Competition, superstition and the illusion of control
- 1.1k Downloads
The effects of reinforcement schedule and competition on generating superstitious behaviors and beliefs were examined in 72 people. Superstition was induced by having participants respond to turn on a tone under a concurrent 2—lever Variable Interval (VI) Extinction (EXT) schedule. During the session, stimulus lights would occasionally be illuminated, although they did not signal any change in contingency. Attributing importance to the inactive lever, a pattern of switching between levers, or to the illumination of the lights were considered to be superstitious beliefs. Participants were either run alone or in pairs, and manipulation of the reinforcement schedule resulted in groups which were matched in probability of reinforcement, as well as in groups which were mismatched. Reinforcement schedule (VI 30” versus VI 60”) and competitive situation did not affect degree of superstitious belief, except when people were placed in a “winning” condition. However, Superstition was associated with participants’ belief in improved future performance and with participants’ perceived skill relative to their opponents. Results are discussed in terms of relationships between superstition, the illusion of control, and self-efficacy. Differences between experimentally-induced and commonly held superstitions are also discussed.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bleak, J.L. & Frederick, C.M. (1998). Superstitious behavior in sport: Levels of effectiveness and determinants of use in three collegiate sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 1–15.Google Scholar
- Dykstra, S.P. & Dollinger, S.J. (1990). Model competence and the illusion of control. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 235–238.Google Scholar
- Killeen, P.R. (1982). Learning as causal inference. In M.L. Commons and J.A. Nevin (eds.) Quantitative analyses of behavior: Discriminative properties of reinforcement schedules, (pp. 89–112), Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
- Matute, H. (1995). Human reactions to uncontrollable outcomes: Further evidence for superstitions rather than helplessness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 142–157.Google Scholar
- Rudski, J.M., Lischner, M.I. & Albert, L.M. (1999). Superstitious rule generation is affected by probability and type of outcome. The Psychological Record, 49, 245–260.Google Scholar
- Shanks, D.R., Pearson, S.M. & Dickinson, A. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality by human subjects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B(2), 139–159.Google Scholar
- Vyse, S.A. (1991). Behavioral variability and rule generation: General, restricted, and superstitious contingency statements. Psychological Record, 41, 487–506.Google Scholar
- Vyse, S.A. (1997). Believing in Magic. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wagner, M.W. & Morris, E.K. (1987). “Superstitious” behavior in children. The Psychological Record, 37, 471–488Google Scholar
- Wasserman, E.A. (1990). Detecting response-outcome relations: Towards an understanding of the causal texture of the environment. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, (pp. 27–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar