pmc logo image
Logo of jeabehavJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Web SiteSubscriber LoginJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis Web SiteSubscription InformationInformation for AuthorsJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Web SiteJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Web Site

Formats:

J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 May; 47(3): 261–271.
doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-261.
PMCID: PMC1348309
Superstitious behavior in humans
Koichi Ono
Abstract
Twenty undergraduate students were exposed to single response-independent schedules of reinforcer presentation, fixed-time or variable-time, each with values of 30 and 60 s. The reinforcer was a point on a counter accompanied by a red lamp and a brief buzzer. Three color signals were presented, without consistent relation to reinforcer or to the subjects' behavior. Three large levers were available, but the subjects were not asked to perform any particular behavior. Three of the 20 subjects developed persistent superstitious behavior. One engaged in a pattern of lever-pulling responses that consisted of long pulls after a few short pulls; the second touched many things in the experimental booth; the third showed biased responding called sensory superstition. However, most subjects did not show consistent superstitious behavior. Reinforcers can operate effectively on human behavior even in the absence of a response-reinforcer contingency and can, in some cases, shape stable superstitious patterns. However, superstitious behavior is not a consistent outcome of exposure of human subjects to response-independent reinforcer deliveries.
Full text
Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.6M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • APPEL JB, HISS RH. The discrimination of contingent from noncontingent reinforcement. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1962 Feb;55:37–39. [PubMed]
  • Blue S, Sherman JG, Pierrel R. Differential responding as a function of auditory stimulus intensity without differential reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 May;15(3):371–377. [PubMed]
  • Brown PL, Jenkins HM. Auto-shaping of the pigeon's key-peck. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jan;11(1):1–8. [PubMed]
  • BRUNER A, REVUSKY SH. Collateral behavior in humans. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Oct;4:349–350. [PubMed]
  • CATANIA AC, CUTTS D. Experimental control of superstitious responding inhumans. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Apr;6:203–208. [PubMed]
  • Falk JL. Conditions producing psychogenic polydipsia in animals. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1969 May 15;157(2):569–593. [PubMed]
  • Falk JL. The nature and determinants of adjunctive behavior. Physiol Behav. 1971 May;6(5):577–588. [PubMed]
  • Kello John E, Innis Nancy K, Staddon JER. Eccentric stimuli on multiple fixed-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Mar;23(2):233–240. [PubMed]
  • KIEFFER JD. DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE RATES CORRELATED WITH THE PRESENCE OF "NEUTRAL" STIMULI. J Exp Anal Behav. 1965 Jul;8:227–229. [PubMed]
  • Killeen PR. Superstition: a matter of bias, not detectability. Science. 1978 Jan 6;199(4324):88–90. [PubMed]
  • Lachter Gerald D. Some temporal parameters of non-contingent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Sep;16(2):207–217. [PubMed]
  • Lachter GD, Cole BK, Schoenfeld WN. Response rate under varying frequency of non-contingent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Mar;15(2):233–236. [PubMed]
  • Lander DG. Stimulus bias in the absence of food reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Nov;11(6):711–714. [PubMed]
  • Lattal Kennon A. Reponse-reinforcer independence and conventional extinction after fixed-interval and variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jul;18(1):133–140. [PubMed]
  • Lattal Kennon A. Response-reinforcer dependence and independence in multiple and mixed schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Sep;20(2):265–271. [PubMed]
  • Lattal Kennon A. Combinations of response-reinforcer dependence and independence. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Sep;22(2):357–362. [PubMed]
  • MORSE WH, SKINNER BF. A second type of superstition in the pigeon. Am J Psychol. 1957 Jun;70(2):308–311. [PubMed]
  • Neuringer Allen J. Superstitious key pecking after three peck-produced reinforcements. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):127–134. [PubMed]
  • Sizemore OJ, Lattal Kennon A. Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Sep;30(2):169–175. [PubMed]
  • Starr BC, Staddon JE. Sensory superstition on multiple interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Mar;37(2):267–280. [PubMed]
  • Timberlake W, Lucas GA. The basis of superstitious behavior: chance contingency, stimulus substitution, or appetitive behavior? J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Nov;44(3):279–299. [PubMed]
  • Wasserman Edward A, Neunaber Danny J. College students' responding to and rating of contingency relations: The role of temporal contiguity. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Jul;46(1):15–35. [PubMed]
  • Zeiler MD. Fixed and variable schedules of response-independent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jul;11(4):405–414. [PubMed]