IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v8y2013i1p45-54_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • van Wolferen, Job
  • Inbar, Yoel
  • Zeelenberg, Marcel

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.

Suggested Citation

  • van Wolferen, Job & Inbar, Yoel & Zeelenberg, Marcel, 2013. "Magical thinking in predictions of negative events: Evidence for tempting fate but not for a protection effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 45-54, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:1:p:45-54_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500004496/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:1:p:45-54_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.