How do superstitions affect our psychology and well-being?
Today is Friday the 13th, and vast numbers of people across the world will avoid going about their usual business because they fear this day will bring them "bad luck." In this Spotlight feature, we examine the psychological mechanisms behind superstitious thinking.
Speaking of business, not only do airlines and airports routinely skip a 13th aisle or the 13th gate, but more than 80% of high-rise buildings all over the world lack a 13th floor. Also, some hotels and hospitals often choose not to have a room with the number 13.
Billions of people in the United States and across the world are superstitious. A quarter of adults in the U.S. consider themselves to be so, and recent trends reveal that younger people are more superstitious than older adults. In fact, 70% of U.S. students rely on good luck charms for better academic performance.
Millions of people in China think the color red or the number 8 will bring them wealth and happiness, while a study of consumers in Taiwan showed that shoppers tend to pay more money for fewer items in a package as long as the number of items in the package represents a "luckier" number
Most of us know that these beliefs are irrational, but we still abide by them. Why do we do it? Do superstitions fulfill an important psychological role, and if so, what is it? What are some of the mechanisms that explain these irrational beliefs, and how do superstitions affect our mental well-being?
Why do we believe the unbelievable?
The fascinating thing about superstitions is that we often believe in them despite knowing, on some level, that they can't be true. Why do we do this?
Jane Risen, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago Booth in Illinois and a member of the American Psychological Society, has used the so-called dual process model of cognition to explain our belief in superstitions.
According to Risen (and other renowned authors, such as Daniel Kahneman), humans can think both "fast" and "slow." The former mode of thinking is snappy and intuitive, while the latter is more rational, and its main job is to override the intuitive judgment when it finds errors.
The dual thinking model is an established one, but in the case of superstitions, Risen suggests that the model should undergo refinements. The researcher notes that error detection does not automatically involve error correction. In other words, people can realize that their belief is wrong but still act on it.
The "thinking fast and slow" model "must allow for the possibility that people can recognize — in the moment — that their belief does not make sense, but act on it nevertheless," writes the author. "People can detect an error, but choose not to correct it, a process I refer to as acquiescence," she continues.
But superstitions are not merely a manifestation of our flawed cognition. Sometimes superstitions offer a host of benefits.
