Exploring Different Types of Superstitious Beliefs in Risk-Taking Behaviors

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
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
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
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
(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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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].
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
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Figure 1: Picture showing how the experimenter obtained consecrated (magic) pens
32
Figure 2: Percentage of riskier option selection
33
Figure 3: Percentage of riskier raffle choice
34
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

Exploring Different Types of Superstitious Beliefs in Risk-Taking Behaviors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Different Types of Superstitious Beliefs in Risk-Taking Behaviors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Exploring Different Types of Superstitious Beliefs in Risk-Taking Behaviors

Article in Social Marketing Quarterly · March 2017

Sydney Chinchanachokchai Theeranuch Pusaksrikit

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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

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

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

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

thinking; Risk-taking behaviors

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

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

money laundering (Wynne & Shaffer, 2003).

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

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

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

existing literature examines several antecedents and consequences of superstitious beliefs,

affect individuals’ risk-taking behaviors.

marketing context. Existing research primarily examines superstition in organ donation

marketing initiatives by investigating how superstitious beliefs affect individuals’ attitudes

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

important to social marketers.

gamblers experience multiple negative consequences as they accumulate significant debt

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

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

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

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

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

and participating in sweepstakes.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,

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

positively influence consumer novelty seeking, whereas passive superstitious beliefs

judgment and decisions.

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

touched by high performer).

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

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,

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

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

Each individual differs in their propensity to express superstitious behavior depending

of causality, stability, and controllability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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