Effect of Superstition on the Perception of Control

Effect of intolerance on the intelligence of ControlThe Effect of Superstition on the Perception of Control over a Partially Un picturel equal SituationThe make of superstition on the an soulfulnesss behaviour has long been an area of interest in psychological research. Matute (1994, 1995) showed that an individuals response to uncontrollable circumstances is dictated by their direct of superstition. idiosyncratics with deplorable levels of superstitious belief tend to show a mitigate in cognitive capacity motivation, known as learned weakness (Abramson, Seligman, Teasdale, 1978 Hiroto Seligman, 1975). Whilst individuals with gamy levels of superstitious belief, on the other hand, do non step forward to develop this learned helpless, and it has been hypothesised superstitions provide an individual with an illusion of control (Matute 1994, 1995). Likewise, Dudley (1999) suggested that superstitious beliefs inhibit the learned helplessness effect by provided histrions with an external locale of control.Conversely, it has been suggested that there may be other factors which inhibit the learned helplessness effect, such as attribution style (Abramson et at., 1978). Seligman (as cited in Rudski, 2004), conducted an prove which showed that individual who formed particularly pessimistic attributions were susceptible to learned helplessness, in accompaniment to de exciteion. thatmore, many studies which investigate superstitious belief the illusion of control do so by utilising judgements of possibility from the participant. Contingency judgements are useful as they help to explain how the illusion of control develops in participants (Yarritu, Matute, Vadillo, 2013). Blanco, Matute Vadillo (2011) showed that a participants contingency judgement is dependant on their level of do. It has been suggested, that the this combination with this level of fulfill effect, and the high probability of a specific outcome, even when that outcome is uncontro llable, is what ca utilize the participant to develop the illusion of control (Yarritu et at., 2013).This have aims to build on pre-existent research by investigating whether an individuals perception of control over a partially uncontrollable situation is impacted by their level of superstitious belief. To do this, participants were asked to perform a contingency judgement task, the results of which were then compared in relation to their level of superstition. It is hypothesised, firstly, that individuals with high levels of superstition leave behind report having higher levels of control in the active condition, when compared to individuals with low superstition and secondly, that this effect will be less apparent in the resistless condition.MethodParticipantsThe participants were 996 undergrad psychology students from the University of New South Wales (mean age = 19.8 years 644 females 352 males). They participated in this experiment as part of their week 5 tutorial class. DesignThis study took the form of a quasi-experiment, as it assessed the participants perception of control over a partially controllable situation, in relation to their level of superstition. As such, the main(a) variable, high or low superstition, was determined by the Superstitious Beliefs Questionnaires (SBQ). Participants were carve up into the high superstition and low superstition groups based on a median split of the SBQ score. Based on the responses given, 492 participants (mean age = 19.7 years 320 females 172 males) were allocated to the high superstition group, whilst the remaining 504 participants (mean age = 19.9 years 324 females 180 males) formed the low superstition group. This experiment then tested two conditions, dubbed the active and the passive condition. The dependent variable, that is, the participants perception of control, was then measured, by self-report.MaterialsThe experiment was carried out on standard computer terminals in one of the universitys com puter labs. Inquisit software (Millisecond Software, Seattle) was used to present the experimental stimuli.In the active condition, participants were presented with a gay medulla graphic button. Participants could choose whether or not to press the button, and the light myeline would either light up, or remain off as a result of their decision. As a result, there were four categories of trial press with light, press without light, no-press with light and no-press without light. After 10 trials participants were asked to aim how much control they felt they had over the light bulb.In the passive condition, participants were only presented with a light bulb graphic, and aware that they would observe an imaginary friend, Bob, perform the task. As in the active condition, there were four categories of trial, and after 10 trials, participants were asked to rate the level of control they perceived Bob had over the light bulb.Participants correct the Superstitious Beliefs Questionnair e (SBQ), a demographic survey, and were asked if they were aware of the experiments design. The SBQ is a 26 level scale, designed to measure the level of superstitious belief in an individual. for each one item of the SBQ can be scored from 0 up to 4, making a maximum score of 104 points possible. Participants who scored less than or equal to 46 on the SBQ were situated in the low superstition group, whilst those who scored above 46 were placed in the high superstition group.ProcedureThe participants were asked to complete a contingency judgement task, in two conditions. Each condition consisted of four sets of 10 trials. In the active condition, participants were instructed to choose between pressing or not pressing a button on the sieve. This action or inactivity then lead to a light bulb on the screen being illuminated. After 10 trials of this, participants were asked to rate how much control they had over the light bulb, using a sliding scale displayed on the screen. In the passive condition, participants were informed that they would observe an imaginary friend performing the task. The participants were able to observe the outcome (whether the light turned on or remained off) and were informed of the imaginary friend action (pressing or not pressing the button). Participants were once more asked to rate how much control the imaginary friend had over the light bulb.ReferencesAbramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans Critique and reformulation. Journal of insane Psychology, 87(1), 4974.Blanco, F., Matute, H., Vadillo, M. A. (2011). Making the uncontrollable seem controllable The role of action in the illusion of control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(7), 12901304.Dudley, R. (1999). The effect of superstitious belief on performance following an unsolvable problem. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(6), 10571064Hiroto, D. S., Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Generality of learned h elplessness in man. Journal of Personality and friendly Psychology, 31(2), 311-327.Matute, H. (1994). Learned helplessness and superstitious behavior as opposite cause of uncontrollable reinforcement in humans. Learning and Motivation, 25(2), 216-232.Matute, H. (1995). Human reactions to uncontrollable outcomes Further evidence for superstitions rather than helplessness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 142157.Rudski, J. (2004). The illusion of control, superstitious belief, and optimism. Current Psychology, 22(4), 306-315.Yarritu, I. Matute, H. Vadillo, M.A. (2013). Illusion of control The role of personal involvement. Experimental Psychology, 61(1), 3847.