If you've read Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince you shouldn't be surprised by the findings of an upcoming research paper in the journal Psychological Science. This is not because the research results are magic (or magical), but rather because the finding has an uncanny resemblance to a particular scene in the sixth book of the HP series:
In the scene I am referring to, the world's favorite sorcerer slyly makes his friend believe that he has just consumed, and now stands under the influence of a so called good luck potion. Believing this, the beguiled friend feels so confident in his infallible good fortune, that he subsequently goes out and performs miraculously well in his schools Quidditch tournament [Hey! If Harry Potter's in the title of the blog post, don't be all annoyed about finding Harry Potter lingo in the text :-) ].
The effect described in the fantabulous J.K. Rowling story is a typical Placebo type effect, where increasing someone's belief in their self-efficacy truly enhances their performance.
An upcoming study, in relation to this effect, takes a close look at whether and how common superstitious beliefs influence performance on a number of physical and cognitive tasks:
Experiment 1:
28 students were asked to participate in a ten-trial putting task. As the experimenter handed students a ball, she told some of them "Here is your ball. So far it has turned out to be a lucky ball", while others were simply informed that "This is the ball everyone has used so far".
The group playing with the supposedly lucky ball managed to sink the ball an average of 6.42 times (SD = 1.88) compared to 4.75 in the neutral condition; a statistically significant effect.
Experiment 2:
51 German female students were invited to perform a motor-dexterity task. They were divided into three conditions, one of which was given the starting signal "I press the thumbs for you" (which in Germany means your wishing another person good luck). The other two conditions included one in which participants were simply given a "go" signal, and another in which the word "thumbs" in the superstition condition was replaced by the neutral word "watch"; i.e. the researchers said "I press the watch for you" (which even in German seems an odd thing to say).
The average time participants took for each of the conditions was taken as the performance measure, and expectedly those who were primed with the good luck superstition performed significantly faster than the other participants (192 seconds, vs 320 seconds and 342 seconds respectively).
It should be fairly obvious, even without listing similar experiments by other researchers, that this type of superstition priming influences performance. The question now becomes how - by which mechanisms - the effect is brought about.
Experiment 3:
For this - really smart - experiment, 41 participants were recruited to come to the lab with their personal lucky charm (which means if you don't have a lucky charm, you weren't allowed to participate, and which raises a couple of questions regarding generalizability...).
Supposedly the recruits were participating in two unrelated experiments; the first of which required them to answer a number of questions about their personal lucky charm. The lucky charm was then taken from them to be photographed in a separate room. Here's where the "real" experiment begins:
A random subgroup of participants were handed back their charms after the supposed photo session, while the other half was told that there were camera problems and that their charms would be given back to them after the experiment; thus dividing the participant-pool into a "absence" and a "presence" condition.
Both groups were then asked to answer a number of questions regarding perceived self-efficacy/confidence regarding an upcoming memory task. Then each person completed a simple memory task of matching items in a fashion not unlike the beloved children's game.
By using a combined time and success measure on the memory task, the researchers found that participants who were with their lucky charms performed significantly better than those without. Additionally, as hypothesized, those who were in possession of their lucky charms reported higher self-efficacy on the precluding questionnaire. Statistical analysis (bootstrapping) indicated that perceived self-efficacy mediated the performance difference. I.e. actual performance seemed to be improved in relation to the degree that being in possession of one's charm increased participant's feeling of self-efficacy.
Having thus shown self-efficacy to be the driver of the superstition-effect, the authors wanted to investigate further two possible reasons for why increased perception of self-efficacy improved performance. Is it because people who feel more able to influence outcomes in their lives set higher goals, or is it that an enhanced sense of self-efficacy increases people's capacity to endure throughout a trial?
Experiment 4:
31 participants joined the researchers for an experiment similarly designed to experiment 3. Only this time the task to be performed was an (always popular) anagram task, and more importantly, participants were asked to set and report a goal for the task.
Participants in the presence of their charms ended up solving an average of 46 anagrams, compared to an average 31 in the "absence" group. Participant's sense of self-efficacy was consistent with the findings in experiment three, and notably those who had received their lucky charms back set significantly higher goals for themselves than did those who were still waiting for their charms to be returned (a mean of 80 compared to a mean of 63 in the two groups respectively).
Again, bootstrapping pointed towards the higher goals as the mediating causes of the improved performance.
Two findings seem to come from all of this:
"Participants for whom a superstition was activated performed better in various motor and cognitive tasks compared with participants for whom no such concept was activated. Second, we showed that these performance-enhancing effects are mediated by an increase in perceived level of self-efficacy. Activating a good-luck superstition leads to improved performance by boosting people's belief in their ability to master a task"
These findings are reminiscent of empirical findings in the 80s that showed superstition to be a predictor of athlete's performance at basketball.
It is worth noting, that the experiment tested the positive effect of good luck superstition, but
"In theory, however, it is also possible to imagine situations in which the engagement of an irrational thought or behavior could adversely affect performance. In particular, this might be true for thoughts or behaviors that are believed to invite failures or misfortunes."
At which point I totally admit to holding the superstituous belief that mentioning Harry Potter in your title helps attract larger audiences to your post. However, I'm uncertain how that relates to self-efficacy.
Have a nice week everybody.
Main Reference: Lysann Damisch, Barbara Stoberock and Thomas Mussweiler (2010). Keep Your Fingers Crossed! : How Superstition Improves Performance Psychological Science : 10.1177/0956797610372631
