Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-h8lrw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T17:53:48.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-instrumental actions can communicate roles and relationships, not just rituals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2022

Ashley J. Thomas Open the ORCID record for Ashley J. Thomas [Opens in a new window] ,
Setayesh Radkani Open the ORCID record for Setayesh Radkani [Opens in a new window]  and
Michelle S. Hung Open the ORCID record for Michelle S. Hung [Opens in a new window]
Ashley J. Thomas
Affiliation:
Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA ajthomas@mit.edu radkani@mit.edu; michl@mit.edu ashleyjthomas.com
Setayesh Radkani
Affiliation:
Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA ajthomas@mit.edu radkani@mit.edu; michl@mit.edu ashleyjthomas.com
Michelle S. Hung
Affiliation:
Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA ajthomas@mit.edu radkani@mit.edu; michl@mit.edu ashleyjthomas.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Actions that do not have instrumental goals can communicate social goals that are not rituals. Many non-instrumental actions such as bowing or kissing communicate a commitment to or roles in dyadic relationships. What is unclear is when people understand such actions in terms of ritual and when they understand them in terms of relationships.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e269
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kajanus, A., Afshordi, N., & Warneken, F. (2019). Children's understanding of dominance and prestige in China and the UK. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2019.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, L., & Clément, F. (2014). Wired for society: Cognizing pathways to society and culture. Topoi. An International Review of Philosophy, 33(2), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-014-9236-9Google Scholar
Thomas, A. J., Woo, B., Nettle, D., Spelke, E., & Saxe, R. (2022). Early concepts of intimacy: Young humans use saliva sharing to infer close relationships. Science, 375(6578), 311–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomsen, L., & Carey, S. (2013). Core cognition of social relations. In Navigating the social world: What infants, children, and other species can teach us (p. 17). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Vugt, M., & Tybur, J. M. (2014). The evolutionary foundations of hierarchy: Status, dominance, prestige, and leadership. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 1–40). Wiley Press.Google Scholar