Replication of the Superstition and Performance Study by
Open accessAbstract
A recent series of experiments suggests that fostering superstitions can substantially improve performance on a variety of motor and cognitive tasks ( Damisch, Stoberock, & Mussweiler, 2010 ). We conducted two high-powered and precise replications of one of these experiments, examining if telling participants they had a lucky golf ball could improve their performance on a 10-shot golf task relative to controls. We found that the effect of superstition on performance is elusive: Participants told they had a lucky ball performed almost identically to controls. Our failure to replicate the target study was not due to lack of impact, lack of statistical power, differences in task difficulty, nor differences in participant belief in luck. A meta-analysis indicates significant heterogeneity in the effect of superstition on performance. This could be due to an unknown moderator, but no effect was observed among the studies with the strongest research designs (e.g., high power, a priori sampling plan).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The effect of a lucky charm on performance was mediated by self-efficacy.
“Moreover, performance was mediated by self-efficacy (but see Calin-Jageman & Caldwell, 2014, for a failure to replicate some of the superstition findings).”
From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Calin-Jageman & Caldwell, 2014
Cites
The weirdest people in the world?
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0999152x · Cited by 12,641 · see citing works
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567 · see citing works
WEIRD languages have misled us, too
Majid, A., & Levinson, S. C. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x1000018x · Cited by 4,169 · see citing works
North American Journal of Psychology, 1999.
McCutcheon, L. E. (1999) · North American journal of psychology · Cited by 2,606 · see citing works
(2011) · Cited by 2,025 · see citing works
Skinner, B. F. (1948) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0055873 · Cited by 1,456 · see citing works
Power and Sample Size Calculations for Studies Involving Linear Regression
Dupont, W. D., & Plummer, W. D. (1998) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(98)00037-3 · Cited by 1,024 · see citing works
Keep Your Fingers Crossed!: How Superstition Improves Performance
Damisch, L., Stoberock, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2010) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797610372631 · Cited by 251 · see citing works
Statistical inquiries into the efficacy of prayer*
Galton, F. (2012) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dys109 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Matute, H. (1994) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1006/lmot.1994.1012 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Putting Like a Pro: The Role of Positive Contagion in Golf Performance and Perception
Lee, C., Linkenauger, S. A., Bakdash, J. Z., Joy-Gaba, J. A., & Proffit, D. R. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026016 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Does religious faith improve test performance
Aruguete, M. S., Goodboy, A. K., Mansson, D. H., et al. (2012) · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Damisch, L. (2008) · Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9 · Cited by 1,238 · see citing works
Registered Reports: A Method to Increase the Credibility of Published Results
Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014) · Social Psychology · doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000192 · Cited by 716 · see citing works
The Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework
Hobson, N. M., Schroeder, J., Risen, J. L., Xygalatas, D., & Inzlicht, M. (2018) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868317734944 · Cited by 354 · see citing works
The best time to argue about what a replication means? Before you do it
Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02142-6 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
- Authors
- Calin-Jageman, R. J., & Caldwell, T. L.
- Affiliations
- Dominican University (US)
- Venue
- Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Hogrefe Publishing Group
- Published
- 2014-05-01
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 239-245
- ISSN
- 1864-9335 (ISSN-L)
- 2151-2590
- OpenAlex
- W1990170534
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 7.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Social Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- superstition, golf performance, motor performance, replication failure, heterogeneous effects, belief in luck, statistical power
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
