迷信行为的心理学分析

斯金纳的操作性条件反射理论可以较好地解释迷信行为产生和保持的外部原因,即偶然的相倚联系使个体相信某种行为会带来某种结果;迷信行为形成以后受到间歇强化,个体的单次行为虽然不定伴随有强化结果,但却总有得到强化结果的可能,使个体不愿放弃再次得到强化结果的努力。迷信行为产生和保持的内部心理原因则可以用人类追求意义的本能和归因理论来解释。     

迷信行为--基于控制策略理论的解释

尽管科学技术日新月异,很多传统迷信思想已经被破除,但事实上迷信形式也在花样翻新,它贯穿于传统和现代社会的各个领域之中,跨越所有社会经济地位和教育水平。本研究以控制策略理论为视角,试图从心理成因方面对迷信行为进行解释,阐述了迷信行为的情境诱因、认知因素、情绪因素以及适应功能,随着人们科学素养的提高,必将在未来根除迷信行为。     

迷信与从众

安徽《文摘周刊》9月2日报道,近日,在河南某县有传言说:“外公、外婆给外孙、外孙女送把红伞能免灾”,整个县城陡然掀起抢购红伞的风潮,商家数万把红伞竟然迅速售罄。一条毫无根由的传言,何以有如此大的“威力”呢? 其一,传言击中了人们的从众心理。红伞抢购风潮的兴起, 仅仅源于一句传言。不少人是     

大学生迷信心理的形成及其影响因素

在全面总结近三十年来国内外相关研究成果的基础上,对大学生迷信心理的形成及其影响因素做了深入探讨。文章首先梳理了迷信的概念;其次从观察学习、归因和自我认同三个方面反思了大学生迷信心理形成的心理机制;并从性别、人格控制点、自尊和自我效能、认知风格和受暗示性、不确定性情境、压力情境等方面分析了大学生迷信心理的影响因素;最后指出了以往研究中存在的局限,并对未来的相关研究做出了展望     

迷信大国

在我们中国,迷信越来越盛行,有人称我们是迷信大国。 是否太夸张了？有人不服气,还有人发出质疑。其实,说中国是迷信大国,也是失之公允的,迷信是个世界性的问题,很多国家相信鬼神的人,其比例肯定不会低于中国,不过中国人口太多而已,相信鬼神的人数总量最多。     

宗教与迷信异同之我见

常常有人问：“你们民宗委是管民族事务的好理解，管宗教就不好理解了，宗教不就是迷信吗？迷信的东西直接取缔行了，还怎么管理？”确实，宗教与迷信是一回事还是有区别，这既是一个理论问题，也是一个现实问题。分清楚什么是宗教，什么是迷信，它们之间有何共同点和特殊点、区别点。     

科学与迷信正在网络空间中较量

本文分析了一年多来,由自然灾害频发使国家、民族蒙受损失,导致人们精神上的迷茫,媒体中伪科学和迷信的话语权决不可低估的现实,提醒人们要用科学的知识、精神与方法去鉴别真伪,指出科学与伪科学迷信的较量,面临的形势仍很严峻。希望《科学与无神论》杂志向各级领导干部、公务员、媒体编辑记者、学者和教师进行科学与无神论的宣传。     

“官场迷信”呼唤理论发展

近年来,我国出现了严重的官场迷信现象,这与我们党的宗旨是格格不入的,对于社会主义事业有着严重的危害,很多文章对此做出了谴责,并提出了种种解决方法。然而,其中一个重要的解决方法并没有被提及,这就是理论发展。我们知道,马克思主义既是严整的科学理论, 又是崇高的价值追求,这两者是内在统一的。作为     

迷信与习俗

2014年新年刚过,网上曝出：五台实验小学校舍建设竣工,校长某某某举行“谢土”仪式。一时议论纷纷,有说是迷信,有说是习俗。我儿认为是迷信,但义说服不了习俗一方,想让我写一篇文章,议论一下这个问题。我当即回答：认为是习俗的虽有一定道理,但实际上是不折不扣的迷信。这需从两个方面来理解。     

Superstition predicts perception of illusory control

Superstitions are common, yet we have little understanding of the cognitive mechanisms that bring them about. This study used a laboratory‐based analogue for superstitious beliefs that involved people monitoring the relationship between undertaking an action (pressing a button) and an outcome occurring (a light illuminating). The task was arranged such that there was no objective contingency between pressing the button and the light illuminating – the light was just as likely to illuminate whether the button was pressed or not. Nevertheless, most people rated the causal relationship between the button press and the light illuminating to be moderately positive, demonstrating an illusion of causality. This study found that the magnitude of this illusion was predicted by people's level of endorsement of common superstitious beliefs (measured using a novel Superstitious Beliefs Questionnaire), but was not associated with mood variables or their self‐rated locus of control. This observation is consistent with a more general individual difference or bias to overweight conjunctive events over disjunctive events during causal reasoning in those with a propensity for superstitious beliefs.     

Measuring superstitious belief: why lucky charms matter

A large body of research has attempted to develop theories about the function and origin of superstitious beliefs on the basis of the psychological correlates of such beliefs. Most of this work has measured superstitious belief using the Paranormal Belief Scale (PBS). However, this scale refers solely to negative superstitions (e.g., breaking a mirror will cause bad luck) and omits items referring to positive superstitions (e.g., carrying a lucky charm will bring good luck). The two studies reported here found significant interactions between belief in negative and positive superstitions, and several individual difference measures. These findings have important implications for theory development, demonstrate that the PBS is an incomplete measure of superstitious belief, and highlight the need for future measures to include items referring to positive superstitions.     

The Indian superstition scale: creating a measure to assess Indian superstitions

Despite humans’ capacity for rational thought, they are not immune to superstitions. Superstitions are strongly tied to cultural practices, especially in India. Although 17% of the world’s population resides in India, Indian culture is understudied, and there have not been sufficient attempts to understand Indian superstitions in a scientific manner from a psychometric standpoint. By creating a proper superstition measurement for the Indian population, we can better understand how Indians think and behave. The goal of the present research is to create a superstition measure specific to Indian culture. The results reveal 18 items reflecting Indian superstitions that can be generalised across contemporary India.     

The generality of belief in unsubstantiated claims

We tested the hypothesis that people show generality in their endorsement of unsubstantiated claims, employing more types of measures than used in previous studies. We found that measures of generic conspiracist ideation, specific fictitious conspiracy theory, and false conspiracy theory beliefs were all strongly and positively intercorrelated. A multiple regression analysis revealed that the measures of specific false and fictitious conspiracy theories both significantly predicted generic conspiracist ideation. A second broader test of the generality hypothesis showed that these measures of false and fictitious conspiracy belief were positively intercorrelated with measures of psychological misconceptions, pseudoscience, poorly supported psychological practices, and paranormal beliefs. However, the measures of misconceptions and pseudoscience displayed substantially lower correlations. The results provide support for the generality of acceptance of a wider variety of unsubstantiated claims than used in previous studies and also suggest differences in the types endorsed based on the kind of knowledge and content measured.     

Causal illusion as a cognitive basis of pseudoscientific beliefs

Causal illusion has been proposed as a cognitive mediator of pseudoscientific beliefs. However, previous studies have only tested the association between this cognitive bias and a closely related but different type of unwarranted beliefs, those related to superstition and paranormal phenomena. Participants (n = 225) responded to a novel questionnaire of pseudoscientific beliefs designed for this study. They also completed a contingency learning task in which a possible cause, infusion intake, and a desired effect, headache remission, were actually non-contingent. Volunteers with higher scores on the questionnaire also presented stronger causal illusion effects. These results support the hypothesis that causal illusions might play a fundamental role in the endorsement of pseudoscientific beliefs.     

The impact of event vividness,event severity,and prior paranormal belief on attributions towards a depicted remarkable coincidence experience: Two studies examining the misattribution hypothesis

Two studies examine the impact event vividness, event severity, and prior paranormal belief has on causal attributions for a depicted remarkable coincidence experience. In Study 1, respondents (n = 179) read a hypothetical vignette in which a fictional character accurately predicts a plane crash 1 day before it occurs. The crash was described in either vivid or pallid terms with the final outcome being either severe (fatal) or non‐severe (non‐fatal). Respondents completed 29 causal attribution items, one attribution confidence item, nine scenario perception items, a popular paranormal belief scale, and a standard demographics questionnaire. Principal axis factoring reduced the 29 attribution items to four attribution factors which were then subjected to a 2 (event vividness) × 2 (event severity) × 2 (paranormal belief) MANCOVA controlling for respondent gender. As expected, paranormal believers attributed the accurate crash prediction less to coincidence and more to both paranormal and transcendental knowing than did paranormal sceptics. Furthermore, paranormal (psychokinesis) believers deemed the prediction more reflective of paranormal knowing to both (1) a vivid/non‐fatal and (2) a pallid/fatal crash depiction. Vividness, severity, and paranormal belief types had no impact on attribution confidence. In Study 2, respondents (also n = 179) generated data that were a moderately good fit to the previous factor structure and replicated several differences across attributional pairings albeit for paranormal non‐believers only. Corresponding effects for event severity and paranormal belief were not replicated. Findings are discussed in terms of their support for the paranormal misattribution hypothesis and the impact of availability biases in the form of both vividness and severity effects. Methodological issues and future research ideas are also discussed.     

The relationship between anomalistic belief,misperception of chance and the base rate fallacy

Abstract

A poor understanding of probability may lead people to misinterpret every day coincidences and form anomalistic (e.g., paranormal) beliefs. We investigated the relationship between anomalistic belief (including type of belief) and misperception of chance and the base rate fallacy across both anomalistic and control (i.e., neutral) contexts. Greater anomalistic belief was associated with poorer performance for both types of items; however there were no significant interactions between belief and context. For misperception of chance items, only experiential (vs. theoretical) anomalistic beliefs predicted more errors. In contrast, overall anomalistic belief was positively related to the base rate fallacy but no specific subtype of anomalistic belief was a significant predictor. The results indicate misperception of chance may lead people to interpret coincidental events as having an anomalistic cause, and a poor understanding of base rates may make people more prone to forming anomalistic beliefs.     

Erosion of Belief and Disbelief: Effects of Religiosity and Negative Affect on Beliefs in the Paranormal and Supernatural

Abstract

The authors investigated the effects of religiosity and negative affect on beliefs in the paranormal and supernatural among 94 undergraduate students enrolled in psychology classes at a small, private U.S. university. They hypothesized that religiosity would predict differential beliefs in the supernatural versus the paranormal but that negative affect would attenuate these beliefs. In addition, the authors predicted that belief in the supernatural and negative affect would interact to predict belief in the paranormal. Overall, the results were consistent with predictions. The religious participants were skeptical of paranormal phenomena but were accepting of supernatural phenomena. In addition, increased reports of negative affect over the preceding year appeared to attenuate belief in the supernatural for the religious participants. By contrast, for the nonreligious participants, increased belief in both the supernatural and paranormal was predicted when reports of negative affect were high. Finally, the interaction of supernatural belief and negative affect significantly predicted belief in the paranormal.