Cited by 237Paranormal Experiences and BeliefsDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

Effects of stress and tolerance of ambiguity on magical thinking.

Keinan, Giora·1994·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

The present study investigated the relationship between psychological stress and magical thinking and the extent to which such a relationship may be moderated by individuals' tolerance of ambiguity. Questionnaires assessing different types of magical thinking and tolerance of ambiguity were administered to 174 Israeli citizens who, during the Gulf War, resided in areas that were either exposed (high-stress condition) or not exposed (low-stress condition) to missile attacks. Magical thinking emerged more frequently in Ss under high-stress conditions than in those under low-stress conditions. Furthermore, high stress levels exerted a more pronounced effect on the emergence of magical thinking in individuals with low tolerance of ambiguity than in those with high tolerance

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.48

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Ritualized behaviors seem particularly likely to emerge under circumstances characterized by negative emotions such as high anxiety, uncertainty, and stress.

    “Ritualized behaviors seem particularly likely to emerge under circumstances characterized by negative emotions such as high anxiety, uncertainty, and stress (Celsi, Rose, & Leigh, 1993;Keinan, 1994;Lang, Krátký, Shaver, Jerotijević, & Xygalatas, 2015;Padgett & Jorgenson, 1982).”
  • A large survey of Israeli citizens found that those residing in areas exposed to missile attack during the Gulf War were more likely to engage in magical thinking and religious rites than those in areas not exposed.

    “Particularly compelling, a large survey sample of Israeli citizens demonstrated that those who happened to reside in areas exposed to missile attack during the Gulf War were more likely to engage in magical thinking and religious rites than those who resided in areas not exposed to attack (Keinan, 1994).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keinan, G.
Affiliations
Tel Aviv University (IL)
Corresponding author
Keinan, Giora
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
1994-07
Volume
67
Issue
1
Pages
48-55
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2059269503
Cited by
237
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
magical thinking, psychological stress, ambiguity tolerance, Gulf War, missile attacks, war exposure, moderation, Gulf War illness

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