JOURNAL OF BELIEFS & VALUES
https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2019.1570452
The Indian superstition scale: creating a measure to assess
Indian superstitions
Sieun An
a
a
, Navya Kapoor
a
, Aanchal Setia
a
, Smriti Agiwal
a
and Ishika Ray
b
Ashoka University, Sonepat, India; bUniversity of Washington, Seattle, USA
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
Despite humans’ capacity for rational thought, they are not
immune to superstitions. Superstitions are strongly tied to cultural
practices, especially in India. Although 17% of the world’s population resides in India, Indian culture is understudied, and there have
not been sufficient attempts to understand Indian superstitions in
a scientific manner from a psychometric standpoint. By creating
a proper superstition measurement for the Indian population, we
can better understand how Indians think and behave. The goal of
the present research is to create a superstition measure specific to
Indian culture. The results reveal 18 items reflecting Indian superstitions that can be generalised across contemporary India.
superstition; belief;
well-being; culture
Rational and superstitious practices are intertwined in our daily lives. Superstitions – no
matter how trivial – are an integral part of most individuals’ lives even in the
present day context (Sagone and De Caroli 2014). Superstitious beliefs have
a significant influence on people’s choices, be it in their daily lives or while making
important business or market economy decisions (Block and Kramer 2009; Kramer and
Block 2007; Lepori 2009). There have been several attempts to define the concept of
superstition. Levitt (1952) postulated that the following six characteristics need to be
taken into consideration while defining a superstition: a superstition is: (1) fundamentally irrational; (2) popularly accepted (i.e. it should be a widely held belief); (3) usually
influences the behaviour of the holder; (4) may be a belief in supernatural phenomena
in the conventional sense; (5) has no sound evidence of personal experience to support
it; and (6) may have arisen spontaneously and spread without ever having had the
sanction of authority. Typically, psychological researchers refer to superstition as
a phenomenon exerting an imagined influence on an action or an outcome when no
real causal relationship is apparent, or indeed present (e.g. Carlson, Mowen, and Fang
2009; Matute, Yarritu, and Vadillo 2011).
A majority of theories accounting for both superstitious cognition and
behaviour have been examined from a psychological perspective (Campbell 1996;
Shermer 1997; Vyse 2013). However, most of these theories account for the factors
which lead to superstitious behaviour, but do not directly measure superstition as
a psychological construct in and of itself. As a result, psychologists have produced
CONTACT Sieun An
sieun.an@ashoka.edu.in
Department of Psychology, Ashoka University, India
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2
S. AN ET AL.
research explaining the social cognitive aspects of superstitious thinking and belief (e.g.
Jahoda 1970; Lindeman and Aarnio 2007; Rice 2003) as well as its behavioural manifestations (e.g. Damisch, Stoberock, and Mussweiler 2010; Morse and Skinner 1957;
Skinner, 1948) without measuring the extent to which superstitions affect an individual’s functioning. In order to accomplish such a goal, it is necessary to have tools that
allow psychologists to assess superstitious beliefs.
In the past, several scales that measure superstition have been created (e.g. Carlson,
Mowen, and Fang 2009; Fluke, Webster, and Saucier 2014). However, superstitious
beliefs and practices differ across cultures and populations (Carlson, Mowen, and Fang
2009); therefore, culture-specific superstition scales would be more sound tools to
measure superstitious beliefs. The goal of the present research is to develop and
administer a scale to measure superstitious beliefs across India that can predict the
magnitude of an individual’s superstitious ideology.
Who is superstitious?
There has been much speculation and subsequent research as to the kind of people who
‘fall prey’ to superstitions. Research shows that Americans tend to associate the propensity towards superstitious thought and behaviour with individuals who are backward and uneducated (Frazer 1922; Jueneman 2001; Vyse 2013). Nevertheless, it is clear
that although the definition of superstitious belief and behaviour is largely agreed upon,
the actual classification of beliefs and behaviours as ‘superstitious’ can vary even within
a culture. Lesser (1931) posited that ‘the same belief or behaviour can be superstitious
to one person, non-superstitious to another; non-superstitious to one person at one
time, superstitious to the same person at a different time; . . . non-superstitious to all
men at one time, superstitious to all men at a different time’ (620).
The need for a superstition scale for India
Superstitions are a fundamental part of India’s culture and are deeply rooted in people’s
beliefs even today (Jayapalan 2005). Superstitious beliefs are greatly associated with
illiteracy, which has a rate of about 36% in India (Office of the Registrar General &
Census Commissioner, India 2011b). However, in contrast to the general opinion about
the holders of superstitions, 60–70% of India’s literate working population, including
scientists, hold superstitious beliefs (“Institute for the Study” 2008; Kashyap 2012).
Therefore, the behaviour and practices of people of India cannot be understood
completely without studying superstitions. A reliable measure for superstitions will
provide a base for studying superstitions in relation to cognitive and behavioural
phenomena.
Superstitious beliefs and behaviours have been extensively studied and various scales
have been created to measure superstitious ideologies of people (Darke and Freedman
1997; Fluke, Webster, and Saucier 2014; Huang and Teng 2009; Huque and Chowdhury
2007; Žeželj et al. 2009). However, these scales are not considered to be as externally
valid as previously thought, due to findings that show that specific superstitions differ
across cultures (Carlson, Mowen, and Fang 2009). This discovery also highlights a gap
in psychological literature on superstition, since the scales used to assess superstitious
JOURNAL OF BELIEFS & VALUES
3
beliefs and practices are not necessarily valid for all cultures. This is especially true for
Indian culture as it is vastly different from Western cultures. Many of the superstitious
beliefs that are prevalent in Western cultures do not pertain to India. For example, the
superstition that Friday 13th is an unlucky day is widespread in America to an extent
that people deliberately avoid travelling and working on that day, which leads to an
estimated loss of $800 to $900 million each Friday 13th (Roach 2004). On the other
hand, this superstition is irrelevant in India. Likewise, the Indian superstition that one
should hang lemons and chilies on the door to keep the evil eye away does not apply in
the Western context. While the wearing of white clothes by a married woman in India
is considered highly inauspicious and is frowned upon, women in Western cultures
typically wear white on their wedding day.
India’s demographic is famously heterogeneous, with an estimated 1.3 billion citizens, 22 scheduled languages, and at least seven different religions (Office of the
Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India 2011a). This diversity cultivates
unique ideas and values, which could be a probable origin of superstitions that are
widely varied from superstitious beliefs found in other cultures. In any case, no uniform
scale has been constructed in the past for the Indian population.
Components of the scale
The present 18-item questionnaire was created with Nixon’s (1925) principle aim in
mind: by creating a concise list of short but representative statements, we can measure
a general overview of the factors which greatly affect superstitious beliefs in Indians.
Most items on this scale were constructed in accordance with the revised paranormal
belief scale (Tobacyk 2004). It aims to measure both positive and negative magical
beliefs that are prevalent in Indian society, deriving common religious and folk superstitions from Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and indigenous tribal faiths. Some items
on our Indian questionnaire are adapted from the Bangladesh questionnaire (Huque
and Chowdhury 2007), since Bangladesh was part of the Indian subcontinent until the
partition of Bengal in 1947. As a result, modern day Bangladesh and India continue to
share certain key cultural similarities, folklore and superstitions among them.
The present scale refrains from more geographically or culturally specific items such
as ‘Taking good food and having pastime on the first day of a new year (e.g. the 1st
Baishak of the Bengali Year) will make your days good throughout the year’, which are
present and justified in Huque and Chowdhury’s (2007) Bangladeshi superstitions scale.
Instead, this scale includes items that may be generalised across the breadth of India,
namely positive and negative outcome superstitions without a specific geographic or
cultural detail – (‘Adding one rupee to a gift sum is auspicious, i.e. sums like 21 or 101
rupees or 501 rupees are considered more auspicious than say 20 or 100’, ‘It is an
ominous start if anyone sneezes while getting out of the home’). In an attempt to make
the scale more generalisable across India, most items in the questionnaire are derived
from Hindu folklore and culture (for instance, ‘A person born under the influence of
Mars is called a manglik or is described as having a Mangal Dosha. People avoid
marrying such a person, especially if the person is a woman. Marriage with such
a person is believed to cause marital discord and divorce, sometimes death’, ‘The
wearing of white clothes by a married woman is considered inauspicious’). Inclusion
4
S. AN ET AL.
of these religion-specific items is justified by the 80% Hindu majority in India (Office of
the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India 2011a). In contrast, other Indian
religions such as Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism are distinct from Hinduism and
condemn superstitious beliefs in their tenets (“Religion: Buddhism” 2018).
Consequently, any superstitious beliefs held by participants following these religions
would be rooted in Hinduism, as well as more esoteric local customs. The items adapted
from Huque and Chowdhury (2007) also account for superstitious beliefs that are
prevalent among non-Hindu majorities; since Bangladesh is a Muslim-majority country, the adapted items account for superstitious beliefs potentially held by Muslim
participants. The current project aimed to construct a measure of superstition for
Indian population, which could aid our understanding of the way 17% of the world’s
population thinks and behaves.
Method
Participants
Participants were 219 undergraduates from a mid-sized university in India (100 men
and 119 women) with a mean age of 18.68 years (SD = 1.26). All were Indian nationals
from various regions in India (North = 46%, South = 26%, East = 15%, West = 10%,
and Central = 3%). Religious breakdown was 62% Hindu, 22% non-religious, and 16%
of other (Christian, Islam, Sikhism, etc.) religions. All participation was voluntary, and
was compensated with a small gift.
Materials and procedure
The superstition questionnaire items were generated by several research assistants who
are native to Indian culture from different regions of India. We finalised them into 34
items; participants rated them on a 0 = not at all to 6 = very much scale in response to
the question, ‘Please read the following statements and rate how relevant they are to
Indian Cultural Superstitions for you.’ We also recorded basic demographic information (age, sex, nationality, hometown, religion, etc.).
Results
The 34 superstition items were factor analysed using a Principal Component Analysis
with Varimax rotation and Kaiser Normalisation. A total of 18 items were selected for
the scale, which was created for Indian specific superstitions. See Table 1. The analysis
yielded two factors explaining a total of 56.18% of the variance. Thirteen items loaded
onto the first factor. The 13 items loaded above 0.5 for component 1, but not on other
components. See Table 2. This factor was labelled ‘influence on well-being’. The first
factor solution explained 49.77% of the variance. Internal consistency of the 13 items
was examined using a reliability test. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.96, demonstrating strong
internal consistency.
Five items loaded on the second factor. The five items loaded above 0.5 for component 2, but not in other components. See Table 3. This factor was labelled ‘symbolistic
JOURNAL OF BELIEFS & VALUES
5
Table 1. List of Chosen 18 Indian Superstitious Items.
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Description
It is ominous to see a black cat on the way to your destination or out of home.
If anyone praises a healthy and good-looking child, he/she gets sick for having an evil eye.
Flicking of the left eye is a sign of getting sick soon.
If the foetus moves in mother’s womb, it will be a boy, else it will be a girl.
The entrance of butterfly into the room is a good sign.
It is a symbol of good luck for the father, if the first born is a daughter.
One should not open the doors at night upon hearing a single call from someone outside the
home.
The birth of handicapped children is the consequence of parent’s sin.
If a pregnant woman cuts anything during the lunar eclipse or a solar eclipse, she will deliver
a deformed child.
To keep the evil away from home, one should hang lemons and chilies on the door.
It is bad luck if the temple lamp blows out in the middle of the prayer.
It is bad luck to pluck flowers and leaves after dawn.
Adding one rupee to a gift sum is auspicious, i.e. sums like 21 or 101 rupees or 501 rupees
are considered more auspicious than say 20 or 100.
Mothers put kohl (eyeliner) on their babies’ face to ward off evil eye, by making it imperfect.
A person born under the influence of Mars is called a manglik or having a Mangal Dosha.
People avoid marrying such a person, especially if the person is a woman. Marriage with such a person is
believed to cause marital discord and divorce, even sometimes death. However, it is believed that if two
mangliks marry, the effects of both cancel out.
Peepul trees are believed to be the abode of ghosts, and they are avoided at night.
Continuous hiccups are considered a sign of someone close badly remembering you.
The wearing of white clothes by a married woman is considered inauspicious.
The scale score is the mean of the 18 items. Anchors are defined as 0 being less superstitious, and 6 being highly
superstitious.
Table 2. Item factor loadings for Factor 1 based on a principal components analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalisation.
Item
1
2
3
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Factor 1
0.686
0.697
0.656
0.586
0.784
0.742
0.562
0.784
0.786
0.750
0.679
0.779
0.712
Factor 2
0.211
0.203
0.426
0.192
0.156
0.137
0.164
0.198
0.315
0.201
0.259
Communalities
0.70
0.69
0.67
0.69
0.84
0.69
0.47
0.73
0.77
0.81
0.68
0.70
0.69
Table 3. Item factor loadings for Factor 2 based on a principal components analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalisation.
Item
4
5
6
7
9
Factor 1
0.267
0.229
0.139
0.375
Factor 2
0.562
0.582
0.623
0.752
0.575
Communalities
0.64
0.55
0.49
0.64
0.65
6
S. AN ET AL.
prophecy’. The second factor solution explained 6.41% of the variance. Internal consistency for the five items was examined using a reliability test. Cronbach’s alpha was
0.78, demonstrating adequate internal consistency. Lastly, Factor 1 and Factor 2 were
strongly correlated, r = .61, n = 219, p < .001. Due to the relatively high correlation
between the two factors, we performed a discriminant validity test as described in
Campbell and Fiske (1959). The result of this test was .70, which is under the criterion
value of .85 for meeting discriminant validity. This lends support to the claim that
Factors 1 and 2 measure separate, but related constructs.
Next, to provide support for the predictive power of the scale with respect to religion, we
performed a 2 Religion (Hindu vs. Non-Hindu) × 2 Factor (1 vs. 2) two way ANOVA. The
results showed that there was a main effect of Religion, F(218, 1) = 13.01, p < .001,
η2partial = .06, such that Hindus (M = 1.88, se = .12) were more superstitious compared to
Non-Hindus (M = 1.20, se = .15). Also, there was a main effect of Factor, F(218, 1) = 114.75,
p < .001, η2partial = .35, such that Factor 1 items (M = 2.10, se = .13) were rated higher
compared to Factor 2 items (M = .99, se = .08). These main effects were qualified by
a Religion by Factor interaction, F(218, 1) = 10.44, p = .001, η2partial = .05. For Factor 1,
Hindus (M = 2.59, se = .16) reported stronger superstitions compared to non-Hindus
(M = 1.58, se = .20), and for Factor 2, Hindus (M = 1.17, se = .10) reported slightly stronger
superstitions compared to non-Hindus (M = 0.82, se = .13) as well. See Figure 1. We also
performed predictive validity tests on sex and hometown separately; however, there were
no significant effects for these variables.
Discussion
The purpose of the current research was to develop a superstition scale that could
measure superstitious beliefs across contemporary India. The results showed that 18 out
Hindu
Non-Hindu
Superstition Rating Scores
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
2
Factor
Figure 1. Interaction of Religion by Factor.
Hindu N = 136; Non-Hindu N = 83
JOURNAL OF BELIEFS & VALUES
7
of the 34 items are relevant to Indians who participated in the study. There are 13
relevant items in Factor 1 and five relevant items in Factor 2. The results support that
the superstition scale constructed in this study is highly reliable. Superstitions include
beliefs that are not consistent with scientific findings. They are often seen as thoughts
that science has been unable to explain through its laws (Himawan 2014). This is
supported by the theme of Factor 1 being influence on well-being, and the theme of
Factor 2 being symbolic prophecy.
Furthermore, superstitions are culturally specific (Carlson, Mowen, and Fang 2009),
and as demonstrated by the findings of the present paper, developing a measure of
superstitions is important in order to understand the factors that affect patterns and
variances of behaviour within a specific culture. India is a country with a population of
1.3 billion (Statista 2018), so understanding its cultural components is crucial to
understanding humans on earth. To our knowledge, this is the first Indian superstition
scale (ISS) that has been developed, and is a significant contribution towards mapping
Indian culture and psychology.
Limitations and future directions
There are a few caveats to consider. The project was conducted with college students
who are mostly from urban backgrounds, so the population was not educationally
diverse. However, since the subjects came from all over India (south, north, west, east
and central) and had a variety of religious backgrounds, the results can be generalised to
all parts of contemporary India. In the future, this experiment can be replicated with
rural populations in India with different socio-economic backgrounds, ages, education
levels, etc. Also, this measurement itself can reflect why and how Indians think and
behave the way they do, and has much potential for future projects.
Going forward, this measurement can be used in various projects relating to India
including – but not limited to – projects exploring the link between superstitions and
religion. Previous research showed positive correlation between people’s religious
beliefs and the magnitude of an individual’s superstitious beliefs (Buhrmann and
Zaugg 1983; Rudski 2003). Further, our findings also establish a proportional link
between these two variables. The stronger superstitious beliefs among Hindu participants in the present study can be attributed to the greater incidence of superstitious
practices within Hinduism. Conversely, the weaker superstition reported by non-Hindu
participants is reflective of the tenets of their own faiths (including atheism), since the
other surveyed religions forbid superstitious beliefs and behaviour.
While superstition has been found to be negatively correlated with intelligence and
openness to experience (Shenhav, Rand, and Greene 2012; Wagner 1928), Vyse (2013)
argues that even Harvard students, whom one might consider intelligent, engage in superstitious behaviour. However, no causal link has been established between intelligence and
superstitious beliefs. Further, while both sexes are superstitious, women are slightly more
superstitious than men (Vyse 2013; Zapf 1945). While these studies were conducted in
Western countries, similar studies can be performed with Indian populations to explore
intelligence and gender in relation to superstitious beliefs and practices.
With a reliable measure for superstitions, the number of people who believe in superstitions to a given extent can be calculated, which can be further used to understand the
8
S. AN ET AL.
impact of superstitions on cognition and behaviour. For instance, good-luck associated
superstitious behaviour has been shown to lead to better performance in tasks such as
golfing, memory games, etc. (Damisch, Stoberock, and Mussweiler 2010). Since the present
questionnaire uses a Likert scale as opposed to a binary scale, the degree of belief in
superstitions can also be assessed. The causal link demonstrated by Damisch et al. could
be further affirmed by studying the relationship between the level of performance and the
degree of belief in general superstitions. Alternatively, a study that explores the effect of
activation of ill-omen on superstitious and non-superstitious people’s performance could
be conducted as well.
In conclusion, this project significantly enhances our understanding of the prevalence of
superstitions in Indian culture, which previously had not been well understood or heavily
investigated in a scientific manner. The results from this study can be extended to understand
the impact of superstitions on the cognition and behaviour of individuals. Further research
can aim to discover various other variables in relation to superstition such as the role played by
religion in forming superstitious beliefs as well as to explore the cause and effect relationship
between the two variables, if there is one. This will help us to understand how blind faith in
superstitions can be questioned so that humans can attempt to be logical and rational.
Superstitions continue to be deeply ingrained in the minds of many, so a reliable superstition
measure can add to the understanding of psychology.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Dr. Sieun An is an assistant professor of Psychology at Ashoka University.
Ms. Navya Kapoor is an undergrad student majoring in Psychology at Ashoka University.
Ms. Aanchal Setia is an undergrad student majoring in Psychology at Ashoka University.
Ms. Smriti Agiwal is an undergrad student majoring in Economics at Ashoka University.
Ms. Ishika Ray is a graduate student majoring in Psychology at the University of Washington at
Seattle.
ORCID
Sieun An
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7760-924X
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9718-195X
Navya Kapoor
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4742-3572
Aanchal Setia
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0112-1341
Smriti Agiwal
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1491-8176
Ishika Ray
References
Block, L., and T. Kramer. 2009. “The Effect of Superstitious Beliefs on Performance Expectations.”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 37: 161–169. doi:10.1007/s11747-008-0116-y.
JOURNAL OF BELIEFS & VALUES
9
Buhrmann, H. G., and M. K. Zaugg. 1983. “Religion and Superstition in the Sport of Basketball.”
Journal of Sport Behavior 6: 146.
Campbell, C. 1996. “Half-Belief and the Paradox of Ritual Instrumental Activism: A Theory of
Modern Superstition.” British Journal of Sociology 47: 151–166. doi:10.2307/591121.
Campbell, D. T., and D. W. Fiske. 1959. “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the
Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix.” Psychological Bulletin 56: 81–105.
Carlson, B. D., J. C. Mowen, and X. Fang. 2009. “Trait Superstition and Consumer Behavior: ReConceptualization, Measurement, and Initial Investigations.” Psychology & Marketing 26:
689–713. doi:10.1002/mar.v26:8.
Damisch, L., B. Stoberock, and T. Mussweiler. 2010. “Keep Your Fingers Crossed! How Superstition
Improves Performance.” Psychological Science 21: 1014–1020. doi:10.1177/0956797610372631.
Darke, P. R., and J. L. Freedman. 1997. “The Belief in Good Luck Scale.” Journal of Research in
Personality 31: 486–511. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2197.
Fluke, S. M., R. J. Webster, and D. A. Saucier. 2014. “Methodological and Theoretical
Improvements in the Study of Superstitious Beliefs and Behavior.” British Journal of
Psychology 105: 102–126. doi:10.1111/bjop.12008.
Frazer, J. G. 1922. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, 401–402. Vol. 1. New York:
Macmillan.
Himawan, K. K. 2014. “Magical Thinking in Jakarta: What Makes You Believe What You
Believe.” Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy 5: 3–9. doi:10.1080/
21507686.2013.872158.
Huang, L. S., and C. I. Teng. 2009. “Development of a Chinese Superstitious Belief Scale.”
Psychological Reports 104: 807–819. doi:10.2466/PR0.104.3.807-819.
Huque, M. M., and A. H. Chowdhury. 2007. “A Scale to Measure Superstition.” Journal of Social
Science 3: 18–23.
Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture. 2008. Worldviews and Opinions of
Scientists: India 2007-2008 Summary Report. https://www.scribd.com/document/17138974/
Worldviews-and-Opinions-of-Scientists-India-2007-2008-Summary-Report
Jahoda, G. 1970. The Psychology of Superstition. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Jayapalan, N. 2005. Problems of Indian Education. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Distributors.
Jueneman, F. B. 2001. “The Making of a Myth.” Research & Development 43: 9–10.
Kashyap, G. K. 2012. “Superstition@Workplace.” People Matters. https://www.peoplematters.in/
article/watercooler/superstition-workplace-2345?utm_source=peoplematters&utm_medium=
interstitial&utm_campaign=learnings-of-the-day
Kramer, T., and L. Block. 2007. “Conscious and Nonconscious Components of Superstitious Beliefs in
Judgment and Decision Making.” Journal of Consumer Research 34: 783–793. doi:10.1086/523288.
Lepori, G. M. 2009. Dark Omens in the Sky: Do Superstitious Beliefs Affect Investment Decisions?
Working paper, Copenhagen Business School.
Lesser, A. 1931. “Superstition.” The Journal of Philosophy 28: 617–628. doi:10.2307/2015685.
Levitt, E. E. 1952. “Superstitions: Twenty-Five Years Ago and Today.” The American Journal of
Psychology 65: 443–449.
Lindeman, M., and K. Aarnio. 2007. “Superstitious, Magical, and Paranormal Beliefs: An Integrative
Model.” Journal of Research in Personality 41: 731–744. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.009.
Matute, H., I. Yarritu, and M. A. Vadillo. 2011. “Illusions of Causality at the Heart of
Pseudoscience.” British Journal of Psychology 102: 392–405. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210.
Morse, W., and B. F. Skinner. 1957. “A Second Type of Superstition in the Pigeon.” The
American Journal of Psychology 70: 308–311.
Nixon, H. K. 1925. “Popular Answers to Some Psychological Questions.” The American Journal
of Psychology 36: 418–423. doi:10.2307/1414166.
Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. 2011a. “Census of India: Data
Item Collected in Census.” http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/data_item_collected_
in_census.aspx
10
S. AN ET AL.
Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. 2011b. “Census of India: Literacy
and Level of Education.” http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/literacy_and_level_of_
education.aspx
Religion: Buddhism. 2018. “British Broadcasting Corporation.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/
religions/buddhism/
Rice, T. W. 2003. “Believe It or Not: Religious and Other Paranormal Beliefs in the United
States.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42: 95–106. doi:10.1111/jssr.2003.42.issue-1.
Roach, J. 2004. “Friday the 13th Phobia Rooted in Ancient History.” National Geographic News.
Accessed 28 July 2008. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0212_040212_fri
day13.html
Rudski, J. 2003. “What Does a “Superstitious” Person Believe? Impressions of Participants.” The
Journal of General Psychology 130: 431–445. doi:10.1080/00221300309601168.
Sagone, E., and M. E. De Caroli. 2014. “Locus of Control and Beliefs about Superstition and Luck
in Adolescents: What’s Their Relationship?” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 140:
318–323. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.427.
Shenhav, A., D. G. Rand, and J. D. Greene. 2012. “Divine Intuition: Cognitive Style Influences
Belief in God.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141: 423. doi:10.1037/a0025391.
Shermer, M. 1997. “Why People Believe Weird Thinks.” In Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other
Confusions of Our Time. New York: WF Freeman and Company.
Skinner, B. F. 1948. “‘Superstition’ in the Pigeon.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 38: 168.
doi:10.1037/h0055873.
Statista. 2018. “The Statistics Portal.” https://www.statista.com/statistics/263766/totalpopulation-of-india/
Tobacyk, J. J. 2004. “A Revised Paranormal Belief Scale.” International Journal of Transpersonal
Studies 23: 11. doi:10.24972/ijts.2004.23.1.94.
Vyse, S. A. 2013. Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition-Updated Edition. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Wagner, M. E. 1928. “Superstitions and Their Social and Psychological Correlatives among
College Students.” The Journal of Educational Sociology 2: 26–36. doi:10.2307/2961760.
Zapf, R. M. 1945. “Relationship between Belief in Superstitions and Other Factors.” The Journal
of Educational Research 38: 561–579. doi:10.1080/00220671.1946.10881378.
Žeželj, I., M. Pavlović, M. Vladisavljević, and B. Radivojević. 2009. “Construction and Behavioral
Validation of Superstition Scale.” Psihologija 42: 141–158. doi:10.2298/PSI0902141Z.