Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2016, 57, 368–382 DOI: 10.1111/sjop.

12301

Personality and Social Psychology

Superstitious behavior in sport: A literature review
€ OT
ZSUZSANNA DOM € OR,
€ 1,2 ROBERTO RUIZ-BARQUIN3 and ATTILA SZABO2
1
Doctoral School of Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, E€ otv€os Lor
and University, Budapest, Hungary
2
Institute of Health Promotion and Sport Sciences, E€otv€os Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary
3
Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

D€om€ot€or, Z., Ruız-Barquın, R. & Szabo, A. (2016). Superstitious behavior in sport: A literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 57, 368–382.

The objective of this first literature review, in this area, is to unveil the current status of knowledge on superstition in sport. Its outcome reveals that
superstitious behaviors vary with the type of sport, athletic level, as well as athletic role. In agreement with past theories, they increase with the level of
challenge, as reflected by the importance of the competition, as well as with the level of uncertainty. Cultural factors, in conjunction with the education
level, as well as gender, have a strong influence on superstitious behaviors in sports. Based on current thoughts, religiosity and superstition are different
psychological constructs used as psychological aids by several athletes. Personality factors appear to mediate the manifestation of the behavior. Elite
athletes are clearly more superstitious than non-elite athletes, An interaction between athletic skill and task-difficulty emerges to be another strong predictor
of superstition in sport. It is evident that a set of complex personal and situational factors interact in the manifestation of superstitious behavior in sport that
is used for the regulation of emotions in a quest for optimal performance. It is concluded that the objective benefits (i.e., success) of superstition in sport
may be ascribed to the placebo effect that yields an increased sense of control and mental reassurance in unpredictable contest situations.
Key words: Athlete, magic, paranormal, placebo, ritual.
Attila Szabo, Institute of Health Promotion and Sports Sciences, Faculty of Education and Psychology, E€
otv€
os Lor
and University, H-1117 Budapest,
€ on u. 10, Hungary. Tel: +36 70-243-7123; e-mail: szabo.attila@ppk.elte.hu
Bogdanfy Od€

INTRODUCTION METHODS

Michael Jordan, the world-class basketball legend used to wear his
lucky blue North Carolina shorts under his Chicago Bulls team
shorts (as cited in Damisch, Stoberock & Mussweiler, 2010,
p. 1014). In order to cover his lucky pair, Jordan started wearing
longer shorts, which inspired a trend in the NBA. However, he is
not the only world class athlete who exhibited superstitious
behavior(s). Bj€orn Borg, the tennis legend, in preparing for the
Wimbledon tournaments always grew a beard and wore the same
brand of shirt. Did he believe that the shirt helped him to win five
straight Wimbledon titles from 1976 through 1980 (Newkey-
Burden, 2014)? Further, the Montreal Canadiens ice hockey team’s
famous goaltender, Patrick Roy – who won three Conn Smythe
trophies in his career – showed numerous superstitious behaviors.
Among them, he regularly caressed and talked to the posts and also
thanked them when a puck was deflected (The Concordian, 2012).
Such behaviors are performed in context of a positive outcome or
expectation associated with sporting performance.
Several investigations have studied superstitious beliefs – as
based on objectively manifested behaviors – among athletes
(Becker, 1975; Buhrmann & Zaugg, 1981, 1983; Burger & Lynn,
2005; Burke et al., 2006; Neil, 1982; Zaugg, 1980). The large
extent of superstitions in sport was revealed by Schippers and
Van Lange (2006), who found that four out of five professional
athletes mentioned at least one superstitious behavior that they
perform before a contest. These figures strongly support the need
for systematic research on superstitious behaviors in sports.
Further, the fact that interest in superstition in sports dates back
over half a century (i.e., Samuelsen, 1957), begs for a review of
the literature that summarizes the current knowledge. Given that
there is no literature review in this area, the present work was
performed with the aim to fill this void in the literature.
Search strategy
We conducted the literature search using two databases, Pubmed and
Google Scholar for studies investigating superstitious behaviors and
rituals in sports or athletic performance. We used the main keywords
‘superstition* and sport*’ (also magic, mystical, supernatural in
conjunction with sport*) in the two databases; We searched the words
in the titles and the abstract. The search was not limited by language or
to peer-reviewed publications. Subsequently, the reference lists of
relevant articles were examined for further citations on the topic
(Fig. 1).
Selection criteria
One author screened the identified titles and abstracts. Abstracts were
eliminated in the initial screen if they were not concerned with the topic of
our review. Abstracts meeting the inclusion criteria (i.e., concerned with
superstition in the realm of sport or athletic performance) were eligible for
full-text review.
Summarization of data
The findings of the observational and experimental studies were
summarized by two authors independently first, then discussed together.
The first author organized the located research by relevance and topics for
the subsequent qualitative evaluation.
COMMON DEFINITIONS OF SUPERSTITIOUS BEHAVIOR
Superstitious behaviors occur in certain situations in which an
erroneous assumption of a cause and effect relationship generates
a repeated course of action in the person’s behavior (Foster &
Kokko, 2009). Indeed, most superstitious behaviors are a result of
learning from an authoritative (trusted) source, like parents,

© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 57 (2016)
Fig. 1. Literature search and inclusion method.
friends, or the media (Berger, 2012; Emme, 1940; Lindstr€ om &
Olsson, 2015) and coincidental conditioning when people make a
false linkage between two co-occurring, but unrelated events
(Hamerman & Johar, 2013; Skinner, 1948).
There are several definitions for superstitious behaviors, all
pointing toward a subjectively logical, but objectively irrational,
course of action. An earlier definition from Jahoda (1969, p. 139)
viewed superstitious behavior as a result of the “belief that one’s
fate is in the hands of unknown external powers governed by
forces over which one has no control.” Womack’s (1992a, p. 192)
definition of superstition is: “an unusual, repetitive, rigid behavior
that is perceived to have positive effect by the actor, whereas in
reality there is no causal link between the behavior and the
outcome of an event.” Womack (1992b, p. 2) provides a sport-
specific definition for superstitious behaviors: “actions which
are repetitive, formal, sequential, and distinct from technical
performance and which the athlete believes to be powerful in
controlling luck or other external factors.” These definitions
assign a role for the magic, or an omnipotent superpower, that
cannot be justified in scientific views. Therefore, superstitious
beliefs are seen as irrational or paranormal, yet they affect
peoples’ thoughts, emotions, actions, and reactions (Zaugg, 1980).
Superstitions occur in different forms, such as, food, clothing,
color, fetishes, taboos, etc. (Zaugg, 1980). In sports, they often
surface in situations where the outcome is unpredictable, such as
important competitions (Campbell, 1996; Neil, 1982).
REASONS BEHIND SUPERSTITIOUS BEHAVIOR IN SPORT
Sport competitions are characterized by stable (i.e., skill) and
unstable (i.e., refereeing or opponents’ quality of play) factors.
Superstitious acts stem from the wish to control the elements of
chance, or the unstable factors, and to reduce psychological
tension (Brevers, Nils, Dan & No€el, 2011). This proposition
matches to Malinowski’s “gap theory” on superstition, which
claims that the purpose of such behavior is to fill the void (the
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Superstition in sport 369
gap) of the unknown in a chance-situation to reduce anxiety
(Campbell, 1996; Malinowski, 1979). The resulting perceived
control, as well as the lowered anxiety, maybe an adaptive switch
between negative (i.e., learned helplessness) and positive (sense
of control) thoughts in challenging situations (Dudley, 1999).
A positive mindset is a psychological prerequisite in one’s
successful athletic career (Sheard, 2012).
The beneficial effects of superstitious acts, whether anxiolytic
or confidence boosting, may emerge via placebo effects.
Programming the mind for enhanced performance, via strong
subjective beliefs, could result in objective benefits. Indeed, Berdi,
K€oteles, Szabo and Bardos (2011), in their meta-analysis, have
disclosed an overall medium effect size (0.40, the 95% confidence
interval (CI) ranged from 0.24 to 0.56) for placebo-enhanced
sport performance. However, in a more recent meta-analysis a
smaller effect size of 0.20 (95% CI ranged from 0.02 to 0.41)
was disclosed (Lindheimer, O’Connor & Dishman, 2015). The
placebo mechanism in performance situations may trigger greater
persistence on a given task that in turn may enhance self-efficacy,
which can lead to better performance, as revealed in a series of
experimental studies (Damisch et al., 2010). Recent research
shows that the placebo effect and acts of superstition share 25%
of common variance (Rekhviashvili & Gupta, 2015).
It appears, then, that superstitious acts in sports are performed
to regulate one’s emotions and bring the uncertain or seemingly
uncontrollable events under control by switching from a negative
to a positive mindset that aids the athlete in performance. In line
with this view, superstitions may have a double impact on most
people. One is the elimination of uncertainty, and the other is the
generation of control, a sort of reassurance, which jointly could
lead to enhanced performance. Perhaps it should be noted that the
desired effect only occurs in the strong “believers” (the right
scholastic term would be “responders”; Benedetti & Frisaldi,
2014) who need external reassurances in seemingly uncertain
situations. What determines one’s susceptibility to superstitious
beliefs is influenced by numerous factors, ranging from culture
370 Z. D€om€ot€or et al.
(Calin-Jageman & Caldwell, 2014) to neurological functioning
(Rao, Zheng, Zhou & Li, 2014).
COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL DISCORD IN SPORT
SUPERSTITION
Athletes often do not admit or see themselves as superstitious
even though they may report practicing a superstitious behavior.
Such a defensive denial stems from the fact that superstitious
behaviors are pejorative (Jahoda, 1969; Samuelsen, 1957).
Further, paradoxically, many athletes may not believe in the
efficacy of their own superstitious acts. According to Bleak and
Frederick’s (1998) investigation, the effectiveness of superstitious
practices does not determine their popularity (Burger & Lynn,
2005). Supporting these results, it was reported that the most
popular superstitious behaviors among footballers were linked to
appearance and clothing in spite of the fact that the players
thought that prayers to God may be the most effective in
influencing the outcome of the contest (Ofori, Biddle & Lavallee,
2012).
There are several explanations for a cognitive-behavioral
disharmony in sport superstition. According to earlier works by
Skinner (1948), a perceived causal relationship may surface
between two elements simply by chance. In his classical
experiments, pigeons that had random access to food attempted to
recreate the circumstances in which the food was obtained and
behaved accordingly. In sports, wearing particular clothing or
carrying out certain acts (like the tying of the shoe laces before a
free shoot) may be followed by a successful outcome (reward),
which is then irrationally linked to the behavior. This association
later acts as a prompt in anticipating the re-occurrence of the
reward. However, if the reward (or the expected outcome) does
not occur, the mental link weakens and may even disappear.
Therefore, Skinner’s observations stemming from work with
pigeons may provide a plausible explanation for the cognitive
discord, while it cannot fully account for the superstitious acts
in sport.
Another explanation may be linked to the illusion of control.
This illusion is created with a purpose through the practicing of a
superstitious behavior. The purpose is the regulation or control of
the emotions, which also influences the practice of superstitions
(Rudski, 2001, 2004; Wright & Erdal, 2008). Furthermore, in
accord with Lerner’s (1965) Just World Hypothesis, everybody
needs the faith in the equity of the world. In other words, if an
athlete does everything to win (e.g., hard training, right food
intake, etc.) then the athlete may believe that she or he deserves
the reward. The illusion of the “merited reward” strengthens the
anticipation of the positive outcome and, again, serves to regulate
emotions in contest situations. A discord may surface when the
mental expectation does not materialize in the situational
outcome.
Overall, athletes need to be in control, or at least have the
perception of control (emotion regulation), which can be
generated by certain superstitious behaviors (Brevers et al., 2011).
This contention mirrors Malinowski’s (1979) philosophy about
the need to fill the gap of uncertainty in challenging situations in
an adaptive manner. Therefore, if one disregards the “irrational”
nature of superstitious behaviors, a “rational” function emerges
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 57 (2016)
that aids the athlete in coping with adversity. This view is
supported by the finding that superstition correlates positively
with the psychological tension in athletes (Brevers et al., 2011).
Such a correlation also supports Neil’s (1982) hypothesis,
according to which the superstitious behavior has an anxiety
reducing effect in sport. In this view, superstition may assume the
role of a psychological placebo that helps athletes to cope with
adversity and increase self-confidence via perceived control.
Schippers and Van Lange (2006) have shown that superstitious
behaviors are the most evident at times of uncertainty, before
important contests when the stakes are high, and when the
athletes think that success is affected by external factors over
which they have no control. The support for the uncertainty
hypothesis comes from an inquiry in which the more players
believed that chance alone affects the outcome, the more likely
they were to engage in superstitious behaviors (Burger & Lynn,
2005). Regardless of the outcome, however, superstitious
behaviors could be maintained as a “habit” over time in spite of
the discord between the action and its results (Ciborowski, 1997).
This habit is then explained by mental conditioning in addition to
the superstition-linked expectancy.
SUPERSTITIOUS BEHAVIORS VERSUS
PRE-PERFORMANCE ROUTINES
Pre-performance routines in sports are often confounded with
superstition. It has been shown that routines performed before the
motor tasks (e.g., basketball free throw) contribute to the accuracy
of the shot, so they improve the subsequent performance
(Cotterill, 2010; Lobmeyer & Wasserman, 1986; Singer 2002).
It is important to distinguish superstitious behaviors from
pre-performance/pre-game routines (PPR). Unfortunately, the
distinction between PPR and superstitious behaviors is not always
clear (see Table 1). Nevertheless, several authors noted the
differences between superstitious behaviors and PPR. The former
is a learned, behavioral and/or cognitive strategy, which is used
by athletes to facilitate performance (Cohn, 1990; Wright &
Erdal, 2008). The latter is devised with the help of a sports
professional and lacks magical meaning, while superstitious
behaviors are initiated by the athletes’ needs in a seemingly
random manner and have excessive rigid timing and fixed order
(Bleak & Frederick, 1998; Brevers et al., 2011). The efficacy of
superstitious behaviors emerges in context of actual or perceived
lower anxiety level and possibly higher self-efficacy. Conversely,
PPR directly affects the technical or mental aspect of the sporting
performance. It may exert an impact on performance outcomes
through focusing on self-control – focused attention – or be an
integral part in the warm-up exercises during the preparation for a
critical motor sequence (Bleak & Frederick, 1998; Burke et al.,
2006). In addition, athletes control the PPRs, while they are
almost always controlled by superstitions (Burke et al., 2006).
Foster, Weigand and Baines (2006) examined the effect of
removing superstitious behavior and replacing it with a PPR on
basketball free-throw performance. These authors hypothesized
that performance will be the worst when no pre-performance
strategy is adopted, better when athletes use superstitious
behaviors (SB), and the best when PPRs are adopted by the
athletes. In accord with the researchers’ hypothesis, the results
Scand J Psychol 57 (2016) Superstition in sport 371

Table 1. The differences between superstitious behavior and pre- In an early comparison of athletes with nonathletes, Gregory and
performance routines in sport Petrie (1972) found that athletes were not more superstitious than
nonathletes in general, but they listed more than twice as many
Superstitious rituals Pre-performance routines (PPR)
superstitions associated with sports than nonathletes. In another
Formal, repetitive, sequential behavior inquiry, Ciborowski (1997) examined baseball players who saw
An attempt to seek control over Behavior that directly affects the themselves as more superstitious than nonathletes and also
highly stressful situations (Bleak technical performance (Foster thought that the intensity of their superstitious beliefs is higher
& Frederick, 1998). et al., 2006).
than that of nonathletes. Further, more baseball players had a
Maintains emotional stability Involve cognitive and behavioral
(Womack, 1992) elements that intentionally help lucky charm or object than nonathletes. However, there was no
regulate arousal, enhance significant difference in other type of superstitious beliefs (such as
concentration (Crews & Boutcher, astrology, Tarots, and the like) between the two samples. The
1986; Induce optimal existence of superstitions in athletes could be linked to the
physiological and psychological
uncertainty levels involved in various sports. The phenomenon
states (Cohn, 1990).
Lowers anxiety level and yields Results in: (1) attentional control; is observable in gamblers too (Joukhador, Blaszczynski &
higher self-efficacy or self (2) warm-up decrement; and Maccallum, 2004; Rogers, 1998) and college students, where the
confidence. (3) automatic skill execution beliefs relating to exams (increased stakes) are most prominent
(Boutcher & Crews, 1987). (Rudski & Edwards, 2010; Saenko, 2014; Vyse, 2013). These
Initiated by the athlete. Usually developed by a
findings agree with the results of Hamerman and Morewedge’s
professional outsider (coach or
sport psychologist). (2015) studies, where performance goals were more likely to elicit
Has a magical meaning (have only Lacks mystical or magical meaning. superstitious behavior, than learning goals. Also, if participants
impact while the athlete believes pursued performance goals (for instance defeating the opponent in
in it); It is characterized by rigid a competition in the realm of sport), but not learning goals,
timing and fixed order
superstitious behavior increased in line with the uncertainty of
The athletes feel controlled by it. Athletes have control over it
goal achievement (Hamerman & Morewedge, 2015).
Sports-related superstitions are also seen in nonathletes, if they
have strong affiliation with sports (McClearn, 2004). Therefore,
revealed that performance was indeed the worst when neither PPR superstitious beliefs in sports are not restricted to participation,
nor SB was used, but they have found very little difference but they are also linked to personal orientations. Most athletic
between the effects of PPR and SB. In fact the use of PPRs only contests comprise elements of chance that increase the practice of
returned performance to the baseline (defined as the performance superstitious behaviors, probably through conditioning (Skinner,
when players used SB). 1948). Many sports fans associate themselves with their favorite
team or athlete and resort to superstitions as a means of projection
of control, or increased influence over the (their) desired outcome,
REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON SUPERSTITION IN SPORT
which is the success of their team or an athlete (Pronin, Wegner,
Despite the apparent high prevalence of superstitious behavior in McCarthy & Rodriguez, 2006). In line with Malinowski (1979),
sport, to date only a very limited number of investigations have the fans engage in superstitions in order to fill the gap of the
looked at the issue. Most of the reported studies used surveys, uncertainty, involved in chance situations, to increase and/or
and only a few of them have implemented an intervention. strengthen their expectation of the desired outcome. If the
Moreover, at the time of writing, we could locate only one expectation is fulfilled, the superstitious behavior is rewarded – as
literature review on superstitious behavior in sports, which was predicted by the conditioning theory – without any rational link
published in Greek and had a delimited focus on the locus of between the action and the outcome.
control, anxiety and several demographic factors (Perkos,
Barkoukis & Christopoulos, 2013). The conclusion of this review, Players’ role and type of sport. Superstition in sport may vary
was that superstitious behavior in sport is influenced by the with the role of the player as well as with the type of sport
athletes’ locus of control and anxiety. The review also revealed (Menapace, 2012; Neil, 1982; Perkos et al., 2013). The greater is
gender differences in superstitious behavior in sport that were the element of chance and uncertainty in a sport or a player’s
related to the nature of the behaviors used. Finally, Perkos et al. task, the more prevalent is the practice of superstition (Neil,
(2013) concluded that there are differences in superstitious 1982). The player’s role in baseball supports this surmise, because
behavior that are related to the type of sport and the player superstitious behaviors are more often linked to batting or
position in a team. In addition to re-evaluating the findings, we pitching, than to fielding (Ciborowski, 1997; Gmelch, 1972; Neil,
expand the examination of superstition in sport to other variables 1980). However, Burger and Lynn (2005) could not demonstrate
that may mediate the behaviour (Table 2). this contrast in their investigation of American and Japanese
baseball players. Studies with goaltenders in ice hockey have also
shown that these players practice a high number of superstitions
Survey research (Gregory & Petrie, 1975; Neil, 1982; Womack, 1979). In football,
Athletic level. It appears that elite athletes are more superstitious clothing and appearance were linked to superstitious behaviors,
than non-elite athletes and those in team sports are more but no differences were disclosed between goalkeepers and
superstitious than athletes in individual sports (Flanagan, 2013). attackers (Ofori et al., 2012). The authors thought that the level

© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
372 Z. D€om€ot€or et al. Scand J Psychol 57 (2016)

Table 2. Observational studies about the relationship of superstition and performance

Author(s) Assessment method Participants Statistics Key findings

Gregory Own questionnaire on personal Athletes Frequencies Athletes had fewer general superstitions than
and Petrie superstitions (6 different nonathletes.
(1972) types of sports) Females reported more general superstitions
N = 137 and than males.
nonathletes
N = 115
Zaugg Own questionnaire about Athletes Gamma and Female basketball players were more
(1980) superstitious beliefs (basketball) Z-scores superstitious than males.
N = 310 Younger basketball players were more
superstitious than older players and those who
regularly attended church were more
superstitious than the others; Basketball players
in a winning team had more superstitious beliefs
than the losing team.
Neil et al. 23 items, open–ended questionnaire Intramural and Greater involvement in hockey was linked to a
(1981) intercollegiate greater prevalence of superstitions.
hockey players
N = 58
Buhrmann Likert–type instrument of 40 items related to School basketball Gamma and There was little difference in the number of
et al. superstitious beliefs and behaviors teams N = 529 Spearman superstitions endorsed by male and female
(1982) rank order athletes; Gender differences were seen in the
type of superstitions.
Ciborowski Superstitious Belief Questionnaire (SBQ), Athletes Chi-square Baseball players reported higher intensity belief
(1997) specifically constructed for the study (baseball) than non–athletes; No significant difference was
N = 83 and observed in other (non–sport related) beliefs.
nonathletes
N = 348
Bleak and Superstitious Beliefs Questionnaire; a standard Athletes Correlation, None of the predictor variables in the study
Frederick measure of religiosity (church attendance), (football, T-test contributed significantly to total superstitious
(1998) Fitness Locus of Control Scale; Sport Anxiety gymnastics, ritual use; Religiosity was related to greater use
Scale. track games) of prayers as a sport superstition, lower belief in
N = 107 chance was related to higher usage of
appearance monitoring ritual; One aspect of
sport anxiety, concentration disruption, was
significantly related to use of eating rituals.
Todd and Superstitious Behavior Scale; Jenkins Activity Athletes (track Multiple Athletic identity and locus of control (LoC) were
Brown Survey; Athletic Identity Measurement Scale; and field) regression, predictors of the practice of superstitious
(2003) Rotter’s Locus of Control (LoC) Scale N = 177 MANOVA behavior – but only among Division III athletes;
LoC was a significant predictor of sports
practice, but only for the Div. III track and field
athletes. Significant group differences were
found: Div III athletes reported greater type A
behavior pattern than Div I athletes.
McClearn Belief in Sports Superstitions Scale; Interest in Nonathletes, Correlation Positive correlation was found between interest in
(2004) Sports Scale; Tobacyk and Milford’s Paranormal students N = 51 sports and belief in sport superstitions; Belief in
Belief Scale sports superstitions and scores on the
paranormal belief scale were also correlated.
Burger and Questions about superstitions: behaviors, Athletes Correlation Large amount of superstitious behavior (74.3%);
Lynn frequency, outcome, impact, confidence in (baseball) More believe luck affected outcomes was
(2005) superstitious behavior N = 77 associated with more engagement in
superstitious behavior; American more
superstitious than Japanese players; American
players expected enhancement of individual
performance from superstitions Japanese players
expected enhancement of the team’s
performance.
Burke et al. Superstitious Ritual Questionnaire; Athletes Correlation Positive correlation was found between the
(2006) Life Orientation Test–Revised; Belief in Personal (10 different internal locus of control and optimism; Negative
Control Scale types of sports) correlation emerged between internal locus of
N = 208 control and the beliefs in clothing and
appearance– effectiveness; Correlation was
disclosed between exaggerated sense of internal
control and fetish effectiveness; An exaggerated

(continued)

© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 57 (2016)
Table 2 (continued)
Author(s) Assessment method
Ofori et al. Superstitious Ritual Questionnaire;
(2012) Sport Attributional Style Scale
Flanagan The Superstitious Ritual Questionnaire;
(2013) The Competitive State Inventory–2
Torma Belief in Sport Superstition Scale; Somatosensory
et al. Amplification Scale; Life Orientation Test,
(2013) Revised; Short version of Positive Negative
Affect Schedule (PANAS)
of risk may be a mediating factor in superstitious behavior linked
to the player position. In football the level of risk could be more
homogeneous among the players than in baseball or ice hockey.
These observations suggest that there may be a personal, as well
as social, superstition in team sports. The former helps individual
performance while the latter is an aid in the group or team
performance.
Bleak and Frederick (1998) studied superstitious behaviors in
three different sports (football, gymnastics, track and field) and
found several differences. Gymnasts, for example, reported the
most superstitious behaviors, presumably due to the focus placed
on individual performance. This result is in contrast with
Flanagan’s (2013) investigation where participants who play in
team sports had more superstitious behavior than athletes in
individual sports. According to the author, the reason for the
increased superstitious ritual use in team sports is that athletes
could believe that performance is shared by the entire team and it
is outside of their control (Flanagan, 2013). Each sport had its
specific behavior. In football – similar to Ofori et al. (2012) – the
players’ behavior was associated with clothing and prayer. Both,
athletic roles as well as the type of sports may have an inherited
superstition that is passed on to the next generation, which could
explain – at least in part – the observed differences in their
practicing. Therefore, superstitious behaviors may be learned or
conditioned with the aim to increase the chance of the desired
outcome in uncertain situations and to regulate the subjective
levels of anxiety, confidence, control, etc., all contributing to the
generation of a psychological comfort zone in a challenging sport
contest. Again, in accord with Malinowski’s gap theory (1979),
superstitious behaviors performed in difficult sport contests have
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Superstition in sport 373
Participants Statistics Key findings
sense of internal control was also linked to pre-
game/meet effectiveness. A negative correlation
emerged between a God-mediated locus of
control and prayer frequency as well as prayer
effectiveness. Further negative correlation with a
God-mediated locus of control and overall
frequency for all rituals and overall effectiveness
for all rituals.
Athletes Correlation, A negative correlation was found between the
(football) regression, number of rituals and scores for positive –
N = 120 t-test internality and between superstitious behavior
and total scores for positive internality; Positive
correlation was found between superstitious
behavior and positive-controllability; Attribution
styles were also related to superstitious
behavior.
Athletes, Correlation, Elite athletes were more superstitious than non-
elite (N = 63) regression, elites. Athletes in the team sports were more
and non–elite t-test superstitious than athletes in individual sports.
(N = 96) No gender differences were disclosed.
Superstitious and competitive anxiety, were
positively (weakly) correlated (r = 0.19).
Physically active Correlations, Belief in sport superstition was correlated with
university regression somatosensory amplification (r = 0.38; p < 0.01)
students and spirituality (r = 0.23; p < 0.01) and was
(N = 242) independent of dispositional optimism
(r = –0.06; p > 0.05).
an adaptive value in emotional regulation. Calming the spirits and
gaining self-confidence may trigger better performance, by also
altering expectations and, therefore, possibly also involving the
placebo effect (Szabo, 2013).
Athletic skill and level of competition. The practicing of
superstitious behaviors is linked to athletic skills as well. Neil,
Anderson and Sheppard (1981) compared competitive hockey
players with recreational players and found that taking part in
competitions is linked to far more superstitious behaviors than
playing in recreational hockey games. In contrast, Todd and
Brown (2003) revealed no differences between Division I and
Division III track and field athletes in the use of superstitious
behaviors. The results of another research supported the
uncertainty hypothesis in that highly skilled golfers showed more
superstitious behaviors in difficult situations, while less skilled
players showed more superstitious behavior in easy situations.
There were no differences in the overall superstitious behavior
between the high and low skill level golfers (Wright & Erdal,
2008). The level/ importance of competition may interact with the
athletic skill in the attempt to regulate anxiety and flow (Swann,
Keegan, Piggott & Crust, 2012). In this context, the intensity of
the superstitious behavior could be determined by the perceived
ratio of one’s skill to the challenge. In support of this view,
Brevers et al. (2011) found that at higher levels of competition
the practicing of superstitious behavior was more pronounced,
probably due to an attempt to regulate anxiety and, therefore,
flow. If the regulation is successful, the mechanism may be
ascribed – again – primarily to a placebo effect. For example, the
elite athlete “expects” to be in control as a result of the
374 Z. D€om€ot€or et al.
superstitious act; the performance of the act, then triggers the
subjective sense control that in turn influences the performance of
the athlete.
Cultural differences. Few studies have addressed the role of
cultural heritage in superstitious behavior in sports. Burger and
Lynn (2005) compared superstitious behavior between Japanese
and American baseball players. In line with our conceptualization
of personal and social superstition (see above), they found
American baseball players to be more superstitious than Japanese
players. The Americans also believed that superstitions improve
their individual performance, so they exhibited a personal
superstition. In contrast, Japanese players used superstitious acts
to aid the performance of their team, which points toward a social
superstition. This finding may reflect a cultural difference between
the two nations: Japan is a collectivist culture while the American
culture is individualist. Also, Japanese players are taught that
failure or success is a result of their effort, so they did not
attribute the outcome to superstitious behaviors, but rather they
assumed responsibility for their performances. It is likely that
cultural differences may affect superstitious behaviors through the
nations’ mentality that is a heritage of past traditions and ways of
thinking. However, superstitious beliefs and acts interact – and
demonstrate a negative correlation – with peoples’ level of
education, which is independent of national origin (Mocan &
Pogorelova, 2014). Therefore, the cultural values interact with
people’s level of education in determining the openness toward
resorting to superstitious behaviors in various sport situations.
Gender differences. Gender differences in superstitious behavior
appear to exist, in that women tend to be more superstitious than
men (Wiseman & Watt, 2004). In sports, a study that compared
superstitious behavior of the two genders revealed that women
held more superstitious beliefs than men. Further, gender
differences have also emerged on the nature of the superstitious
beliefs (Gregory & Petrie, 1972; Neil, 1982). For example,
women’s superstitions were related to team cheers, uniforms, hair
accessories, and pre-game social functions, while men’s
superstitions were more closely related to the specifics of the
practiced sport (Gregory & Petrie, 1972). However, these findings
may not be universal. Indeed, Neil et al. (1981) found that male
hockey players were more superstitious than females, but the level
of involvement in sport was a stronger determinant than gender.
Hockey players with greater involvement in sport exhibited more
superstitious beliefs than those who were less involved (Neil
et al., 1981). In another inquiry, Buhrmann, Brown, and Zaugg
(1982) compared the superstitious beliefs of 529 male and female
basketball players. The authors did not find gender differences in
the number of superstitions. However, gender differences emerged
in the form of the superstitions (e.g., personal appearance was
more important for women), but no clear pattern of them could be
identified. The outcome of a study with psychology students, who
were examined during an intervention study using a golf task,
also failed to disclose gender differences in superstition (Van
Raalte, Brewer, Nemeroff & Linder, 1991). These findings were
echoed by Flanagan (2013), who also did not reveal a gender
difference in sport superstition in a sample of 159 Irish athletes.
While to date, there is only a limited number of published
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 57 (2016)
research in the area, our view is consistent with the conclusions of
Perkos et al. (2013) in that gender differences in sport may be
primarily qualitative rather than quantitative. However, the impact
of the situation(s) should not be underestimated, since women
may show more superstition in different situations than men.
Therefore, the shortage of research prevents us from drawing a
definite conclusion at this time.
Connection between religion and superstitious behavior. Several
studies investigated religiosity and superstitious behavior jointly.
Zaugg (1980) found that those basketball players who regularly
attended church reported more superstitious behavior than non-
attendees, especially in the context of the prayers. In another
investigation, a positive relationship was disclosed between
church attendance and superstitious behavior. Mormons were
more superstitious than Catholics/Protestants (Buhrmann &
Zaugg, 1983). In contrast, Bleak and Frederick (1998) could not
reveal a link between the level of superstitious behavior and
religiosity, but higher religiosity was associated with more prayers
as a means of sport superstition. In Burke et al.’s (2006)
investigation a lesser belief in God-mediated control was
associated with lesser belief in the effectiveness of superstitions
and, therefore, the lesser involvement in superstitious behaviors.
The authors suggested that the use of superstitious behaviors in
sport and religion could be complementary, or similar, practices
(Burke et al., 2006). In contrast, Maranise (2013) believes that
superstitious and religious behaviors cannot be considered as the
same entities, because of major differences between the two.
Religious behaviors may provide a wide range of psychological
benefits, as well as holistic meaning, that is experienced as a
feeling of well-being by the athlete, and thus provide a deeper
and more universal scope to life itself. Belief in God was shown
to be a constantly available means of coping with challenge in
itself (Pargament, Ensing, Falgout et al., 1990). Another
difference between superstitious- and religious-beliefs is that
while both of them could be methods of coping with uncertainty,
in case of failure the former can play the role of the scapegoat in
the failed outcome (i.e., failed superstition) (Maranise, 2013). It
should be emphasized that superstitious beliefs and acts could
have both positive (placebo) and negative (nocebo) outcomes that
are underpinned by neurophysiological responses to various
situational factors as well as an interaction between the two
(Frisaldi, Piedimonte & Benedetti, 2015).
Personality and situational factors. There are certain personality
characteristics that appear to be linked to superstitious behaviors,
for instance the perception of control in people with high anxiety
(Zebb & Moore, 2003). Among these, in a sport context, attention
was focused on locus of control (LoC – Bleak & Frederick, 1998;
Burke et al., 2006; Schippers & Van Lange, 2006; Todd &
Brown, 2003), type A personality pattern (Todd & Brown, 2003),
athletic identity (Brevers et al., 2011; Todd & Brown, 2003),
personal control (Irwin, 1994; Ofori et al., 2012), optimism and
pessimism (Rudski, 2004; Torma, Berdi, K€ oteles & Bardos,
2013). It is possible that some of these personality factors may
predispose a person to superstitious behavior in some situations.
Therefore, an interactional view on the link between personality
and superstitious behaviors should keep in perspective the role of
Scand J Psychol 57 (2016)
the situation in which the superstitious behavior is observed.
At this time, there is no causal link between personality
characteristics and superstitious behaviors in specific sport
situations.
Locus of control. In a study with Division III track and field
(that is a lower National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) level) athletes with an external LoC exhibited more
superstitious behaviors than athletes with internal LoC (Todd &
Brown, 2003). This observation is in accord with the results of
another study by Schippers and Van Lange (2006), which also
reported that players with an external LoC were more likely to
engage in superstitious behaviors than players with an internal
LoC. Similarly, Ofori et al. (2012), in an in situ examination of
Ghanaian footballers, found that players who believed that
events occur due to their own skills and abilities have exhibited
less superstitious behaviors than players with an external LoC
(i.e., negative relationship between superstitious behavior and
internality). Therefore, athletes who perceive a contest as
uncontrollable, tend to ascribe more control to the external
factors, which prompts them to engage in superstitious
behaviors. Contrary to these findings, Van Raalte et al. (1991)
found a negative correlation between chance orientation (the
degree of someone’s belief in control over chance events) and
number of superstitious behaviors (choosing the “lucky ball”).
That is, the more the person believes to have influence over
chance events, the more likely she or he may choose the “lucky
ball” after a successful putt. Clearly, Van Raalte et al. (1991)
found that those with internal LoC relied more on superstitious
behavior than subjects with external LoC.
Bleak and Frederick (1998) failed to disclose a link between
the total level of superstitious behaviors used and LoC, as well as
between the importance of success and anxiety. However, these
measures were related to a higher reliance on specific superstitious
behaviors. It appears that athletes may develop behaviors that
correspond with their personal belief systems. Perhaps to them is
more important to select the right form of behavior (quality) than
the total use (quantity) of behaviors (Bleak & Frederick, 1998).
This conjecture is supported by the results of a recent study,
which showed that peoples’ expectations, regarding the perceived
efficacy of a hypothetical performance enhancing agent, changes
not only as a function of the shape and/or color of the agent, but
also as a function of the purpose for which that hypothetical agent
is to be used (Szabo, Berdi, K€oteles & Bardos, 2013). Echoing
Bleak and Frederick (1998), other investigators also failed to
disclose a link between superstitious behavior and LoC in sports
(Burke et al., 2006). The incongruent findings, concerning the
link between superstitious behavior and LoC, may be ascribed to
the combination of the different dynamics between and within
sports, the perceived importance of the competitions, and the
inherent uncertainty factors, which interact with personality
characteristics, as well as conditioned or learned experiences.
Future research in this area is needed, because theoretically an
internal LoC should be negatively linked to superstitious
behavior. Earlier it was thought that paranormal belief in those
with external LoC is an attempt to deal with perceived
uncontrollability in life (Irwin, 1994). Therefore, athletes with
external LoC may be more susceptible to resort to superstitious
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Superstition in sport 375
behaviors than athletes with internal LoC. This reasoning,
however, remains to be tested in future research.
Controllability. A positive correlation may exist between the
perceived need for control and superstitious behavior (Ofori et al.,
2012). Therefore, players may adopt superstitious acts to control
the stressful aspects of competition in sports. However, in Burke
et al.’s (2006) study, personal control could not be linked to the
use of superstitions, but it seemed to play a role in subjective
superstitious beliefs in athletes. Controllability may be negatively
associated with superstitious behavior. In contrast, a positive
connection may be expected between perceived lack of control
and superstitious behaviors. More studies are needed concerning
the association between the perceived control in a particular
situation and superstitious behaviors.
Type A behavior pattern and athletic identity. Type A behavioral
pattern is a personality trait that is characterized by, impatience,
irritability, hostility or aggressiveness, that are linked to an over-
ambitious personal lifestyle, which may be perceived by others as
hard-driving and competitive (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974). In a
study looking at the effects of this personality characteristic on
superstitious behavior, only negative findings have emerged
(Todd & Brown, 2003). Knowing the nature of this personality,
one would expect a negative relationship between Type A
behavior and superstitious behavior. At this time there is one
study to contradict this conjecture.
A positive link was found between athletic identity and
superstitious behaviors (Brevers et al., 2011). Similar findings
have emerged in an inquiry with track and field athletes (Todd &
Brown, 2003). It was suggested that athletes with a strong athletic
identity may practice more superstitious behaviors. These athletes
identify themselves with the stereotypical athlete role and have a
tendency to be highly ego-involved, so they could experience
increased anxiety (Neil et al., 1981). Indeed, in an earlier study
higher level of ego-involvement was associated with more
superstitious behaviors (Neil et al., 1981). Presumably, these
athletes use superstitious behaviors as a coping mechanism in
anxiety provoking or stressful situations.
Optimism and pessimism. In a study by Rudski (2004) optimism
was positively related to religiosity, while Torma et al. (2013)
reported that sport superstition was only moderately linked to
spirituality, while it was independent of dispositional optimism.
Pessimism was negatively linked to religiosity, but it was
positively associated with superstitious beliefs in the sport context
(Burke et al., 2006). However, these authors could not disclose a
connection between optimism, pessimism and the use of
superstitious behaviors in Division I athletes. Based on the
surmise that pessimism is linked to a perceived lack of control,
uncertainty, and helplessness (i.e., Martin, Marsh & Debus,
2003), the link between optimism, pessimism and superstitious
behavior in sport settings deserves systematic research attention in
the future. Given that the personality factors exert different effects
in different situations (Abele & Brack, 2015), examining them in
an interactional framework, is warranted.
Interest in sport and paranormal beliefs. McClearn (2004)
questioned 51 nonathletes, university students, about their:
376 Z. D€om€ot€or et al.
(1) interest in sports; (2) belief in sports superstition; and
(3) various paranormal beliefs. A positive correlation was found
between ratings of sports-related superstitions and other
paranormal beliefs. Higher interest or involvement in sports was
associated only with specific sports-related superstitions, but not
with general paranormal or other irrational beliefs. While no other
studies were carried out in this area, the specificity of sport
superstition appears to exist even among nonathletes.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
A few experimental studies were conducted in the field of
superstition in sport. An increased interest in this subject emerged
only relatively recently (Brevers et al., 2011; Damisch et al.,
2010; Foster et al., 2006; Rudski, 2001; Schippers & Van Lange,
2006; Van Raalte et al., 1991; Wright & Erdal, 2008). Based on
the earlier research of Buhrmann and Zaugg (1981), in which
superstitious beliefs of basketball players were positively
associated with performance, a set of studies led by the same
researcher investigated superstitions in 10-trial golf putting, lucky-
charm, and motor-dexterity tasks under different laboratory
settings (Damisch et al., 2010). Supporting the past correlational
results, performance benefits from superstitious beliefs have
emerged. Later, a brief meta analysis of these studies yielded a
large effect size (d = 0.83) for the interventions, as calculated in a
replication inquiry carried out by Calin-Jageman and Caldwell
(2014). One’s perceived self-efficacy was thought to play a
mediating role between the observed superstition-performance
link (Damisch et al., 2010). The authors suggested that higher
levels of self-efficacy may lead to the performance benefits of
superstitions, partly through an increased task persistence. Indeed,
in two of their experiments the authors manipulated idiosyncratic
superstitious beliefs (using personal lucky charm) to demonstrate
that the performance enhancing effects were mediated by
heightened feelings of perceived self-efficacy. Subsequently, they
looked at the possible mechanism that could mediate the
improved performance observed in the highly self-efficacious
individuals. It was posited that a tendency to set more challenging
goals (Zimmerman, 1995) and/or longer perseverance in task
(Bandura, 1986) may possibly be responsible for the observed
beneficial effects. The findings revealed that persistence in task
has mediated the effects of superstition-enhanced self-efficacy on
performance.
In support of the studies reported by Damisch et al. (2010) it
was reported that golfers who were told that they were using a
famous golfer’s putter performed better on a putting task than a
control group (Lee, Linkenauger, Bakdash, Joy-Gaba & Profitt,
2011). However, later contradicting findings have also emerged.
Acts of superstitions related to prayers were found to be unrelated
to performance on a reasoning test. Further, asking participants
to think about their religious values and to pray also failed to
affect the results (Aruguete, Goodboy, Jenkins, Mansson &
McCutcheon, 2012). A more recent replication of Damisch et al.
(2010) research also failed to disclose the robust effects reported
by the original research team (Calin-Jageman & Caldwell, 2014).
The replication work was done with special attention to possible
cultural differences and a research design encompassed strict
rigour that specifically controlled for the Type I error. Calin-
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 57 (2016)
Jageman and Caldwell (2014) have disclosed notable
heterogeneity in the effects of superstition on performance. The
inconsistent results may be ascribed to different research designs,
unknown moderators, type of task, test situations, the studied
participants, etc., which warrant the systematic investigation of
the various mediators in this field.
The level of competition may be one of the mediators of the
effect of superstition on performance. Brevers et al. (2011)
manipulated both the level of competition and uncertainty with
the aim to measure the relative contribution of personal (athletic
identity) and situational (level of competition, psychological
tension, uncertainty, and the importance of the outcome) factors
on nonprofessional athletes’ sport superstition. The findings
revealed a positive link between athletic identity and superstitious
behaviors. However, the degree of superstitious behavior was
also dependent on situational factors, in that higher level of
competitions were linked to greater behavioral commitment.
Uncertainty exerted a lesser influence on athletes’ behavioral
commitment than the importance of the game. Supporting the
results, uncertainty, and more so the importance of the contest,
increased the level of behavioral commitment in an earlier
inquiry (Schippers & Van Lange, 2006). These experimental
results agree with the findings from correlational studies and
suggest that the external circumstances concerning the outcome
(importance) and the opponent (uncertainty) affect psychological
tension, which then prompts the predisposed individual to engage
in superstitious behaviors, possibly to reach a source of comfort
and reassurance.
Belief in control, could be a strong mediator of superstition
on performance. Earlier, Van Raalte et al. (1991) tested the
hypothesis that individuals may be more prone to display
superstitious acts when they believe that they can exert control
over a chance situation. The authors found that those who
believed that they could influence the chance were more likely to
engage in superstitious behavior. Later, Wright and Erdal (2009)
used the same design in their experimental work while testing
the impact of task difficulty on superstitious behavior. The
researchers created an easy and difficult condition of golf-putting
task and hypothesized that participants will exhibit more
superstitious behaviors when they encounter the difficult task. The
results, however, showed no difference between superstitious
behaviors in the two tasks. Nevertheless, a statistically significant
interaction was disclosed between task difficulty and skill level.
Low skilled participants manifested more superstitious behaviors
in the easy condition while highly skilled participants exhibited an
opposite trend. This finding supports the “uncertainty hypothesis”
in superstitious behavior (Burger & Lynn, 2005), according to
which, when the outcome of a situation is increasingly uncertain,
superstitious behavior will increase. The highly skilled
participants were confident in the easy condition, so they did not
need luck (color of the ball). However, in the difficult condition
they struggled more, hence they needed to rely on some external
help. The lack of superstitions in the difficult condition for the
low skill participants could reflect the surfacing of a learned
helplessness, which was claimed to be on the opposite end of the
same continuum (Matute, 1994).
In a laboratory setting, Rudski (2001) investigated superstitions
in competitive situations (refer to Table 3). Their findings were
Scand J Psychol 57 (2016) Superstition in sport 377

Table 3. Experimental studies about superstition and performance

Author(s) Research objectives Participants Methods Key findings

Van Tested the hypothesis that people may
Raalte be more likely to display superstition
et al. when they believe in control over
(1991) chance situations; More ego–involved
and anxious athletes may report more
superstitions.
Rudski Studied the influence of reinforcement
(2001) schedules and competition on
triggering superstitious behaviors and
beliefs
Schippers To test the hypotheses that people
and Van carry out rituals in
Lange uncertain situations, where the
(2006) outcome is important to them;
Psychological tension may mediate
the predicted effects; Differences in
locus of control influence
superstitious behavior.
Foster Hypothesized that basketball
et al. performance is worst when no pre-
(2006) performance routine (PPR) is used,
better when athletes use superstitious
behaviors (SB) and the best when
PPR is used.
Wright Tested the hypothesis that participants
and show more superstitious behavior
Erdal when they are faced with a more
(2008) difficult task.
Damisch Activating superstitious acts leads to
et al. improved performance, this effect is
(2010) mediated by increased level of self–
efficacy.
Nonathletes Levenson’s chance orientation scale;
N = 37 The authors generated high ego-
involvement in subjects, after the
task, ego–involvement QTR; Golf–
putting task with four colored balls;
Superstitious behavior manifested in
the selection of the same color ball
after having made a putt with that
ball.
Athletes, Created six conditions and groups,
students differing according to reinforcement
N = 72 schedule and competitive situation;
At specified intervals, lights were
illuminated, but the contingency was
not altered; Superstitious beliefs were
examined.
Athletes Used a 3 by 2 by 2 factorial design;
(football, The within-participant variables were:
volleyball, relative standing and importance of
hockey) the outcome; Between-participants
N = 197 variable was: locus of control;
Manipulated six vignettes: relative
standing (inferior, equal or superior
opponent) and importance (final
versus training match).
Athletes Used a 2 by 3 (group by trials)
(basketball) repeated measures design (groups:
N = 20 experimental and control;
experimental trials: SB, removal of
SB, PPR); Task: 20 free-throw
attempts; The PPR consisted of a
concentration cue, a relaxation cue,
an imagery cue and a cue word.
Nonathletes Golf–putting task – four different
N = 40 colored balls (using the win-stay,
lose-shift strategy).
Students (i) 10–trial putting task; link the
N = 28 concept of good luck to the ball.
N = 51 (ii) Motor–dexterity task; Superstition
activated group (“I keep my fingers
crossed”); First control (“I press the
watch for you”); Second control
(“on ‘go’ you go”).
N = 41 (iii) Memory game; presence versus
absence of their personal lucky
charm; assessing participants’ self–
efficacy beliefs.
Subjects who believed that they could
have control over chance events were
more likely to execute superstitious
behavior (i.e., use a “lucky ball” after
successful putt).
Reinforcement schedule and
competitive situation did not affect
the degree of superstitious belief,
although people in “winning”
competitive condition were less likely
to adopt a superstitious explanation
for the reinforcement; Superstition
was associated with participants’
belief in improved future performance
and with participants’ perceived skill
relative to their opponents’ skills.
Ritual commitment is greater when
uncertainty is high and importance of
the game is also high; Both effects of
importance and uncertainty appeared
to be mediated by psychological
tension; External control was linked
to greater levels of commitment to
rituals.
Very little difference was found
between PPR and SB, worst
performance when neither was used.
Use of PPRs only returned
performance to baseline (as compared
with SB).
No difference was seen between
superstitious behaviors in the easy
versus the difficult condition;
Significant interaction was found
between skill level and task difficulty
on superstitious behaviors; Low
skilled participants demonstrated
more superstitious behavior in the
easy condition, whereas highly skill
participants showed the same trend in
the difficult condition.
(i) Found better performance with an
ostensibly lucky ball.
(ii) Participants in the superstitious
condition solved the task faster than
those in the two control conditions.
(iii) Participants with lucky charm
performed better and reported higher
levels of self-fficacy; No difference
was found in anxiety or in the mood;
Bootstrapping analysis revealed that
self–efficacy mediated the effect of
the lucky charm.

(continued)

© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
378 Z. D€om€ot€or et al. Scand J Psychol 57 (2016)

Table 3 (continued)

Author(s) Research objectives Participants Methods Key findings

N = 31 (iv) Anagram task; Presence or (iv) Participants with lucky charm

Brevers Studied athletic identity in relation to
et al. sport superstition; Level of
(2011) competition affects superstitious
rituals (SR); Higher ritual
commitment (RC) occurs in uncertain
and important situations; Tension is
positively linked to a level of
superstition and mediates the effects
of uncertainty and importance on RC.
absence of a personal lucky charm;
Assessing participants’ self-efficacy,
performance goals, task persistence.
Athletes Within-group design: vignette–method
(soccer, (as Schippers & Van Lange, 2006):
volleyball, Manipulated competition importance
table tennis, and uncertainty (relative standing);
judo, fencing) The outcome measures were:
N = 219 psychological tension, number and
form of SR, degree of superstitious
feelings, RC; The Athletic Identity
Measurement Scale (AIMS; Brewer,
Van Raalte & Linder, 1993).
performed better and reported higher
self-efficacy; Bootstrapping analysis
revealed that self-efficacy mediated
this effect; Higher goals and a longer
persistence in the presence of lucky
charm were mediated by perceived
self-efficacy; A final bootstrapping
showed that persistence mediated the
effect of self-efficacy.
Three thirds (165 = 75.8%) of the
participant reported SR(s); No
difference between competition level
and score for superstition; The effect
of the competition level emerged only
in the case of elite sportsmen who
showed higher RC against superior
opponents; Positive correlation
emerged between athletic identity and
SR; Intensity of superstition depended
on situational factors: uncertainty and
importance increased the level of RC;
Psychological tension mediated the
effect of both uncertainty and
importance on RC; Woman exhibited
more superstitious behaviors that was
attributed to subjective feelings of
pre-competitive psychological
tension.

generally supportive of a link between superstition and the
illusion of control, as well as with self-efficacy. The results of this
study also suggest that experimentally induced superstitious
beliefs may be qualitatively different from the already adopted –
learned and/or conditioned – superstitions, since previous studies
identified athletes as especially superstitious individuals.
However, in this experiment the degree of athletic involvement
was not associated with any superstition generated by the
experimental procedure, but only with traditional superstitions
such as having a lucky charm or number.
Overall, there is an inconsistency about the beneficial effect
of superstitious behaviors in the literature (Calin-Jageman &
Caldwell, 2010) and several environmental and personality
factors (e.g., the skill level of the athlete, the importance of the
task, locus of control, etc.) can influence the ultimate effect.
However, several experiments can be found where superstitious
beliefs benefit the sport performer (Damisch et al., 2010; Foster
et al., 2006; Lee 2011). These benefits most likely result from a
placebo effect yielding reassurance, perceived control, and
reduced anxiety. These acts could help the athlete to reach the
optimal performance state (Garfield & Bennett, 1984) or a
mental comfort zone. With the examination of the factors that
influence the athletes’ beliefs, scholars can help coaches, sport
psychologists and other sports professionals to work more
effectively with their athletes and help them to cope with
uncertainty (Burke et al., 2006). In other words, personal beliefs
could be used as a psychological means to achieving an optimal
mental state in sport contest and during high levels of
competitions.
STATUS OF KNOWLEDGE
Pioneering research contribution to the understanding of
superstitious behaviors in sport should be credited to Neil (1982).
He attempted to reveal how sports superstitions originate, and
under what condition could they be observed. In doing so, he
studied the variations in superstition from one sport to another
and looked at sex differences as well. Neil (1982) observed that
not only athletes have their own superstitions but coaches,
managers, and even spectators often exhibit sport-related
superstitions. He believed that most of the superstitions are kept
secret, because holding a superstition carries a pejorative taint.
Further, athletes often do not recognize that their irrational,
unfounded beliefs are in fact superstitions. These factors present a
difficulty in the examining of superstitious behavior in sport. The
major contribution of Neil’s (1982) work was the categorization
of the superstitions into three categories: (1) origin of the
superstition (a. Culture, b. Sport, c. Personal; Coffin, 1971);
(2) type or form of superstition (clothing, manner of dressing,
numbers, etc.; Becker, 1975); and (3) anthropology of the
superstitions (a. Rituals, b. Taboos, c. Fetishes; Gmelch, 1972).
Based on our review of the field, and the new knowledge that
has emerged in the past three decades, we suggest the expansions
of Neil’s categories – with delimitation to a context in sports

© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 57 (2016)
Personality
Ratio of (perceived)
characteristics
challenge to skill
• Self confidence
• Self efficacy
• Optimism
• Need to avoid failure,
etc.
Predictability of
Superstitious
the outcome, or Behaviour in
uncertainty Sport
Social approval
and disapproval Perceived importance of
(of the superstitious act) the event to the self
Fig. 2. The many factors that may affect superstitious behavior in sport. Due to their dynamic and interactional nature, the contribution of each will
depend on the context/situation.
superstitions – for the more systematic investigation of the issue.
We recommend a differentiation between personal and social
superstitions, that fits well into Neil’s (1982) first category. The
qualitative differences in the superstitious acts between men and
women fit into Neil’s second category. As for Neil’s third
category, very little research was conducted in the area of sports,
and most of them were restricted to rituals. We recommend the
use of four further subcategories within sports: (i) in athletic level,
elite – non-elite (Flanagan, 2013); (ii) team sport versus
individual sport (Flanagan, 2013); (iii) player position in the team
(Ciborowski, 1997; Gmelch, 1972; Neil, 1980;); (iv) interaction
of personal and situational factors: (a) skill and challenge (Wright
& Erdal, 2008), and (b) level of uncertainty and importance
of the competition (Schippers & Van Lange, 2006). These
“interactional” sub-categories are not independent of the
personality characteristics of the athletes that predispose them to
engage in superstitious acts. While there is a relative shortage of
research in this area, our review of the academic literature
suggests that some of the personality factors are more likely to be
linked to involvement in superstitious behaviors than others.
Indeed, a fierce athletic-identity (ego-threat), external locus of
control, pessimism, religiosity, and anxiety were moderate, or at
least mild, links to superstitious behavior in sports. Clearly, these
relationships are very preliminary, and in some cases may only be
tentative. However, they may serve a starting new infrastructure
for encouraging more empirical research that could clarify the
contribution of various personality traits to superstitious behavior
in sports.
CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK
Summing up the current review, it is evident that the
manifestation of superstitious behaviors in sports is determined
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Superstition in sport 379
Current needs,
ambitions, and
key motivations
Learning and
Conditioning
Earlier or
past
experience
by a set of complex interactions. Therefore, this form of
behavior can be best studied from a dynamic and interactional
perspective, by taking into consideration the many factors that
may affect it (Fig. 2). It is imperative to appreciate the
personality characteristics that interact with several situational
factors at any given time to determine the use and possibly
even the efficacy of superstitious behavior in sports. Whether
superstitions lead to a desired result via a placebo effect is not
clear, but recent research evidence revealed that superstition and
the placebo effect are strongly correlated and share almost 25%
of the common variance (Rekhviashvili & Gupta, 2015). There
are few differences in superstitious behaviors between athletes
and non-athletes, which could be observed in the quality and
spectrum rather than the quantity of superstitions. Even inactive
involvement in sports, like being a sports fan, may be linked to
more superstition than non-involvement. Superstitious behaviors
may vary with the type of sport and role of the player in team
sports, and increases with the level of competition or challenge.
Cultural differences, in conjunction with the education level,
appear to also influence superstitious behavior is a sport, while
gender differences are more closely connected to the form or
type of the superstition rather than its magnitude, and they may
disappear at a higher level of challenge. In spite of the
presumed similarity, religiosity and superstition appear to be
different behavioral facilitators in sport. Personality factors, like
locus of control, perceived control, skill and self-efficacy,
optimism, pessimism, and paranormal beliefs are consistently
linked to superstitious behavior in sport. Further, the importance
of an event, and the degree of uncertainty associated with that
event, appear to play a crucial role in acts of superstitious
behavior in sport. Similarly, an interaction between the level of
athletic skill and task difficulty is another predictor of
superstitious behavior.
380 Z. D€om€ot€or et al.
Future studies need to investigate the actual contribution of the
various determinants to the emergence of superstitious beliefs
and behaviors in sport, by considering the personality factors
associated with the behavior. Such studies need to be complex,
because apart from personality factors, cultural heritage, and
gender, situational factors like type of sport, role in sports, degree
of challenge, level of skill and opponents’ characteristics, all need
to be considered in a very thorough examination of superstitious
behavior in sport and exercise settings. Finally, the impact of
negative superstitions (acting as nocebos) should also be
investigated in future works.
 Nemzeti Kival
This research was supported by the Hungarian Uj osag
Program.
REFERENCES
Abele, A. E. & Brack, S. (2015). Preference for other persons’ traits is
dependent on the kind of social relationship. Social Psychology, 44,
84–94.
Aruguete, M. S., Goodboy, A. K., Mansson, D. H., Jenkins, W. J. &
McCutcheon, L. E. (2012). Does religious faith improve
test performance? North American Journal of Psychology, 14, 185–196.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Becker, J. (1975). Superstition in sport. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 6, 148–152.
Benedetti, F. & Frisaldi, E. (2014). Creating placebo responders and
nonresponders in the laboratory: boons and banes. Pain Management,
4, 165–167.
Berger, A. S. (2012). The evil eye – an ancient superstition. Journal of
Religion and Health, 51, 1098–1103.
Berdi, M., K€oteles, F., Szabo, A. & Bardos, G. (2011). Placebo effects in
sport and exercise: A meta–analysis. European Journal of Mental
Health, 6, 196–212.
Bleak, J. L. & Frederick, C. M. (1998). Superstitious behavior in sport:
Levels of effectiveness and determinants of use in three collegiate
sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 1–15.
Boutcher, S. H. & Crews, D. J. (1987). The effect of a pre-shot routine on
a well–learned skill. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 18,
30–39.
Brevers, D., Nils, F., Dan, B. & No€el, X. (2011). Sport superstition:
Mediation of psychological tension on non-professional sportsmen’s
superstitious rituals. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34, 3–24.
Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L. & Linder, D. E. (1993). Athletic identity:
Hercules’ muscles or Achilles heel? International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 24, 237–254.
Buhrmann, H. G., Brown, B. & Zaugg, M. K. (1982). Superstitious beliefs
and behavior. A comparison of male and female basketball players.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 5, 75–185.
Buhrmann, H. G. & Zaugg, M. K. (1981). Superstitions among basketball
players: An investigation of various forms of superstitious beliefs and
behavior among competitive basketballers at the junior high school to
university level. Journal of Sport Behavior, 4, 163–174.
Buhrmann, H. G. & Zaugg, M. K. (1983). Religion and superstition in the
sport of basketball. Journal of Sport Behavior, 6, 146–157.
Burger, J. M. & Lynn, A. L. (2005). Superstitious behavior among
American and Japanese professional baseball players. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 27, 71–76.
Burke, K. L., Joyner, A. B., Czech, D. R., Knight, J. L., Scott, L. A.,
Benton, S. G. & Roughton, H. K. (2006). An exploratory investigation
of superstition, personal control, optimism and pessimism in NCAA
division I intercollegiate student-athletes. Athletic Insight, 8 (2).
Retrieved June 22, 2015 from: http://www.athleticinsight.com/
Vol8Iss2/Superstition.htm
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 57 (2016)
Calin-Jageman, R. J. & Caldwell, T. L. (2014). Replication of the
superstition and performance study by Damisch, Stoberock, and
Mussweiler (2010). Social Psychology, 45, 239–245.
Campbell, C. (1996). Half–belief and the paradox of behaviour
instrumental activism: A theory of modern superstition. British Journal
of Sociology, 47, 151–166.
Ciborowski, T. (1997). “Superstition” in the collegiate baseball player. The
Sport Psychologist, 11, 305–317.
Coffin, T. P. (1971). The old ball game: Baseball in folklore and fiction.
New York: Herder and Herder Publishers.
Cohn, P. J. (1990). Preperformance routines in sport: Theoretical support
and practical applications. The Sport Psychologist, 4, 301–312.
Cotterill, S. (2010). Pre-performance routines in sport: Current
understanding and future directions. International Review of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 3, 132–153.
Crews, D. J. & Boutcher, S. H. (1986). An exploratory observational
behavior analysis of professional golfers during competition. Journal
of Sport Behavior, 9, 51–58.
Damisch, L., Stoberock, B. & Mussweiler, T. (2010). Keep your fingers
crossed! How superstition improves performance. Psychological
Science, 21, 1014–1020.
Dudley, R. T. (1999). The effect of superstitious belief on performance
following an unsolvable problem. Personality and Individual
Differences, 26, 1057–1064.
Emme, E. E. (1940). Modification and origin of certain beliefs in
superstition among 96 college students. The Journal of Psychology,
10, 279–291.
Fischer, G. (1997). Abstention from sex and other pre-game rituals used
by college male varsity athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 176–
184.
Flanagan, E. (2013). Superstitious ritual in sport and the competitive
anxiety response in elite and non–elite athletes. Unpublished
dissertation, DBS eSource, Dublin Business School. Retrieved 20 June
2015 from http://esource.dbs.ie/handle/10788/1599.
Foster, K. R. & Kokko, H. (2009). The evolution of superstitious and
superstition-like behaviour. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London B: Biological Sciences, 276, 31–37.
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, 167–171.
Friedman, M. & Rosenman, R. (1974). Type A behaviour and your heart.
New York: Knopf.
Frisaldi, E., Piedimonte, A. & Benedetti, F. (2015). Placebo and nocebo
effects: A complex interplay between psychological factors and
neurochemical networks. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57,
267–284.
Garfield, C. A. & Bennett, H. Z. (1984). Peak performance: Mental
training techniques of the world’s greatest athletes. Los Angeles, CA:
Tarcher.
Gmelch, G. (1972). Magic in professional baseball. In G. P. Dans
Stone (Ed.), Games, sport and power (pp. 128–137). New
Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Gregory, C. J. & Petrie, B. M. (1972). Superstition in sport. Paper
presented at the Fourth Canadian Psychomotor Learning and Sports
Psychology Symposium, Waterloo, October. Retrieved 31 May 2016
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED085340.pdf.
Gregory, C. J. & Petrie, B. M. (1975). Superstitions of Canadian
intercollegiate athletes: An intersport comparison. International Review
of Sport Sociology, 10, 59–68.
Hamerman, E. J. & Johar, G. V. (2013). Conditioned superstition: Desire
for control and consumer brand preferences. Journal of Consumer
Research, 40, 428–443.
Hamerman, E. J. & Morewedge, C. K. (2015). Reliance on luck:
Identifying which achievement goals elicit superstitious behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 323–335.
Irwin, H. J. (1994). Paranormal belief and proneness to dissociation.
Psychological Reports, 75, 1344–1346.
Scand J Psychol 57 (2016)
Jackson, S. A. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in sports. Chicago,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Jahoda, G. (1969). The psychology of superstition. London: The Penguin
Press.
Joukhador, J., Blaszczynski, A. & Maccallum, F. (2004). Superstitious
beliefs in gambling among problem and non-problem gamblers:
Preliminary data. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 171–180.
Lee, C., Linkenauger, S. A., Bakdash, J. Z., Joy-Gaba, J. A. & Profitt,
D. R. (2011). Putting like a pro: The role of positive contagion in golf
performance and perception. PloS One, 6, e26016. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0026016.
Lerner, M. J. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of
performer’s reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1, 355–360.
Lindheimer, J. B., O’Connor, P. J. & Dishman, R. K. (2015). Quantifying
the placebo effect in psychological outcomes of exercise training: A
meta-analysis of randomized trials. Sports Medicine, 45, 693–711.
Lindstr€om, B. & Olsson, A. (2015). Mechanisms of social avoidance
learning can explain the emergence of adaptive and arbitrary
behavioral traditions in humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 144, 688–703.
Lobmeyer, D. & Wasserman, E. A. (1986). Preliminaries to free throw
shooting: Superstitious behavior? Journal of Sport Behavior, 9,
70–78.
Malinowski, B. (1979). The role of magic and religion. In W. A. Lessa &
E. Z. Vogt (Eds.), Reader in comparative religion: An anthropological
approach (4th edn, pp. 37–46). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Maranise, A. M. J. (2013). Superstition and religious ritual: An examination
of their effects and utilization in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 27,
83–91.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W. & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping
and defensive pessimism: A model of self-protection from a
longitudinal perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28,
1–36.
Matute, H. (1994). Learned helplessness and superstitious behavior as
opposite effects of uncontrollable reinforcement in humans. Learning
and Motivation, 25, 216–232.
McClearn, D. G. (2004). Interest in sports and beliefs in sports
superstitions 1. Psychological Reports, 94, 1043–1047.
Menapace, V. (2012). Rituale im leistungssport. Diplomarbeit, Universit€at
Wien. Retrieved 9 June 2016 from http://othes.univie.ac.at/19032/1/
2012-03-11_0508785.pdf.
Mocan, N. & Pogorelova, L. (2014). Compulsory schooling laws and
formation of beliefs: Education, religion and superstition. National
Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved 1 June 2015 from http://
www.nber.org/papers/w20557.
Neil, G. (1980). The place of superstition in sport: The self–fulfilling
prophecy. Coaching Review, 3, 40–42.
Neil, G. (1982). Demistifying sport superstition. International Review of
Sport Sociology, 17, 99–124.
Neil, G., Anderson, B. & Sheppard, W. (1981). Superstitions among male
and female athletes of various levels of involvement. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 4, 137–148.
Newkey-Burden, C. (2014). 10 sportsmen and their strange superstitions.
The Telegraph, November 5. Retrieved 15 June 2015 from http://
www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11208062/10-sportsmen-and-their-
strange-superstitions.html.
Ofori, P. K., Biddle, S. & Lavallee, D., (2012). The role of superstition
among professional footballers in Ghana. Athletic Insight: The Online
Journal of Sport Psychology, 14. Retrieved 22 June 2015 from http://
www.athleticinsight.com/Vol14Iss2/Feature.htm.
Pargament, K. I., Ensing, D. S., Falgout, K., Olsen, H., Reilly, B., Van
Haitsma, K. & Warren, R. (1990). God help me: (I): Religious coping
efforts as predictors of the outcomes to significant negative life events.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 793–824.
Perkos, S., Barkoukis, V. & Christopoulos, I. (2013). Superstitious beliefs
and behaviours in sport: Association with locus of control, anxiety and
demographic characteristics. Inquiries in Sport & Physical Education,
11, 20–31 (in Greek).
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Superstition in sport 381
Pronin, E., Wegner, D. M., McCarthy, K. & Rodriguez, S. (2006).
Everyday magical powers: The role of apparent mental causation in
the overestimation of personal influence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 91, 218–231.
Rao, L. L., Zheng, Y., Zhou, Y. & Li, S. (2014). Probing the neural basis
of superstition. Brain Topography, 27, 766–770.
Rekhviashvili, N. & Gupta, S. (2015). Superstition predicts favorable
weight change in an open-placebo trial: A prospective study. Eating
and Weight Disorders – Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity, 20,
389–395.
Rogers, P. (1998). The cognitive psychology of lottery gambling: A
theoretical review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 111–134.
Rudski, J. (2001). Competition, superstition and the illusion of control.
Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social,
20, 68–84.
Rudski, J. (2004). The illusion of control, superstitious belief, and
optimism. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality,
Social, 22, 306–315.
Rudski, J. M. & Edwards, A. (2010). Malinowski goes to college: Factors
influencing students’ use of ritual and superstition. The Journal of
General Psychology, 134, 389–403.
Saenko, IU, V. (2014). The superstitions of today’s college students.
Russian Education & Society, 47, 76–89.
Samuelsen, R. (1957). Superstition in sport. Detroit, MI: The Sport
Library of Studebaler-Packard Corp.
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, 2532–2553.
Sheard, M. (2012). Mental toughness: The mindset behind sporting
achievement. London: Routledge.
Skinner, B. (1948). Superstition in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 38, 168–172.
Singer, R. N. (2002). Preperformance state, routines, and automaticity:
What does it take to realize expertise in self-paced events? Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 359–375.
Swann, C., Keegan, R. J., Piggott, D. & Crust, L. (2012). A
systematic review of the experience, occurrence, and controllability
of flow states in elite sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13,
807–819.
Szabo, A. (2013). Acute psychological benefits of exercise:
Reconsideration of the placebo effect. Journal of Mental Health, 22,
449–455.
Szabo, A., Berdi, M., K€ oteles, F. & Bardos, G. (2013). Perceptual
characteristics of nutritional supplements determine the expected
effectiveness in boosting strength, endurance, and concentration
performances. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise
Metabolism, 23, 624–628.
The Concordian (2012). A look at pre-game rituals and superstitions from
your stingers. Retrieved 15 June 2015 from http://theconcordian.com/
2012/10/a–look–at–pre–game–rituals–and–superstitions–from–your–
stingers/.
Tobacyk, J. J., Nagot, E. & Miller, M. (1988). Paranormal beliefs and
locus of control: A multidimensional examination. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 52, 241–246.
Todd, M. & Brown, C. (2003). Characteristics associated with
superstitious behavior in track and field athletes: Are there NCAA
divisional level differences? Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 168–
187.
Torma, N., Berdi, M., K€oteles, F. & Bardos, G. (2013). First experiences
with the Hungarian version of the Sport Superstition Scale. Magyar
Sporttudom anyi Szemle, 14, 52–58 (in Hungarian).
Van Raalte, J. L., Brewer, B. W., Nemeroff, C. J. & Linder, D. E. (1991).
Chance orientation and superstitious behaviour on the putting green.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 14, 41–50.
Vyse, S. A. (2013). Believing in magic: The psychology of superstition
(updated edn). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wiseman, R. & Watt, C. (2004). Measuring superstitious belief: Why
lucky charms matter. Personality and Individual Differences, 37,
1533–1541.
382 Z. D€om€ot€or et al.
Womack, M. (1979). Why athletes need ritual: A study of magic among
professional athletes. In W. J. Morgan (Ed.), Sport and the
humanities: A collection of original essays (pp. 27–38). Knoxville,
TN: Bureau of Educational Research and Service, The University of
Tennessee.
Womack, M. (1992a). Green cars, black cats, lady luck. In S. J. Hoffman
(Ed.), Sports and Religion (pp. 203–212). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics Publishers.
Womack, M. (1992b). Why athletes need ritual: A study of magic among
professional athletes. In S. J. Hoffman (Ed.), Sport and religion
(pp. 191–202). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Wright, P. B. & Erdal, K. J. (2008). Sport superstition as a function
of skill level and task difficulty. Journal of Sport Behavior, 31,
187–199.
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 57 (2016)
Zaugg, M. K. (1980). Superstitious beliefs of basketball players. Theses,
Dissertations, Professional Paper 3784. Retrieved 31 May 2016 from
http://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/3784.
Zebb, B., J., Moore & M., C. (2003). Superstitiousness and perceived
anxiety control as predictors of psychological distress. Journal of
Anxiety Disorders, 17, 115–130.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self–efficacy and educational development. In
A. Bandura (Ed.), Self–efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202–231).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Received 12 December 2015, accepted 2 May 2016