Superstitious? Why Even Rational People Hate to Tempt Fate
Put your rational hat on, if you will, and consider these questions:
- Will leaving your umbrella at home make it more likely to rain?
- Can simply pointing out an athlete's run of success, 'jinx' them?
- Does swapping your lottery ticket make you less likely to win the jackpot?
My head gives me the same answer to all these questions: no. I don't believe in fate so it's not possible to tempt it. And yet I get a muffled message - call it instinct or call it superstition - from the depths of my mind about how deeply I would regret it if it did actually rain, my team lost or my (old) ticket won the lottery. It would be as though I had tempted the gods and been punished for my arrogance.
Psychologists Jane Risen and Thomas Gilovich were intrigued by just how many otherwise rational people seem to hold superstitious beliefs, and what causes them. In their new research, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, they wanted to find out if people really do believe that negative outcomes tend to follow actions that tempt fate. And, if so, what psychological processes are responsible for this strange superstition. Could it be that both rationality and instinct have some role to play?
Do people believe they shouldn't tempt fate?
First Risen and Gilovich wanted to see whether a (presumably) reasonably intelligent bunch of Cornell University students thought tempting fate was bad luck. Sixty-two students were approached randomly on campus and told about a scenario where a fictional 'Jon' had applied to Stanford University. Jon's mother, being confident in his ability, sends him a Stanford t-shirt. Participants then read either one of these two endings to the story:
- Jon wears it while he's waiting for the decision from Stanford, thereby tempting fate (gods are angered).
- Jon stuffs the t-shirt in the drawer, not tempting fate (gods are mollified).
Participants were asked to rate his chances of being offered a place on a scale of 1 to 10. People told he'd stuffed the t-shirt in the drawer responded that his chances were an average of 6 out of 10 - seems reasonable given there's little other information provided. But when Jon tempted fate people only rated his chances at 5 out of 10, a full point lower.
On average, then, this sample of Cornell University students believed tempting fate can increase the chances of a negative outcome. This is surprising given that these students probably consider themselves intelligent and rational human beings.
Nevertheless a second experiment backed up this finding with a further 120 students. It also tested an alternative explanation for the results: that participants were not reporting what they thought would happen, but what they wanted to happen. No support was found for this alternative explanation suggesting participants really were displaying superstitious attitudes.
Are negative outcomes more accessible?
Next Risen and Gilovich wanted to find out the reason for people's superstitious behaviour. They thought it might be because negative outcomes come to mind very easily.
To test this a further 211 participants were shown the start of 12 stories in some of which people tempted fate, and in others they didn't. They were then shown the ending of these stories and asked to indicate as quickly as possible whether it was 'logical'. Half of the stories were not logical - for example the main character changed or the topic was completely different - while the other half were logical.
Whether or not the endings were logical, though, was a bit of a red herring for the participants. The experimenters weren't so much interested in people getting the answer right, but in how quickly they did so. Risen and Gilovich thought that if negative outcomes were more accessible when people tempted fate, then participants should correctly respond more quickly to those scenarios in which negative outcomes did actually follow tempting fate.
And that's exactly what they found. When people saw the outcome which didn't 'punish' the characters in the story for tempting fate, they were slower to respond by almost half a second. This suggested the negative outcome was more accessible so that participants were quicker to respond when the characters had tempted fate.
A further study confirmed that there was a causal link between people thinking negative outcomes were more likely and their accessibility.
A battle between rationality and intuition
In many ways these are strange findings. In an age when many of us claim to be rational and free of superstition, it seems we still have some quite mysterious and irrational beliefs about how the universe works. This naturally raises the question of what is going on here.
So, in a final study the experimenters examined the psychological process that might be responsible for this connection between tempting fate and negative outcomes. They hypothesised that the connection is due to automatic, associative processes which occur outside of conscious awareness. These instinctually create the link between tempting fate and negative outcomes.
To test this idea they carried out an experiment similar to those before. This time, though, in some conditions participants were placed under 'cognitive load' (i.e. they were given something else effortful to do at the same time). The results showed that when under cognitive load people were even more likely to behave as though tempting fate leads to negative outcomes.
The experimenters argue that they successfully disrupted the rational, deliberate thinking processes which were trying to tell participants that tempting fate is superstitious rubbish. Consequently people were more likely to rely on their intuition - but it's these fast automatic processes which tend to conjure up negative visions of the future, make people superstitious. In effect the extra task they were given limited their ability to think rationally and override their superstitious instincts.
Cognitive processing: fast versus slow
This explanation of the roots of superstition is built on the now popular idea in psychology that many cognitive processes run at two levels:
- Associative processing: a fast, parallel processing mode characterised by spreading activation based on memory. This type of processing occurs outside focal awareness.
- Reasoning: a slow, serial type of processing that occurs within focal awareness and requires an active effort.
Our superstitions ('don't tempt fate!') come from the fast, associative, parallel processing part of the mind, while our rational, logical side comes from the (relatively) slow, deliberate processing ('come on, there's no such thing as fate!').
Rationally we know it is no more likely to rain if we don't take our umbrella, but our mind can't help reminding us how bad we'll feel if we tempt fate.
Roots of superstition
What this research demonstrates beautifully is how easy it is for superstitions like tempting fate to be formed. We absorb superstitions from around us, especially vigilant for their occurrence and reinforced by any events that fit the pattern, conveniently forgetting events that don't fit. Then the fast, automatic processes of our minds automatically anticipate the regret we might feel in the future, trapping us in a reinforcing loop.
Risen and Gilovich point to the importance of culture in this process: our shared cultural imagination provides a major source of superstitions about tempting fate. But we also each have a private menagerie of superstitions, sometimes manufactured from only the tiniest fragments of personal experience.
Whatever their original source, all manner of negative events can find fertile breeding ground in our already suspicious minds. This can give even the most rational person pause for thought while the mind's rational systems work to overcome its intuitive superstition.
Given this model it's a miracle that human societies have escaped as far as they have from the age of superstition. Or perhaps we haven't come that far at all and our age-old superstitions are now just wrapped in cloaks of rationality?
Do you tempt fate?
Risen and Gilovich's study finds that being superstitious is part of being human. It seems that we can't help it, even if it only breaks through our rationality for an instant.
Do you tempt fate? I'd love to hear your thoughts, please do comment below...
» This is part of a series on the psychology of the everyday.
[Image credit: jf-sebastian]
Join 21938 readers
No wonder they sell so many extended warranties!
Perhaps the feeling is not so much to do with actual superstition as to do with making a conscious decision that may have ill effects, and the feeling of regret at having decided wrongly.
Example: If I go out in the morning and it doesn't even occur to me to take an umbrella, and I get rained on, it's unfortunate. If in the morning I had actually thought about whether to take the umbrella or not, and I get rained on, I am annoyed because it is 'my own fault' that I got wet. It's not a question of tempting fate by deciding not to carry an umbrella, it's the fact of thinking about it and making a conscious decision.
Does that make any sense? It's difficult to explain! Once you have had the thought 'should I open my umbrella indoors?', 'should I throw some of that salt?', or 'should I touch wood?', you are effectively taking responsibility for the consequences of your choice, and will blame yourself if it goes wrong.
Another example might be 'should I pick one of these religions and worship a deity?' (because if I don't, or pick the wrong one, I've only got myself to blame when I find out there's an afterlife and end up being punished in it).
I like to ride bikes. If I look out the window and it's raining, I'm not likely to hop on my bike and go for a ride. Despite the fact that I have fenders and rain gear, it seems like it's tempting fate. Roads are slippery, wet metal like manhole cover and bridge decks can be treacherous, and painted lines on the road can cause you to spill. Visibility is lower, which means you can't see road hazards as well and drivers can't see you as well.
But if I get caught in the rain don't duck into a building or hide under cover until the rain passes, I just keep going. If I'm out there, what I just said above doesn't seem to apply.
Is it so irrational to believe in fate? Well, maybe, but I still do, and for more than a split second! Anyone with some kind of faith or spiritual belief will feel that there's more to the world than meets the eye, unseen forces, and if not that, that our attitudes make a real difference in our lives- our feelings can manifest themselves. Superstition is not all negative, either- belief in fate is a comfort to me, an assurance that I'm on the right path and things will work out. That being said, I don't leave it all up to the invisible hands- you have to take charge to affect your own fortune, and every little bit helps! So that is the source my superstitions, although I tend to be on the more optimistic side... I'd wear the t-shirt before I got in.
Most of these things seem harmless enough on the surface. The problem is when people open the door, even a crack, to belief and superstition, the consequences seldom remain benign.
Ultimately it allows for doing god’s will by murdering people.
If it rains and I don't have an umbrella, I notice. If it doesn't rain and I have an umbrella, I don't.
Having said that a superstition which started as something of a joke between my friends and me (i.e. not walking over three drains in a row) has become something that I just don't do. And something which all of my new friends I have since made at uni also don't do. We know nothing bad will happen. But we still do it (and if we do, we spin around three times and say toast.) Interesting, if pointless.
I imagine that chain emails utilize this tendency. Pass this on in the next 42.7 seconds to 23 friends or you will be struck by lightning instantly. It may not happen but you'd feel pretty stupid if you ignored the warning and it did happen, particularly if disaster could've been avoided as easily as hidding the send all button. It also requires a quick response so there is no time to reason out 'why would Bill Gates want to give me $100 for forwarding this badly spelt message?'.
I tempt fate all the time much to the horror of those around me. Making positive commments about a team near the end of a sporting event. Opening an umbrella indoors. Walking under ladders. And so on.
It seems to me that almost everyone I know has some kind of irrational beliefs along these lines.
I think Its much more about control, or indeed lack of it!
Many people just cannot face the idea of a world that relies in the main, on luck, chance, probability etc. and try to put some form of control in place, and then reason with themselves about why they did it i.e. If I dont take this umbrella, it is sure to rain, I dont want it to rain so I'll take the umbrella, but even if it does now rain, I have the umbrella!!
Maybe people should be encouraged to embrace the concept of absolute uncertainty and see the great joy (and freedom) that lies within that idea.
Steve.
@teajay
After taking a statistics course, I'll never buy an extended warranty again.
The test looking at people's response times to whether or not the ending made sense when a positive outcome came after "tempting fate" seems like it tests their literary prowess as much as their belief in fate. Its a common saying that if there is a gun on the wall in act 1, it will be shot in act 3. If a story mentions a character thinking about taking an umbrella and deciding not to, then it doesn't rain, the scene of deciding doesn't make sense because it serves no purpose.
Funny how it's our need for reason (to partition the world into understandable boxes) that leads to unreason and superstition.
I don't actually own a working umbrella. There is a dead one which won't open in the back of the car thats been there for about 5 years.. (I did borrow one for my last job interview when it was raining)
I prefer to remain optimistic that a convenient break in the clouds will occur and its suprising how many times it does. And if not most people will be too busy scurrying round under their umbrellas to see me jumping in the puddles (or often they actually offer to share and you get to meet people)
I think its a little more complex in real life than the situations above suggest. For example if you have minimal car insurance this could influence your behaviour driving to become more risk averse quite rationally (or alternatively if you forgot to renew and are on your way to get new insurance you may be more paranoid and create and accident or both)
And reminding an athlete of their record could influence their behaviour either positively (I'm on a roll) or negatively (now I am jinxed) - both superstitions really
One way to "fool yourself" is to convince yourself that supposedly "unlucky" things are lucky for you for a certain period of time, say a year. During this time rejoice in breaking mirrors, celebrate when cats cross your path, walk under ladders again and again and so forth. The end result of this transaction is that the number of "unlucky" things for you keep decreasing. I've followed this protocol and I swear, nothing is unlucky for me anymore.
ok, i believe myself to be of at least moderate intelligence however, my belief is that believe that these are true because they are, or rather, we make them to be. no one remembers leaving their umbrella home when it is sunny, however the one day they don't have it with them, it rains. this is not tempting fate this is patterns. the pattern is "it hasn't rained therefor i don't need my umbrella." however science proves that due to natures cyclic nature it WILL eventually rain, and therefor the longer we go without it the more likely it is which coincides with the idea of the longer it goes without rain the more likely we are to leave the umbrella. we trick ourselves into believing that it is caused because of the action even though it causes the action. however after a long time of working in the fast food industry i still believe in jinxing oneself and knocking on wood, even though i know they're false, I've never found it hurts.