Current Psychology

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 68–84 | Cite as

Competition, superstition and the illusion of control

Article

Abstract

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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
  2. Breen, R.B. & Frank, M.L. (1993). The effects of statistical fluctuations and perceived status of a competitor on the illusion of control in experienced gamblers. Jouranl of Gambling Studies, 9, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Catania, A.C. & Cutts, D. (1963). Experimental control of superstitious responding in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 203–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dykstra, S.P. & Dollinger, S.J. (1990). Model competence and the illusion of control. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 235–238.Google Scholar
  5. Gollwitzer, P.M. & Kinney, R.F. (1989). Effect of deliberative and implemental mind-sets on illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 531–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Killeen, P.R. (1977). Superstition: A matter of bias, not detectability. Science, 199, 88–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Langer, EJ. (1975). The Illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Matute, H. (1994). Learned helplessness and superstitious behavior as opposite effects of uncontrollable reinforcement in humans. Learning and Motivation, 25, 216–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Morse, W.H. & Skinner, B.F. (1957). A second type of superstition in the pigeon. American Journal of Psychology, 70, 308–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ono, K. (1987). Superstitious behavior in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 261–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Shanks, D.R. (1993). Human instrumental learning: A critical review of data and theory. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 319.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Skinner, B.F. (1948). Superstition in the Pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Staddon, J.E.R. & Simmelhag, V.L. (1971). The “superstition” experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior. Psychological Review, 78, 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Starr, B.C. & Staddon, J.E.R. (1982). Sensory superstition on multiple interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 267–280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thompson, S.C., Armstrong, W. & Thomas, C. (1998). Illusions of control, underestimations, and accuracy: A control heuristic explanation. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 143–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tobacyk, J. J. & Milford, G. (1983). Belief in paranormal phenomena: Assessment instrument development and implications for personality functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1029–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tobacyk, J.J. & Shrader, D. (1991). Superstition and self-efficacy. Psychological Reports, 68, 1387–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vyse, S.A. (1991). Behavioral variability and rule generation: General, restricted, and superstitious contingency statements. Psychological Record, 41, 487–506.Google Scholar
  23. Vyse, S.A. (1997). Believing in Magic. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Wagner, M.W. & Morris, E.K. (1987). “Superstitious” behavior in children. The Psychological Record, 37, 471–488Google Scholar
  25. Wagner, M.W. & Ratzeberg, F.H. (1987). Hypnotic susceptibility and paranormal belief. Psychological Reports, 60, 1069–1070.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Wasserman, E.A. & Neunaber, D.J. (1986). College students’ responding to and rating of contingency relations: The role of temporal contiguity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 15–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Muhlenberg CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations