremony is important and connects directly to the costly signalling framework of the chapter on costly signalling. Genuine organisational ritual involves real collective participation, genuine emotional investment, and the kind of shared experience that is argued to produce actual neurochemical bonding and genuine commitment signalling. Performative organisational ceremony involves the surface features of ritual without the genuine collective investment: the mandatory town hall where attendance is monitored but engagement is absent, the away day designed to be photographed for the employer branding materials rather than to produce genuine shared experience, the celebration ritual conducted in a way that makes clear it is an obligation rather than a genuine collective valuing of the achievement being celebrated.

The distinction is detectable by the evolved psychology that ritual is designed to activate: participants whose evolved systems for detecting genuine versus performative collective investment are functioning well will read the difference between genuine and performative ritual accurately and respond accordingly. Genuine ritual produces genuine bonding and genuine commitment. Performative ritual produces cynicism and the specific disengagement that comes from having one's evolved commitment psychology activated and then revealed to have been manipulated rather than genuinely engaged.

Marina Volkov understood this distinction intuitively. When she described the Cavendish monthly meetings as having produced something that the email replacement could not, she was pointing at the difference between genuine collective ritual and its performative substitute. What Thomas had eliminated was the genuine article. What he had proposed to replace it with was not merely less efficient but categorically different in its evolved functional properties.

The Leadership Implications: Designing for Evolved Cooperation

The evolutionary analysis of ritual has several specific implications for how leaders should think about the collective practices of their organisations.

The first implication is that the return on investment calculation for organisational ritual cannot be done within an operational efficiency framework. The outputs that ritual produces, social bonding, commitment signalling, collective identity maintenance, and the emotional energy that Collins's framework identifies as the generative mechanism of organisational social fabric, are not operational outputs in the sense that efficiency analysis measures. They are the conditions under which operational outputs become possible. A framework that can only see operational outputs will systematically undervalue ritual because it is constitutionally unable to see what ritual is producing.

The second implication is that different types of collective practice perform different evolved functions and cannot substitute for each other. Doctrinal mode rituals, regular, routinised, emotionally moderate collective gatherings, maintain the ongoing social cohesion and collective identity that large organisations require. Imagistic mode rituals, occasional, emotionally intense, shared-challenge experiences, produce the deep social bonding that sustains commitment through genuine difficulty. Information sharing, strategic communication, and performance management systems serve their own important functions but cannot substitute for either mode of ritual because they activate different evolved systems.

The third implication is that genuine ritual cannot be manufactured through formal design alone. The evolved psychology that ritual activates is sensitive to the difference between genuine collective investment and performative ceremony. Leaders who design ritual primarily for its appearance will produce the cynicism that comes from having commitment psychology manipulated rather than genuinely engaged. Genuine organisational ritual emerges from genuine collective investment in shared practices: leaders can create conditions for it and can protect it from elimination, but they cannot manufacture it through formal design in the absence of genuine collective meaning.

The fourth implication is that ritual is culturally specific in its form but evolutionarily universal in its function. The specific practices through which organisations enact collective identity, signal commitment, and produce social bonding vary enormously across cultures, industries, and organisational types. The evolved functions those practices serve are universal. Leaders working across cultural contexts, as discussed in the chapter on cultural psychology, need to understand the cultural specificity of ritual form while recognising the evolutionary universality of ritual function: what counts as a meaningful collective gathering, what constitutes genuine shared experience, and what marks a practice as ritually significant rather than merely routine varies with cultural context even though the evolved systems being activated are the same.

Critical Examination: The Limits of Evolutionary Ritual Theory

The evolutionary analysis of ritual is illuminating but several important limitations require honest acknowledgement.

The empirical evidence for ritual's specific evolved functions varies in quality. Dunbar's endorphin hypothesis for synchrony-mediated social bonding is well-supported in experimental research on specific activities including rowing, dancing, and singing, but the generalisation to all forms of synchronised collective activity involves inferential steps whose validity in all organisational ritual contexts has not been directly established. The costly signalling theory of ritual is supported by Sosis and colleagues' cross-cultural research on communes and by laboratory experiments, but the causal mechanisms are less clearly established than the correlational findings suggest. The Cavendish case is also an illustration, not a controlled comparison: it has no comparison group, and the acquisitions of the previous four years and Thomas's other recommendations may also have contributed to the turnover and disengagement.

Norenzayan's big gods hypothesis has generated substantial and productive research but also significant debate. The causal claim that belief in moralising gods produces large-scale cooperation, rather than that large-scale cooperative societies develop moralising god beliefs, is supported by some evidence but contested by others. The relationship between religious belief, ritual participation, and cooperative behaviour is correlational in most studies and the causal direction remains genuinely debated (Baumard and Boyer, 2013).

The application of evolutionary ritual theory to secular organisational contexts involves inferential steps beyond the religious contexts where the research evidence is strongest. The claim that secular organisational rituals activate the same evolved systems as religious rituals through the same mechanisms is theoretically coherent and consistent with the neuroscience of synchrony, but the direct evidence for this claim in organisational settings is less developed than the theoretical framework suggests.

Finally, the ritual framework can be misused as a justification for maintaining organisational practices that serve no genuine evolved function but are maintained through inertia and defended as culturally important. Not every established organisational practice is a genuine ritual performing evolved cooperation functions. Leaders who use evolutionary ritual theory to resist all change to established collective practices are misapplying the framework. The relevant question is whether a practice genuinely activates the evolved systems that ritual functions through, not whether it has historical precedent or whether people are accustomed to it.

Key takeaways

• The large-scale cooperation problem requires cultural technologies beyond small-group cooperation mechanisms: ritual evolved as a primary cultural technology for extending cooperation to strangers by activating evolved systems for social bonding, commitment signalling, and collective identity maintenance at scales that personal relationships cannot reach (Norenzayan, 2013; Bowles and Gintis, 2011).
• Synchronised collective activity appears to produce endorphin-mediated social bonding that may sustain cooperation motivation: in studies of rowing, dancing, and laughter, synchronised activity raises pain thresholds, a proxy for endorphin activity, and strengthens bonding, and synchronised groups have been found to cooperate more and to sacrifice more for the group (Tarr et al., 2015; Wiltermuth and Heath, 2009).
• Ritual participation functions as a costly commitment device that makes genuine group membership credible by imposing costs that only genuinely committed members will bear: on this theory, organisations that eliminate collective rituals may eliminate a primary mechanism through which genuine commitment is signalled, verified, and reinforced (Irons, 2001; Sosis and Bressler, 2003).
• Whitehouse's (2004) imagistic and doctrinal modes of ritual perform distinct but complementary evolved functions: imagistic mode produces deep bonding through intense shared experience while doctrinal mode maintains ongoing cohesion through regular collective enactment, and neither can substitute for the other.
• Secular organisational rituals are argued to activate the same evolved systems as religious rituals through the same structural properties of synchrony, shared sacrifice, and collective identity enactment, although direct evidence in organisational settings is less developed than the theory suggests: their evolved functional value is argued to be independent of religious content and to be sensitive to the genuine versus performative character of collective participation.
• The return on investment calculation for organisational ritual cannot be performed within an operational efficiency framework: ritual produces the conditions under which operational outputs are possible rather than operational outputs themselves, making efficiency analysis constitutionally unable to see what ritual is doing.
• Genuine organisational ritual cannot be manufactured through formal design alone: the evolved psychology that ritual activates is sensitive to the difference between genuine collective investment and performative ceremony, and leaders who design ritual primarily for its appearance will produce cynicism rather than genuine social bonding and commitment.

Reflection questions

• Think about the collective rituals in your organisation, both formal and informal. Which ones perform imagistic mode functions, producing deep social bonding through shared intense experience? Which perform doctrinal mode functions, maintaining ongoing cohesion through regular collective enactment? Which evolved cooperation functions are well-served by your current ritual repertoire and which are underserved?
• Consider a time when an organisational ritual was eliminated, redesigned, or replaced in your experience. What cooperation functions was the original practice performing? What happened to those functions after the change? Does the outcome match the evolutionary framework's predictions?
• Examine your organisation's approach to remote and hybrid working through the lens of ritual function. Which evolved functions of collective ritual can be performed digitally and which require physical co-presence? What specific cooperation costs is your organisation bearing because of the reduced ritual opportunity that distributed working creates?
• Reflect on the difference between genuine and performative ritual in your organisational experience. What makes a collective practice feel genuinely meaningful rather than obligatory? From the evolutionary framework, what structural properties distinguish the practices that produce genuine social bonding and commitment from those that produce cynicism?
• Consider the cultural variation in ritual form discussed in this chapter alongside the cultural psychology framework of Chapter 6. How does the appropriate form of collective ritual vary across the cultural contexts your organisation operates in? What practices would produce genuine synchrony-mediated bonding in one cultural context and feel forced or inappropriate in another?
• Examine the efficiency pressures on collective practices in your organisation. Which practices are most vulnerable to elimination on efficiency grounds? From the evolutionary framework, which of those practices are performing genuine cooperation functions that their elimination would damage? How would you make the case for their value in terms that an efficiency-minded analysis could engage with?

References

1. Baumard, N., & Boyer, P. (2013). Explaining moral religions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(6), 272-280.
2. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2011). A cooperative species: Human reciprocity and its evolution. Princeton University Press.
3. Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. Basic Books.
4. Cohen, E., Ejsmond-Frey, R., Knight, N., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2010). Rowers' high: Behavioural synchrony is correlated with elevated pain thresholds. Biology Letters, 6(1), 106-108.
5. Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton University Press.
6. Dunbar, R. I. M., Baron, R., Frangou, A., Pearce, E., van Leeuwen, E. J. C., Stow, J., Partridge, G., MacDonald, I., Barra, V., & van Vugt, M. (2012). Social laughter is correlated with an elevated pain threshold. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279(1731), 1161-1167.
7. Durkheim, E. (1912). The elementary forms of religious life. (K. E. Fields, Trans., 1995). Free Press.
8. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
9. Irons, W. (2001). Religion as a hard-to-fake sign of commitment. In R. Nesse (Ed.), Evolution and the capacity for commitment (pp. 292-309). Russell Sage Foundation.
10. Norenzayan, A. (2013). Big gods: How religion transformed cooperation and conflict. Princeton University Press.
11. Sosis, R., & Bressler, E. R. (2003). Cooperation and commune longevity: A test of the costly signaling theory of religion. Cross-Cultural Research, 37(2), 211-239.
12. Sosis, R., & Ruffle, B. J. (2003). Religious ritual and cooperation: Testing for a relationship on Israeli religious and secular kibbutzim. Current Anthropology, 44(5), 713-722.
13. Tarr, B., Launay, J., Cohen, E., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2015). Synchrony and exertion during dance independently raise pain threshold and encourage social bonding. Biology Letters, 11(10), 20150767.
14. Whitehouse, H. (2004). Modes of religiosity: A cognitive theory of religious transmission. AltaMira Press.
15. Wiltermuth, S. S., & Heath, C. (2009). Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological Science, 20(1), 1-5.