Understanding, defining and measuring the trait of superstition.

Superstitious beliefs influence a wide range of decisions and activities in the everyday life. Yet, superstition has received little attention in the consumer behaviour literature, which is surprising since superstitious behaviours are found in numerous related domains, such as sports (Schippers & Lange, 2006), gambling or travelling. In the psychological and sociological literature, there is no consensus regarding the definition and measure of superstition (Mowen & Carlson, 2003). For some authors, superstition includes all types of paranormal beliefs (i.e. religion, astrology…) which we think are not relevant for superstition construct. Other authors have a very narrow definition of superstition restricting it to popular beliefs such as (black cats bring bad luck; if you break a mirror, you will have bad luck; the number 13 is unlucky”). The aim of this research is threefold: (1) to better define the superstition construct (2) to develop a scale that measures superstition and (3) to discuss the interest of superstition for marketing. An exploratory qualitative study allowed us to define superstition as “beliefs and/or practices that have no religious nor scientific foundations and which lead people to think that certain facts (external events or one’s own actions), or objects can bring good or bad luck, or be signs announcing positive or negative consequences”. Three quantitative data collections helped us develop a scale that contains 27 items and 5 dimensions (good fortune popular beliefs a = 0,84 ; misfortune popular beliefs a = 0,85 ; belief in destiny a = 0,83 ; magical thinking a = 0,86 ; defensive pessimism a = 0,67). Finally, the article concludes on future research and how the superstition construct could help explain irrational decision making.Consumer behavior; Superstition; marketing; échelle de mesure;

Steady State Learning and the Code of Hammurabi

The code of Hammurabi specified a “trial by surviving in the river” as a way of deciding whether an accusation was true. This system is puzzling for two reasons. First, it is based on a superstition: We do not believe that the guilty are any more likely to drown than the innocent. Second, if people can be easily persuaded to hold a superstitious belief, why such an elaborate mechanism? Why not simply assert that those who are guilty will be struck dead by lightning? We attack these puzzles from the perspective of the theory of learning in games. We give a partial characterization of patiently stable outcomes that arise as the limit of steady states with rational learning as players become more patient. These “subgame-confirmed Nash equilibria” have self-confirming beliefs at certain information sets reachable by a single deviation. We analyze this refinement and use it as a tool to study the broader issue of the survival of superstition. According to this theory Hammurabi had it exactly right: his law uses the greatest amount of superstition consistent with patient rational learning.

Superstition and Rational Learning

We argue that some but not all superstitions can persist when learning is rational and players are patient, and illustrate our argument with an example inspired by the code of Hammurabi. The code specified an “appeal by surviving in the river” as a way of deciding whether an accusation was true, so it seems to have relied on the superstition that the guilty are more likely to drown than the innocent. If people can be easily persuaded to hold this superstitious belief, why not the superstitious belief that the guilty will be struck dead by lightning? We argue that the former can persist but the latter cannot by giving a partial characterization of the outcomes that arise as the limit of steady states with rational learning as players become more patient. These “subgame-confirmed Nash equilibria” have self-confirming beliefs at information sets reachable by a single deviation. According to this theory a mechanism that uses superstitions two or more steps off the equilibrium path, such as “appeal by surviving in the river,” is more likely to persist than a superstition where the false beliefs are only one step off of the equilibrium path.

On the Resilience of Superstition

The concept of “belief” has always been taken seriously by anthropologists and philosophers; nevertheless, it has led to a long series of perplexities. To the contrary, the concept of “superstition” has simply been discarded as ethnocentric. The first has been pushed aside for its logical uncertainty; the second for its ethical uncertainty. Yet, the two concepts seem to be surprisingly resilient in face of the continued exercise of anthropological questioning. Furthermore, their capacity for survival appears to be connected precisely to that which connects them: superstition is unfounded belief but the issue of the foundation of belief is at the centre of the anthropological and philosophical perplexities that have haunted the concept of belief. In this paper I examine two examples – one of them a short story by Joseph Conrad – in order to show that today we can look differently at what superstition may be

Market Share Superstition (Letter)

Anterasian et al. (1996) present a one-sided argument that the use of market share as an objective is detrimental. Because two-sided arguments are persuasive for intelligent audiences, one might wonder why they chose a one-sided approach. Having spent the past decade working on this topic, I conclude that the reason is simple: There is no contradictory evidence. Substantial and growing evidence suggests that market share objectives harm the performance of firms. Given more space, the authors could have provided even more evidence. For example, game theory studies show that competitive objectives are harmful to oneself.market share, superstition

Pengujian Luck Priming Dan Belief in Superstitions Dalam Pembentukan Kesediaan Membeli Kembali Produk Setelah Terjadi Kegagalan Produk

This study explain how the use of luck priming in print advertising which occurred in Indonesia recently has an effect on how consumer\u27s with believe insuperstition develops their product evaluation, especially when they are experiencing product failure. We expand previous study on the relationship of consumer\u27s believe in superstition and product failure by further examining their repurchase intention of the product using 2x2 factorial experimental design. The findings confirmed that luck priming and belief in superstition have significant influence on consumer\u27s satisfaction, which shown as greater consumer\u27s dissatisfaction on product with luck priming for those with weak belief in superstition. However, our hypotheses in the influence of luck priming and belief in superstition on repurchase intention was also statistically supported. This evidence reinforce previous studies on belief in superstition as a chronic belief which stays in mind of a consumer

A study of superstitious beliefs among bingo players

This study was conducted in order to examine the beliefs players have regarding superstition and luck and how these beliefs are related to their gambling behaviour. A self-completion questionnaire was devised and the study was carried out in a large bingo hall in Nottingham, over four nights. 412 “volunteer” bingo players completed the questionnaires. Significant relationships were found in many areas. Many players reported beliefs in luck and superstition; however, a greater percentage of players reported having “everyday” superstitious beliefs, rather than those concerned with bingo