Superstitions Stifle Our Ability to Improve Ourselves

When uncertainty strikes, we often fall back on superstition and lucky trinkets to help us succeed. But when we reframe these situations as opportunities for learning, we stop relying on luck and start improving ourselves.

We all fall into superstitious habits at some time or another, whether it's to see our team win the big game or perhaps get that last snow day. But BPS has highlighted a recent study that delves deeper into our superstitious habits, particularly what triggers us to engage in them and how this thinking stifles our ability to improve ourselves.


Researchers Eric Hamerman and Carey Morewedge wrote about their investigation, published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology. Their research consisted of several experiments to see when participants would use luck to chase after a goal.

In one experiment, one group of participants was primed to chase after a grade in a hypothetical assignment and then given the option to use a lucky pen. The other group was told that learning the material was paramount, and for these individuals, the “lucky” pen held no attraction.

In a follow-up experiment, participants were given the option to re-choose avatars for a scientific assignment. Again, one group of participants was told to focus on doing as well as possible, while the other group was told to focus on learning the material. The goal-oriented participants tended to stick with the same avatar they'd been using when researchers told them they'd done well on a previous assignment. The learning-oriented participants tended to switch up their avatar to a scientist — fitting with the theme of the exercise.

What's more, researchers found that when a task was introduced as straightforward, participants were less drawn to superstition, and let go of their “lucky” avatar. Only participants that were told "some people intuitively see the right answers, while others do not" would try to seek Lady Luck's favor.

It's interesting to see how people abandon superstition when they "reframe their objectives as learning goals to focus on the process rather than the results." What this study teaches us is it's about rethinking situations and opportunities for growth — not just concentrating on getting the cheese at the end of the maze.

Read more at BPS.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Sponsored
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

What’s behind our appetite for self-destruction?

Is it "perverseness," the "death drive," or something else?

Photo by Brad Neathery on Unsplash
Mind & Brain

Each new year, people vow to put an end to self-destructive habits like smoking, overeating or overspending.

Keep reading Show less

Physicists puzzled by strange numbers that could explain reality

Eight-dimensional octonions may hold the clues to solve fundamental mysteries.

Surprising Science
  • Physicists discover complex numbers called octonions that work in 8 dimensions.
  • The numbers have been found linked to fundamental forces of reality.
  • Understanding octonions can lead to a new model of physics.
Keep reading Show less

Douglas Rushkoff – It’s not the technology’s fault

It's up to us humans to re-humanize our world. An economy that prioritizes growth and profits over humanity has led to digital platforms that "strip the topsoil" of human behavior, whole industries, and the planet, giving less and less back. And only we can save us.

Think Again Podcasts
  • It's an all-hands-on-deck moment in the arc of civilization.
  • Everyone has a choice: Do you want to try to earn enough money to insulate yourself from the world you're creating— or do you want to make the world a place you don't have to insulate yourself from?
Keep reading Show less