Knowing superstitions aren’t real doesn’t stop us behaving superstitiously – why?

尽管我们心里清楚迷信并无事实依据，但为何还是会做出迷信的行为呢？

Former New Zealand prime minister John Key has three white rabbits painted on his helicopter, a nod to his “massively superstitious” habit of repeating “white rabbits” three times at the start of every month. ***

新西兰前总理约翰·基的直升机上绘有三只白兔的图案，这源自于他一个“极度迷信”的习惯，那就是每个月初他都会反复念叨三遍“白兔”。

Tennis champion Rafael Nadal performs the same sequence of actions (shirt-tug, hair-tuck, face-wipe) before every serve. Taylor Swift paints “13” on her hand for good luck before a show.

网球冠军拉斐尔·纳达尔每次发球前，总会重复一连串固定动作：扯扯球衣、捋捋头发、擦擦脸。而泰勒·斯威夫特每逢演出前，都会在手上写上“13”来祈祷好运降临。

Perhaps you, too, are superstitious. Maybe you have a lucky number, avoid black cats, or shudder at the thought of opening an umbrella indoors.

说不定，你也同样迷信。或许你有自己的幸运数字，对黑猫避之不及（译者注：在众多西方国家，黑猫经常被描绘为女巫或邪恶力量的使者，被视为不祥之兆），一想到在屋内撑开雨伞，便不禁打个寒颤（译者注：西方人认为屋内撑伞是一种对上帝的不敬。因为伞的原始功能是遮阳，而阳光是上帝的恩赐，是生命的象征，在屋内撑伞，就相当于拒绝了上帝的恩典，是一种亵渎神明的行为）。

We humans are particularly susceptible to superstitions. But why are we so quick to develop superstitious behaviours, and do we really believe they can bring good or bad luck?

我们人类极易受到迷信思想的左右。然而，为何我们会如此迅速地养成这些迷信的行为习惯，又是否真的笃信它们能够左右我们的吉凶祸福呢？

In our new research, we set out to answer this question. We tested whether people could tell the difference between outcomes they caused and outcomes they didn’t cause, and this told us something about the cognitive roots of human superstition.

在最新的研究中，我们着手探寻这一问题的答案。通过测试人们能否分辨出哪些结果是自身行为所致，哪些并非自己造成，以此来探究人类迷信行为在认知层面的根源。

Learning about cause and effect

了解因果关系

From as early as four months, infants learn their actions produce outcomes – kicking their legs shakes the crib, shaking a rattle makes an interesting noise, dropping a toy on the floor means mum or dad picks it up.

早在四个月大的时候，婴儿就开始意识到，自己的行为会引发各种结果：踢踢小腿，婴儿床就会跟着晃动；摇摇拨浪鼓，就能听到有趣的声响；要是把玩具扔到地上，爸爸妈妈就会伸手捡起来。

As we grow older, we develop a more sophisticated understanding of cause-and-effect relationships, asking “why?” questions about the world around us.

随着年岁的增长，我们对因果关系的认知愈发深刻，开始对我们周遭的世界不断追问“为什么”。

This sensitivity to causes and effects sets the stage for important developmental milestones, like imaginative play, planning actions to achieve a goal, predicting others’ intentions, anticipating and regulating emotions, and cooperating with others.

这种对因果关系的敏锐洞察力，为诸多重要的发展阶段奠定了坚实的基础，诸如参与想象游戏、规划达成目标的行动路径、揣测他人的意图、提前预判并调控自身情绪，以及与他人合作等。

The ability to learn about relationships between causes and effects is a defining feature of human cognition. But how does this square with our superstitious tendencies?

洞悉因果关系的能力堪称人类认知的标志性特质。可这与我们的迷信倾向又该如何兼容并存呢？

When cause and effect is an illusion

当因果关系不过是虚幻假象时

We learn about causes and effects from experience. When our behaviour is followed by an outcome, we learn about the relationship between our action and that outcome.

我们从过往经验中领悟因果关系。每当某个行为之后伴随了一个结果，我们便能洞察到行为与结果之间的关系。

The more often this action-outcome pairing occurs, the stronger the perceived link between them.

这种行为与结果相伴出现的次数愈多，我们感受到它们之间的关联性也就愈加强烈。

This is why we repeat behaviours that produce rewarding outcomes, and avoid repeating behaviours that produce punishing ones.

这就是为什么我们会重复那些能够带来正面回馈的行为，而避免那些会导致不良后果的行为。

But what happens if an outcome follows our actions by coincidence?

然而，要是我们的行为仅仅是机缘巧合之下引发了某个结果，那情况又会如何呢？

If I wear my lucky socks and my favourite sports team wins, this is probably just a coincidence (it’s unlikely my sock-wearing actually caused the win). But if this happens a few times, I may develop a superstition about my lucky socks.

比方说，我穿上幸运袜，接着我心仪的运动队就赢了，这大抵只是凑巧（毕竟，仅凭我穿上袜子不太可能就真的促成了胜利）。但是，假如这种情况屡屡发生，我恐怕就会对这双幸运袜迷信起来。

This suggests superstitious behaviour arises because we aren’t particularly good at discerning when our actions cause an outcome, versus when our actions just coincide with (but do not cause) an outcome. ***

这意味着，迷信行为之所以会出现，根源在于我们并不擅长分辨何时是我们的行为真的促成了某个结果，而何时又仅仅是我们的行为与某个结果恰好同时发生（却并未导致该结果）。

This is a common explanation for superstition – but does it have any weight?

这是解释迷信现象的常见说法，但它真的站得住脚吗？

Testing our ability to detect causality

检验我们洞察因果关系的能力

We can test what underpins superstitious behaviour by simply asking people “who caused that outcome?”.

要想探究迷信行为背后的缘由，只需简单地问问人们：“是哪个因素导致了这种结果”。

Getting it right would suggest we can discern action-outcome relationships (and therefore that there must be some other explanation for superstitious behaviour).

如果他们的回答准确无误，那就表明我们能分辨行为与结果之间的关系（如此一来，就需为迷信行为另寻其它解释了）。

Our research did exactly that. We asked whether people could tell when their actions did or didn’t cause an outcome.

我们的研究正是围绕这一点展开的。我们探究的是，人们是否能判断自己的行为是否真正促成了某个结果。

We recruited 371 undergraduate students from a large New Zealand university, who participated in one experimental session for a course credit.

我们从新西兰一所规模较大的大学招募了371名本科生参与一项实验课程，他们可以因此获得一个学分。

Participants played a game where a positive outcome (winning) or a negative outcome (losing) occurred either after their own action (clicking a button), or independently of their action.

在实验课程中，参与者需要玩一个游戏，在这个游戏中，积极结果（胜利）或消极结果（失败）既可能紧随他们自己的操作（单击按钮）而发生，也可能和他们的操作毫无关系。

Importantly, participants weren’t given any information beforehand about the type of outcome or whether it would depend on their behaviour.

关键在于，参与者事先对结果类型以及结果是否依赖于他们的行为一无所知。

This meant they had to rely on what they actually experienced during the game, and we could test their ability to judge whether they had caused the outcome.

也就是说，他们只能依据自己在游戏过程中的亲身经历来做判断，而我们则能够借此评估他们判断自身行为是否为结果诱因的能力。

Participants’ scores indicated they often got it right: in about 80% of trials, they knew when they’d caused the outcome, and when they hadn’t.

参与者的得分反映出，他们在多数情况下都能作出正确判断：在大约80%的试验中，他们能够区分出哪些结果是因自己的行为而产生，哪些则与自己无关。

A built-in bias

内置偏差

The distinction between causing and not causing the outcomes was sometimes very subtle. This made it more difficult for participants to tell what had occurred.

导致结果与未导致结果之间的界限有时相当模糊。这加大了参与者判断实际情况的难度。

When they weren’t sure, participants defaulted to saying “I caused it”, even if they actually hadn’t.

当参与者拿捏不准时，他们往往会默认为“这是我造成的”，哪怕事实并非如此。

They were biased to attribute outcomes to their own actions, particularly after winning outcomes.

他们倾向于把结果归因于自身，尤其是在赢了的时候。

This bias may be the key to explaining why we’re superstitious: something I did caused something to happen, even if I can’t be sure what it was.

这种倾向性或许正是解开我们迷信根源的关键：我做了某事，随后出现了某种结果，即便我并不能确定二者是否存在因果关系。

And it suggests knowing superstitions aren’t real may not actually stop us from behaving superstitiously.

这表明，即便深知迷信毫无科学根据，我们仍可能不由自主地做出迷信之举。

On the surface, this may not make sense – why expend energy doing things we know don’t affect outcomes?

从表面来看，这似乎说不通——既然知道某些行为对结果没影响，为什么还要白费力气去做呢？

But if we look deeper, this bias serves an important purpose, because it helps ensure we don’t miss any potential connections between our actions and their outcomes. In other words, it’s better to be safe than sorry.

然而，当我们深入剖析时，便会发现这种心理倾向实则意义非凡，因为它能让我们确保不遗漏自身行为与结果之间任何一丝可能的关联。换言之，宁可事先谨慎有余，不要事后追悔莫及。

Research shows that engaging in superstitious behaviour can also increase confidence in our abilities to achieve a goal, improve performance in different tasks, and alleviate anxiety by giving us a sense of control.

研究结果显示，作出一些迷信的行为不仅可以增强我们达成目标的信心，还能提升在各种任务中的表现，此外，这种行为还能带来掌控感，帮助我们缓解焦虑。

The tendency to attribute positive outcomes to our actions (as we found) can boost self-esteem and psychological wellbeing.

正如我们的研究结果所揭示的，那种将积极成果归功于自己行为的倾向有助于提升自尊心，促进心理健康。

So, perhaps we’d all benefit by indulging in a little superstitious behaviour. Touch wood.

所以啊，偶尔搞点迷信行为，说不定对大家都有益。摸摸木头吧（译者注：西方人在说了什么不吉利的话或者听到什么不吉利的话之后，就要摸摸木制品并且念叨“touch wood”来乞求厄运离开自己，这就等同于中国人在听到或说了不吉利的话之后说“呸呸”几下）！