Keep your fingers crossed! The influence of superstition on subsequent task performance and its mediating mechanism

Superstitious thoughts or behaviors have been demonstrated to occur frequently and persistently in our current population. Typically, they are held or performed in the context of an important performance task with the aim to gain good luck or prevent bad luck. However, to date, little is known about the reason for the maintenance of this seemingly irrational phenomenon, its psychological functions, or its behavioral consequences. The current analysis suggests that superstitions exert a causal influence on subsequent task performance. In particular, I contend that superstitions associated with the concept of good luck that are activated prior to a performance task enhance performance. Furthermore, I argue that this influence is explained by the underlying mechanism of increased levels of perceived task-specific self-efficacy beliefs. Results of one explorative analysis and 5 experimental studies support these assumptions. Specifically, Study 1 demonstrates the widespread prevalence of superstitions within the present population of undergraduate students at the University of Cologne and explores several specific superstitions that appear to be particularly common. In each of the subsequent studies, these common superstitions such as �lucky charms�, �keeping fingers crossed�, or the plain superstitious constructs of good or bad luck are manipulated between participants prior to various motor or cognitive performance tasks using manifold empirical methods. Results of Studies 2 through 4 demonstrate that performance in a golf-putting task or a motor dexterity game indeed is enhanced subsequent to the implementation of a good luck superstition, compared to a bad luck superstition or no superstition at all. Studies 5 and 6 replicate the effect of superstition on superior performance in cognitive tasks such as a Tetris-game and a Memory-game. Additionally, the results of these latter studies provide empirical evidence for the notion of the mediating function of self-efficacy beliefs on the observed effect of superstition on performance. In this regard, the reported findings uniquely contribute to our understanding of superstitions and their effect on psychological as well as behavioral consequences. The present findings are in line with previous research on self-efficacy and performance factors in general. At the same time, these findings suggest new questions for future research on the subject of superstitions. Possible applications to the athletic or the educational field are discussed

Fast Similarities:Efficiency Advantages of Similarity-Focused Comparisons

People constantly have to make efficient use of their limited cognitive resources. Recently, T. Mussweiler and K. Epstude (2009) demonstrated that comparative thinking simplifies information processing and increases the efficiency of judgment. However, there are different types of comparative thinking. While comparing 2 entities, people may focus on either similarities or dissimilarities between target and standard. The authors propose that these 2 comparative thinking styles differ in their efficiency. Specifically, the authors hypothesize that comparisons with a focus on similarities lead to more focused information processing and faster judgments than comparisons with a dissimilarity focus. In line with these hypotheses, the authors demonstrate that participants are indeed faster at judging the similarity of 2 stimuli (Study 1) and that they search for less target information in a comparative judgment task (Study 2) if they focus on similarities rather than dissimilarities. Focusing on similarities thus appears to be the more efficient comparative thinking style

Fast Similarities: Efficiency Advantages of Similarity-Focused Comparisons

People constantly have to make efficient use of their limited cognitive resources. Recently, T. Mussweiler and K. Epstude (2009) demonstrated that comparative thinking simplifies information processing and increases the efficiency of judgment. However, there are different types of comparative thinking. While comparing 2 entities, people may focus on either similarities or dissimilarities between target and standard. The authors propose that these 2 comparative thinking styles differ in their efficiency. Specifically, the authors hypothesize that comparisons with a focus on similarities lead to more focused information processing and faster judgments than comparisons with a dissimilarity focus. In line with these hypotheses, the authors demonstrate that participants are indeed faster at judging the similarity of 2 stimuli (Study 1) and that they search for less target information in a comparative judgment task (Study 2) if they focus on similarities rather than dissimilarities. Focusing on similarities thus appears to be the more efficient comparative thinking style

The bidirectional links between decision-making, perception and action

In different scientific disciplines, decision making is studied by examining how options are perceived or generated in isolated situations. In this chapter we explore the benefits of an interdisciplinary approach to understanding option perception within human behavior. As a consequence of the contributions from different disciplines, we present a framework that describes the bidirectional links between decision making, perception, and action. We will argue that, given their interdependency, the study of decision making profits greatly from a more integrated view of the situations it studies. The framework also illustrates how constraints may influence these bidirectional links. Finally, we use this framework to convey new ideas for experimental paradigms, data interpretation, and applications. © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved