Journal article
Superstition predicts perception of illusory control
- Abstract:
- Superstitions are common, yet we have little understanding of the cognitive mechanisms that bring them about. This study used a laboratory‐based analogue for superstitious beliefs that involved people monitoring the relationship between undertaking an action (pressing a button) and an outcome occurring (a light illuminating). The task was arranged such that there was no objective contingency between pressing the button and the light illuminating – the light was just as likely to illuminate whether the button was pressed or not. Nevertheless, most people rated the causal relationship between the button press and the light illuminating to be moderately positive, demonstrating an illusion of causality. This study found that the magnitude of this illusion was predicted by people's level of endorsement of common superstitious beliefs (measured using a novel Superstitious Beliefs Questionnaire), but was not associated with mood variables or their self‐rated locus of control. This observation is consistent with a more general individual difference or bias to overweight conjunctive events over disjunctive events during causal reasoning in those with a propensity for superstitious beliefs.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Accepted manuscript, pdf, 1.4MB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.1111/bjop.12344
Authors
- Publisher:
- Wiley
- Journal:
- British Journal of Psychology More from this journal
- Volume:
- 110
- Issue:
- 3
- Pages:
- 499-518
- Publication date:
- 2018-08-24
- Acceptance date:
- 2018-07-31
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
2044-8295
- ISSN:
-
0007-1269
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
pubs:891797
- UUID:
-
uuid:460038d5-1e53-47c2-941b-52dce3ef8a03
- Local pid:
-
pubs:891797
- Source identifiers:
-
891797
- Deposit date:
-
2018-10-15
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- British Psychological Society
- Copyright date:
- 2018
- Notes:
- Copyright © 2018 The British Psychological Society. This is the accepted manuscript version of the article. The final version is available online from Wiley at: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12344
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record