See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308908869

Exploring Different Types of Superstitious Beliefs in Risk-Taking Behaviors

Article  in  Social Marketing Quarterly · March 2017

DOI: 10.1177/1524500416672439

CITATIONS READS
4 7,005

3 authors:

Sydney Chinchanachokchai Theeranuch Pusaksrikit

University of Akron Chulalongkorn University
10 PUBLICATIONS   86 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Siwarit Pongsakornrungsilp
Walailak University
13 PUBLICATIONS   223 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Getting Rich : The Role of Superstition, Religious Beliefs and Hope/Fantasy on Lottery Gambling among Thai Buddhists View project

Developing the Indicator of Sufficient Economy by the Theory of Capital for the Sustainability and Strength of Local Community in the Southern of Thailand View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sydney Chinchanachokchai on 13 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

Exploring Different Types of Superstitious Beliefs in Risk-Taking Behaviors: What We

Can Learn from Thai Consumers.

ABSTRACT. Superstitions are common phenomena in human society, especially in Asian

cultures. Superstitious beliefs can have a negative impact on the social well-being of people

in society because they are highly associated with financial risk-taking and gambling

behaviors. This study looks at the effects of different types of superstitious belief (proactive

vs passive) on consumers’ risk-taking behaviors. Categorized based on the characteristics

associated with an illusion of control in a situation, proactive and passive superstitious beliefs

were found to show differences in risk-taking behaviors. The results demonstrate that passive

superstitious beliefs increase the likelihood of engaging in risky behaviors when a

superstitious object is introduced. The research suggests social marketing and public policy

implications.

KEYWORDS. Financial risk-taking; Superstitious beliefs; Superstitious object; Magical

thinking; Risk-taking behaviors

1
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

INTRODUCTION

Superstitions are common phenomena in human society (Torgler, 2007). Some

Eastern cultures rely on numbers, forces, or astrology to make what they believe is a right

decision (Hernandez, Wang, Minor, & Liu, 2008). Chinese consumers are willing to pay

premiums for the “right” phone number, with combinations like 888, because they believe

that the digit 8 is associated with luck or prosperity (Yardley, 2006). Across different

cultures, many people believe that behaving in a certain superstitious way can create good

luck (e.g., using a magic pen) or can bring them bad luck (e.g., breaking a mirror).

Superstitious beliefs help people cope with uncertainty and alleviate anxiety (Rice, 2003). For

instance, many studies demonstrate that superstitious beliefs among athletes may have a

positive effect on performance by reducing psychological stress and anxiety levels in order to

build confidence (Burger & Lynn, 2005; Schippers & Van Lange, 2006; Foster, Weigand, &

Baines, 2006).

Superstitious beliefs sometimes negatively impact the social well-being of people in

society. Most superstitious beliefs are highly associated with financial risk-taking and

gambling behaviors (Darke & Freedman, 1997; Joukhador, Blaszczynski, & Maccallum,

2004; Xu, Zwick, & Schwarz, 2011). People who exhibit more superstitious beliefs in

gambling tend to have higher gambling intensity (e.g., number of gambling sessions per

week, level of debt, and time spent gambling) (Joukhador et al., 2004). These risk-taking

behaviors can lead to several individual problems such as addiction, depression, financial

loss, and a negative impact on work, relationships (Hume & Mort, 2011), and societal

problems such as increased crime, theft, domestic violence, suicide, counterfeiting, and

money laundering (Wynne & Shaffer, 2003).

2
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

The degree to which individuals rely on superstitious beliefs in their decisions

depends on various factors, such as associated level of stress (Keinan, 2002), the importance

of outcomes (Pongsakornrungsilp, Pusaksrikit, & Schroeder, 2011), the desired level of

control (Case, Fitness, Cairns, & Stevenson, 2004), and uncertainty (Schippers & Van Lange,

2006). Previous studies also identified other superstition antecedents that heighten

superstition tendencies including a stronger belief in fate, weaker belief in religion, and lesser

need for learning (Mowen & Carlson, 2003; Rudski & Edwards, 2007; Torgler, 2007). In

terms of consequences, superstition is found to be positively related to irrational purchases

(Block & Kramer, 2009), gambling propensity (Mowen, Fang, & Scott, 2009; Wu, Lai, Tong,

& Tao, 2013), and brand logo sensitivity (Wang, Hernandez, Minor, & Wei, 2012). Although

existing literature examines several antecedents and consequences of superstitious beliefs,

there is still a lack of research on individual differences in superstitious beliefs and how they

affect individuals’ risk-taking behaviors.

Surprisingly, not many studies have investigated the effect of superstition in a social

marketing context. Existing research primarily examines superstition in organ donation

marketing. A study by Lwin, Williams and Lan (2002) extended the scope of social

marketing initiatives by investigating how superstitious beliefs affect individuals’ attitudes

toward organ donation. They found that, in Asian societies, individuals who have strong

superstitious beliefs are more likely to have negative attitudes toward organ donation. Thus,

the superstitious beliefs are likely to create barriers toward organ donation leading to lower

benefits to society as a whole. Although it is a challenge for marketers to overcome

individuals’ superstitious beliefs and to promote organ donation (Clarke, 2007), marketers

need to focus their efforts on addressing spiritual concerns (Lwin et al., 2002). Based on prior

findings, knowledge of the impact of superstition on social marketing initiatives can be very

important to social marketers.

3
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

This research investigates the link between superstition and risk-taking behaviors

including gambling and financial decision making. Prior research found that problem

gambling has been relatively overlooked in the study of risk-taking behaviors, even though

gamblers experience multiple negative consequences as they accumulate significant debt

(Engwall, Hunter and Steinberg, 2004). Moreover, individuals who show one type of risk-

taking behavior tend to engage in other addictive behaviors, such as drug and alcohol use,

high-risk sexual behavior, gambling, and eating disorders (Gambino, Shaffer, & Cummings,

1992). In this research, risk-taking activities can cause social problems due to one’s loss of

control, especially when marketers apply marketing tools that have encouraged or influenced

individuals’ risk-taking behaviors (e.g., advertising for online gambling, promoting

sweepstakes, and giving out lucrative bonuses in online gaming).

Thailand is a country of superstitious people with almost everybody believing in good

and bad luck. Superstitious beliefs play an important role in Thai consumer and business

decisions (Ehrlich, 2009a; 2009b). For example, Thai lottery gamblers may spend several

hours rubbing a tree’s gnarly bark hoping to see a lucky number appear in the wood’s

swirling grain (Ehrlich, 2009b). Unlike Chinese and Japanese cultures, the lucky number in

Thai culture is 9 because it is pronounced similar to the word progress or moving forward.

The license plate ending with 9999 received the highest bid in the license auction. Many

startup business owners consult with a numerologist before setting a store or business

opening date. The country is also the world’s largest producer, seller, and exporter of amulets

(Ehrlich, 2009a). These facts make Thailand an interesting country in which to study

superstitious beliefs and how they affect consumer risk-taking behaviors.

Prior research found that people differ in their superstitious beliefs and that such

differences predict superstitious behavior (Fluke, Webster, & Saucier, 2014). Hernandez et al.

4
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

(2008) proposed a framework that identifies two types of superstitious beliefs – proactive and

passive. Proactive superstitious beliefs allow individuals to seek control over the situations

around them. In contrast, passive superstitious beliefs involve circumstances in which the

outcomes lie beyond their control. The purpose of this research is to generate a deeper

understanding of the effects of these different types of superstitious beliefs on risk-taking

behaviors.

The most commonly known consumer risk-taking activities are generally associated

with gambling, financial decisions, and entrepreneurial pursuits (Krueger & Dickson, 1994;

Mandel, 2003; McGregor, 2006). However, relatively little is known about how consumers

make risky decisions based on superstitious beliefs, even though risk-taking behavior is

relevant to a high uncertainty level, which can be driven by superstitious beliefs (Byrnes,

Miller, & Schafer, 1999). Thus, this study aims to extend our understanding of how

superstitious beliefs affect risk-taking behaviors, particularly among Thai consumers. By

introducing a superstitious object, we attempt to examine how it affects proactive and passive

superstitious consumers’ risk-taking behaviors, including engaging in financial investment

and participating in sweepstakes.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Superstitious Beliefs

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,

superstitious beliefs refer to irrational beliefs that an object, action, or circumstance, not

logically related to a course of events, influences its outcome. Superstitious beliefs can fall

into multiple categories (Carlson, Mowen, & Fang, 2009). The category that is commonly

used in assessing superstitious beliefs is divided into two types: negative superstitions which

involve certain behaviors or omens that are associated with unlucky or harmful consequences

5
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

(e.g., breaking a mirror, walking under a ladder, or using the number 13) and positive

superstitions which involve a desire to bring about lucky or preferable consequences (e.g.,

carrying a lucky charm, touching wood, or crossing fingers) (Fluke et al., 2014; Wiseman &

Watt, 2004). Fluke and his colleagues (2014) found differences in positive and negative

superstitious beliefs toward lottery drawing behavior. Their results show that only consumers

who believe in negative superstition are more likely to report greater confidence in winning a

lottery with their selected numbers.

Individual Difference in Superstitious Belief: Passive vs Proactive

Besides positive and negative superstitious beliefs, Hernandez et al. (2008)

categorized superstitious beliefs based on characteristics associated with situations in which

the individuals either lack control of their luck or take charge of their luck. Hernandez and

colleagues (2008) classify these two types of superstitious beliefs as (1) Passive superstitious

beliefs that involve circumstances in which the outcomes lie beyond one’s control. It implies

that an event was meant to be explicitly predetermined by prior unseen forces; (2) Proactive

superstitious beliefs that involve ritual behaviors that consumers perform to keep bad forces

away and bring in good forces. These beliefs allow consumers to seek control over the

situations around them such as carrying magic pens and performing superstitious rituals

(Hernandez et al., 2008). Hernandez et al. (2008) found that proactive superstitious beliefs

positively influence consumer novelty seeking, whereas passive superstitious beliefs

negatively influence consumer novelty seeking. In addition, their results support that

consumers who hold passive superstitious beliefs are less likely to depend on others for

judgment and decisions.

The use of superstitious objects (e.g., lucky charms, amulets, or sacred items) and

rituals are often noted in gamblers, and their importance may lie in the potential to develop

6
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

control illusions (Joukhador et al., 2004) and help individuals confront uncertainty

(Pongsakornrungsilp et al., 2011). Existing research reported that the interaction with

superstitious objects usually results in changing behavior (Block & Kramer, 2009; Damisch,

Stoberock, & Mussweiler, 2010). Damisch et al. (2010) found that participants performed

better in a putting task when they were handed a superstition-activated golf ball (lucky ball).

Another instance is demonstrated by Block and Kramer (2009). The Asian participants who

believed that red was a lucky color indicated that they were more likely to buy a rice cooker

in red (superstition-activated) than one in a neutral color (green). Kramer and Block (2014)

also found that individuals who are high in experiential processing scored higher in creative

tasks when they were exposed to superstition-activated experimental stimuli (previously

touched by high performer).

Prior research found that the specific consequences of superstitious beliefs are not

likely to be the same for all consumers (Block & Kramer, 2009; Kramer & Block, 2008;

Mowen et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2012). Some superstitious individuals who

want to take control of their fate may change their risk-taking behavior if they receive sacred

or magical objects (Wiseman & Watt, 2004). It is possible that the differences between these

proactive and passive superstitious beliefs can influence consumption patterns in different

ways. Thus, this research employs the concept of Hernandez et al.’s (2008) superstitious

beliefs to understand the impact of superstitions on risk-taking behaviors.

The Effects of Superstitious Beliefs on Risk-Taking Behaviors

Risk-taking behavior is defined as an individual’s decision-making behavior in

situations that involve uncertainty of outcomes and the possibility of loss (Sitkin & Pablo

1992). Generally, an individual’s risk-taking behavior is influenced by a combination of the

personal, environmental, situational, and definitional aspects of the decision (Coleman,

7
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

2007). Carlson et al. (2009) found that superstition is positively associated with risk-taking

behavior and uncertainty, which includes gambling interest, sport fanship, interest in

promotional games, and financial investment decision making. In regard to various types of

risk-taking behaviors, existing research on superstition mainly focuses on the influence of

superstitious beliefs on gambling activities. Prior research examines the effect of superstitious

beliefs on lottery gamblers’ behavior based on the frequency of play, the amount of money

gambled, and the number of tickets purchased (e.g., Burns, Gillett, Rubinstein, & Gentry,

1990; Rogers & Webley, 2001). Superstitious beliefs are found to be correlated positively

with frequency of lottery gambling and gambling intensity (Joukhador et al., 2004; Rogers &

Webley, 2001).

Like gambling, investing in the stock market and participating in promotional games

(contests, drawings, and sweepstakes) involve risky behaviors and uncertain outcomes

(Carlson et al., 2009). A number of studies have specifically explored increased use of

superstitious beliefs in the context of financial and investment decision making, as well as

decisions to participate in promotional games (Carlson et al., 2009; Darke & Freedman 1997;

Jiang et al., 2009; Prendergast & Thompson, 2008). Darke and Freedman (1997) examined

the effects of lucky events and irrational beliefs on risk-taking behavior. They found that

individuals who believed in luck (superstitious individuals) were more confident and bet

more after they experienced a lucky event. Moreover, Carlson et al. (2009) show that

superstitious consumers who engage in risk-taking activities believe that their superstitious

actions influence the likelihood of investing in a profitable stock and winning a contest.

Prendergast and Thompson (2008) found that a positive superstitious belief was significantly

associated with the choice of entering a sweepstakes as compared to receiving a discount or a

coupon. Jiang, Cho, and Adaval (2009) showed that consumers were likely to invest more

8
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

money in a riskier online trading account than into a less-risky choice when they were primed

with lucky numbers compared to when they were primed with unlucky numbers.

Each individual differs in their propensity to express superstitious behavior depending

on their level of expected outcomes from uncertain and risky situations. It is possible that

people who have different types of superstitious beliefs will behave differently in terms of

risk-taking behaviors. This research applies the framework from Hernandez et al. (2008) and

investigates the differences between two types of superstitious consumers, passive and

proactive, in their risk-taking behaviors. It is useful to turn to attribution theory to explain the

differences between these two superstitious beliefs. This research proposes Weiner’s (1985)

three major dimensions of attribution theory that determine causal inferences, which are locus

of causality, stability, and controllability.

Locus of causality refers to the perceived origin of the cause for the outcome. This

dimension appears as a continuum from internal to external attributions. Internal attribution

refers to the effort or ability of the person being observed, whereas external attribution refers

to situational factors that are often beyond the observed individual’s control (Harvey,

Madison, Martinko, Crook, & Crook, 2014).

The second dimension, stability refers to the perceived persistence of the cause.

Ability is perceived as a more stable cause of success than effort. The stability of a cause can

increase or decrease the emotional and behavioral responses driven by the locus of the

attribution (Harvey et al., 2014).

The third dimension, controllability, refers to the extent to which an individual

perceives the cause of an outcome to be under someone’s decision (Weiner, 1985).

Controllability can be exercised by oneself (internally) or by someone else (externally). There

is some overlap between these three dimensions. For instance, effort, which is usually viewed

9
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

as internal and unstable, is most often seen as controllable, whereas task difficulty, which is

seen as external and stable, is most often viewed as uncontrollable (Harvey et al., 2014).

Through the use of attribution theory, people attempt to establish control over their lives and

improve their ability to predict future events (Eberly, Holley, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2011).

Hypothesis 1

Following this view, Hernandez et al. (2008) explained that proactive superstitious

consumers tend to believe in their ability to control external forces through practicing

superstitious rituals, such as carrying a lucky charm and practicing feng shui. On the other

hand, Hernandez et al. (2008) noted that passive superstitious consumers tend to believe that

they are controlled by the external forces. They also believe in determined destiny and accept

situations as they are meant to be. When confronted with uncertainties, proactive

superstitious individuals tend to put a strong effort toward engaging in ritual behaviors

because these rituals are viewed as a means to bring good luck and keep bad luck away.

Engaging in these superstitious rituals is found to be associated with risk-taking and novelty

seeking (Hernandez et al., 2008). On the other hand, passive superstitious individuals believe

that their life is controlled by external forces. They are less likely to seek novelty and new

experiences (Hernandez et al., 2008). Thus, when engaging in risk-taking activities, it is

possible that proactive superstitious consumers who like to control external forces may

already actively practice the superstitious rituals to bring good luck before they make the

decision. Therefore, they may be more willing to take part in risky decisions. The following

hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Proactive superstitious consumers are more likely to engage in risk-taking

behaviors than passive superstitious consumers in the absence of an exogenous stimulus.

Hypothesis 2

10
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

According to Coleman (2007), the decision-making style of risk-takers is driven by

their beliefs in luck and superstition. West and Berthon (1997) also support that successful

risk-takers tend to believe that they have special abilities to beat the odds and that nature is

good to them. In addition, superstitious behavior will be most evident when a person

perceives success as dependent on external factors (Schippers & Van Lange, 2006).

To understand how these two superstitious groups respond to risk-taking activities

when their superstitions are activated or when they enter a situation where they confront

uncertainty, we introduced congruency theory into this context. Congruency theory assumes

that individuals’ needs, desires, and preferences are correspondent with situations, rewards,

and gratification. This theory suggests that individuals tend to be more responsive to

situations or messages that are consistent with their own cultural beliefs, self-concept, and

attitudes (Cui & Yang, 2009). Previous literature provides support for the notion that

individuals’ selves are projected onto product choices and that they seek products with

images congruent with their concept of self (Emile & Sangwan, 2014). Thus, congruency

theory is useful for examining the effects of exogenous variables on consumer responses. It is

employed to illustrate the extent to which an individual’s beliefs regarding her or his own

skills are in accord with the actual activities or requirements of the job or major in which that

person works (Spokane, Meir, & Catalano, 2000).

We propose that when providing magical objects to both superstitious groups, the

passive superstitious consumers may engage in more risk-taking behaviors than their

proactive superstitious counterparts. Passive superstitious belief is positively associated with

a belief in fate and magic. In addition, passive superstitious individuals also believe that they

do not have control over external forces. According to congruency theory (Cui & Yang,

2009), providing a magical object to passive superstitious consumers is congruent with their

11
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

existing beliefs in fate and magic. Therefore, the magical object may be used as a cue

provided by external forces that can guide them to a better outcome. Moreover, in some

situations, the magical belief can increase the task performance as consumers believe that the

situation will improve as a consequence of some magical approaches (Keinan, 2002). On the

other hand, proactive superstitious consumers who believe in their ability to control their own

fate and luck (effort attribution) may feel that they lose control over their fate when given a

magical object. Therefore, they may be less likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors.

H2: When introducing magical objects, passive superstitious consumers are more

likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors than proactive superstitious consumers.

METHOD

Research Design

Thailand is selected as a setting for this study because of the propensity of Thai

consumers to have strong beliefs in astrology and to love risky activities (Thairungroj &

Surinjamlong, 2007). They often use various ways of employing superstitious rituals in their

daily life (Ariyabuddhiphongs & Chanchalermporn, 2007). In addition, there is a lucrative

business for soothsayers and fortune tellers throughout the country (Chaitrong, 2010). Thus,

examining superstitious behavior in Thailand will help broaden the relationship between

superstition and risk-taking phenomenon.

Prescreening questionnaire. Participants were undergraduate students at a university

in Thailand. Prior to the study, the participants completed a prescreening questionnaire

containing the proactive-passive superstitious scale adapted from Hernandez et al. (2008).

The scale was modified to fit the participants’ cultural beliefs and background (see

Appendix). It used a 5-point scale with 1 = strongly disbelieve and 5 = strongly believe.

12
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

Proactive superstitious items included statements such as “Carrying a lucky charm will bring

good luck,” “Performing a team ritual before a football match will lead the team to win,” and

“Houses and buildings placed in auspicious land and appropriate location are good for its

fortune flow” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87). Passive superstitious items included statements

such as “In many situations what happens to people is determined by fate,” “Number 8 and 9

attract good luck,” and “With fate the way it is, many times I feel that I have little influence

over the things that happen to me” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82). The prescreened participants

that scored an average or higher in either proactive (Mproactive = 2.71) or passive (Mpassive =

3.06) items were invited back to participate in the next step.

Participants and design. Undergraduate students (N = 114, male = 18, female = 96)

who completed the prescreening questionnaire participated in the study in exchange for extra

credits. The study was conducted in a 2 (proactive vs. passive) x 2 (magic pen vs. no magic

pen) between subjects design.

Procedure. The participants were told that they were invited to participate in a study

about managerial decision making. Both proactive and passive superstitious participants were

randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (magic pen vs. no magic pen). The magic pen

conditions were adapted from Damisch et al. (2010). According to the attribution theory,

being given a magic pen could be seen as external attribution and it was also beyond the

individual’s control (uncontrollable) similar to stumbling across a 4-leaf clover or finding a

lucky penny. After the experimenter distributed the paper questionnaire to the participants, he

handed out a “magic pen” to each participant. The participants were told that they could use

the pen to complete the questionnaire and that they could keep the pen after the study as it

was a token of appreciation to compensate for their time. The experimenter told the story that

he received the pens from a monk at a sacred temple and they were supposed to bring good

13
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

luck and prosperity (in Thai culture, any item consecrated by a monk is generally treated as a

magical object). In addition to storytelling, the experimenter also showed the picture of how

he received the consecrated pens from the monk to the participants in order to create the

belief toward the sacred (magic) pen (see Figure 1). In the no magic pen conditions, the

experimenter distributed the questionnaire and handed out pens to the participants without

telling the story. The participants were told that they could use the pens to complete the

questionnaire and could keep the pen, as it was a token of appreciation to compensate for

their time.

Insert Figure 1 About Here

Dependent variables. In the study, two types of risk-taking were examined. First, the

participants read a scenario on managerial decision making, which was akin to a decision

involving financial risk. The scenario was adapted from Xu et al. (2011) where the

participants assumed the role of a chief executive officer (CEO) of a computer manufacturing

company. They had to make a decision on whether to adopt or reject a product improvement

program recommended by the research and development (R&D) department. The decisions

read as follows:

Decision A – If you stay with the current product, the profits will remain at the

current level, which is 200 million baht (approx. 6.25 million US dollars) a year.

Decision B – If the product is modified, the profits will depend upon the acceptance

by consumers. The marketing research indicates that there is a 75% chance of strong

acceptance, resulting in an increase in profits of 40 to 240 million baht (approx. 1.25 to 7.50

million US dollars), but there is a 25% chance of weak acceptance, resulting in a drop in

profits of 80 to 120 million baht (approx. 2.5 to 3.75 million US dollars).

14
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

After reading the scenario in the questionnaire, the participants selected the decision

of their choice. Then, they were to report their relative preference between the two options on

a 1 (strongly prefer decision A) to 10 (strongly prefer decision B) scale (Duclos, Wan, &

Jiang, 2013). Following the decision, the participants answered a question on the relative risk

level of the two decisions (“Which option was riskier?”) on a scale of 1 (Decision A is

riskier) to 10 (Decision B is riskier). They also answered the question “How lucky do you

feel today?” (1 = Not at all, 7 = I feel very lucky). Then, they were asked to answer a series

of filter, unrelated questions to hide the purpose of the study. To examine another type of

risk-taking (gambling), another dependent variable measure was added. At the end of the

questionnaire, they were told that they had a chance to enter a raffle to win a prize for their

participation. There were two prizes offered. The first prize was 1,500 baht cash (approx. 45

US dollars), which would have only one winner (more risky). Another option was to enter a

raffle to win 500 baht cash (approx. 15 US dollars), which would have three winners (less

risky). Then, the participants were thanked and dismissed.

RESULTS

Manipulation checks. The results showed that participants perceived Decision B as

riskier than Decision A. We compared the mean score (M = 7.07) to the middle point (M=

5.5) (t(113) = 7.55, p<.001). The relatively high mean score meant that participants perceived

Decision B to be riskier. Participants in the magic pen conditions also thought that they were

more lucky than those in the no magic pen conditions (Mmagic pen = 4.61 vs. Mno magic pen = 4.11,

F(1,112) = 4.32, p< .05). Among those participants who received the magic pen, there is no

statistically significant difference between proactive and passive superstitious participants in

terms of the perception of luck. Both groups reported the same level of luckiness [Mproactive =

15
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

4.35 vs. Mpassive = 4.86, F(1,57) = 3.41, p = n.s.]. Therefore, the manipulation worked as

intended.

Decisions. Without the magic pen (magical object), proactive superstitious

participants were more likely to make the riskier decision (chose Decision B) than passive

superstitious participants [71% vs. 45.8%, 2 (1, N = 55) = 3.56, p = .05]. However, the

opposite was true when the magic pens (magical object) were handed to the participants. That

is passive superstitious participants were more likely to make the riskier managerial decision

(chose Decision B) than the proactive superstitious participants [80% vs. 55.9%, 2 (1, N =

59) = 3.68, p < .05].

Insert Figure 2 About Here

When asked about their relative preference between Decision A and Decision B, the

results showed the same pattern. There was a significant interaction between superstition and

the magic pen (F(1,110) = 12.08, p<.01). Simple effect analysis showed that passive

superstitious participants who received the magic pen also reported a higher preference for

the riskier decision (Decision B) compared to proactive superstitious participants [Mpassive =

6.60 vs. Mproactive = 4.94, p < .05]. However, when the superstition was not activated (no

magic pen), proactive superstitious participants reported a higher preference for the riskier

decision (Decision B) than the passive superstitious participants [Mproactive = 6.52 vs. Mpassive =

5.08, p < .05].

Raffle choice. Without the magic pen (magical object), proactive superstitious

participants were more likely to enter into the riskier raffle than passive superstitious

participants [61.3% vs. 33.3%, 2 (1, N = 55) = 4.23, p < .05]. However, the opposite is true

when the participants were given the magic pens. The passive superstitious participants were

16
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

more likely to enter into the riskier raffle than the proactive superstitious participants [72%

vs. 44.1%, 2 (1, N = 59) = 4.54, p < .05]. Thus, H1 and H2 are supported for both decisions

(managerial decision and raffle choice).

Insert Figure 3 About Here

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Consumer superstition has been found to affect choices and behaviors in the

marketplace and in society (Block & Kramer, 2009; Raylu & Oei, 2004; Wang et al., 2012),

especially in Asian cultures (Kramer & Block, 2008; Hernandez et al., 2008; Yardley, 2006).

The influence of superstitious belief is likely to exist in most gambling and other risk-taking

activities (Joukhador et al., 2004). Additionally, when people look for signs to influence

chance outcomes, they are using superstition as a heuristic device to make a decision

(Carlson et al., 2009). The superstitious beliefs are often associated with financial risk-taking

behaviors, which can lead to multiple problems that affect individuals and the society-at-large

(e.g., financial loss, personal debts, increased crime rates, domestic violence, and suicide)

(Hume & Mort, 2011; Wynne & Shaffer, 2003). Thailand is among the developing countries

in Southeast Asia in which people are superstitious and believe in both good and bad luck.

Superstitious beliefs are a part of the Thai way of life, making Thailand an interesting culture

in which to study the effects of superstitious beliefs on consumer behaviors.

This research adopted the framework by Hernandez et al. (2008) and tested the

individual difference in the reaction of the two types of superstitious consumers (proactive vs

passive) toward a superstitious object and how it affected their risk-taking behaviors. The

results demonstrated that a superstitious object affected the decision making of passive

17
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

superstitious consumers more than that of proactive superstitious consumers. After receiving

a magic pen (superstitious object), passive superstitious participants were more likely to

make a risky decision and enter a high-risk raffle. However, when there was no superstitious

object presented (magic pen), proactive superstitious consumers were more willing to take

part in a risky decision as compared to the passive superstitious consumers. In this study, we

gave the participants a magical object (pen), which may have increased the perceived luck in

passive superstitious consumers, leading them to make risky decisions. However, proactive

superstitious consumers tend to believe in their ability to control external forces through

practicing superstitious rituals (Hernandez et al., 2008). They also want to control their own

luck (effort attribution). Therefore, when proactive superstitious consumers were given a

superstitious object (magic pen), they may have felt that they lost control of their own luck,

which makes them less likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors.

This research allows us to clearly distinguish the differences between the concept of

Hernandez et al.’s (2008) proactive and passive types of superstition and how each type has

an effect on the risk-taking behavior of Thai consumers when interacting with a superstitious

object. Exploration of superstitious beliefs is crucial in consumer behavior because people

use them as a means to cope with uncertainty and alleviate anxiety (Raylu & Oei, 2004). The

results enhance our understanding on how superstitious consumers engage in risk-taking

activities and in which way they can be encouraged to increase or to reduce this interest.

In general, proactive superstitious consumers like to practice superstitious rituals to

keep bad forces away, bring in good forces, and to increase their chance of gaining good

luck. Passive superstitious consumers perceive that they do not have control over their luck,

so they use external forces as a guide in their decision-making process. This research further

explains the consequences of superstitious belief as a superstitious object can enhance risk-

18
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

taking behavior especially for passive superstitious consumers. We show that by providing a

magical object (magic pen), passive superstitious consumers increase their risk-taking

behavior. It is possible that the superstitious belief can be transferred through contagion and

impact actual performance (Kramer & Block, 2014). We found that the existence of a

superstitious belief that is perceived to transfer through intermediary objects is more likely

among passive superstitious consumers. The results also show that magical (superstition-

activated) objects do not affect proactive superstitious consumers. That could be because they

do not feel they have control over the objects nor have they put in any effort into acquiring

the object themselves. Future studies could examine the difference in situations where

proactive superstitious consumers carry their own lucky charm or have it provided to them.

An alternative explanation for this effect could be attributed to positive mood.

Research has shown that good luck and good mood are highly correlated and lucky people

are happy and optimistic (Duong and Ohtsuka, 2000). When individuals feel lucky, they are

more willing to take financial risks (Jiang et al., 2009). Therefore, receiving the magical

object (pen) may activate the concept of luck, which then elicits positive affect among the

passive superstitious participants who already believe in magic and magical objects.

Therefore, future studies may explore whether positive affect mediates the relationship.

Implications

Theoretically, this study extends the framework proposed by Hernandez et al. (2008)

on superstitious types (passive vs proactive) and tested the framework in an experimental

setting. It adds to the body of literature on superstitious beliefs by testing how proactive vs

passive superstitious individuals react to a magical object (magic pen) and how the reaction

affects their risk-taking behaviors. The research also presents empirical evidence from

another Eastern culture (Thailand), a country in which superstition is a way of life. We found

19
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

support for the differences of the proactive and passive superstitious types and their impacts

on risk-taking behaviors.

This research also offers implications for marketing and public practices. Often times,

when individuals participate in any risk-taking activity (e.g., gambling, playing bingo,

entering sweepstakes) or making financial decisions (e.g., stock market investment), they go

through stages of uncertainty (concern about the outcomes), anxiety, and fear of losing

control (Shimp & Bearden 1982; Taylor, 1974). Exposing passive superstitious individuals to

superstitious-related objects such as a lucky charm, an amulet, or a red lucky prayer tassel

(Chinese), may lead to higher confidence in those individuals, which can result in engaging in

riskier behaviors (e.g., placing higher bets in gambling, making irrational financial decisions,

or investing in high risk stocks). Therefore, policy makers may need to control for the

exposure and selling of those objects near places where people are likely to be vulnerable to

those decisions (casinos, gaming machines).

Our study suggests that individuals may be influenced by marketing campaigns

related to superstition or magical thinking. When consumers face decisions, they do not

always make rational evaluations. It is possible that superstitious consumers may be lured or

be taken advantage of by some marketing campaigns or other risky businesses. For example,

they could be deceived into purchasing defective products that are associated with

superstition (e.g., red rice cookers in Chinese culture or products with number “7” in Western

cultures), or they could be influenced by a marketing campaign that manipulates the hope and

illusion of control (Vaidyanathan & Aggarwal, 2008). Thus, public policy needs to be aware

of superstitious-related marketing campaigns.

Moreover, with increasing popularity for online gaming (e.g., Texas Hold’em poker)

and sports betting (e.g., Fantasy football), it is difficult to distinguish whether it is a leisure

20
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

activity or gambling. Nonetheless, these activities can lead to an addictive behavior of those

who play. Knowing that individuals may be either proactive or passive superstitious, the

marketing campaigns for these types of products should be carefully monitored and regulated

as some promotional tactics may trigger risky decisions. For example, promotional materials

should not contain any superstitious-activated object such as a lucky penny or any message

that may enhance perceived luck. A growing body of superstition studies need to investigate

more specific explanations for the decision-making process.

Generally, people who are very superstitious can become vulnerable because they can

be easily deceived by illicit marketing campaigns as they tend not to rationalize their

behavior (McGregor, Nash, & Prentice, 2010). This study evidences how passive

superstitious individuals can become the victims of embedding risky activities into their

everyday life. By providing them lucky charms or magical objects, passive superstitious

individuals may increase their feeling of being lucky and that will lead them to engage more

in risk-taking activities. Thus, social marketers can emphasize the importance of logical and

rational thinking when tailoring messages to break superstitious habits and offer various case

studies to the communities to reach these audiences in order to moderate their superstitions

(Nooteboom, 2015).

The challenge for marketers is to segment individuals based on their psychographic

information (personality traits, values, and lifestyle) (Greenberg and McDonald, 1989),

which, in this case, refers to passive vs proactive superstition. Although it is a challenge to

identify the proactive and passive superstitious consumers, marketers may use demographic

information as a guideline. Prior research found that adolescents and low-income people are

vulnerable individuals who have a high chance of engaging in risky behavior (Nooteboom,

2015). Based on our findings, it is possible that the more the adolescents and low-income

consumers become proactive superstitious believers, the more they have put their faith in

21
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

risk-taking behaviors because proactive superstitions can increase their feeling of hope and

being in power and control.

Lastly, existing literature on superstitious beliefs in Thailand mostly concerns lottery

gambling behaviors (Ariyabuddhipongs, 2011; Ariyabuddhiphongs & Chanchalermporn,

2007), consumer co-creation (Pongsakornrungsilp et al., 2011), and other types of risk-taking

behavior (Soedarmono, Machrouh, & Tarazi, 2013; Uriely & Belhassen, 2006). Thailand has

a culture that is full of superstitious beliefs. This study adds to the body of literature about

consumers in Thailand and how their superstitious beliefs affect the likelihood of making

risky decisions or taking risks.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Although our investigation does not measure the need for control and, thus, limited

our ability to make statements about causality, the present study suggests the possibility that

the need for control may serve as a moderating variable between these two types of

superstitious beliefs. It would be important for future research to test whether superstitious

rituals or objects lead to an increase in perceived control (Keinan, 2002). Additionally, future

studies should examine whether the differences between these two superstitious beliefs are

actually affected by their need for control. According to the attribution theory, people attempt

to establish control over their lives and improve their ability to predict future events. In this

experiment, we only used one stimulus (magic pen) to test the hypotheses. Future study may

also examine whether other stimuli, which exhibit different combinations of the attribution

theory or congruency theory, still yield the same effects. Moreover, in this study, the

participants were classified as either proactive or passive superstitious consumers. Future

study should look at individuals who scored relatively high in both proactive and passive

superstition scales and whether that factor would affect risk-taking behaviors.

22
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

Additional investigations into the extent to which superstition impacts various

consumption behaviors and decision making are also necessary. Further research can try to

understand in which situations individuals are more likely to be influenced by their

superstitious beliefs. For example, Kramer and Block (2008) reported that American

participants became significantly more risk-averse in their choices after thinking about Friday

the thirteenth, as compared to a day that is not associated with bad luck. As thinking about

Friday the thirteenth is relevant to passive superstitious belief, future research may test how

proactive and passive superstitious beliefs may affect risk-averse behavior and whether

superstitious objects may moderate that effect.

In addition, superstition may influence individuals differently in their risk-taking

perception. Individuals with high levels of superstitious beliefs may sustain their motivation

to take risks. Given potential differences in the perception of risk between superstitious

groups, a range of factors may moderate the role of superstition in risk-taking perception,

such as the awareness of anticipated outcomes and the exposure to risky situations (Spurrier

& Blaszczynski, 2014). Improving the knowledge of how individuals interpret and use

information about superstitious beliefs in risk perception may help us to understand their

propensity for risk-taking behaviors.

Previous research categorizes superstitious beliefs into two types: negative and

positive superstitions. Negative superstitions involve behaviors or omens that are associated

with negative (unlucky or harmful) consequences; whereas, positive superstitions are

associated with the desire to bring luck or preferable consequences (Fluke et al., 2014;

Wiseman & Watt, 2004). In this study, we explored only how passive vs proactive

superstitious individuals react in the positive superstitious situation (magical object). Future

research could explore the framework in other negative superstition situations such as when

individuals encounter bad luck or unlucky stimuli (e.g., products showing the number 13 – an

23
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

unlucky number in Western cultures, or the number 4 – an unlucky number in Eastern

cultures).

Today’s Internet technology makes online gambling and gaming accessible to

everybody including vulnerable populations such as adolescents. Online gambling could

result in several issues such as addiction, depression, and negative effects on school, work

and relationships (Hume & Mort, 2011). Adolescents are likely to engage in many

misbehaviors such as smoking, drug, and alcohol consumption, especially when their friends

participate in it (peer pressure) (Cox & Cox 1998). They also increasingly participate in

online gambling (Hume & Mort, 2011). Future research can look into superstition in online

gambling among youth and young adults and how superstitious beliefs affect individuals’

decisions at young ages. Furthermore, other marketing tactics, such as coupons and free

bonus points in online gaming, may affect one’s superstitious belief and risk-taking behavior.

Future research may look into empirically examining various marketing tactics on

superstitious beliefs and behaviors.

This study was conducted in Thailand whose culture belongs to the Eastern culture.

However, the findings will be more powerful if they can be generalized across other Eastern

cultures such as China, Japan, and Korea that are also considered superstitious cultures.

Moreover, Eastern cultures are considered superstitious cultures, while Western cultures are

less likely to believe in superstitions (Hernandez et al., 2008). Future studies can look at the

difference between Eastern and Western cultures and their types of superstitious beliefs (e.g.,

comparing Thai vs. American, proactive vs. passive superstitious consumers) to examine how

cross-cultural differences in superstitious beliefs can affect risk-taking behaviors.

REFERENCES

American heritage dictionary of the English language. 2nd ed. (1985). Boston, MA: Houghton

Mifflin.

24
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. (2011). Lottery gambling: A review. Journal of Gambling Studies,

27(1), 15–33.

Ariyabuddhiphongs, V., & Chanchalermporn, N. (2007). A test of social cognitive theory

reciprocal and sequential effects: Hope, superstitious belief and environmental factors

among lottery gamblers in Thailand. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23(2), 201–214.

Block, L., & Kramer, T. (2009). The effect of superstitious beliefs on performance

expectations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 161–169.

Burger, J. M., & Lynn, A. L. (2005). Superstitious behavior among American and Japanese

professional baseball players. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 71–76.

Burns, A. C., Gillett, P. L., Rubinstein, M., & Gentry, J. W. (1990). An exploratory study of

lottery playing, gambling addiction and links to compulsive consumption. Advances

in Consumer Research, 17, 298–305.

Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C. & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: a

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367–383.

Carlson, B., Mowen, J. & Fang, X. (2009). Trait superstition and consumer behavior.

Psychology and Marketing, 26, 689–713.

Case, T. I., Fitness, J., Cairns, D. R., & Stevenson, R. J. (2004). Coping with uncertainty:

Superstitious strategies and secondary control. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

34(4), 848–871.

Chaitrong, W. (2010). Fighting the underground lottery with investment mathematics. The

Nation. Retrieved from

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/01/06/business/business_30119767.php

Clarke, R. N. (2007). Organ donation: A significant marketing challenge. Health Marketing

Quarterly, 24, 189-200.

25
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

Coleman, L. (2007). Risk and decision making by finance executives: a survey study.

International Journal of Managerial Finance, 3(1), 108–124.

Cox, A. D., & Cox, D. (1998). Beyond “peer pressure”: A theoretical framework for

understanding the varieties of social influence in adolescent risk behavior. Social

Marketing Quarterly, 4(4), 43–47.

Cui, G., & Yang, X. (2009). Responses of Chinese consumers to sex appeals in international

advertising: A test of congruency theory. Journal of Global Marketing, 22, 229–245.

Damisch, L., Stoberock, B. & Mussweiler, T. (2010). Keep your fingers crossed! How

superstition improves performance. Psychological Science, 21, 1014–1020.

Darke, P. R., & Freedman, J. L. (1997). Lucky events and beliefs in luck: Paradoxical effects

on confidence and risk-taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 378–

388.

Duclos, R., Wan, E. W. & Jiang, Y. (2013). Show me the honey! Effects of social exclusion

on financial risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 122–135.

Duong, T. & Ohtsuka, K. (2000). The Vietnamese-language South Oaks Gambling Screen for

the Australian context. In J. McMillen, & L. Laker (Eds.), Developing strategic

alliances: Proceedings of the 9th National Association for Gambling Studies

Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland 1999 (pp. 161-171).

Eberly, M. B., Holley, E. C., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Beyond internal and

external: A dyadic theory of relational attributions. Academy of Management Review,

36 (4), 731–753.

Ehrlich, R. S. (2009a). Buddhist amulets: Little keys to the Thai spirit. CNN Travel.

Retrieved from http://travel.cnn.com/bangkok/shop/bangkok-buddhist-amulet-market-

330873.

26
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

Ehrlich, R. S. (2009b). Black magic and ghosts -- Thai superstitions aren't just for Halloween.

CNN Travel. Retrieved from http://travel.cnn.com/bangkok/play/black-magic-and-

ghosts-thai-superstitions-arent-just-halloween-327515

Emile, R. & Sangwan, S. (2014). Congruency between self as communicated by product

ensembles and self as perceived by peers – Do the two match? Advances in Consumer

Research, 42, 307–312.

Engwall, D., Hunter, R., Steinberg, M. (2004). Gambling and other risk behaviors on

university campuses. Journal of American College Health, 52 (6), 245–256.

Fluke, S. C., Webster, R. J. & Saucier, D. A. (2014). Methodological and theoretical

improvements in the study of superstitious beliefs and behavior. British Journal of

Psychology, 105, 102–126.

Foster, D. J., Weigand, D. A. & Baines, D. (2006). The effect of removing superstitious

behavior and introducing a pre-performance routine on basketball free-throw

performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 171–176.

Gambino, B., Shaffer, H. J., & Cummings, T. N. (1992). Compulsive gambling: An

overlooked problem. EAP Digest, 52, 32–47.

Greenberg, M. & McDonald, S. S. (1989). Successful needs/benefits segmentation: A user’s

guide. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(3), 29-36.

Harvey, P., Madison, K., Martinko, M., Crook, T. R., & Crook, T. A. (2014). Attribution

theory in the organizational sciences: The road traveled and the path ahead. The

Academy of Management Perspectives, 28 (2), 128–146.

Hernandez, M. D., Wang, Y. J., Minor, M. S., & Liu, Q. (2008). Effect of superstitious

beliefs on consumer novelty seeking and independent judgment making: evidence

from China. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7, 424–438.

27
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

Hume, M., & Mort, G. S.(2011). Fun, friend, or foe: Youth perceptions and definitions of

online gambling. Social Marketing Quarterly, 17(1), 109–133.

Jiang, Y., Cho, A. & Adaval, R. (2009). The unique consequences of feeling lucky:

Implications for consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 171–184.

Joukhador, J., Blaszczynski, A. & Maccallum, A. (2004). Superstitious beliefs in gambling

among problem and non-problem gamblers: preliminary data. Journal of Gambling

Studies, 20, 171–180.

Keinan, G. (2002). The effects of stress and desire for control on superstitious behavior.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 102–108.

Kramer, T., & Block, L. (2008). Conscious and non-conscious components of superstitious

beliefs in judgment and decision-making. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 783–

793.

Kramer, T., & Block, L. (2014). Like Mike: Ability contagion through touched objects

increases confidence and improves performance. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 124, 215–228.

Krueger, N. J., & Dickson, P. R. (1994). How believing in ourselves increase risk taking:

perceived self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences, 25, 385–400.

Lwin, M. O., Williams, J. D., & Lan, L. L. (2002). Social marketing initiatives: National

kidney foundation’s organ donation programs in Singapore. Journal of Public Policy

& Marketing, 21 (1), 66–77.

Mandel, N. (2003). Shifting selves and decision making: the effects of self‐construal priming

on consumer risk‐taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 30–40.

McGregor, I., Nash, K., & Prentice, M. (2010). Reactive approach motivation (RAM) for

religion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 148–161.

28
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

McGregor, S. L. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing risk perception: Perceiving majority world

citizens at risk from ‘northern’ consumption. International Journal of Consumer

Studies, 30(3), 235–246.

Mowen, J. C., & Carlson, B. (2003). Exploring the antecedents and consumer behavior

consequences of the trait of superstition. Psychology and Marketing, 20(12), 1045–

1065.

Mowen, J. C., Fang, X. & Scott, K. (2009). A hierarchical model approach for identifying the

trait antecedents of general gambling propensity and of four gambling-related genres.

Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1262–1268.

Nooteboom, G. (2015). Living dangerously. Disaster Prevention and Management, 24(4),

523–538.

Pongsakornrungsilp, S., Pusaksrikit, T. & Schroeder, J. (2011). Co-creation through fear,

faith, and desire. In A. Bradshaw, C. Hackley, & P. Maclaran (Eds.), E - European

advances in consumer research (Vol. 9 pp. 333–340). Duluth, MN: Association for

Consumer Research.

Prendergast, G., & Thompson, E. R. (2008). Sales promotion strategies and belief in luck.

Psychology and Marketing, 25, 1043–1062.

Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. (2004). Role of culture in gambling and problem gambling. Clinical

Psychology Review, 23, 1087–1114.

Rice, T. W. (2003). Believe it or not: religious and other paranormal beliefs in the United

States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 95–106.

Rogers, P., & Webley, P. (2001). “It could be us!” Cognitive and social psychological factors

in U.K. national lottery play. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 181–

199.

29
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

Rudski, J. M., & Edwards, A. (2007). Malinowski goes to college: Factors influencing

students’ use of ritual and superstition. The Journal of General Psychology, 134, 389–

403.

Schippers, M. C., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2006). The psychological benefits of superstitious

rituals in top sport: a study among top sportspersons. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 36(10), 2532–2553.

Shimp, T. A., & Bearden, W. O. (1982). Warranty and other extrinsic cue effects on

Consumers' risk perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 38-46.

Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior.

Academy of Management Review, 7, 9–38.

Soedarmono,W., Machrouh, F. & Tarazi, A. (2013). Bank competition, crisis, and risk taking:

Evidence from emerging markets in Asia. Journal of International Financial Markets,

Institutions, and Money, 23, 196–221.

Spokane, A. R., Meir, A. I., Catalano, M. (2000). Person–environment congruence and

Holland’s theory: A review and reconsideration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57,

137–187.

Spurrier, M., & Blaszczynski, A. (2014). Risk perception in gambling: A systematic review.

Journal of Gambling Studies, 30, 253–276.

Taylor, J. W. (1974). The role of risk in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 54–

60.

Thairungroj, S., & Surinjamlong, P. (2007). State lottery-underground lottery: behavior of

Thai consumers. Journal of the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, 27, 99–

120.

Torgler, B. (2007). Determinants of superstition. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36, 713–

733.

30
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

Uriely, N., & Belhassen, Y. (2006). Drugs and risk-taking in tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research, 33(2), 339–359.

Vaidyanathan, R., & Aggarwal, P. (2008). A typology of superstitious behaviors:

implications for marketing and public policy. Latin American Advances in Consumer

Research, 2, 147–149.

Wang, Y. J., Hernandez, M. D. Minor, M. S. & Wei, J. (2012). Superstitious beliefs in

consumer evaluation of brand logos: Implications for corporate branding strategy.

European Journal of Marketing, 46(5), 712–732.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement, motivation and emotion.

Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.

West, D., & Berthon, P. (1997). Antecedents of risk-taking behavior by advertisers:

Empirical evidence and management implications. Journal of Advertising Research,

37(5), 27–40.

Wiseman, R., & Watt, C. (2004). Measuring superstitious belief: why magic pens matter.

Personality and Individual Difference, 37, 1533–1541.

Wu, A. M. S., Lai, M. H. C. Tong K. K. & Tao, V. Y. K. (2013). Chinese attitudes, norms,

behavioral control and gambling involvement in Macao. Journal of Gambling Studies,

29, 749–763.

Wynne, H. J., & Shaffer, H. J. (2003). The socioeconomic impact of gambling: The Whistler

Symposium. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19(2), 111–121).

Xu, A. J., Zwick, R. & Schwarz, N. (2011). Washing away our (good or bad) luck: physical

cleansing affects risk-taking behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,

141, 26–30.

Yardley, J. (2006, July 5). First comes the car, then the $10,000 license plate. New York

Times, pp. A4.

31
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

Figure 1: Picture showing how the experimenter obtained consecrated (magic) pens

32
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

Figure 2: Percentage of riskier option selection

33
Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

Figure 3: Percentage of riskier raffle choice

34
 Running head: EXPLORING SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS

Appendix

Modified proactive-passive superstitious scale from Hernandez et al. (2008)

1. In many situations what happens to people is determined by fate.

2. Your personality is determined by astrological alignment.
3. Black magic exists.
4. Fu Lu Shou/Cornstalk plant attracts health, wealth, and prosperity.
5. Carrying a lucky charm will bring good luck.
6. Performing a team ritual before a football match will lead the team to win.
7. Getting a good job or promotion in the future will depend on my getting the right turn
of events.
8. Horoscopes are right too often for it to be a coincidence.
9. King of Naga exists.
10. Houses and buildings placed in auspicious land and appropriate locations are good for
fortune flow.
11. Numbers 8 and 9 attract good luck.
12. Having a magic pen in the car will bring a safe driving journey.
13. Praying for success before going to work will bring you success in the day.
14. With fate the way it is, many times I feel that I have little influence over the things
that happen to me.
15. Your birthday affects your destiny.
16. Some consumers are able to lift objects through mental forces.
17. Your palm lines impact your future.
18. A statue of a beckoning women attracts financial prospects.
19. The dreams while you sleep tell you what will happen.
20. Giving red water to a sacred statue and pledging will receive blessings.
21. Receiving a banknote from the first customer and taking it to touch products in the
shop will attract more money.
22. Numbers 0 and 6 attract bad luck.

35

View publication stats