Wishful Thinking
‘The influence of homeopathy and lack of control on performance’
Masterthese Sociale Psychologie Birgit. G. Janson
Supervisors: Frenk van Harreveld en Bastiaan Rutjens Words: 5200
2 Abstract
Previous studies have indicated that lack of control has a negative influence on performance. It has also been found that superstition increases after a threat to control. In this study we investigated whether threat to control has a negative influence on cognitive performance (measured in speed and accuracy on an anagram task) and if this effect can be diminished by homeopathy, a form of superstition. Participants (N=115) were randomly allocated to four conditions (high-control-substance, low-control-substance, high-control-no-substance, low-control-no-substance). The results indicated that participants in the low-control condition took more of the homeopathic substance than participants in the high-control condition, but substance had no effect on performance. We found no diminishing effect of low control on performance, but instead found a positive effect of low-control on speed in the no-substance condition. We can conclude that people use homeopathy to compensate for their lack of control, but homeopathy has no effect on performance. Threat to control leads to increase in speed.
3 The influence of homeopathy and lack of control on performance
The extent to which a person feels in control variates over time. Sometimes a person feels completely in control, but sometimes due to an unforeseen event, like a delay from the train on your way to an important meeting, a person can get the feeling he has lost control. Multiple studies have shown the beneficial effects of being in control on well-being (e.g., Rodin & Langer, 1977; Taylor & Brown, 1988) and the negative effects of a lack of control on performance (Frankel & Snyder, 1978; Kofta & Sedek, 1989; Pittman & Pittman, 1979; Taylor et al., 2014). The results of these studies make it obvious that people want to be in control and studies have shown that people indeed have a strong desire for personal control (Kelley, 1971, in Kay, Whitson, Gaucher, & Galinsky, 2009). Rothbaum, Weisz, and Snyder (1982) describe two types of control: primary (personal) and secondary control. Primary control is defined as an individual’s belief that (s)he can steer, affect and predict events in the present and the future (Kay et al., 2009). If primary control is threatened, the individual will strive to regain it. If people cannot regain control, they will seek for control outside of themselves. This compensatory process is labeled secondary control. Secondary control is defined as the attempt of bringing the self in line with environmental forces, for example by temporarily adjusting one’s beliefs or behaviors (Rothbaum et al., 1982).
Previous studies have shown that people can find secondary control in many different ways. People can obtain a sense of control from affirming their belief in a controlling God (Kay, 2008), holding faith in a strong government (Kay et al., 2008) and from perceiving (illusory) patterns in their environment (Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). The current research investigates whether superstition, as a form of secondary control, can diminish the detrimental effect of low control on performance.
It has been found that superstitions are also used to compensate for a lack of control (e.g. Dudley, 1999). Superstition comes in many shapes and forms, examples are top athletes who wear the same socks or lucky shorts throughout a tournament, stuffed animals as mascots when
4 taking exams, or morning routines that people are not willing to change because they believe that will cause bad luck. Keinan (2002) found that people who were in need for control showed more superstitious behavior (‘knocking on wood’) than people who reported a low need for control. Similarly, a recent study from Greenaway (2013) has shown that people who lacked control reported a greater belief in precognition while people who reported a belief in precognition reported higher perceived control. These studies suggest that superstition could help people regain control when perceived control is low, because to some extent it provides a sense of predictability of, and influence over, future outcomes. Because low control is detrimental for performance (e.g., Kofta & Sedek, 1989; Pittman & Pittman, 1979; Rodin & Langer, 1977; Taylor & Brown, 1988) it could be expected that regaining control through superstition enhances performance. In the current study it will be examined if this is indeed the case.
Damisch, Stoberock and Mussweiler (2010) have investigated whether superstitions are beneficial for performance. They investigated this hypothesis with various performing tasks (golfing, motor dexterity, memory, and anagram games) and across various superstitions (a lucky charm, or superstition related common sayings such as ‘break a leg’, or actions ‘keeping one’s fingers crossed’). All the investigated superstitions were found to have a positive effect on performance.
Thus, lack of control has been found to increase superstition and, in turn, superstition has been found to be conducive for performance. Dudley (1999) combined these two insights and found that people who are more superstitious, performed better on an anagram task after an unsolvable task (intended to cause a lack of control) than people who are less superstitious. Moreover, superstition increased after working on the unsolvable task.
In the present study we will, alike Dudley (1999) look at the joint effect of superstition and control on cognitive performance in which homeopathic medicine will be examined as a
5 form of superstition. Instead of measuring superstition with a questionnaire, as carried out by Dudley (1999), superstition, in the current study, will be manipulated by offering a homeopathic substance to participants, to be able to measure behavioral effects. It also allows us to investigate the effect of low perceived control on performance independent of the effect of superstition and to investigate whether there is a difference within high- and low-control and substance use on the effect on performance. The manipulation of perceived control will be used to test if threat to control is the catalyst of subsequent effects of superstition on performance.
More than a million people in the Netherlands visit an alternative healer, of which 22 percent pertains visits to a homeopath (CBS, 2014). Homeopathy is based on the ‘like cures like’ principle, which means diseases can be treated with the same thing people got sick from in the past. In most cases the substance is so heavily diluted that no single molecule of the original substance remains (Shang et al., 2005). Homeopathic remedy is part of what is commonly labeled complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). CAM includes treatments that do not fit within the biomedical model of health care and are not commonly used by professionals within orthodox medicine (OM) settings (Bishop, Yardley, & Lewith, 2007). Science has never proven homeopathic substances have a larger clinical effect than a placebo1 (e.g. Ernst, 2002; Shang et al., 2005). Because homeopathy is in that sense very similar to other superstitious beliefs, it may be the case that people use homeopathy as a means to regain control. A previous study has shown that after a control threat people take more of a homeopathic substance prior to a cognitive task than people whose control has not been threatened (Vegt, 2011). This suggests homeopathy could be a means through which people resolve threats to personal control, similar to the work on superstition discussed earlier (Dudley, 1999; Keinan, 2002). In this particular study on homeopathy (Vegt, 2011) the effect on performance was
1 Placebo-effects are described by Benson and Friedman (1996, in Shang et al., 2005) as any outcome that is not the result of a specific treatment and is the result of a person’s mindset.
6 examined with a ‘spot the differences’ task. The results showed that after a control threat, people perceived more differences that were in reality not present, than without a control threat. It is difficult to interpret these results, because the effect could have been caused by the fact that people with a lack of control perceive more illusory patterns (Whitson & Galinsky, 2008) than people who are in control, or by the effect of the homeopathic substance. While these results suggest that homeopathy has an effect on performance, the ‘spot the differences’ task makes it difficult to determine how performance is affected exactly. Therefore, in the current study, we are using a cognitive task, an anagram task, that is a more objective measure of performance. The use of this anagram task provides the means to investigate the effect of control and homeopathy on performance and enables us to compare our results with the work by Dudley (1999) who examined the influence of control and superstition on performance.
The aim of the current study is to investigate if people whose control is threatened, perform better on a cognitive task after they take a homeopathic substance, than people who have not taken a homeopathic substance to compensate for their feelings of lack of control. We investigate whether we can replicate the finding of Vegt (2011) that people whose control is threatened take more of the homeopathic substance, as measure of superstition, than people whose control is not threatened.
Research question and expectations
The main question of this study holds whether the intake of a homeopathic substance, as a measure of superstition, can attenuate the detrimental effect of low control on cognitive performance (in the current study an anagram task). This question consist of 4 hypotheses. Consistent with prior research suggesting that low control has a negative effect on performance (Frankel & Snyder, 1978; Kofta & Sedek, 1989; Pittman & Pittman, 1979; Taylor et al., 2014), the first hypothesis is that we expect a main effect of control on performance. On operational level, this means that participants in the high-control condition require less time to solve the
7 anagram problems and will answer more anagram problems correctly than participants in the low-control condition. The second hypothesis is that we expect a main effect of control on the amount of substance participants drink. We expect that participants in the low-control condition take more of the substance than participants in the high-control condition. The third hypothesis is that we expect a main effect of substance on performance, because homeopathic substance is likely to exert a placebo-effect (Ernst, 2002; Shang et al., 2005). This means we expect participants in the substance condition will require less time to solve the anagram problems and will have more correct answers on the anagram task than participants in the no-substance condition. The fourth hypothesis is that we expect an interaction effect of control and substance on performance. We expect that the effect of control will only be there if participants did not take the substance, so if participants in the low-control condition do take the substance they will require about as much time to solve the anagram problems and are expected to have the same number of correct answers on the anagram task as participants in the high-control condition.
8 Method
Participants
We recruited 121 participants who participated for credit or money. Participants were randomly allocated to the high-control-substance condition, the high-control-no-substance condition, the low-control-substance condition, or the low-control-no-substance condition.
Materials
Manipulation of feelings of control
Feelings of control were manipulated similar to the manipulation used in Rutjens, van Harreveld and van der Pligt (2010). Participants were asked to remember a negative situation they experienced in which they lacked (or had) control and to write it down in a maximum of 100 words. Next, they were asked to give three reasons why the future is (un)controllable. As a manipulation check, participants were presented with three questions, similar to the manipulation check in Rutjens and colleagues (2010): One question about how annoying they perceived the situation felt at the time (‘How annoying did your described situation feel at the time’), one question about perceived control in the situation: (‘How much control did you have over the situation you described?’), and one about perceived control in general (‘In general, do you feel that you are the actor or director in of your life?’). The first two items were measured on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (no control/ not at all) to 7 (fully in control/ totally). The last item was measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (actor) to 7 (director).
Homeopathic substance
To create the alleged homeopathic substance, a mixture of water and balsamic vinegar was used, similar to the substance used in Vegt (2011). The balsamic vinegar was used to make the substance smell and look real. The leaflet on the bottle of homeopathic substance described the substance as one that increases memory (so it is imaginable they can get control out of it). The amount of the substance participants took in was used as our primary behavioral measure
9 of how much they want to compensate for lack of control and was measured with a balance (in mg).
Filler-questionnaire
As a filler, participants were asked about their age, gender, study, nationality, living situation, work, travel time to the university, whether they smoke, whether they drink alcohol and how much, if they play a musical instrument, whether they drank coffee in the past hour and how much. Only age, gender and study were used as demographic variables.
Cognitive performance
Cognitive performance was measured with an anagram task. The task was similar to the task used in Dudley (1999). Participants were presented with 15 anagram problems (e.g. iuftr-fruit, nrtde-trend, tsife-fiets) that they had to solve. Prior to the task they were told to correctly answer as many anagram problems out of 15 as possible and to do it in as little time as possible. The anagram-problems were shown successively and were accompanied with an option ‘I don’t know the answer’ to check, to give participants the opportunity to proceed when they were unable to come up with the correct answer. Participants had to fill in the correct answer or check the ‘I don’t know the answer’ option to move to the next anagram-problem. The dependent measures consisted of the time (in ms) needed for participants to finish all the problems (speed) and the amount of correct answers out of 15 (accuracy).
Questionnaire about the homeopathic substance
To assess how participants experienced the homeopathic remedy, their attitude towards the homeopathic substance they took, was measured with five items (Cronbach’s α = .95) identical to those used by Vegt (2011). The five items were ‘Do you think the potion worked?’, ‘Do you think the potion influenced your performance during the assignment?’, ‘Do you think the potion helped you while you did the assignment?’, ‘Did you feel different after drinking the potion?’ and ‘Do you think that you would have performed less well if you didn’t drink the
10 potion?’. All items were measured on Likert scales ranging from 1 (absolutely not) to 7 (absolutely).
Questionnaire about homeopathy
Participants' attitude towards homeopathy was measured with five questions measured on 7-point Likert scales (Cronbach’s α = .87) : ‘What is your opinion about homeopathy?’ (1 ‘bad’ to 7 ‘good’), ‘Have you used homeopathic remedies in the past?’ (1 ‘never’ to 7 ‘very often’), ‘Do you plan to use homeopathic remedies in the future?’ (1 ‘never’ to 7 ‘very often’), ‘Do people close to you use homeopathic remedies?’ (1 ‘nobody’ to 7 ‘a lot’) and ‘Would you recommend using homeopathic remedies to others?’ (1 ‘absolutely not’ to ‘absolutely’).
Exit-questionnaire
To check whether participants in the substance condition actually took the homeopathic substance, they were asked the following question: ‘Have you taken anything of the homeopathic substance?’ (yes/no). To check if participants filled in all the questions seriously and if they guessed the goal of the experiment, they were asked the following two questions: ‘Did you fill in all the questions seriously? (yes/no)’, ‘What did you think was the goal of the experiment? (open question)’. Finally, participants were asked for the frequency they play word-games (similar to anagram problems, like Scrabble or Wordfeud) on a computer, on paper, or on their smartphone with four answer categories (‘more than once a week’, ‘more
than once a month’, ‘more than once a year’ and ‘never’).
Procedure
Substance-condition
The experiment was presented on a computer using an online questionnaire program. The study was introduced to participants as a study regarding memory and performance. After participants signed the informed consent they were placed in front of a computer in a private
11 cubical. The experiment started with the manipulation of control and the corresponding manipulation check. After the manipulation check, participants read the leaflet of the homeopathic substance. Subsequently, they could dose the desired amount of the substance before drinking. A filler-questionnaire followed, to make it plausible that the substance was a real homeopathic drink that would require a couple of minutes to generate an effect. Subsequently, participants were asked to solve the anagram task. After finishing the task, participants were asked to fill in the questionnaire about the homeopathic substance, the questionnaire about homeopathy, and the exit-questionnaire.
No-substance condition
Participants in the no-substance condition followed the same procedure, but did not read the leaflet of the homeopathic substance and instead of a homeopathic substance they were offered a glass of water (to keep the procedure as much identical as possible). The participants in the no-substance condition did not receive the questionnaire about the homeopathic substance or the questionnaire about homeopathy. Also they were not asked whether they took the homeopathic substance.
Analyses
First we conducted an ANOVA with amount of substance2 as dependent variable (DV) and control as independent variable (IV) to test whether there was a main effect of control on amount of substance. Second, a factorial 2x2 ANOVA analysis was executed, with performance on the anagram task as DV and substance versus no-substance and low control versus high control as dichotomous IV’s.
2 The words ‘amount of substance’ will be used as variable name for how much of the homeopathic substance participants drank. The words ‘substance or no-substance’ will be used as variable names for if participants were offered the substance or not.
12 Results
Data from six of the 121 participants was excluded from the analysis. Two of them had missing scores on the amount of substance taken, three had z-scores above 3.29 for amount of substance taken or for speed, and for one the times on the anagram task were not accurate. Data from 115 participants (70 females, Mage = 22.18, SDage = 5.99) was used in the analyses, 109 were students of which 95 were enrolled in psychology and 6 were ex-psychology students. There were 29 participants in the low-control-no-substance condition, 29 participants in the low-control-substance condition, 29 participants in the high-control-no-substance condition and 28 participants in the high-control-substance condition.
Manipulation Checks
To check whether the manipulation of control was successful, we conducted three ANOVAs for each manipulation check variable with control as IV. The first ANOVA with ‘How negative did you find your described situation at the time?’ as DV as expected showed a non-significant effect between the high-control and the low-control condition, F(1,113) = .07,
p = .79, which means that there were no differences between the high- and low-control
condition on negativity of the described situation. The second ANOVA with ‘How much control did you have over the situation you described’ as DV showed the expected effect of control on control felt during the situation, Welch’s F3(1, 86.32) = 455.36, p < .001, which means participants in the low control condition (M = 1.74, SD = .08) felt significantly less in control in the described situation than people in the high-control condition (M = 5.49, SD = 1.17). The third ANOVA with ‘In general, do you feel that you are the actor or director in of your life’ as DV showed that people in the high control condition (M = 5.23, SD = 1.15) feel more like the director in life than people in the low control condition (M = 4.41, SD = 1.26),
F(1,113) = 13.13, p < .001
13 Assumption checks
Before conducting the planned analyses, assumption checks for normality and homogeneity were conducted. For amount of substance both assumptions were met4. Because the assumptions were not met for all conditions for speed and accuracy5, four Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted with control and substance as IV’s and speed and accuracy as DV’s, see footnotes 4,6,7 and 8.
Control
The ANOVA with amount of substance as DV and control as IV showed a significant main effect of control on the amount of substance, F(1,55) = 5.53, p = .02, ɳ² = .09, in which participants in the low-control condition (M = 14.24, SD = 9.36) drank significantly more of the substance than did participants in the high-control condition (M = 9.00, SD = 7.30), see Figure 1.
4 The assumption for normality was met for the amount of substance participants drank in both the high-control and low-control condition, D(28) = .16, p = .07 and D(29) = .16, p = .05 respectively. For amount of substance participants drank, the variances were equal for the high- and low-control condition, F(1,55) = 1.61, p = .21 5 For speed, HC-NS was normally distributed, D(29) = .12, p = .20, HC-S was not normally distributed, D(28) = .25, p < .001, LC-NS was normally distributed, D(29) = .15, p = .10 and LC-S was normally distributed, D(29) = .14, p = .16. For the number of good answers on the anagram task (accuracy), HC-NS was normally distributed, D(29) = .14, p = .13, HC-S was not normally distributed, D(28) = .18, p = .02, LC-NS was not normally distributed, D(29) = .17, p = .04, and LC-S was not normally distributed, D(29) = .20, p = .01. For speed, the data failed to meet the assumption for homogeneity, F(3,112) = 3.24, p = .03. The data of accuracy however, met the assumption for homogeneity, F(3,111) = .80, p = .50.
Figure 1. Main effect of control on amount of substance.
14 Because of the effect of control on amount of substance, a Spearman’s rank order correlation was conducted to determine if the amount of control participants felt in the described situation in the manipulation check was associated with the amount of substance participants drank. The results showed a significant association between the control they felt in the described situation and the amount of substance they drank, rs = -.26, p = .01.
To test whether control had an effect on performance, we conducted two ANOVAs with respectively speed and accuracy as DV’s. The analyses revealed a significant main effect of control on speed, F(1,111) = 4.41, p = .04, ɳ² = .046, see Table 1, where participants in the high-control condition took significantly longer to complete the anagram task than participants in the low-control condition, see Figure 2. After comparing the effect of control in the substance and no-substance condition, the effect of control only reached significance in the no-substance conditions, F(1,56) = 4.93, p = .03, ɳ² = .087, which means participants in the no-substance-low-control condition completed the anagram task significantly faster than participants in the no-substance-high-control condition. The effect of control on speed did not reach significance in the substance conditions, F(1,55) = .73, p = .404. The second ANOVA with accuracy as DV showed no main effect of control on accuracy, F(1,111) = 1.72, p = .198, see Table 2, which means that the high- and low-control condition did not show differences on accuracy on the anagram task.
6 A Kruskal-Wallis test with speed as DV and control as IV showed no significant effect of control on speed, H(1) = 2.28, p = .13.
7 A Kruskal-Wallis test with speed as DV and control as IV and separately looked for the substance condition and no-substance condition did not show a significant effect of control on accuracy in either the no-substance condition, H(1) = 3.51, p = .06, as in the substance condition, H(1) = .26, p = .61.
8 A Kruskal-Wallis test with accuracy as DV and control as IV did not show a significant effect of control on accuracy, H(1) = 1.48, p = .22
15 Substance
Next we looked at the main effect of substance on speed and accuracy. The results showed no effect of substance on speed, F(1,111) = .18, p = .679, see Table 1, and no effect of substance on accuracy, F(1,111) = .07, p = .7910, see Table 2, which means there were no significant differences between the substance- and no-substance conditions in speed and accuracy.
Interactions of control and substance on performance
The interaction of control and substance on speed, see Table 1, was not significant,
F(1,111) = .65, p = .42, which means there was no joint effect of control and substance on
speed. Also the interaction effect of control and substance on accuracy, see Table 2, was not significant, F(1,111) = .00, p = .97. This means there was no joint effect of control and substance on accuracy.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations from Control and Substance on Speed Control
Low High Total
Substance
Yes 280.55 (123.22) 313.26 (163.58) 296.62 (144.10)
No 270.95 (97.09)b 344.28 (149.12)b 307.62 (130.09)
Total 275.75 (110.06)a 329.04 (155.77)a 302.17 (136.72)
a. A’s differ significantly at α ≤ .05. b. B’s differ significantly at α ≤ .05.
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations from Control and Substance on Accuracy Control
Low High Total
Substance
Yes 12.79 (1.80) 12.32 (1.95) 12.56 (1.87)
No 12.69 (1.65) 12.24 (2.10) 12.47 (1.89)
Total 12.74 (1.71) 12.28 (2.01) 12.51 (1.87)
9 A Kruskal-Wallis test with speed as DV and substance as IV did not show a significant effect of substance on speed, H(1)= .85, p = .36.
10 A Kruskal-Wallis test with accuracy as DV and substance as IV did not show a significant effect of substance on accuracy, H(1) = .12, p = .74.
16 Explorative analyses
We did not find an effect of control on the questionnaire about the substance participants were offered. Which means participants in the low-control condition (M=2.04, SD=1.02) did not differ from the participants in the high-control condition (M=1.85, SD=1.30) on their experience with the substance offered. Participants in both conditions rated the influence of the substance as having no effect or very low effect.
All participants were moderately positive about homeopathy in general so there was no significant difference between the high-control (M=3.77, SD=1.42) and the low-control (M=3.57, SD=1.21) condition on attitude about homeopathy.
17 Discussion
The current study examined whether the intake of a homeopathic substance, as a measure of superstition, a) increases after a threat to control and b) attenuates any detrimental effects of low control on cognitive performance. Therefore, four hypotheses were tested. The first hypothesis, holding that low control has a negative effect on performance, was not confirmed. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that participants in the low-control condition completed the anagram task faster than participants in the high-control condition. However, this effect was found only when participants in the low-control condition were not offered the ostensibly homeopathic substance. Moreover, there was no effect of control on accuracy. Participants in the low-control condition had the same amount of correct answers out of 15 as participants had in the high-control condition. Our second hypothesis, holding that people whose control is threatened would take more of a homeopathic substance, as a measure of superstition, was confirmed. Participants in the low-control-condition took more of the homeopathic substance than participants in the high control condition. This replicates Vegt (2011) who found that people whose control was threatened, took more of a homeopathic substance that did people whose control was not threatened. In the current study, the substance had no effect on accuracy or speed on the anagram task, so we did not confirm our third hypothesis, holding that the intake of a homeopathic substance would enhance performance. Our fourth hypothesis, holding that the diminishing effect of low-control on performance would only be present if participants did not take the substance was not confirmed either, because the result showed no diminishing effect of low-control on performance.
Our results differ from those of Dudley (1999) and Damisch and colleagues (2010), who found that superstition enhanced performance, as well as from studies that showed detrimental effects of low control on performance (Frankel & Snyder, 1978; Kofta & Sedek, 1989; Pittman & Pittman, 1979; Taylor et al., 2014). Rather than observing a negative effect of low control on performance, we found that low control had an effect by increasing speed on a performance
18 task (only without drinking the substance). One explanation for this result could be that low control in the short-term can increase approach motivation (Greenaway et al., 2015). Greenaway and colleagues (2015) showed that participants experiencing low control reported to be more motivated to reach their goals in comparison with participants who did not experience low control. The result that participants in the low-control condition finished the anagram task in less time than those in the high-control condition, could be caused by an increased motivation to reach the goal of being quick. Why there was no effect of control on accuracy remains unclear and got to be investigated in future research.
The answer to the main question whether the intake of a homeopathic substance, as a measure of superstition, can attenuate the detrimental effect of low control on cognitive performance remains unclear. Participants took more of the homeopathic substance when their control was threatened, but the substance had no effect on performance. The latter was confirmed by the fact that participants in both the low-control-substance condition and the high-control-substance condition indicated that the substance had no effect on their performance on the task. Control had not the detrimental effect on performance we expected, but increased speed in participants whose control was threatened and were not offered the substance. The replication of the finding of Vegt (2011), however, is important because it can explain the fact why so many people are using homeopathic medicine despite the fact that science has never proven it has more effect than a placebo (e.g. Ernst, 2002; Shang et al., 2005). It also supports the hypothesis that low control is the incentive for superstition (cf. Dudley, 1999, Vegt, 2011). The effect of control threat on speed was only present when participants were not offered the homeopathic substance. The absence of the effect of control when participants were offered the homeopathic substance may indicate an effect of substance on control. It is possible that the substance diminished the control threat, and participants therefore took more time for the task because they were in control and not chased by the goal (Greenaway, 2015) of the task to be
19 quick. The possible effect of substance on control could be investigated in further research. It is important to measure control two times to check if the substance had an effect. Our proposal is to do this by manipulating control, check if the manipulation worked by measuring their level of control, manipulating substance and to measure afterwards if the level of control in the low-control condition has been increased in the substance condition.
The effect of low-control on speed as found in the current study, was not tested by Dudley (1999) because he did not measure speed. In the study of Dudley (1999), participants were given a time limit of two minutes to solve as many anagrams out of 10 as possible. The current study did not give participants a time limit, but asked the participants to solve all 15 anagrams and gave the participants the option to choose ‘I don’t know the answer’ if they could not solve an anagram. Future research has to tell if giving participants a time limit or no time limit to solve all the anagram problems causes the difference of the effect of control on accuracy in the current study in comparison with Dudley (1999). It is possible that by giving participants a time limit, there is more range in accuracy, because participants have not all the time in the world to reach their ceiling on the task.
We can conclude from the results of the current study that feelings of low control leads people to resort homeopathy as a means to reduce their lack of control. But homeopathy subsequently has no effect on performance. These results can help to explain why so many people are using homeopathic medicine. So superstition will thrive in a world which is intrinsically difficult to control and as a result homeopathy appears to be motivated by the same incentive.
20 References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49-74.
Bishop, F. L., Yardley, L., & Lewith, G. T. (2007). A systematic review of beliefs involved in the use of complementary and alternative medicine. Journal of health
psychology, 12(6), 851-867.
CBS. (2014). Bijna 1 miljoen mensen onder behandeling van een alternatieve genezer. Retrieved at 10-5-15, from http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/gezondheid-welzijn/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2014/2014-4041-wm.htm.
Damisch, L., Stoberock, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2010). Keep your fingers crossed! How superstition improves performance. Psychological Science, 21(7), 1014-1020.
Dudley, R. T. (1999). The effect of superstitious belief on performance following an unsolvable problem. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(6), 1057-1064.
Ernst, E. (2002). A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. British journal of
clinical pharmacology, 54(6), 577-582.
Frankel, A., & Snyder, M. L. (1978). Poor performance following unsolvable problems: Learned helplessness or egotism?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1415.
Greenaway, K. H., Louis, W. R., & Hornsey, M. J. (2013). Loss of control increases belief in precognition and belief in precognition increases control. PloS one, 8(8), e71327.
Greenaway, K. H., Storrs, K. R., Philipp, M. C., Louis, W. R., Hornsey, M. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2015). Loss of control stimulates approach motivation. Journal of Experimental
21 Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the government: testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95(1), 18.
Kay, A. C., Whitson, J. A., Gaucher, D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Compensatory control achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 264-268.
Keinan, G. (2002). The effects of stress and desire for control on superstitious behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 102-108.
Kofta, M., & Sędek, G. (1989). Repeated failure: a source of helplessness or a factor irrelevant to its emergence?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(1), 3-12.
Pittman, N. L., & Pittman, T. S. (1979). Effects of amount of helplessness training and internal–external locus of control on mood and performance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37(1), 39-47.
Rodin, J., & Langer, E. J. (1977). Long-term effects of a control-relevant intervention with the institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(12), 897. Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the
self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 42(1), 5.
Rutjens, B. T., Van Der Pligt, J., & Van Harreveld, F. (2010). Deus or Darwin: Randomness and belief in theories about the origin of life. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 46(6), 1078-1080.
Shang, A., Huwiler-Müntener, K., Nartey, L., Jüni, P., Dörig, S., Sterne, J. A., Pewsner. D., & Egger, M. (2005). Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects?
22 Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. The
Lancet, 366(9487), 726-732.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193.
Taylor, J. J., Neitzke, D. J., Khouri, G., Borckardt, J. J., Acierno, R., Tuerk, P. W., Smidt. M., & George, M. S. (2014). A pilot study to investigate the induction and manipulation of learned helplessness in healthy adults. Psychiatry research, 219(3), 631-637.
Vegt, K. (2011) The Diluted Delusion: Homeopathy as an illusory control providing substance. Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Wagenmakers, E. J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & Van Der Maas, H. L. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: the case of psi. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology.
Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322(5898), 115-117.
