We consistently found that positive fortune telling enhanced financial risk taking particularly among men, even non-believers

Positive fortune telling enhances men’s financial risk taking. Xiaoyue Tan, Jan-Willem van Prooijen, Paul A. M. van Lange. PLoS One, September 7, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273233

Abstract: Fortune telling is a widespread phenomenon, yet little is known about the extent to which people are affected by it—including those who consider themselves non-believers. The present research has investigated the power of a positive fortune telling outcome (vs. neutral vs. negative) on people’s financial risk taking. In two online experiments (n1 = 252; n2 = 441), we consistently found that positive fortune telling enhanced financial risk taking particularly among men. Additionally, we used a real online gambling game in a lab setting (n3 = 193) and found that positive fortune telling enhanced the likelihood that college students gambled for money. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of these three studies demonstrated that the effect of positive fortune telling versus neutral fortune telling was significant for men, but virtually absent for women. Thus, positive fortune telling can yield increased financial risk taking in men, but not (or less so) in women.

General discussion

Three experiments and a meta-analysis uncovered three main findings. First, findings revealed a positive association between superstitious beliefs in fortune telling and financial risk taking. People who reported higher superstitious beliefs in fortune telling also reported an increased tolerance for financial risks (found in Studies 1 and 2). Second, in general participants indicate that they do not believe in fortune telling (across three studies). Third, despite the fact that they did report not to believe in fortune telling, participants (especially men) nevertheless were affected by it: Positive fortune telling enhances men’s financial risk taking (across three studies), whereas no such effect of positive fortune telling emerged among women (except in Study 3). This risk-taking effect for men in the financial domain as consequence of a positive fortune telling was further supported by a meta-analysis of the three experiments.

The paradox–not believing it but acting upon it

Our research findings are consistent with [13]’s claim that people often are susceptible to superstition even when they claim to not believe in it. There is a paradox about believing in superstition in modern times—that is, people act upon superstition while they claim to not believe in it. Since the rise of scientific empiricism, superstition has been negatively valued in society. For instance, it was believed that superstition was caused by the workings of a lower form of human intelligence [45]. New insights produced a shift in common understandings of superstition, however. As various scholars have suggested, it may be part of human nature to construct causal relationships among events, regardless of whether the causal links are real or not (e.g., [12, 16]). Specifically, it is common for people to be superstitious by believing that luck (good or bad) is controllable or predictable, even if they do not admit to it. Across three studies, we found in general, people claimed that they do NOT believe in fortune telling, but nevertheless, particularly men’s financial decisions were affected by the (positive) fortune telling outcomes. Unless people know that they do not want to admit to it, these findings provide novel but indirect evidence that superstition may exert influence on people at a subconscious level.

Gender difference in superstition

There is no scientific consensus yet regarding the question if men or women are more superstitious. Some researchers proposed that women are more superstitious [46]. However, some research evidence is consistent with the notion that men are more superstitious. For instance, a field experiment on lucky numbers suggested that being assigned to lucky numbers does not influence women but increases overconfidence among men [34]. In two of our three studies (Study 1 and 2) we found that men have stronger beliefs in fortune telling. In addition, according to the meta-analytic overview of three studies, men were significantly affected by positive fortune telling whereas women were not. The present research therefore supports the idea that men are more susceptible to superstition than women, at least in financial decision-making situations.

Superstition and risk taking

In two of our three studies (Study 1 and 2) we found significant positive associations between superstition and risk taking. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that superstition works as a coping-mechanism in a risky decision-making situation. From this point of view, the riskier the situation, the stronger people’s need for superstition. Some groups, including sportsperson, gamblers, sailors, soldiers, miners, financial investors and college students, who have to deal with high-risk situations are also considered as traditionally superstitious groups [1]. Additionally, superstitious beliefs were found to be correlated with gambling intensity among EGM (electronic gaming machine) gamblers [47]. A recent study [48] also suggests that the presence of religious images tends to increase individuals’ subjective probability of winning the lottery, and that subjects therefore believe in a god who intervenes actively in the world in response to their requests.

This point of view may also help people understand why men are more affected by a positive fortune telling. According to a meta-analysis [33], men in general are more risk taking than women. Men consistently take greater risks than women in the financial domain [49, 50]. From an evolutionary perspective, risk-taking behaviors may serve multiple important functions for men, such as acquiring social status and resources, attracting high-quality mates, and establishing and affirming manhood after gender threats (for a review, see [51]). However, risks naturally entail potential losses, and thereby pose potential threats to risk-takers. Men are not totally blind to risks. Superstition suggesting that good luck is ahead may increase men’s expectations of “beating the odds”, decrease anxiety among men, provide a justification for a risky choice, and consequently increase their risk-taking behaviors. Put differently, men are more likely than women to take risks in the financial domain, and positive superstitious beliefs encourage such risk-taking further.

Strengths, limitations, and future directions

At least two strengths are noteworthy. First, as noted earlier, research on the effects of superstition on financial risk taking constitutes largely uncharted territory [21], and thus the present research is filling a gap in the literature on superstition and decision-making. We regard this as an important gap also because it adds to the literature that seemingly irrational factors do affect decision-making, even in a high-status domain (financial decision-making) that many people might associate with logical analysis and precision. Second, most empirical research on this topic was conducted with Asian participants (e.g., [25]), who are from cultures where superstition and rituals are slightly more common. The present research was conducted with Western samples, which may add to the generalizability of the findings on superstition.

We also want to discuss several limitations of the current research. One limitation is that because the empirical study of superstition is quite novel and theories of superstition are still rather preliminary, the present research is mostly driven by assumptions about the underlying processes that cause these effects. We believe the findings reported may therefore contribute to theorizing illuminating why men are subject to superstition when they take financial risks. Another limitation pertains to the scope of the superstition construct that we investigated. Specifically, we only investigated one form of superstition, which is fortune telling. It cannot be concluded with confidence whether the findings will replicate for other forms of superstition. Moreover, the saliency of the payoffs in the experimental study conducted in the lab was relatively low, as compared to the payoffs in a typical economic experiment, and the overall financial incentives for all the participation were rather low as well. According to [52, 53], risk aversion increases sharply when payoffs are scaled up. These low payoffs, particularly the small stakes of mild risks for the gambling decision-making in Study 3 with a fixed payment of 2 euros for both options, could have affected the ecological validity of the studies. But however, throughout history, kings and generals customarily called on astrologists or fortune-tellers to obtain advice prior to making any important decisions (e.g., launching a military campaign) [54], it is a question whether the risk-enhancement effect of a positive fortune telling outcome would be present or absent for a real-life decision making involving big stakes. This suggests worthwhile empirical challenges for further research. Besides, the possibility that it is the “positivity” of the message that actually drives men to take more risks under a positive fortune telling condition cannot be ruled out with the present research. This could be investigated in future research on the effects of fortune telling on people’s risk seeking. Finally, there may be validity issues on the measurement instruments used for the present research. While some of our measures were commonly used by other researchers (e.g., the financial risk tolerance test), other measurement instruments have not been validated in prior research (e.g., the items for beliefs in fortune telling). The items of these scales did directly ask for the constructs of interest, however, substantially minimizing potential threats to the construct validity for these measurement instruments.