Women and Superstitions - Part Two

Jump to Comments

Following on from Women and Superstitions - Part One.

I’d like to first return briefly to Dr Michael Shermer’s book ‘Why People Believe in Weird Things‘. You may have even seen the TED talk of the same title - here’s part one of two:

From the book:

For a variety of reasons related to the subject matter and style of reasoning, creationism, revisionism and UFOlogy are guy beliefs. [my emphasis]

Having already discussed what evidence that Dr Shermer did draw upon, in both the section on gender and beliefs and in his bibliography, as well as what research existed prior to 2002 that supported that statement (beyond just ‘I saw fewer women at conferences’), I’d like to have a closer look at the appeal of ’subject matter’ and why women would tend towards some subjects and why.

Had a great chat today on Skype with a friend about the issue of difference - mostly cultural differences and what work I’ll have to do when looking at whether or not we can consider belief scales to be universally applicable. I keep doubting that there is ever going to be one ‘grand answer’ when it comes to the human condition in this regard, because there are so many different environmental and cultural influences. Guess it’s my way of not only acknowledging the biological but the functional / contextual aspects that come into this kind of study.

Suggested elements that have appeared in previous research as to ‘why people believe’ really are quite extensive! What has been documented in research so far, thanks to the essay by French and Wilson (2007) ‘Cognitive factors underlying paranormal beliefs and experiences’, include some of the following elements:

A correlation between paranormal belief and deficit in syllogistic reasoning (Evans & StB, 1989; Evans, StB, Newstead & Byrne, 1993; Merla-Ramos, 2000). Such as affirmation of the consequent in ‘UFO cover-ups’ - French and Wilson (2007) use the following example:

If the government is engaged in a cover-up of the existence of UFOs, then they will deny that UFO landings have taken place

The government does deny that UFO landings have taken place.

Therefore, the government is engaged in the cover-up of UFO landings.

Yes, that is the CUTEST little UFO costume ever, isn’t it? Apparently it’s actually an umbrella! But I don’t think it’s the sort of ‘cover-up’ that they’re actually talking about, in case you were wondering…

Other research pointed to a distorted concept of randomness, e.g Type I or ‘false alarms’ to be more likely held by believers (Brugger, Landis & Regard, 1990; Brugger, 2001; Brugger & Taylor, 2003). There’s a mention of perceptual biases tendency (Brugger, Regard, Landis, Cook, Krebs & Nederberger, 1993; Pizzagalli, Lehman, Gianotti, Koenig, Tanaka, Wackermann & Brugger, 2000); a susceptiblity to experiencing anomalous sensations / some cases believers are just more suggestible (Wiseman, Watt, Greening, Stevens & O’Keeffe, 2002; 2003).

There’s also a tendency towards more memory bias (French, 2003; Clancy, McNally, Schacter, Lenzenweger & Pitman, 2002); believers in the paranormal being more prone to false memories (Wilson & French, 2006); non-conscious processing (Wilson, 2002; Rensink, 2004); Dual processing (Lindeman & Aarnio, 2005; 2007, Stanovich & West, 2003).

Sure, there’s a lot of ‘lists’ out there, like the National Science Board (2000) and Sagan (1996), that seem to encourage us to simplify with ‘this will make the believer in the paranormal or pseudoscientific’. But thanks to continuing research, there have been shown to be inconsistencies or sometimes no relation regarding items like probabilistic reasoning ability; intelligence (usually no correlation); science education levels; College year or College Major (self-selection as a confounding factor); animate / inanimate distinction problems; career choice; extroversion/introversion; moral contamination (age difference - the ‘dirty fork - ten second rule’ tradition in Australia). Of course, even the items I’ve listed as having more significant or consistant evidence may need further unpacking too!

Certainly what I have read indicates that superstitious behavior can arise in any situation where the consequences of a particular response are not causally related to the response. This is termed “noncontingent reinforcement” or “response-independent reinforcement”. Just look at the classic work by Skinner with his pigeons, particularly on ‘Superstition in the Pigeon’.

Take the cross-walk outside my office, where the indicator light is broken. The first press on a button activates the mechanism, but there’s no indication that it registered. You’ve probably had this happen yourself - you see someone pressing the cross-walk button in a frenzy if there’s a delay in getting the desired safe-to-cross green light. Sidman (1960) classified this as superstitious behavior produced by delayed reinforcement. The pressing repeatedly is eventually reinforced by the green light - just like rain-dancing bringing rain. Kind of a ‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc‘.

In regards to ‘why look at gender differences anyway?’, I would point out one of the most inspirational essays I read on the matter back in 2005, the essay ‘Sex, Brains & Hands - Gender Differences in Cognitive Abilities‘ by Diane F. Halpern, the author of Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities.

I was first lead to read her work when investigating how one of the most powerful influences on whether a young females develops an interest in mathematics is parental attitudes towards the subject - something that Australia has already started to deal with with parent education programs that target mothers.

The study of sex differences has… been criticized as being inherently sexist, because it creates an emphasis on the way women and men differ, while ignoring the multitude of similarities…. I find the reasons for conducting such research to be much more persuasive than those against doing so….The study of sex differences, like any of the other individual or group differences that psychologists study, is not a zero-sum game where one group gains only at the expense of another.

…Perhaps most importantly, sex differences research is the only way that we can empirically determine if common myths and stereotypes about men and women have any basis in fact… Some have suggested that psychology should not study the biological basis of sex differences because biologically-based theories legitimize negative stereotypes of women. I respond to these critics by noting that silence does not counter stereotypes, ignorance does not promote equality, and differences are not deficiencies. We have had stereotypes a lot longer than we have had research. I think it is time to look at what research has to say.

I think it would also be helpful to determine if such a difference in beliefs is universal before trying to find a mechanism that will always drive this difference. If we can show that the differences are universal or are local only, perhaps we could narrow down the field of potential causes. Some of the papers I’ve found show how it is not just researchers in the UK, USA or Australia who have an interest in this topic - papers I’ve found include superstition levels in people from formerly Communist countries; Turkish stress and uncertainty levels and use of superstition strategies; Chinese business-decision making; comparison between an African population and American, comparing Grade 11 and undergrads; Spanish gamblers; Italian undergrads and superstition as an ineffective strategy for coping with uncertainty and threat and German vs Venezuelan comparisons of paranormal beliefs! Yep, it’s not just the local psychic fair that packs the crystal balls!

The one on business-decision making will be of use when looking at superstitions about numbers in businesses - like having hotels that ’skip’ Floor Thirteen or my local movie theatre that doesn’t have a ‘Theatre Thirteen’!

More recently I’ve started looking at lectures from a parapsychology conference, which greatly remind me of the comment on my blog from a self-professed psychic (mentioned earlier in Part One).

Anjum Khiliji spoke of the traditions of the Islamic mystical tradition of the Tasawwuf, in her presentation ‘Behind the Veil: Muslim Women’s contributions to Parapsychology‘. In that she discusses how the Sufis (followers of the path of Tasawwuf - ‘the Islamic mystical tradition which developed out of meditation on the Quaran and considered to be the source of such religious experiences and the resultant psychic phenomena’) include a tradition of women as:

…always nurturing and holistic or Jamali (loving and integrative) in nature and they had positive social implications. In contrast… male Sufis at times tended to be more competitive and heirarchical or Jalali (aggressive or forceful) in nature.

In particular, the Aminal or ‘guardians’ in the Sufi tradition ‘were the patronesses and benefactresses of the Sufi movement and were vitally important to its growth and transmission. These women often belonged to the ruling or affluent families. They provided financial, moral, physical and even political support to safeguard and propagate positive attitudes towards Tasawwuf‘.

When you consider that this includes Khilji’s statement that ‘…Sufi belief that is transmitted cannot be validated by intellectual sciences. So that really puts an end to using any prevalent scientific methodology to ascertain the validity…’ - you can see why there’s several aspects at play that will encourage the belief and immune it from questioning. Women are thus educated, encouraged, seen as highly valued and in fact lauded for qualities that then go onto encourage other women to be likewise. No wonder the belief in psychic ability is seen as valued!

I also noticed that there were particular ‘feminist’ readings of belief in the paranormal. Beverly Rubik in ‘Sister Can You Paradigm? A Feminine Perspective on Parapsychology’ presented that ’since time immemorial, the female gender has not only opted for the preservation of life but upheld spiritual traditions regardless of societal retributions.’ To be against the paranormal could register as being sexist or going against a ‘woman’s right to define herself as an individual in a male-dominated world’! I’m also reminded of several points raised about indirect societal encouragement, discussed in R.T Carroll’s review of Ghost Hunters by Deborah Blume:

Perhaps it is dangerous for a female writer to accuse many members of her gender of being deceivers and manipulators, but it is not risky to note that men love to be deceived by women…and by other men…and by children. But men especially love to be deceived by women. In the course of doing their psychical research, these distinguished men got to spend a lot of time in dark rooms with women who were not their wives, all in the name of science. Blum is frank in her discussions of chemist Sir William Crookes (1832-1919) and his sexual involvement with Florence Cook and the romantic intoxication of Frederick Myers with the ghost of Annie Marshall.

In the West, mediumship arose after the 1840s as a part of spiritualism. In one sense, mediumship is continuous with tribal shamanism. The shaman, too, mediates between the living of this world and the denizens of another world, although these are most often spirits and gods, not the souls of the dead… Mediums tend to be women, whereas shamans tend to be men. The prevalence of women was historically determined by the role that women had assigned to them in the 19th century. Spiritualism offered them an opportunity to break out of that role in a socially acceptable manner.’ (p.211)

To be brutally frank - why wouldn’t anyone, let alone women, find it useful to independently support themselves economically and gain social standing by engaging in practices that draw on paranormal beliefs, acting in a role that has historical precedence across many cultures and over a significant period of time? Although ‘witches’ were condemned, midwifery and healthcare, traditions and ‘family heritage’ all create a framework for a ‘womanly’ tendency and even a sense of ‘ownership’ when other occupations were denied them.

I then begin to think too, as Susan Blackmore wrote in her paper on ‘Are Women More Sheepish? Gender Differences in Belief in the Paranormal’ - that ‘perhaps it is best not to try to separate experience from belief in trying to find reasons for the gender differences’.

In another anecdotal sense, after looking over the message board for a skeptic gathering, I notice a ‘former member’ discussing the issues that his wife had with the aggressive, non-nurturing stereotype she held of skeptics, which led her to reject going to Skeptic Meetups. It reminded me of the blog entry on ‘Losing My Religion‘, about the experiences of a former christian.

In it, she recalls elements community spirit and kinship that can exist with shared beliefs. When it comes to speaking out as a skeptic should be considered as a factor as to why women would not self-identify so easily with the skeptically-minded, nor find it so easy to give up what can be a significant ‘comfort zone’:

So many things, not just church and camp … I can barely stand to think of the beautiful old hymns that I have played so many hundreds of times, hymns that guided my beliefs, comforted my tears, challenged my mind. Their comfort and teaching was real, but now that I question what they taught, their comfort begins to fade and that breaks my heart more than almost anything else in this rocky journey. I want clarity of thought and honesty of mind, but the cost is mounting and I must wonder what price I will eventually pay in memories and comfort lost.

Of course, issues such as building connections despite distances between fellow skeptics, and regretfully hearing of skeptic pub-nights and social events that don’t cater so readily to children’s bed-time schedules - let alone the problem of a lack of distinct direction in skeptic groups for women and vaguely-defined goals which are already better met by other organizations are issues I’ve raised before in this blog post.

All of these point to several reasons why any person, let alone a woman, might grit their teeth and nod with a ‘non-skeptical choir’ even though they might harbor questions as to why the presenter is saying a great many weird things… including how great it is to have your bottom read in order to tell your fortune.

I think I have much more research to go, but certainly there is a lot more now that comes to mind when answering the question ‘why would a woman be superstitious?’

Select References:

Della Salla, S [ed.] (2007). Tall Tales About The Mind And Brain - Separating Fact From Fiction. Oxford University Press, UK.

Coly, L & White, R. (1991). Women and Parapsychology - Proceedings of an International Conference. Parapsychology Foundation, New York.

Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books.

Wolfradt, U. (1997). Dissociative Experiences, Trait Anxiety and Paranormal Beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 15-19.

Wiseman, R. & Watt, C. (2004). Measuring superstitious belief: Why lucky charms matter. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1533-1541.

Zusne, L & W.H Jones. (1982). Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary Phenomena of Behaviour and Experience. (1st ed.) Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zusne, L. & W. H. Jones (1989). Anomalistic Psychology: A Study in Magical Thinking. (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

4 Comments

Filed under Cool stuff, Education, Links Elsewhere, Media, Paranormal, Parenting, Pseudoscience, Psychology, Religion, Science, Skepticism, You Tube

Tags: atheism, belief, beliefs, Blackmore, christianity, community, female believers, female skeptics, gender, gender differences, Islam, mediums, Paranormal, paranormal belief scales, parapsychology, pigeon, Pseudoscience, Psychology, Religion, research, rumpology, sceptic, sex, sexism, Shermer, skeptic, Skepticism, Skinner, Sufi, superstious, superstition