Superstition or Modernity?

Sequential effects: Superstition or rational behavior?

In a variety of behavioral tasks, subjects exhibit an automatic and apparently suboptimal sequential effect: they respond more rapidly and accurately to a stimulus if it reinforces a local pattern in stimulus history, such as a string of repetitions or alternations, compared to when it violates such a pattern. This is often the case even if the local trends arise by chance in the context of a r...

Subitizing: magical numbers or mere superstition?

It is widely believed that humans are endowed with a specialized numerical process, called subitizing, which enables them to apprehend rapidly and accurately the numerosity of small sets of objects. A major part of the evidence for this process is a purported discontinuity in the mean response time (RT) versus numerosity curves at about 4 elements, when subjects enumerate up to 7 or more elemen...

Superstition in the pigeon.

Superstition and Rational Learning by Superstition and Rational Learning

We argue that some but not all superstitions can persist when learning is rational and players are patient, and illustrate our argument with an example inspired by the code of Hammurabi. The code specified an “appeal by surviving in the river” as a way of deciding whether an accusation was true, so it seems to have relied on the superstition that the guilty are more likely to drown than the inn...

Superstition and Rational Learning

We argue that some but not all superstitions can persist when learning is rational and players are patient, and illustrate our argument with an example inspired by the code of Hammurabi. The code specified an “appeal by surviving in the river” as a way of deciding whether an accusation was true. According to our theory a mechanism that uses superstitions two or more steps off the equilibrium pa...