Official mandates to social distance during the COVID-conscious holidays are going to fall on many a deaf ear if they fail to respect a ubiquitous human impulse at the core of such annual celebrations: the drive to maintain familiar rituals.
Worse yet, more than a few on the receiving end of any tin-eared messaging are likely to feel a sense of moral outrage over even being asked. The outcome of this may be to, in effect, inoculate masses of people against any similar requests made in the future.
Some may take their hurt a step further by seeking to dole out punishment.
The psychology behind these phenomena gets a detailed and timely exploration in a study posted in advance of publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
The work is, in fact, a set of seven distinct studies conducted by researchers at UC-Berkeley’s Haas School of Business with input from peers at Harvard Business School and the University of Toronto.
Led by Daniel Stein, a PhD student in organizational management at Berkeley Haas, the team used questionnaires, surveys and in-person lab sessions to elicit reactions over various ritual-altering scenarios from a total of 4,213 participants.
In the first two studies, both of which served to pilot the project, established fraternity brothers expressed pointed indignation over hypothetical pledges who failed to make it through demanding rites of initiation. The expressions included calls for intensified hazing.
Subsequent studies showed cohort members who
- were angered by a proposal to adjust a male circumcision custom in the name of clinical safety;
- felt outrage over suggested alterations to a Pledge of Allegiance ceremony based on their understanding of the change-maker’s intent; and
- reacted strongly against even minor modifications to the Jewish Passover ritual.
In their discussion section, Stein and co-authors point out that group rituals abound across the world. As times change, they comment,
people sometimes try to update these rituals, whether it be the Catholic Church modifying the language used in Mass or American athletes kneeling on one knee during the U.S. national anthem. We demonstrate … that people who advocate alterations to more (versus less) ritualistic group activities—including minor alterations that are accidental, well-intentioned, or beneficial to the group (e.g., increasing safety)—provoke relatively more moral outrage and punishment from ingroup (but not outgroup) members than people who advocate alterations to less ritualistic group activities. These more negative reactions to attempts to alter group rituals help to explain why group rituals have strikingly consistent features over time.
In coverage of the project by Berkeley Haas’s news operation, study co-author Juliana Schroeder, PhD, MBA, says revising distinctly ritualistic activities is likely to provoke anger and resentment in some of the affected parties.
That’s because pitting pandemic social distancing against the values of love and togetherness represented by the holidays creates moral conflict for many people, Schroeder explains.
“[C]oming together to exchange gifts on Christmas isn’t just about getting presents; it’s a symbol of love,” the news item notes. “Eating turkey on Thanksgiving isn’t just a shared meal; it’s an expression of gratitude.”
If messages from officials to social distance are going to have the desired effect, Schroeder warns, the officials “must come up with a response to these strong group values.”
The study is available in full for free.
Dave P. has worked in journalism, marketing and public relations for more than 30 years, frequently concentrating on hospitals, healthcare technology and Catholic communications. He has also specialized in fundraising communications, ghostwriting for CEOs of local, national and global charities, nonprofits and foundations.