Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Superstitious Rule Generation is Affected by Probability and Type of Outcome

  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One hundred and fifty participants played a computer task in which pOints were either gained (reinforcement) or lost (punishment) randomly on 75%, 50%, or 25% of trials. Despite the noncontingent nature of the task, participants frequently suggested superstitious rules by which points were either gained or lost. Rules were more likely to be suggested and supported higher confidence ratings under conditions of maximal reinforcement or minimal punishment, and participants gaining points tended to express more rules than did those losing points. Superstitious rule generation was in no way related to a person’s locus of control, as measured by Rotter’s Internal-External Scale. Participants losing points were more accurate in keeping track of their total number of points than were participants gaining points. Results are discussed in terms of reinforcement and punishment’s effects on the stimulus control of rule-governed behavior, and comparisons are drawn with the illusion of control and learned helplessness literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ALLOY, L. B., & ABRAMSON, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 441–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BARON, R. A., & BYRNE, D. (1991). Social psychology: Understanding human interaction (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • BENASSI, V. A., SWEENY, P. D., & DREVNO, G. E. (1979). Mind over matter: Perceived success at psychokinesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1377–1386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BARON, A., & GAUZIO, M. (1983). Instructional control and human operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 33, 495–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • BINER, P. M., ANGLE, S. T., PARK, J. H., MELLINGER, A. E., & BARBER, B. C. (1995). Need and illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 899–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • CATANIA, A. C. (1992). Learning (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • CERUTTI, D. T. (1991). Discriminative versus reinforcing properties of schedules as determinants of schedule insensitivity in humans. The Psychological Record, 41, 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GALIZIO, M. (1979). Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: Instructional control of human loss avoidance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 53–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • HAYES, S. C., BROWNSTEIN, A. J., HAAS, J. R., & GREENWAY, D. E. (1986). Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rulegoverned from schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 137–1 47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • HAYES, S. C., BROWNSTEIN, A. J., ZETTLE, R. D., ROSENFARB, I., & KORN, Z. (1986a). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237–256.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • HELTZER, R. A., & VYSE, S. A. (1994). Intermittent consequences and problem solving: The experimental control of “superstitious” beliefs. The Psychological Record, 44, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JACKSON, H. J., & MOLLOY, G. N. (1983). Tangible self-consequation and arithmetical problem-solving: An exploratory comparison of four strategies. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 471–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LANGER, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MAIER, S. F., & SELIGMAN, M. E. P. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105, 3–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MARSH, H. W., & RICHARDS, G. E. (1988). The Rotter locus of control scale: The comparison of alternative response formats and implications for reliability, validity, and dimensionality. Journal of Research in Personality, 20(4), 509–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MATUTE, H. (1994). Learned helplessness and superstitious behavior as opposite effects of uncontrollable reinforcement in humans. Learning and Motivation, 25, 216–232.

    Article  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 

  • MORSE, W. H., & SKINNER, B. F. (1957). A second type of superstition in the pigeon. American Journal of Psychology, 70, 308–311.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MYERS, D. G. (1995). Psychology (4th ed.) New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • NEWMAN, B., BUFFINGTON, D. M., & HEMMES, N. S. (1995). The effects of schedules of reinforcement on instruction following. The Psychological Record, 45, 463–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NINNESS, H. A., & NINNESS, S. K. (1998). Superstitious math performance: Interactions between rules and scheduled contingencies. The Psychological Record, 48, 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • ONO, K. (1987). Superstitious behavior in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 261–271.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • OVERMIER, J. B., & SELIGMAN, M. E. P. (1967). Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance learning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 63, 28–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • PETERSON, C. C. (1978). Locus of control and belief in self-oriented superstitions. Journal of Social Psychology, 105(2), 305–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ROTTER, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, Whole No. 609.

  • SHIMOFF, A. E., CATANIA, A. C., & MATTHEWS, B. A. (1981). Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental AnalYSis of Behavior, 36, 207–220.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • SKINNER, B. F. (1948). Superstition in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168–172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • STEGMAN, R. L., & MCREYNOLDS, W. T. (1978). “Learned Helplessness,” “Learned Hopefulness,” and “Learned Obsessiveness”: Effects of varying contingencies on escape responding. Psychological Reports, 43, 795–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • TENNEN, H., & SHARPE, J. P. (1983). Control orientation and the illusion of control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 369–374.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • THOMPSON, S. C., ARMSTRONG, W., & THOMAS, C. (1998). Illusions of control, underestimations, and accuracy: A control heuristic explanation. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 143–161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • TOBACYK, J. J., NAGOT, E., & MILLER, M. (1988). Paranormal beliefs and locus of control: A multidimensional examination. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(2), 241–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TOBACYK, J. J., & TOBACYK, Z. S. (1992). Comparisons of belief-based personality constructs in Polish and American university students: Paranormal beliefs, locus of control, irrational beliefs, and social interests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23(3), 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VICTOR, J. C. (1971). Review of the internal-external construct as a personality variable. Psychological Reports, 28(2), 619–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VYSE, S. A. (1991). Behavioral variability and rule generation: General, restricted, and superstitious contingency statements. The 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, 471–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WRIGHT, J. C. (1962). Consistency and complexity of response sequences as a function of schedules of noncontingent reward. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 601–609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Muhlenberg College, 2400 Chew Street, Allentown, PA, 18104, USA

    Jeffrey M. Rudski, Mark I. Lischner & Lori M. Albert

Authors
  1. Jeffrey M. Rudski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark I. Lischner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lori M. Albert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey M. Rudski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rudski, J.M., Lischner, M.I. & Albert, L.M. Superstitious Rule Generation is Affected by Probability and Type of Outcome. Psychol Rec 49, 245–260 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395319

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395319

Search

Navigation