Skip to content

Interaction Ritual Chains

Collins, R. (2004). Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton University Press.

Type
Book
Intellectual base
Review or monograph
Year
2004
DOI
10.1515/9781400851744
ISBN
9781400851744
DOI registrant
Princeton University Press
Link
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691123899/interaction-ritual-chains
Cited from
sociology_anthropology

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

  • Collective Effervescence
    • This structure reveals why Collins 2004 interaction ritual chains theory shows that successful interactions share identical ingredients across vastly different contexts

      This sourceFormalizes Durkheim's mechanism into interaction-ritual-chain theory with explicit ingredients — bodily co-presence, barrier to outsiders, mutual focus of attention, shared mood — producing solidarity, emotional energy, and sacred symbols. Verified; supports D28-002/015. Note: Collins also makes co-presence constitutive, which the prime invokes for the digital-under-production claim (D28-008) — see flag (Collins (2004) predates and does not directly study video-call/livestream effervescence, though co-presence centrality is genuinely his).

      Supported in partVerified against the work's full text

      Princeton's own description of Collins (2004) shows ritual's mechanism recurring from face-to-face talk to national funerals, but the packet's text never states the 'identical ingredients' the claim asserts.

      “It proposes that successful rituals create symbols of group membership and pump up individuals with emotional energy, while failed rituals drain emotional energy.”

      From the work's full text.

      Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Mechanisms

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.

Registry ID ref:f1815405dc8a · see in the full table