DiscussionTheaim of this research was to find how the participants initially made theassociation between their action and the confidence in the power ofsuperstition. The primary objective of this general topic of superstition wasto find how people who depend on a superstition behaviour make the associationbetween their behaviour and the belief of superstition. The participants thattook part in our research had to create a connection with the superstitiousbehaviour based through one good performance with their superstition belief andthrough one “poor” performance without using their superstition belief. Theseparticipants were depending on their superstitious attitude during the taskthat they were asked to complete, however, their faith in the component of luckwas not built up until their first execution without their superstitiousbehaviour. After they performed ineffectively, these members ascribed theirpoor execution to their missing superstitious behaviour in that occasion. The association made between theirbelief “in luck” and their behaviour fits the explanations of superstition ofBeck & Forstmeier. Their research of Superstitionand Belief as Inevitable By-products of an Adaptive Learning Strategy,states that humans use causal thinking in order to explain their surroundingworld, which is also connected with the attribution theory of Weiner. Ok, it isgood that you refer to beck and forstmeier.
Nevertheless, normally you don’trefer to literature anymore in your discussion section. You leave this to yourintroduction. Since your introduction is rather short, I would definitelyadvice you to copy this part to the result section. You can come back to ithere later. It is as yet obscure how or why each participant made theassociation of superstition and his/her behaviour at a different outcome ofeither success/ or failure. Since our results were not significant enough toprovide a clear image of superstition, one possible solution to the connectionof successful/failure performances with superstition would be to increase thesample. Perhaps by adding more participants to our experiment, a clearerconnection would be identified. And what about giving them more throwingopportunities? Moreover, another factor that playeda role in the significance of our results is how the people that took part inthe experiment decided when and if a particular object or behaviour wassignificant enough to perform according to our research, in the task ofthrowing the “lucky” ball into the bucket.
In our case, just asking if theparticipants believe in luck, seems very vague to actually succeed in suchtask, because although people might believe in superstition, they might havedifferent ways of interpreting it. And couldn’t be people who don’t believe inluck also be ‘primed’ or ‘convinced’ by the fact that they were using a luckyball? Do they have to believe in luck perse? People might have a ritualistic attitudetowards a task (praying) or people might have objects for their superstition asin the experiment of Damisch et al. (2010), where people should bring their ownlucky charm. If this is the case, what could you have changed in yourexperiment? Adding more questions? Moreover, people have definite rules to”activate” their superstitious behaviour. These rules were created andunderstood by the individual for the individual. These standards were specificto every person. This factor, led to a portion of subcategories of ambiguityaround their opinion of believing in superstition. Especially, when they werequestioned, if they believed or followed a specific superstitious action, as itwas in our case.
In our current study, surprisingly, various participantsquestioned their belief in the power of superstition and the connection totheir behaviour, however they still continued the task. (When failed to succeedwith the lucky ball, “It seems that I don’t have luck”). A limitation to ourstudy can be seen though the sample size. If there was an increase in thesample of the participants, it may have resulted in a more significantcorrelation of superstitious behaviour and the success of the throwing of theball. Moreover, other limitation/ recommendation for further research is toincrease the difficulty of the tasks or increase the number of times whichparticipants are asked to throw the balls.