Advances in Physical Education
2014. Vo l.4, No.1, 1-5
Published Online February 2014 in SciRes (htt p://www.s cirp.org/journal/ape) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ape.2014.41001
1
Superstitions Behavior and Decision Making in Collegiate
Athletes: An Illogical Phenomenon
Bal jind er Singh Bal1*, D avinder Singh1, Kulroop Kaur Badwal2, Gurmej Singh Dhaliwal3
1Department of Physical Education (T), Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, India
2Department of Sports Medicine & Physiotherapy, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, India
3Department of Physical Education & Sports, National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, India
Received Sept ember 10th, 2013; revi sed Oct ober 10th, 2013; acc ep ted October 17th, 2013
Copyrigh t © 2014 Balj inder Singh Bal et a l. This is an open access art icle distributed under the Creative Com-
mons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, pro-
vided the original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all Copy-
rights © 2014 are reserved for SCIRP and the owner of the intellectu al property Baljinder Singh Bal et al. All
Copyright © 2014 are guarded by law and by SCIRP as a guardian.
This study examined the superstitious behavior and decision making among individual, dual and team
sport groups. To obtain required data, the investigators had selected Ninety (N = 90) male intercollege
level a thl et es of 1 9 to 2 5 years of age to ac t as s ub j ects. They were divided i nto t hr ee gr oup s; Thi rt y (n1 =
30) Indi vidual Sp orts, Thi rty (n2 = 3 0) Dual Sports and Thi rty (n3 = 30) Team Sp orts at hletes of vari ous
games and s port . The purpos ive sampli ng tec hnique wa s used t o select the sub ject s. All the subjects, after
having b een i nformed a bout t he objec ti ve and p rot oc ol of t he st udy, ga ve t heir c onsent a nd volunt eere d t o
part icipate in this study. To meas ure the level of superstiti ons behaviors of the subjects, t he superstit ions
beli ef s and b eha viour s c al e cons tr ucted b y Buhr a mann et al . (20 04 ) wer e admini s ter ed a nd to m eas ur e the
level of decision making, decision making questionnaire prepared by French et al. (1993) was applied.
One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was employed to find out the intra-group differences. To test
the hypot hesis, the level of signi ficance w as set at .05. T he result s revealed signi ficant i ntra-group di ffer-
ences a mong indi vidual , dual a nd team sp orts on t he variabl e supers titious behavior and dec ision mak ing.
It is concluded that the individual sport group has low superstitious belief and better decision making
level as comp ared to their count erpart dual and t eam sport.
Key words: Superstitious; Behavior ; Decision Mak ing
Introduction
Humans seek explanations between cause and effect and
have tendencies to acquire beliefs in something that cannot be
scientifically proven. People tend to assume causation between
behavio rs an d events t hat are n ot correlat ed; this was defined as
superstitious behavior by B.F Skinner in 1948 (Chance, 2009).
It is a common occurrence in the sports world for an athlete
to engage in superstitious behaviors that may seem odd to oth-
ers. Society seems to mock athletes and believe that their be-
haviors are absurd; however, each superstition serves a purpose
in which the sportsperson is found to be beneficial to thei r per-
formance. NBA sensation, Michael Jordan, would wear his
college uniform shorts underneath his Chicago bulls uniform
(Cox, 2010). In fact, it is said that he is the reason for the trend
of long shorts in the sport of basketball because he would wear
extra-large uniform bottoms to hide his University of North
Carolina shorts.
Some top class athletes believe that their superstitions en-
hance their performance and alter the outcome of the competi-
tion, bu t in fact, pr actice an d con fiden ce is t he key to su ccess i n
athletics (Mayberry, 2010). Sports psychologists identify su-
perstitions as a coping mechanism because they give athletes a
sense of control, which in turn lowers anxiety and increases
confidence. The positive side of superstitions is that an athlete’s
confidence will rise as long as they feel they are in control of
the situation during competition. Superstitions give athletes
confidence that their rituals and routines are gaining them suc-
cess.
Many sport psychologists view superstitions as nothing more
than reactions that begin with conditioning and boosting a pla-
cebo effect (Roenigk, 2010). Some believe that superstitions
and rituals are an attempt to manipulate fate and act as a psy-
chological placebo to athletes (Robson, 2005). Many athletes
cling to superstitions to help navigate the numerous events that
require high levels of performance because a little psychologi-
cal edge can b e benefici al in con centration and focus. The most
negative consequence that can occur from superstitions and
rituals would be if the athlete were to abandon them; doubt,
anxiety, and worry might escalate and performance may sig-
nificantly suffer. In reality, if an athlete is unable to follow their
rituals or superstitions, their focus may be hindered (Fogelman,
2012).
Decision makin g is an in tegral part of ever yda y li fe and level
of self con fidence is r elated to the time it tak es to make a d eci-
sion. Myers (1962) indicated that a person’s decision making
process depends to a significant degree on their co gnitive style;
*Corresponding author.

B. S. BAL ET AL.
2
as in most decision-making situations, an individual faces dif-
ferent degrees of uncertainty. In probabilistic terms, this situa-
tion is called ambiguity. Decision making is the process of
sufficiently reducing uncertainty and doubt about alternatives to
allow a reaso nable choice t o be made fro m them. Lopez (1977)
has defined a decision as a judgment, a final resolution of a
conflict of needs, means or goals; and a commitment to action
made in face of uncertainly, complexity and even irrationally.
Therefore decision making is an important part of all sci-
ence-based professions, where specialists apply their knowl-
edge in a given area to making informed decisions. The present
study aimed to determine the difference in superstitious behav-
ior and decision making among individual, dual and team sport
groups.
Methods
Subjects
To o btain data, th e investigator s had sel ected Ninety (N = 90)
male int er college level athletes of 19 to 25 years of age to act as
subj ects. They were divided into three groups; Thirty (n1 = 30)
Individual Sports, Thirty (n2 = 30) Dual Sports and Thirty (n3 =
30) Team Sports athletes of various games and sports. The
purposive sampling technique was used to select the subjects.
All the su bjects, after having b een informed about the objecti ve
and protocol of the study, gave their consent and volunteered to
participate in this study.
A break-up of selected sample is their consent and volun-
teered to participate in this study (as shown in Table 1).
Tools
To measure the level of superstitions behaviors of the sub-
jects, the superstitions beliefs and behaviour scale constructed
by Buhramann et al. (2004) was administered.
To measure the level of decision making was measured by
applying decision making questionnaire prepared by French et
al. (1993).
Instrumentation
Superstitions Behaviors questionnaire consists of forty two
(N= 42) questions. These questions were to be answered by a
tick mark in the respective boxes given next to each question.
The questionnaire was arranged in a logical order and each
question was worded clearly to enable the subjects to under-
stand and answer those questions without much difficulty. The
responses to the questions were “Agree”, “D is-Agree” and “Not
Aware”.
Decision making questionnaire consisted of twenty one (N =
21) items measuring the decision making. The respondents
Table 1.
A break-up of selected sample.
Sr.
No Individual Sports Dual Sports Te am Sports
1. Archery 10 Chess 10 Basketball 10
2. Shootin g 10 Tennis 10 Handba ll 10
3. Fencing 10 Badmint on 10 Footb a ll 10
Total (N1 = 30) Total (N2 = 30) Total (N3 = 30)
were required to record their responses in six categories, very
infrequently or never, infrequently, quite infrequently, quite
frequently, frequently and very frequently or always. The scor-
ing of each of the items was as follows; very infrequently or
never = 1, infrequently = 2, quite infrequently = 3, quite fre-
quently = 4, frequently and very frequently or always = 6.
There was no right or wrong answers in this questionnaire.
There was none allocated for the completion of both the ques-
tionnaires but the subjects were instructed not taken too much
time over any questions. The questionnaires were distributed to
the respondents along with the writing material. After the com-
pleti on of the quest ionnaires, quest ionnaires were collected and
checked that no resp onse was left unanswered.
Statistical Analysis
One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was employed to
find out the intra-group differences. To test the hypothesis, the
level of significance was set at .05.
Results
It is evident from Table 2 that results of Analysis of Vari-
ance (ANOV A) among various sport groups (archery, shooting
and fencing) with regard to individual sports athletes on the
variable superstitious behavior were found statistically insig-
nificant (P > .05). Since “F” ratio was not found statistically
significant, therefore, there is no need to apply the post hoc test.
It is evident from Table 3 that results of Analysis of Vari-
ance (ANOVA) among various sport groups (Chess, Tennis and
Badminton) with regard to dual sports athletes on the variable
superstitious behavior were found statistically insignificant
(P > .05) . Sin ce “F” ratio was not found statistically significant,
therefore, there is no need to apply the post hoc test.
It is evident from Table 4 that results of Analysis of Vari-
ance (ANOVA) among various Team Sports (Basketball,
Handball and Football) with regard to dual sports athletes on
the variable superstitious behavior were found statistically in-
significant (P > .05) . Since “F” ratio was not found statistically
Table 2.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results with regard to superstitious
behavior among Individual Sports (Archery, Shooting and Fencing).
Source of
variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-ratio Sig.
Between Groups 7.46 2 3.73 .35 .70
Withi n Groups 285.90 27 10.58
Total 293.36 29
F .05 (2, 27).
Table 3.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results with regard to superstitious
behavior among Dual Sports (Chess, Tennis and Badminton).
Source of
variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-ratio Sig.
Between
Groups 1 50.46 2 75.23 1.448 .253
Withi n Groups 1403.00 27 51.96
Total 1553.46 29
F .05 (2, 27).

B. S. BAL ET AL.
3
significant, therefore, there is no need to apply the post hoc test.
It is evident from Table 5 that results of Analysis of Vari-
ance (ANOVA) among various sport groups (individual, dual
and team sports) with regard to superstitious behavior were
found statistically significant (P < .05). Since the obtained
F-ratio 281.33* was found statistically significant, therefore,
Post-hoc test (LSD) was applied to find out the degree and
direction of differences between paired means among various
sport groups (individual, dual and team sports) with regard to
superstitious behavior. The results of Post-hoc test have been
presented in Table 6 below.
A glance at Table 6 showed that the mean value of individ-
ual sports group was 49.43 whereas dual sports had mean value
as 71.53 and the mean difference between both the groups was
found 22.10. The p-value sig .000 shows that the individual
sport group had demonstrated significantly better on supersti-
tious behavior than their counterpart’s dual sport group. The
mean difference between individual and team sport group was
found 39.30. The p-value sig .000 revealed that the individual
sport group had exhibited significantly better on superstitious
behavior than their counterpart’s team sport group. The mean
difference b etween t eam and dual sp ort group was found 17.20.
The p-value sig .000 showed that the dual sport group had
Table 4.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results with regard to superstitious
behavior among Team Sports (Basketball, Handball and Football).
Source of
variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-rati o Sig.
Between
Groups 80.86 2 40.43 .653 .529
Withi n Groups 1673.00 27 61.96
Total 1753.86 29
F .05 (2, 27).
Table 5.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results with regard to superstitious
behavior among Various Sport Groups (Individual, Dual and Team
Sports).
Source of
variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-rati o Sig.
Between
Groups 2 3287.40 2 11643.70 281.33* .000
Withi n Groups 3600.70 87 41.38
Total 26888.10 89
F .05 (2, 87).
Table 6.
Comparison of Mean Values of Post-hoc test (LSD) among various
Sport Groups (Individual, Dual and Team Sports) with r egard to super-
sti tious behaviour.
Group (A) Group (B) Mean Difference
(A-B) Sig.
Individ u a l S port s
(Mean = 49.43)
Dual −22. 10
*
.00
Team −39.30
*
.00
Dual Sports
(Mean = 71.53)
Individual 22.10
*
.00
Team −17.20* .00
Team Sports
(Mean = 88.73)
Individual 39.30
*
.00
Dual 17.20
*
.00
demonstrated better significantly better on superstitious behav-
ior than their counterpart’s team sport group.
It is evident from Table 7 that results of Analysis of Vari-
ance (ANOVA) among various sport groups (archery, shooting
and fencing) with regard to individual sports athletes on the
variable decision making were found statistically insignificant
(P > .05) . Sin ce “F” ratio was not found statistically significant,
therefore, there is no need to apply the post hoc test.
It can b e seen from Table 8 that results of Analysis of Vari-
ance (ANOVA) among various sport groups (chess, tennis and
badminton) with regard to dual sports athletes on the variable
decision making were found statistically insignificant (P > .05).
Since “F” ratio was not found statistically significant, therefore,
there is no need to apply the post hoc test.
It can be observed from Table 9 that results of Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) among various sport groups (basketball,
handball and football) with regard to team sports athletes on the
variable decision making were found statistically insignificant
(P > .05) . Sin ce “F” ratio was not found statistically significant,
therefore, there is no need to apply the post hoc test.
It is evident from Table 10 that results of Analysis of Vari-
ance (ANOVA) among various sport groups (individual, dual
and team sports) with regard to decision making were found
statistically significant (P < .05). Since the obtained F-ratio
127.63 was found statistically significant, therefore, Post-hoc
Table 7.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results with regard to decision making
among Individual Sports (Archery, Shooti ng and Fencing).
Source of
variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-rati o Sig.
Between
Groups 25.40 2 12.70 .972 .391
Withi n Groups 352.90 27 13.07
Total 378.30 29
F .05 (2, 27).
Table 8.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results with regard to decision making
among Dual Sports (Chess, Tennis and Badminton).
Source of
variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-rati o Sig.
Between
Groups .46 2 .23 .017 . 983
Withi n Groups 369.00 27 13.66
Total 369.46 29
F .05 (2, 27).
Table 9.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results with regard to decision making
among Team S ports (Ba sketball, Ha ndball and Football).
Source of
variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-rati o Sig.
Between
Groups 7.46 2 3.73 .353 .706
Withi n Groups 285.90 27 10.58
Total 293.36 29
F .05 (2, 27).

B. S. BAL ET AL.
4
test (LSD) was applied to find out the degree and direction of
differences between paired means among various sport groups
(individual, dual and team sports) with regard to decision mak-
ing. The results of Post-hoc test have been presented in Table
11 below.
A glance at Table 11 showed that the mean value of indi-
vidual sports group was 63.70 whereas dual sports had mean
value as 58.86 and the mean difference between both the
groups was found 6.83. The p-value sig .000 shows that the
individual sport group had demonstrated significantly better on
decision making than their counterpart’s dual sport group. The
mean difference between individual and team sport group was
found 14.26. The p-value sig .000 revealed that the individual
sport group had exhibited significantly better on decision mak-
ing than their counterpart’s team sport group. The mean dif fer-
ence between team and dual sport group was found 7.43. The
p-value sig .000 showed that the dual sport group had demon-
strated better significantly better on decision making than their
counterpart’s team sport group.
Discussion
A perusal at Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Tables 2-4
with regard to superstitious behavior of individual sport (arch-
ery, shooting and fencing), Dual Sports (Chess, Tennis and
Badminton) and Team Sports (Basketball, Handball and Foot-
ball) group revealed insignificant differences among various
sport groups. But when we find out the intra-group difference
between individual, dual and team sports it is revealed signifi-
cant differences betw een these group s.
The findings of Analysis of variance (ANOVA) Tables 5
and 6 with regard to superstitious behaviour individual, Dual
and Team Sports revealed significant differences among sport
groups. The outcome of the above results might be due to the
Table 10.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results with regard to decision making
among Various Sport Groups (Individual, Dual and Team Sports).
Source of
variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-rati o Sig.
Between
Groups 3054 .86 2 1527.43 127.63 .00
Withi n Groups 1041.13 87 11.96
Total 4096.00 89
F .05 (2, 87).
Table 11.
Comparison of Mean Values of Post-hoc test (LSD) among various
Sport Groups (Individual, Dual and Team Sports) with regard to Deci-
sion Maki ng .
Group (A) Group (B) Mean Difference
(A-B) Sig.
Individ u a l S port s
(Mean = 63.70)
Dual 6.83 .00
Team 14.26 .00
Dual Sports
(Mean = 58.86)
Individual −6.83 .00
Team 7.43 .00
Team Sports
(Mean = 49.43)
Individual −14.26 .00
Dual −7.43 .00
impact of stress, and increased task persistence constitutes one
means by which self-efficacy, enhanced by superstition, im-
proves performance.
Therefore, Post-hoc test (LSD) was applied to find out the
degree and direction of differences between paired means
among various sport groups (individual, dual and team sports)
with regard to superstitious behaviour. After the analysis it can
safely be r eviewed t hat individual sport group has lower super-
stitious behaviour as compare to their counterpart dual and
team sport. If evidence from past research is valid, then super-
stitious beliefs and behavior in collegiate athletes is a result of
the individual’s decision making. Performing more studies and
exploring a variety of variables would yield a greater insight to
more possible causes and reasoning behind superstition. Learn-
ing more about superstitions could assist sport psychologists,
coaches, and players in understanding how individual athletes
view the sport and effectively find strategies that can further
enhance performance.
One may wonder whether the beneficial effects of supersti-
tion on performance would also hold in real-life situations. In
fact, correlational support for this possibility exists in the realm
of sports. Buhrmann and Zaugg (1981) found that for competi-
tive basketball players, superstitious beliefs and performance
are posi tively related: Superior teams, as well as superior play-
ers within a team, exhibit more superstitious behaviors. In light
of the present findings, this suggests that even in real-life per-
formance situations, superstitious thoughts and behaviors result
in performance benefits. It is interesting to note that much of
the article is devoted to covering the superstitious elements in
the game rath er than the asp ects o f game pla y and s trategy, and
that the superstitious beliefs filter throughout the team, in this
instance, from the coach and play to the manager. Some ath-
letes admit to their superstitions, and naturally enough, they are
reported to the public without hesitation.
A perusal at Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Tables 7-9
with regard to decision making of individual sport (archery,
shooting and fencing), Dual Sports (Chess, Tennis and Bad-
minton) and Team Sports (Basketball, Handball and Football)
group revealed insignificant differences among various sport
groups. The outcome of the above results might be due to the
practical environment includes different types of games. But
when we find out the intra-group difference between individual,
dual and team sports it is revealed significant differences be-
tween these groups.
The findings of Analysis of variance (ANOVA) Tables 10
and 11 with regard to decision making individual, Dual and
Team Sports revealed significant differences among sport
groups. The findings might be as results of pressures of their
study and less responsibility in team sports which might lead
them to the low decision-making level. Ther efore, Po st-hoc test
(LSD) was applied to find out the degree and direction of dif-
ferences between paired means among various sport groups
(individual, dual and team sports) with regard to decision mak-
ing. After t he analysis it can safely be r eviewed that individual
sport group has higher decision making power as compare to
their counterpart dual and team sport. Similar tren ds have been
reported by Flaming et al. (2010) found that significant differ-
ence between Philippines and United States students on the
variable decision making. Dureja and Singh (2011) found that
Physical education students have better decision making level
as compared to their counterpart psychology students.

B. S. BAL ET AL.
5
Conclusion
The results revealed significant difference with regard to
variable superstitious behavior and decision making among
individual, Dual and Team Sports athletes. The individual sport
group has low superstitious belief and better decision making
level as compared to their count erp ar t dual and team sport.
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank department of Physical Educa-
tion and Sports (AT) Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar for
providing assistance in collecting the relevant information for
undertaking quality research. We would like to acknowledge
the cooperation of athletes in data collection.
REFERENCES
Agnihotri, R. (1987). Manual for agnihotri’s self confidence inventory
(ASCI) Nat ional Ps ychological Corporation, Agra.
Buhrmann, H. G., & Zaugg, M. K. (1981). Superstitions among bas-
ketball players: An investigation of various forms of superstitious
beliefs and behavior among competitive basket ballers at the junior
high school to university level. Journal of Sport Behavior, 4, 163-
174.
Cox, L. (2010). Why athletes need rituals and supe rstitio ns. Abc News
Medical Unit.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/experts-athletes-weird-
ritu-
als-chewing-str aws -performance/story?id=9961246#.T076B5gqOL9
Dureja, G. & Singh, S. (2011). Self-confidence and decision making
between p sychology an d physical educa tion student s: A comparative
study. Journal o f Physical Education and Sports Man agement, 2, 62-
65.
Flaming, A. G., & Uddin, N. (2010). Ethical decision-making differ-
ences between Philippines and United States Students. Ethic Beha-
vior, 20, 65-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508420903482624
Fogelman, L. (2012). Do rituals really help athletes’ ex pert s ports p er-
formance. http://expertsportsperformance.com/do-rituals-help/
French, D. J., West, R. J., Elander, J., & Wilding, J. M. (1993). Deci-
sion making style, driving style and self-reported involvement in
road traf fic accide nts . Ergonomics, 36, 627-644.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139308967925
Mayberry, W. (2010). Uneart hing superstitions. Psychology of Sports.
http://psychologyofsports.com/2010/06/08/unearthing-superstitions/
Robson, D. (2005). Players walk fine line when it comes to supersti-
tions. USA Today.
Roenigk, A. (2010). The power of belief. Espn the Magazine.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=5660039