Magical thinking in predictions of negative events: Evidence for tempting fate but not for a protection effect

J. van Wolferen, Y. Inbar, M. Zeelenberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

35 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In this paper we test two hypotheses regarding magical thinking about the perceived likelihood of future events. The first is that people believe that those who “tempt fate” by failing to take necessary precautions are more likely to suffer negative outcomes. The second is the “protection effect”, where reminding people of precautions they have taken leads them to see related risks as less likely. To this end, we describe the results from three attempted direct replications of a protection effect experiment reported in Tykocinski (2008) and two replications of a tempting fate experiment reported in Risen and Gilovich (2008) in which we add a test of the protection effect. We did not replicate the protection effect but did replicate the tempting fate effect.
Keywords: magical thinking, tempting fate, protection effect, replication attempt.
1 Introduction
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)45-54
JournalJudgment and Decision Making
Volume8
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Prediction
Replication
Precaution
Experiment
Key words

Cite this

@article{137180aaf7a04c669c11c8f3a02ece29,
title = "Magical thinking in predictions of negative events: Evidence for tempting fate but not for a protection effect",
abstract = "In this paper we test two hypotheses regarding magical thinking about the perceived likelihood of future events. The first is that people believe that those who “tempt fate” by failing to take necessary precautions are more likely to suffer negative outcomes. The second is the “protection effect”, where reminding people of precautions they have taken leads them to see related risks as less likely. To this end, we describe the results from three attempted direct replications of a protection effect experiment reported in Tykocinski (2008) and two replications of a tempting fate experiment reported in Risen and Gilovich (2008) in which we add a test of the protection effect. We did not replicate the protection effect but did replicate the tempting fate effect.Keywords: magical thinking, tempting fate, protection effect, replication attempt.1 Introduction",
author = "{van Wolferen}, J. and Y. Inbar and M. Zeelenberg",
year = "2013",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "45--54",
journal = "Judgment and Decision Making",
issn = "1930-2975",
publisher = "Society for Judgment and Decision Making",
number = "1",

}

Magical thinking in predictions of negative events : Evidence for tempting fate but not for a protection effect. / van Wolferen, J.; Inbar, Y.; Zeelenberg, M.

In: Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2013, p. 45-54.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Magical thinking in predictions of negative events

T2 - Evidence for tempting fate but not for a protection effect

AU - van Wolferen, J.

AU - Inbar, Y.

AU - Zeelenberg, M.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - In this paper we test two hypotheses regarding magical thinking about the perceived likelihood of future events. The first is that people believe that those who “tempt fate” by failing to take necessary precautions are more likely to suffer negative outcomes. The second is the “protection effect”, where reminding people of precautions they have taken leads them to see related risks as less likely. To this end, we describe the results from three attempted direct replications of a protection effect experiment reported in Tykocinski (2008) and two replications of a tempting fate experiment reported in Risen and Gilovich (2008) in which we add a test of the protection effect. We did not replicate the protection effect but did replicate the tempting fate effect.Keywords: magical thinking, tempting fate, protection effect, replication attempt.1 Introduction

AB - In this paper we test two hypotheses regarding magical thinking about the perceived likelihood of future events. The first is that people believe that those who “tempt fate” by failing to take necessary precautions are more likely to suffer negative outcomes. The second is the “protection effect”, where reminding people of precautions they have taken leads them to see related risks as less likely. To this end, we describe the results from three attempted direct replications of a protection effect experiment reported in Tykocinski (2008) and two replications of a tempting fate experiment reported in Risen and Gilovich (2008) in which we add a test of the protection effect. We did not replicate the protection effect but did replicate the tempting fate effect.Keywords: magical thinking, tempting fate, protection effect, replication attempt.1 Introduction

UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10411/20058

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 45

EP - 54

JO - Judgment and Decision Making

JF - Judgment and Decision Making

SN - 1930-2975

IS - 1

ER -