Content uploaded by Michael R Hyman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael R Hyman on Jul 24, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Asian Journal of Business Research
Volume 7, Issue 1, 2017
ISSN 2463-4522 e-ISSN 1778-8933
DOI: 10.14707/ajbr.170031
Intrinsic Religiosity and Attitude toward Finales as
Precursors of Superstitious Beliefs: A Cross-Cultural
Investigation
Jeremy J. Sierra
Department of Marketing, McCoy College of Business Administration, Texas State
University, Texas
Michael R. Hyman
College of Business, New Mexico State University, USA
Byung-Kwan Lee
Department of Industrial Psychology, Kwangwoon University, South Korea
Taewon Suh
Department of Marketing, McCoy College of Business Administration, Texas State
University, Texas
Abstract
Leaning on the theoretical tenets of experiential consumption and attitude process
literatures, this cross-cultural research uses path analysis to examine antecedents and
consequences of superstitious beliefs. For the Korean data, attitude toward finales
fully mediates the relationship between intrinsic religiosity and superstitious beliefs.
For the U.S. data, intrinsic religiosity has no effect on either attitude toward finales or
superstitious beliefs. For both samples, (1) attitude toward finales has a positive effect
on suspension of disbelief, and (2) attitude toward zodiac signs and zodiac sign
expertise relate positively to superstitious beliefs. This research adds to the religiosity
and superstition literatures by exploring carefully selected yet under-researched
antecedents and consequences of consumers’ superstitious beliefs. The mediation
effect for Korean respondents and model differences between the Korean and U.S.
respondent sets provide novel empirical results.
Keywords: Astrology, Attitude toward Finales, Intrinsic Religiosity, Suspension of
Disbelief, Superstitious Beliefs, Zodiac Sign
Sierra, Hyman, Lee and Suh, 2017
59
Introduction
Considered an “irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance that is not
logically related to a course of events influences the outcome” (Damisch, Stoberock
and Mussweiler, 2010, p.1014), people often hope their superstitionswillinduce
propitious outcomes (Kramer and Block, 2008). More than half of U.S. and U.K.
residentsfollow at least one superstition (Wiseman, 2003) and more U.S. residents
believe in superstition than evolution (CBS News, 2012).
From a consumer perspective, researchers have explored superstitious beliefs within
(1) single product contexts such as sports, investments, residences, and vanity license
plates(Agarwal et al., 2014; Ariyabuddhiphongs and Chanchalermporn, 2007; Fortin,
Hill and Huang, 2013; Kolb and Rodriguez, 1987; Lepori, 2009; Morris and Griffiths,
2013; Wilson et al., 2013; Woo and Kwok, 1994), (2) single luck contexts such as
birth year, product usage, numerology, and feng shui(Chau, Ma and Ho, 2001;
Hamerman and Johar, 2013; Johnson and Nye, 2011; Peng, Hsiung and Chen, 2012),
(3) single marketing variables such as brand logos and selling price (Simmons and
Schindler, 2003; Wang et al., 2012; Yang, 2011), and (4) single cultures or countries
(e.g., South Africa, China) (Bourassa and Peng, 1999; Peltzer and Renner,
2003).These researchers repeatedly analyzed self-reported attitudinal and profile data
(Hernandez et al., 2008; Zeidner and Beit-Hallahmi, 1988) and used econometrics to
model government-collected data (Chong and Du, 2008; Ng, Chong and Du, 2010;
Woo et al., 2008). Yet, calls for cross-cultural attitude-based research on consumers’
superstitious beliefs continue (Block and Kramer, 2009; Wang, Oppewal and Thomas,
2014).
To heed these calls and help establish a general model for such beliefs, this study
relies on survey data collected from two economically and culturally disparate
countries: South Korea and the U.S. (Sung and Tinkham, 2005).Westerners value
emotional independence, self-sufficiency, personal needs, and privacy. They focus on
the positive outcomes of their actions and espouse competition, self-reliance, and
hedonism (Triandis, 1994), giving rise to importance placed on self-actualization
(Singelis, 1994). In contrast, East Asians stress group harmony, emotional
dependence, teamwork, and unity (Sung and Tinkham, 2005). They value the
collective over the individual and fancy sociability, family integrity, respect for
tradition, and interdependence; hence, the importance of the Confucian tradition (e.g.,
Kang, 2004). Such cross-cultural studies of superstition help marketers gain a clearer
understanding of consumers’ attitudes, preferences, and behaviors (Marques, Leite,
and Benvenuti, 2012).
Extending prior research on intrinsic religiosity (Essoo and Dibb, 2004), superstition
(Mowen and Carlson, 2003), and astrology (Mitchell, 1995), thisresearchdraws from
the experiential consumption (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982) and attitude process
(Fazio, 1986) literatures to model consumers’ superstitious beliefs. Under experiential
consumptiontheory, participation in fancied experiences engenders strongly favorable
responses from consumers (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Holbrook, Lehmann, and
O’Shaughnessy, 1986). As information processing theories posit consumers delight in
‘thoughts’—whether imaginings, dreams, expressions, or feelings (Bettman, 1970)—
superstition-related modeling should tend to test positive effects because superstition-
related activity may entail highly interactive, valued, and joy-filled experiential
Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2017
consumption, especially when the superstition seemingly ‘works’ (e.g., blackjack
player holding a lucky rabbits foot ‘wins big’). In this regard, the experiential value of
calling on superstitious beliefs may produce happiness that augments social relations
and personal identity (Gilovich, Kuman, and Jampol, 2015).
The exposition unfolds as follows. First, the two theoretical frameworks grounding
this research are discussed, followed by a review of the religiosity, superstition, and
astrology literature. After presenting six hypotheses, two survey-based studies with
Korean (Study #1) and U.S. (Study #2) respondents are described and summarized.
The exposition concludes with a general discussion, managerial implications, study
limitations, and future research directions.
Theoretical Background
Experiential Consumption
Phenomenological in makeup, the experiential view of consumption entails feelings,
fantasies, and fun as part of the exchange process. Prominent in superstition-laden
settings, this consumptive breed is a subjective condition in which hedonic responses,
symbolic meanings, and esthetic criteria are experienced and assessed (Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982). Researchers have applied this framework to online purchases
(Andrews et al., 2007), casino gaming (Cotte, 1997), as well as interactive
museumsand theme parks (Bigné, Mattila, and Andreu, 2008). Moreover, being
superstitious creates distinct experiential consumptive experiences brimming with
attitudinal and belief-espoused responses (Mowen and Carlson, 2003).
Prosumers who lace superstitions into co-created experiences—such as partaking in
superstitious rituals to ‘produce’ either a favorable outcome for an adored team or an
unfavorable outcome for a loathed rival—enhance their enjoyment (Sierra and
McQuitty, 2005). The resultingconnectedness with like-minded fans boosts enjoyment
in ‘being superstitious’ (Gilovich, Kumar, and Jampol, 2015). Experiential
superstitious consumption—grounded in involvement, excitement, communal
connection, and social bonding—promotes planning, enjoying, and recalling
experiences. Although consumers’ attitudinal responses in experiential consumption
settings are important to marketers (Chronis, 2005; Gazley, Clark, and Sinha, 2011),
knowledge about such responses is incomplete (Wikström, 2008).
Attitude Process Theory
An attitude can be (1) an instinctive, unavoidable, and reflection-devoid automatic
activation, or (2) a controlled activation necessitating consideration, replete with
reflection (Hill, 1994). These unconsciously (type 1) or consciously (type 2) formed
attitudes induce representative attitudinal memories fostering associations toward
entities, ultimately influencing attitude accessibility (Fazio, 1986). For more religious
persons, mere exposure to a bible verse may trigger unconscious processing and easy
memory retrieval; in contrast, lesser religious persons may require greater reflective
effort to retrieve an attitude based on this same text (Hill, 1994). Attitudes activated
automatically may be less influenced by strategic communication (Hill, 1994).
Sierra, Hyman, Lee and Suh, 2017
61
Attitude process theory conceptualizes attitude as an association between an entity
and an assessment of that entity. At times, such assessment requires controlled
activation, attention, and reflection (Fazio, 1986), which often is evinced in people’s
religious weltanschauung. As religious experience and belief mesh with attitudes in
other domains, examining attitudinal response in a religious milieu is fitting yet
understudied (Hill, 1994).
The religion milieu often is overlooked in attitude research (Abelson, 1988).
Recognizing these conceptual and empirical deficiencies, attitude process theory
pertains to the models tested here, as attitudes are fundamental to religious experience
and conviction (Hill, 1994).
Literature Review
Religiosity Literature
Intrinsic religiosity—the extent to which beliefs in certain religious values and ideals
are internalized and practiced (Essoo and Dibb, 2004; Gorsuch and McPherson,
1989)—can influence people’s dispositions and behaviors.Psychological research
suggests religiosity bolsters self-perception (Sedikides and Gebauer, 2010). Intrinsic
religiosity positively affects self-control and moral identity internalization (Vitell et
al., 2009), and coping strategies mediate the relationship between intrinsic religiosity
and competence (Hathaway and Pargament, 1990).
Marketing scholars have related religiosity to personal characteristics and switching
tendencies. For example, casual religiosity correlates positively with greater
trendiness (e.g., attaching greater importance to brand names and propensity for
buying high-end brands) and innovativeness (e.g., willingness totry new products and
reduced brand loyalty) (Essoo and Dibb, 2004).Studies on religiosity and loyalty are
consistent; for example, greater religiosity correlates withreducedbrand- and store-
switching tendencies(Choi, 2010) and religiosity and service brand loyalty correlate
positively (Siala, 2013). In an ethics context, more intrinsically religiousconsumers
have more negative attitudesand are less likely to buy from firms running ads with
sexual appeals (Putrevu and Swimberghek, 2013).
Superstition Literature
Three often-studied aspects of superstition are consumer characteristics, determinants,
and outcomes. For consumer characteristics, positive correlates of superstitious
rituals and beliefs include agreeableness and neuroticism;negative correlates consist
of internal locus of control, openness, and expertise (Peng, Hsiung and Chen, 2012;
Rudski and Edwards, 2007; Schippers and Van Lange, 2006; Tobacyk, Nagot and
Miller, 1988).
For determinants, event importance, low levels of control, negative emotion,
psychological stress, and uncertainty levels boost superstition proclivity (Dudley,
2000; Keinan, 1994; Rudski and Edwards, 2007; Schippers and Van Lange, 2006;
Whitson and Galinsky, 2008), whereas attending church and preparing for athletic
competition and scholastic exams negatively affect superstition propensity (Rudski
and Edwards, 2007; Torgler, 2007). Additional superstition precursors includebelief
Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2017
in fate, lower need for learning, sports enthusiasm, and wobbly conviction in heaven
and hell (Mowen and Carlson, 2003).
For outcomes, superstition relates positively to gambling behaviors (Mowen, Fang
and Scott, 2009), feng shui–related concerns (Peng,Hsiung and Chen, 2012), and
irrational decision making (Block and Kramer, 2009). Consumers without previous
productexperience may rely on superstitions to select a brand (e.g., ‘brand’s package
is green and green is my lucky color’). Favorable predispositions toward fortune-
tellers, lucky charms, magic, and rituals boost sensitivity to brand logos, but fate
beliefs reduce such sensitivity (Wang et al., 2012). Novelty seeking correlates
negatively with passive superstitious beliefs (e.g., belief in fate) and positively with
proactive superstitious beliefs (e.g., carrying a lucky charm) (Hernandez et al., 2008).
Superstitious-related numerology has received considerable research attention. For
example, among Chinese, '3' (rhymes with Cantonese for 'growth' and 'alive'), '6'
(rhymes with Cantonese for 'wealth'), '8' (rhymes with Cantonese for 'to generate
wealth’), and '9' (rhymes with Cantonese ‘to be sustained and long-lived') portend
good luck; whereas '4' (rhymes with Cantonese for ‘death’) signifies bad luck.
Numerology influences pricing strategies and buyer behavior; for example, pre-owned
condos in Chengdu and Hong King sell at higherprices and newly built condos sell
more swiftly if located on a floor ending in '6' or '8' (Chau, Ma and Ho, 2001).
Consumers with a phone number containing more '8s' are more likely to purchase a
condo on a floor ending in '8' (Shum, Sun and Ye, 2014). Chinese residents in
Auckland, Singapore, and Vancouver pay a premium price for houses with an address
ending in a lucky number (especially '8') and a discounted price if ending in '4'
(Agarwal et al., 2014; Bourassa and Peng, 1999; Fortin, Hill and Huang, 2013; Ho,
2008). In Hong Kong, government-auctioned motor vehicle license plates with an '8'
sell at a premium and a '4' sell at a discount (Chong and Du, 2008; Ng, Chong and Du,
2010).
Astrology Literature
Astrology-related self-attribution and selective self-observation are explained by the
‘Barnum effect’ (Furnham, 1991); for example, Geminis reading about their‘tendency
to be witty’ selectively recall instances of exhibiting this trait.Zodiac sign knowledge
correlates positively withbeliefs about horoscope usefulness and astrological accuracy
(Fichten and Sunerton, 1983).Althoughextroversion is unrelated to zodiac birth sign,
astrology adherents scored higher on extroversion measures (Shaughnessy et al.,
1990). Astrology skeptics who received favorable horoscopes develop a more positive
attitude toward astrology (Glick, Gottesman, and Jolton, 1989).
Marketers can use astrology-related attitudes and behaviors to identify consumer
groupings for target marketing (Mitchell, 1995). Aside from segmentation potential,
these attitudes and behaviors may explain meaningful variance in leisure, beverage,
and tobacco purchases. Yet, scant research relates these attitudes and behaviors to
consumer psychology (Mitchell and Haggett, 1997).
Integrating the aforementioned literature streams, intrinsic religiosity (RELIG) and
attitude toward finales (AFIN) (i.e., an unfavorable mindset toward finales suggests
people abhor the completion of ‘prolonged enjoyed experiences’, such asreading an
Sierra, Hyman, Lee and Suh, 2017
63
entertaining novel or viewing a favorite television series) are modeled as antecedents
of superstitious beliefs (SUPER), whereas attitude toward zodiac signs (AZOD) and self-
assessed zodiac sign expertise (ZodEXP) are modeled as consequences of superstitious
beliefs. Suspension of disbelief (SodFIC) is modeled as an outcome of attitude toward
finales (AFIN). Although untested, previous research suggests these psychological
constructs could be meaningful antecedents and consequences of consumers’
superstitious beliefs.Hence, marketing practitioners could apply knowledge gleaned
from scholarly cross-cultural studies on consumers’ superstitious beliefs to build user-
friendly and culturally-relevant brands (Wang et al., 2012).
Model Constructs and Hypotheses
People who score high onintrinsic religiosity, an essential component in psychology
of religion studies (Kirkpatrick and Hood, 1990), believe and generally act in accord
with their religion’s tenets (Whitley and Kite, 2010). Applicable here, religious
attitudes and behaviors influence people’s superstitious beliefs (Poorsoltan, 2012); for
example, stronger superstitious beliefs relate negatively to religious activities such as
prayer time and church attendance, andoverall greater religiosity boosts superstitious
tendencies (Torgler, 2007). Furthermore, attitude process theory suggests association
between entities, like religion and superstition, occasionally may require controlled
activation, attention, and reflection (Fazio, 1986). Here, people may reflect on their
religiosity and ultimately shun a superstitious thought based on a faith-grounded tenet.
Fear of the unknown often links religious beliefs to attitude toward finales(Tsang,
2004b), aspeople rely on their religious faith to cope with the transience of
people(e.g., friend’s impending death)—including oneself (e.g., loss of vigor related
to aging)—objects (e.g., now-decrepit childhood home scheduled for razing),
achievements (e.g., discounting annual award in subsequent years), and longstanding
pursuits (e.g., career achievement award) (Earl, 2010). The literatures on death
anxiety (Kraft, Litwin and Barber, 1987)and terror management theory (Greenberg et
al., 1990; Jonas and Fischer, 2006; Solomon, Greenberg and Pyszczynski,
1991)suggest intrinsic religiosity is a coping mechanism for alleviating anxiety
aboutfinales. The attention and reflective components of attitude process theory
suggest a person’s religiosity may mitigate discomfort associated with pondering
finales. Thus,
H1: Intrinsic religiosity correlates positively with attitude toward finales.
H2: Intrinsic religiosity correlates negatively withstrength of superstitious
beliefs.
Associated with religion and finales, fear or unrest grounded in the unknown relates to
superstitious beliefs, such that people rely on superstition to quellnegative attitudes
toward finales (Tsang, 2004b). Superstitious beliefs diminish anxiety stemming from
uncertainty associated with finales such as liked performers’ retirement (e.g.,
musician’s final live performance), events (e.g., final game of preferred team’s
season), objects (e.g., trading in a non-working car laced with nostalgic value), and
experiences (e.g., watching liked actor’s last movie)(Tsang, 2004a).Here,the dread of
finales may trigger a superstition-based coping mechanism, as the joy-filled
experiential value of being superstitious may offset the sadness accompanying finales;
thus, as people’s negativity toward finalesintensifies,thestrength of their superstitious
beliefs increases.Thus,
Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2017
H3: Attitude toward finalescorrelates positively withstrength of
superstitious beliefs.
Suspension of disbelief, a term coined in 1817 by Coleridge to capture readers’
suspended judgment about the narrative implausibility of a fictional work, “refers to
the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these
do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises” (definitions.net, 2015).
Suspension of disbelief is essential for audiences to enjoy science fiction stories,
supernatural tales, superhero tales, serendipitous tales (i.e., stories turning on far-
fetched coincidence), dramatic presentations (e.g., live theatre, movies), video games,
animated cartoons, puppet shows, ventriloquist acts, and magic acts. Psychologically,
people seemingly ‘go wholly into perceiving mode’ when they read, hear, or watch a
narrative. In this mode, they shut off their system for acting or planning to act, which
in turn suspends their critical faculties. By responding aesthetically and without
purpose, people are ‘transported’ into the fictional tale. They cease judging the truth
of what they perceive despite the capacity to step back and recognize it as fictional
(Holland, 2008).
Hence, “an author's work…does not have to be realistic, only believable and
internally consistent (Tvtropes.org, 2014). However, “the more a story and its
characters' emotional lives depend on a[n implausible] premise, the more [people] will
want to suspend [their] disbelief—because if [they] stop believing in the premise, then
the characters go with it” (Anders, 2014).In addition, people may invoke insubstantial
notions to cope with the ending of a pleasurable event. For example, people’s attitude
toward an advertised brand is driven by things that end, such as television programs
(Muzellec, Kanitz and Lynn, 2013). Applicable here, people may seek the experiential
value and joy of fiction, and thereby suspend disbelief, when forced to acknowledge
finales are inevitable. Thus,
H4: Attitude toward finales correlates positively with suspension of
disbelief.
Important to many people, horoscopes are inherent to superstition ideologies (Fichten
and Sunerton, 1983; Huang and Teng, 2009). As such, superstitious beliefs help
explain the routine nature of reading horoscopes (Kramer and Block, 2008).
Furthermore, superstitious tendencies and belief in astrology relate positively
(Carlson, Mowen and Fang, 2009; Mowen and Carlson, 2003). For example, the
Chinesezodiac assumespeople’s birth year dictates their fate(e.g., birth year
determinesfelicitous mate’s birth year) (Wong and Yung, 2005). In both cases—being
superstitious and espousing astrology—the underpinnings of experiential
consumption are on display (e.g., feeling, fantasy, and fun); that is, people are
emotional about, get lost in, and find joy in their superstitions and astrological
views.Thus, stronger superstitious beliefs should relate to more favorable attitudes
toward zodiac signs and greater self-assessed expertise about such signs. Hence,
H5: Strength of superstitious beliefs correlates positively with attitude
toward zodiac signs.
H6: Strength of superstitious beliefs correlates positively with self-assessed
zodiac sign expertise.
Sierra, Hyman, Lee and Suh, 2017
65
Methodology, Data Collection and Results
Study 1: Korean Respondents
Scale Descriptions
The questionnaire contained tailored items from six, seven-point rating scales (see
Table 1): zodiac sign expertise (3 items), superstitious beliefs (7 items), attitude
toward finales(4 items),intrinsic religiosity (5 items), suspension of disbelief (3
items), and attitude toward zodiac signs (4 items).
Zodiac sign expertise was evaluated with items adapted fromSierra and Hyman
(2009).Recognizing extrinsic[i.e., luck believed inherent to objects (e.g., a lucky
coin)] and behavioral[i.e., luck attributed to outcome-remote behaviors (e.g.,
knocking on wood)] components of superstition, items from Simmons and Schindler
(2003) and Wiseman and Watt (2004) were used to measure superstitious beliefs.
Intrinsic religiosity items were borrowed from Gorsuch and McPherson (1989), and
attitude toward zodiac signsitems were borrowed from Holmes and Crocker
(1987).Attitude toward finalesand suspension of disbelief were assessed with novel
Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2017
scales pretested for domain coverage, clarity, and redundancy.Here, content and
criterion validity were evaluated by a group of research experts and potential
respondents, therebyvalidating the measurement item sets.
Data Collection Procedure
Originally constructed in English, the questionnaire was translated into Korean for
Korean respondents. One bilingual expert translated the questionnaire and then
another back-translated it into English to assure consistency and cross-cultural
equivalence with the original instrument (Berry, 1980; Cheung and Rensvold, 1999).
Items for all studied constructs were associated with a seven-point response scale.
Respondents were college students attending a university in Seoul, South Korea; they
received course extra credit for participating in the paper-and-pencil survey
administered during a normally scheduled class. Respondents were assured
anonymity.
Sample Profile
The mean age of respondents (N=206) is 23.26 (SD=2.26), with males (60%)
outnumbering females. In terms of class rank, sophomores (34%), juniors (28%),
seniors (23%), and freshmen (12%) comprise the sample.
Common Method Bias
Common method bias (CMB) was minimized by expunging questionnaires with
uncommon acquiescence bias, avoiding item intermixing, using multiple response
formats (i.e., Likert-type and semantic differential scales), and reducing priming
effects by placing outcome variable measures at the questionnaire’s end (Podsakoff et
al., 2003).In addition, the CFA-based multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) technique
and Harman’s single-factor test were used to evaluate CMB. For Harman’s single-
factor test, results of the unrotated EFA solution for PCA and MLE show a multi-
factor solution and first-factor explained variance of 25.07%; CFA results also are
robust.These results, along with low intra-respondent variance (Hyman and Sierra,
2012), suggest CMB did not meaningfully affect the studied relationships.
Results
Factor Structure
A measurement model was estimated with LISREL 8.72 and the 26 items comprising
the six scales. Average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct, aside from SUPER
(0.461), exceeds 0.50 (i.e., ZodEXP=0.854, AFIN=0.515, RELIG=0.844, SodFIC=0.569,
and AZOD=0.833), providing evidence for convergent validity; also, AVE for each
construct is greater than the squared correlations between each construct and other
constructs, offering evidence for discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Measurement model estimation produced these goodness-of-fit statistics:
χ²(284df)=974.36 (P=0.00), (CFI)=0.86, (NNFI)=0.84, (GFI)=0.73, (RMSEA)=0.11,
and (SRMR)=0.073. Coefficient alpha for each scale ranges from 0.749-0.943.
Sierra, Hyman, Lee and Suh, 2017
67
Measurement Equivalence/Invariance (ME/I)
After identifying respondents’ framework for conceptualizing the constructs (i.e.,
CFA results for both studies), the goal was to determine if Korean and U.S.
respondents conceptualized measurement items similarly (Riordan and Vandenberg,
1994). Thus, the ME/I evaluative steps suggested by Vandenberg and Lance (2000)
preceded the ME/I testing procedures described in Cheung and Rensvold (1999),
where change in comparative fit index (CFI)is used to assess configural factor loading
invariance (Cheung and Rensvold, 2002). To show between-group invariance, each
more restrictive model should produce a less than -0.01 abatement of CFI. In other
words, if CFI decreases in successively restrictive models by less than 0.01 (i.e., ∆CFI
= -0.09), then the two models are equivalent.
Initially, the Korean and U.S. samples were merged (N=424) and the constraint-free
baseline model was estimated(χ²(284df)=1464.59 (P=0.00), (CFI)=0.925). Then, to
assess configural factor loading invariance, its restrictive model was estimated
(χ²(602df)=2222.61 (P=0.00), (CFI)=0.847). As these results indicate, the reduction in
CFI exceeds the 0.09 value suggested by Cheung and Rensvold (2002). Thus, the
factor loadings between the Korean and U.S. samples are not invariant, a common
occurrence in cross-cultural research when abstract constructs are studied (Tayeb,
1994).
In addition, to examine inter-respondent variation in answers to items comprising
model construct measures, independent samples t-tests were used. Results suggest
data pooling is unjustified (i.e., RELIG—KOR [M=2.06, SD=1.44], US [M=4.17,
SD=1.63], t=14.01, P<0.01; AFIN—KOR [M=3.56, SD=1.40], US [M=4.63,
SD=1.24], t=8.30, P<0.01; SUPER—KOR [M=3.31, SD=1.11], US [M=3.50,
SD=1.32], t=1.54, NS P<0.05; SodFIC—KOR [M=4.13, SD=1.45], US [M=4.55,
SD=1.25], t=3.12, P<0.01; AZOD—KOR [M=3.10, SD=1.63], US [M=3.29, SD=1.87],
t=1.05, NS P<0.05; ZodEXP—KOR [M=1.67, SD=0.93], US [M=2.09, SD=1.43],
t=3.56, P<0.01). Thus, one model was examined with two differing samples.
Structural Equation Model
The relationships shown in Figure 1were tested using a structural equation model
withLISREL 8.72. A covariance matrix and maximum likelihood estimation were
used to estimate model parameters. Missing data were handled via pairwise deletion.
Model estimation produced these goodness-of-fit statistics: χ²(293df)=1026.25
(P=0.00), (CFI)=0.85, (NNFI)=0.84, (GFI)=0.72, (RMSEA)=0.11, and
(SRMR)=0.095. Although fit index values are relatively low (Hu and Bentler, 1999),
statistical power associated with the RMSEA statistic approaches 1.0, so goodness-of-
fit statistics are assumed conservative (McQuitty, 2004).
Path coefficients (PC) were used to evaluate posited relationships. The t-statistic
associated with five of six PC is significant at the P<0.05 level or better. Specifically,
RELIG relates positively to AFIN (H1; PC=0.17, t=2.15), which in turn relates positively
to both SUPER (H3; PC=0.30, t=3.17) and SodFIC (H4; PC=0.32, t=3.45). Positive
relationships exist between SUPER and both AZOD (H5; PC=0.51, t=4.94) and ZodEXP
(H6; PC=0.65, t=5.56). Data indicate no effect between RELIG and SUPER (H2; PC=0.12,
t=1.58).
Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2017
Figure 1: Study 1 Path Model (Korean Sample)
Key: * Not significant at the P<0.05 level (dashed line)
** Significant at the P<0.05 level
*** Significant at the P<0.01 level
Note: In the parentheses, the t-statistic is provided.
The non-significant pathfor H2may be explained by RELIG indirectlyaffecting SUPER
through AFIN. To test this mediation possibility, per steps outlined in Baron and
Kenny (1986), four models were examined (see Table 2). Model #1 reveals a positive
effect between RELIG and SUPER (P<0.05), Model #2 indicates a positive effect
between RELIG and AFIN (P<0.05), and Model #3 signifies a positive relationship
between AFIN and SUPER (P<0.01). When AFIN is modeled as a mediator between RELIG
and SUPER (Model #4), the path between RELIG and SUPER becomes non-significant,
suggesting full mediation (Baron and Kenny, 1986).
Table 2: Study 1 Hypotheses Tests (Korean Sample)
Hypothesis
Model #1
Model #2
Model #3
Model #4
H1: RELIG → AFIN
0.16 (2.01)
P<0.05
0.17 (2.15)
P<0.05
H2: RELIG → SUPER
0.17 (2.18)
P<0.05
0.12 (1.58)
NS at P<0.05
H3: AFIN → SUPER
0.28 (3.15)
P<0.01
0.30 (3.17)
P<0.01
H4: AFIN → SodFIC
0.32 (3.45)
P<0.01
H5: SUPER → AZOD
0.51 (4.94)
P<0.01
H6: SUPER → ZodEXP
0.65 (5.56)
P<0.01
Note: In sequence, figures represent structural coefficients, t-values, and significance levels.
Sierra, Hyman, Lee and Suh, 2017
69
Study 2: U.S. Respondents
The six hypotheses and 26 items evaluated in Study #1 were retested with U.S.
respondents. Offering nominal course extra credit as incentive, students enrolled in
several marketing courses at a southwest U.S. university completed the questionnaire
during a regularly scheduled class session. They were assured response anonymity.
The mean age of respondents (N=218) is 22.32 (SD=2.53), with gender evenly split.
In terms of ethnicity, Whites (71%), Hispanics (18%), and Blacks (8%) are most
represented. Regarding class rank, seniors (59%) and juniors (27%) comprise the
majority of respondents.
Common Method Bias
The techniques to minimize CMB in Study #1 were employed. Again, the CFA-based
multi-trait multi-method technique and Harman’s single-factor test, along with low
intra-respondent variance (Hyman and Sierra, 2012), indicate no CMB concerns; the
CFA results reveal valid and reliable measures and the unrotated EFA solution (for
both PCA and MLE) reveals a multi-factor solution with first-factor explained
variance of 28.27%.
Results
Factor Structure
A measurement model was estimated with LISREL 8.72. Aside from AFIN (0.418),
AVE for each construct, exceeds 0.50 (i.e., ZodEXP=0.854, SUPER=0.502, RELIG=0.707,
SodFIC=0.533, and AZOD=0.897) (convergent validity); also, except for AFIN
(AVE=0.418) and Phi2 (0.422) of AZOD–ZodEXP, the AVE for each construct is greater
than the squared correlations between each construct and other constructs
(discriminant validity). Estimation of the measurement model produced these
goodness-of-fit statistics: χ²(284df)=598.35 (P=0.00), (CFI)=0.95, (NNFI)=0.95,
(GFI)=0.83, (RMSEA)=0.071, and (SRMR)=0.063. Coefficient alpha for each scale
ranges from 0.731-0.974.
Structural Equation Model
The relationships displayed in Figure 2 were tested using SEM. A COV matrix and
MLE were used to estimate model parameters. Missing data were handled via
pairwise deletion. Model estimation produced these goodness-of-fit statistics:
χ²(293df)=669.91 (P=0.00), (CFI)=0.94, (NNFI)=0.94, (GFI)=0.81, (RMSEA)=0.077,
and (SRMR)=0.090.
The t-statistic associated with four of six path coefficients (PC) is significant at the
P<0.05 level or better. Specifically, AFIN relates positively to both SodFIC (H4;
PC=0.47, t=4.76) and SUPER (H3; PC=0.17, t=2.09), which in turn relates positively to
AZOD (H5; PC=0.56, t=7.21) and ZodEXP (H6; PC=0.52, t=6.59). Data indicate no effect
between RELIG and AFIN (H1; PC=0.10, t=1.27) or SUPER (H2; PC=-0.01, t=-0.14).
Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2017
Figure 2: Study 2 Path Model (U.S. Sample)
Key: * Not significant at the P<0.05 level (dashed line)
** Significant at the P<0.05 level
*** Significant at the P<0.01 level
Note: In the parentheses, the t-statistic is provided.
In addition, we ran a converged model (N=424) using both Korean and U.S. data (see
Table III). The fit indices for this model are poor, which conformtoknown cultural
dissimilarities between these respondent groups. As such, data pooling is not justified.
Furthermore, path variation exists between the converged model and both the Korean
and U.S. models. Hence, these dissimilar models square with previously reported
inter-cultural differences.
Table 3: Model Comparison
Path
Study 1
Korean Sample
Study 2
U.S. Sample
Converged
Model
H1: RELIG → AFIN
0.17 (2.15)
.10 (1.27) (NS)
.08 (1.45) (NS)
H2: RELIG → SUPER
0.12 (1.58) (NS)
-.01 (-0.14) (NS)
.75 (15.50)
H3: AFIN → SUPER
0.30 (3.17)
.17 (2.09)
-.15 (-3.69)
H4: AFIN → SodFIC
0.32 (3.45)
.47 (4.76)
-.34 (-5.77)
H5: SUPER → AZOD
0.51 (4.94)
.56 (7.21)
.59 (8.48)
H6: SUPER → ZodEXP
0.65 (5.56)
.52 (6.59)
.92 (18.25)
Fit Indices
χ2 / df
3.50
2.28
12.58
CFI
.85
.94
.77
NNFI
.84
.94
.75
GFI
.72
.81
.60
RMSEA
.11
.077
.165
SRMR
.095
.090
.20
Sierra, Hyman, Lee and Suh, 2017
71
Discussion
To add excitement to daily living and swell experiential consumptive value to
exchange settings (Gilovich, Kumar, and Jampol, 2015), consumers across cultures
often embrace superstitions such as fetishes (i.e., objects perceived to have magical
powers) (Fernandez and Lastovicka, 2011), lucky charms (Kramer and Block, 2008),
and supernatural explanations (Simmons and Schindler, 2003). Despite personal
superstitions’ social, relational, and economic importance, marketing scholars have
yet to fully explore them. Here, experiential consumption theory (Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982) and attitude process theory (Fazio, 1986) provide the basis for an
explanatory model of superstition beliefs.
The posited model assumes intrinsic religiosity serves as a precursor of, and indirectly
affects, superstitious beliefs via attitude toward finales. For Korean respondents,
attitude toward finales fully mediates this relationship; yet, this effect vanishes for
U.S. respondents. One possible explanation for this result: Westerners’ self-
sufficiency in their quest for self-actualization represents a ceaseless drive whereby
the next accomplishment or life goal is sought continually. Thus, minimal attention is
paid to attitude toward finales, as the next goal is always within reach. For both
respondent sets, attitude toward finales positively influences suspension of disbelief
(i.e., people predisposed to suspending critical thought about fictional narratives find
finales more problematic). This finding is consistent withconsumers’ magical
thinking, whereby suspension of disbelief may serve as a means to cope with life by
blurring fantasy and reality (James, Handelman and Taylor, 2011). Therefore,
empirical credence to the attitude toward finales construct is offered, suggesting
additional quantitative and/or interpretive inquiryis needed.
For Korean and U.S. respondents, superstitious beliefs relate positively to both
attitude toward zodiac signs and self-assessed expertise about zodiac
signs.Astrological beliefs are influenced by extrinsic and behavioral-related
superstitious tendencies. As attitude acquisition is vital to understanding attitude
structure and change (Olson and Mitchell, 1975), results reported here suggest how
superstitions influence people’s worldview. Because astrology adherents use zodiac-
based rationalesto makepolitical and business decisions (Mitchell, 1995), theseresults
suggest how the experiential consumptive nature of superstitious beliefs alters life
outlook and consumption choices by heightening people’s elation, involvement, and
social connectedness.
The results from this cross-cultural investigation serve as benchmarks for
understanding the antecedents and consequences of superstitious beliefs. Establishing
effect sizes helps theory progress and research streams mature (Peterson and Jolibert,
1995). Data collected for these studiesoffer effect size perspicacity, which should help
researchers evaluate and compare superstition-based modelsforcustomer relationship
management and brand development. For example, with model fit being more robust
for U.S. than Korean respondents, intertwining theexperiential consumption and
attitude process theory frameworks to explain determinants and consequences of
superstitious beliefs seems better suited for Western than Eastern consumers. With
these differential effect sizes now known, future inquiry can generalize such findings.
Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2017
Managerial Implications
To improve brand development, customer relationship management, and socially-
responsible initiatives, marketers should study consumers’ superstitious beliefs and
tendencies (Wang et al., 2012). This researchshows attitude toward finales fully
mediates the relationship between intrinsic religiosity and superstitious beliefs for
Korean respondents. However, this mediation effect did not hold for U.S.
respondents, who only supported the path between attitude toward finales and
superstitious beliefs. In addition, attitude toward finales and suspension of disbelief
relate positively for both respondent pools. Hence, an effective social-media-based
and/or traditional promotional strategy in eitherKoreaor the U.S.could allude tolife’s
ephemeral and seemingly irrational nature (e.g., Google’s recent ‘play your heart out’
digital content store ad campaign).As consumers’ anticipated elation about purchases
relates positively to purchase intention (Sierra and Hyman, 2009, 2011), marketing
practitioners should encourage anticipated consumption-related elation among
increasingly fictive consumers (e.g., imagining anincredible family vacation pre-
departure,the purchase of the perfect gift for a loved one, or a quintessential setting
and outcome for a marriage proposal).
For Korean and U.S. respondents, data show positive effects between superstitious
beliefs and both attitude toward zodiac signs and self-assessed zodiac sign expertise.
As attitudes toward and importance placed on astrology influence people’s political
and business decisions as well as firms’strategiesforidentifying and appealing to
targeted consumers(Mitchell, 1995), advertisersmight benefit from an ad campaign
meant to engender favorable responses toward astrology. For example, per Anheuser-
Busch InBev’s recent Bud Light ad campaign (i.e.,It’s Only Weird If It Doesn’t
Work), depicting fans’ superstition rituals fondly can endear consumers guilty of such
practices. Mimicking this promotional blueprint may help marketers spawn harmless
superstitions, via a’ stars are aligned’ perspectivethat boosts product/brand-related
attitudes and sales (Mayo and Mallin, 2014; Poorsoltan, 2012; Tsang, 2004a, b).
Although the experiential consumptive nature of superstition may entertain many
people, ethical marketers cannot ignore the prospect that superstitious beliefs can lead
to detrimental outcomes, such as a superstitious moderate-income retiree’s belief that
a lucky charm eventually will reverse a lottery losing streak that jeopardizes his/her
financial well-being. Similarly, more superstitious South African taxi drivers drive
less carefully and incur more car accidents than their less superstitious counterparts
(Peltzer and Renner, 2003). Ethical marketers mustrecognize that being superstitious
may degrade a person’s quality of life. In this sense, consumers may overly evaluate
the association of entities, as conceptualized in attitude process theory (e.g., inability
to find a lucky four-leaf clover toproduce favorable outcomes),leading tofutile
searches for good omens, entities, or symbols.Hence, promotional efforts should
discourage people from relying on superstition alone.
Policymakers also should heed people’s superstitious behaviors. As noted previously,
numerological beliefs can distort real estate prices relative to general market
conditions (Shum, Sun and Ye, 2014); thus, property valuations (and concomitant
property taxes) based on prior sales should be adjusted accordingly. For example,
state governments should discourage unaffordable lottery ticket purchases by
probability-naïve players; in this case, lottery ads should deter consumers from buying
Sierra, Hyman, Lee and Suh, 2017
73
tickets instead of life necessities based on beliefs about ‘lucky numbers’ and ‘hitting
the big one’. Hence, such ads should depict lottery play as ‘fun in experience’ rather
than ‘fun in winning’. Similar communicative strategies pertain to other luck-laden
and risk-filled exchanges such as sports books and Black Friday deals.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
This research is not limitation-free. For example, although cross-cultural data were
used to explain outcomes of intrinsic religiosity and explore determinants and
consequences of superstitious beliefs, greater generalizability of findings necessitates
data from non-students and other cultures (e.g., Europe, South America) (Winer,
1999). In addition, the established and novel measurement scales’ psychometric
properties may vary by context, which could affect the interrelationships studied here.
Furthermore, findings should be interpreted cautiously, as model fit for the Korean
sample was somewhat low and the between-sample factor loadings are not invariant,
suggesting Korean and U.S. respondents differed in their conceptualization of
measurement items.
To offer further insight into intrinsic religiosity, superstitious beliefs, and astrology,
other psychographic and behavioral factors could be modeled, such as willingness to
incur uncertainty, locus of control, intention to purchase luck-laden products, and/or
variety seeking. Future research could examine correlates of superstitions meant to
bring good luck or fend off bad luck (Block and Kramer, 2009). Determinants of
conditioned superstition (i.e. irrational association of purchases with positive or
negative outcomes) (Hamerman and Johar, 2013) seem worthy of inquiry. The role of
situational context on religiosity, superstitious beliefs, and astrology also merits
attention; for example, how might the posited model apply to fans at a sporting event,
gamblers in a casino, or shoppers searching for the perfect gift?To boost the posited
‘attitude toward finales’ scale’s generalizability, items pertaining to life events (e.g.,
end of career) should be applied in diverse contexts.
References
Abelson, R.P. (1988), “Conviction”, American Psychologist, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 267-275.
Agarwal, S., He, J., Liu, H., Png, I. P. L., Sing, T. F. and Wong, W.-K. (2014), “Superstition
and asset markets: Evidence from Singapore housing”, working paper,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2416832.
Anders, C.J. (2014), “Why we love suspending our disbelief”, http://io9.com/5829621/
suspension-of-disbelief-is-a-muscle-that-it-feels-good-to-strengthen.
Andrews, L., Kiel, G., Drennan, J., Boyle, M.V. and Weerawardena, J. (2007), “Gendered
perceptions of experiential value in using web-based retail channels”, European
Journal of Marketing, vol. 41, no. 5/6, pp. 640-658.
Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. and Chanchalermporn, N. (2007), “A test of social cognitive theory
reciprocal and sequential effects: Hope, superstitious belief and environmental factors
among lottery gamblers in Thailand”, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, pp.
201-214.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Berry, J. (1980), “Introduction to methodology”, in Triandis, H. and Berry, J. (Eds.), The
Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, MA, pp. 1-
Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2017
29.
Bettman, J.R. (1970), “Information processing models of consumer behavior”, Journal of
Marketing Research, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 370-376.
Bigné, J.E., Mattila, A.S. and Andreu, L. (2008), “The impact of experiential consumption
cognitions and emotions on behavioral intentions”, Journal of Services Marketing, vol.
22, no. 4, pp. 303-315.
Block, L. and Kramer, T. (2009), “The effect of superstitious beliefs on
performanceexpectations”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 37, no.
2, pp. 161-169.
Bourassa, S.C. and Peng, V.S. (1999), “Hedonic prices and house numbers: The influence of
feng shui”, International Real Estate Review, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 79-93.
Carlson, B.D., Mowen, J.C. and Fang, X. (2009), “Trait superstition and consumer behavior:
Re ‐conceptualization, measurement, and initial investigations”, Psychology &
Marketing, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 689-713.
CBS News (2012), “Superstitions: Why you believe”, CBS News Sunday Morning, October
28, cbsnews.com/news/superstitions-why-you-believe/ (accessed August 11, 2014).
Chau, K.W., Ma, V.S. and Ho, D.C. (2001), “The pricing of ‘luckiness’ in the apartment
market”, Journal of Real Estate Literature, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 29-40.
Cheung, G.W. and Rensvold, R.B. (2002), “Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance”, Structural Equation Modeling, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 233-255.
Cheung, G.W. and Rensvold, R.B. (1999), “Testing factorial invariance across groups: A
reconceptualization and proposed new method”, Journal of Management, vol. 25, no. 1,
pp. 1-27.
Choi, Y. (2010), “Religion, religiosity, and South Korean consumer switching behaviors”,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 157-171.
Chong, T.T.L. and Du, X. (2008), “Hedonic pricing models for vehicle registration marks”,
Pacific Economic Review, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 259-276.
Chronis, A. (2005), “Our Byzantine heritage: Consumption of the past and its experiential
benefits”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 213-222.
Cotte, J. (1997), “Chances, trances, and lots of slots: Gambling motives and consumption
experiences”, Journal of Leisure Research, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 380-406.
Damisch, L., Stoberock, B. and Mussweiler, T. (2010), “Keep your fingers crossed! How
superstition improves performance”, Psychological Science, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1014-
1020.
Defintions.net (2015), “Suspension of disbelief”, http://www.definitions.net/definition/
suspension%20of%20disbelief.
Dudley, R.T. (2000), “The relationship between negative affect and paranormal belief”,
Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 315-321.
Earl, J.K. (2010), “The contribution of spirituality to the process of retirement”, Journal of
Management, Spirituality and Religion, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 223-240.
Essoo, N. and Dibb, S. (2004), “Religious influences on shopping behaviour: An exploratory
study”, Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 20, no. 7-8, pp. 683-712.
Fazio, R.H. (1986), “How do attitudes guide behavior”? In Sorrentino, R.M. and Higgins,
E.T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social
Behavior, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 204-243.
Fernandez, K.V. and Lastovicka, J.L. (2011), “Making magic: Fetishes in contemporary
consumption”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 278-299.
Fichten, C.S. and Sunerton, B. (1983), “Popular horoscopes and the ‘Barnum effect’”,
Journal of Psychology, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 123-134.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, vol.
18, no. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fortin, N.M., Hill, A. and Huang, J.J.S. (2013), “Superstition in the housing market”, IZA
Discussion Paper, No. 7484, University of British Columbia,
http://hdl.handle.net/10419/80687.
Sierra, Hyman, Lee and Suh, 2017
75
Furnham, A. (1991), “Hooked on horoscopes”, New Scientist, vol. 129,no. 1753, pp. 33-36.
Gazley, A., Clark, G. and Sinha, A. (2011), “Understanding preferences for motion
pictures”,Journal of Business Research, vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 854-861.
Gilovich, T., Kumar, A. and Jampol, L. (2015), “A wonderful life: Experiential consumption
and the pursuit of happiness”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 152-
165.
Glick, P., Gottesman, D. and Jolton, J. (1989), “The fault is not in the stars susceptibility of
skeptics and believers in astrology to the Barnum Effect”, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 572-583.
Gorsuch, R.L. and McPherson, S.E. (1989), “Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-revised and
single-item scales”,Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 348-
354.
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirland, S. and
Lyon, D. (1990), “Evidence for terror management theory II: The effects of mortality
salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 58, no. 2, pp.303-318.
Hamerman, E.J. and Johar, G.V. (2013), “Conditioned superstition: Desire for control and
consumer brand preferences”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 428-
443.
Hathaway, W.L. and Pargament, K.I. (1990), “Intrinsic religiousness, religious coping, and
psychosocial competence: A covariance structure analysis”, Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 423-441.
Hernandez, M.D., Wang, Y.J., Minor, M.S. and Liu, Q. (2008), “Effects of superstitious
beliefs on consumer novelty seeking and independent judgment making: Evidence from
China”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 424-435.
Hill, P.C. (1994), “Toward an attitude process model of religious experience”, Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 303-314.
Ho, J. (2008), “The economics of luckiness: The impact of number superstition on
condominium prices in Singapore”, working paper, Amherst College,
http://www.amherst.edu/media/
view/190172/original/Ho08EconofLuckNumberSuperstition.pdf.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption:
Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 9, no. 2,
pp. 132-140.
Holbrook, M.B., Lehmann, D.R. and O’Shaughnessy J. (1986), “Using versus choosing: The
relationship of the consumption experience to reasons for purchasing”, European
Journal of Marketing, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 49-62.
Holland, N. (2008), “Spiderman? Sure! The neuroscience of disbelief”, Interdisciplinary
Science Reviews, vol. 33, no.4, pp.312-320.
Holmes, J.H. and Crocker, K.E. (1987), “Predispositions and the comparative effectiveness of
rational, emotional and discrepant appeals for both high involvement and low
involvement products”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 15, no. 1,
pp. 27-35.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-55.
Huang, L.S. and Teng, C.I. (2009), “Development of a Chinese superstitious belief scale”,
Psychological Reports, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 807-819.
Hyman, M.R. and Sierra, J.J. (2012), “Adjusting self-reported attitudinal data for mischievous
respondents”,International Journal of Market Research, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 129-145.
James, Y.S., Handelman, J.M. and Taylor, S.F. (2011), “Magical thinking and consumer
coping”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 632-649.
Johnson, N.D. and Nye, J.V. (2011), “Does fortune favor dragons”? Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 85-97.
Jonas, E. and Fischer, P. (2006), “Terror management and religion: Evidence that intrinsic
Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2017
religiousness mitigates worldview defense following mortality salience”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 553-567.
Kang, N.S. (2004), “Confucian familism and its social/religious embodiment in Christianity:
Reconsidering the family discourse from a feminist perspective”, Asia Journal of
Theology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 168-189.
Keinan, G. (1994), “Effects of stress and tolerance of ambiguity on magical thinking”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 48-55.
Kirkpatrick, L.A. and Hood Jr., R.W. (1990), “Intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation: The
boon or bane of contemporary psychology of religion”? Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 442-462.
Kolb, R.W. and Rodriguez, R.J. (1987), “Friday the thirteenth: Part VII'-A note”, Journal of
Finance, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1385-1387.
Kraft, W.A., Litwin, W.J. and Barber, S.E. (1987), “Religious orientation and assertiveness:
Relationship to death anxiety”, Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 93-
95.
Kramer, T. and Block, L. (2008), “Conscious and nonconscious components of superstitious
beliefs in judgment and decision making”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 34, no.
6, pp. 783-793.
Lepori, G.M. (2009), “Dark omens in the sky: Do superstitious beliefs affect investment
decisions?”, working paper, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1428792.
Marques, N., Leite, F. and Benvenuti, M.F.L. (2012), “Conceptual and experimental
directions for analyzing superstition in the behavioral analysis of culture”, Revista
Latinoamericana de Psicologia, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 55-63.
Mayo, M. and Mallin, M. (2014), “Antecedents and anticipated outcomes of superstitious
behavior among professional salespeople”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing,vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 227-237.
McQuitty, S. (2004), “Statistical power and structural equation models in business research”,
Journal of Business Research, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 175-183.
Mitchell, V.W. (1995), “Using astrology in market segmentation”, Management Decision,
vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 48-57.
Mitchell, V.W. and Haggett, S. (1997), “Sun-sign astrology in market segmentation: An
empirical investigation”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 113-131.
Morris, R. and Griffiths, M.D. (2013), “The relationship between gambling affinity,
impulsivity, sensation seeking, superstition, and irrational beliefs: An empirical study
among committed gamblers”, Aloma, vol. 31, no. 2, 109-121.
Mowen, J.C. and Carlson, B. (2003), “Exploring the antecedents and consumer behavior
consequences of the trait of superstition”, Psychology & Marketing, vol. 20, no. 12, pp.
1045-1065.
Mowen, J.C., Fang, X. and Scott, K. (2009), “A hierarchical model approach for identifying
the trait antecedents of general gambling propensity and of four gambling-related
genres”, Journal of Business Research, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 1262-1268.
Muzellec, L., Kanitz, C. and Lynn, T. (2013), “Fancy a coffee with Friends in 'Central Perk'?
Reverse product placement, fictional brands and purchase intention”, International
Journal of Advertising, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 399-417.
Ng, T., Chong, T. and Du, X. (2010), “The value of superstitions”, Journal of Economic
Psychology, vol. 31,no. 3, pp. 293-309.
Olson, J.C. and Mitchell, A.A. (1975), “The process of attitude acquisition: The value of a
developmental approach to consumer attitude research”, Advances in Consumer
Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 249-265.
Peltzer, K. and Renner, W. (2003), “Superstition, risk-taking and risk perception of accidents
among South African taxi drivers”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 35, no. 4, pp.
619-623.
Peng, Y.-S., Hsiung, H.-H. and Chen, K.-H. (2012), “The level of concern about feng shui in
house purchasing: The impacts of self-efficacy, superstition, and the big five
personality traits”,Psychology & Marketing, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 519-530.
Sierra, Hyman, Lee and Suh, 2017
77
Peterson, R.A. and Jolibert, A.J.P. (1995), “A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects”,
Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 883-900.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies”,Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 879-903.
Poorsoltan, K. (2012), “How superstitious beliefs influence the process of decision making in
the world of business”, Business Studies Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 93-120.
Putrevu, S. and Swimberghek, K. (2013), “The influence of religiosity on consumer ethical
judgments and responses toward sexual appeals”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 115,
no. 2, pp. 351-365.
Riordan, C.M. and Vandenberg, R.J. (1994), “A central question in cross-cultural research:
Do employees of different cultures interpret work-related measures in an equivalent
manner?”, Journal of Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 643-671.
Rudski, J.M. and Edwards, A. (2007), “Malinowski goes to college: Factors influencing
students’ use of ritual and superstition”, Journal of General Psychology, vol. 134, no.
4, pp. 389-403.
Schippers, M.C. and Van Lange, P.A.M. (2006), “The psychological benefits of superstitious
rituals in top sport: A study among top sportspersons”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 2532-2553.
Sedikides, C. and Gebauer, J.E. (2010), “Religiosity as self-enhancement: A meta-analysis of
the relation between socially desirable responding and religiosity”, Personality and
Social Psychology Review, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 17-36.
Shaughnessy, M.F., Neely, R., Manz, A. and Nystul, M. (1990), “Effects of birth order, sex,
and astrological sign on personality”, Psychological Reports, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 272-
274.
Shum, M., Sun, W. and Ye, G. (2014), “Superstition and “lucky” apartments: Evidence from
transaction-level data”, Journal of Comparative Economics, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 109-117.
Siala, H. (2013), “Religious influences on consumers' high-involvement purchasing
decisions”, Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 579-589.
Sierra, J.J. and Hyman, M.R. (2009), “In search of value: A model of wagering intentions”,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,vol. 17,no. 3, pp. 235-249.
Sierra, J.J. and Hyman, M.R. (2011), “Outlet mall shoppers’ intentions to purchase apparel: A
dual-process perspective”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 18, no. 4,
pp. 341-347.
Sierra, J.J. and McQuitty, S. (2005), “Service providers and customers: Social exchange
theory and service loyalty”, Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 392-400.
Simmons, L.C. and Schindler, R M. (2003), “Cultural superstitions and the price endings used
in Chinese advertising”, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 101-
111.
Singelis, T.M. (1994), “The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals”,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 580-591.
Solomon, S., Greenberg, J. and Pyszczynski, T. (1991), “A terror management theory of
social behavior: The psychological function of self-esteem and cultural worldviews”,
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 24, pp.93-159.
Sung, Y. and Tinkham, S.F. (2005), “Brand personality structures in the United States and
Korea: Common and culture-specific factors”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol.
15, no. 4, pp. 334-350.
Tayeb, M. (1994), “Organizations and national culture: Methodology considered”,
Organization Studies, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 429-445.
Tobacyk, J.J., Nagot, E. and Miller, M. (1998), “Paranormal beliefs and locus of control: A
multidimensional examination”, Journal of Personality Assessment, vol. 52, no. 2, pp.
241-246.
Torgler, B. (2007), “Determinants of superstition”,Journal of Socio-Economics, vol. 36, no. 5,
pp. 713-733.
Triandis, H.C. (1994), “Major cultural syndromes and emotion”. In Kitayama, S. and Markus,
Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2017
H.R. (Eds.), Emotion and Culture: Empirical Studies of Mutual Influence, American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 285-306.
Tsang, E.W. (2004a), “Superstition and decision-making: Contradiction or complement”?
Academy of Management Executive, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 92-104.
Tsang, E.W. (2004b), “Toward a scientific inquiry into superstitious business decision-
making”, Organization Studies, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 923-946.
Tvtropes.org (2014), “Willing suspension of disbelief”,
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief.
Vandenberg, R.J. and Lance, C.E. (2000), “A review and synthesis of the measurement
invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational
research”, Organizational Research Methods, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 4-70.
Vitell, S.J., Bing, M.N., Davison, H.K., Ammeter, A.P., Garner, B.L. and Novicevic, M.M.
(2009), “Religiosity and moral identity: The mediating role of self-control”, Journal of
Business Ethics, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 601-613.
Wang, D., Oppewal, H. and Thomas, D. (2014), “Exploring attitudes and affiliation intentions
toward consumers who engage in socially shared superstitious behaviors: A study of
students in the East and the West”, Psychology & Marketing, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 203-
213.
Wang, Y.J., Hernandez, M.D., Minor, M.S. and Wei, J. (2012), “Superstitious beliefs in
consumer evaluation of brand logos: Implications for corporate branding strategy”,
European Journal of Marketing, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 712-732.
Whitley, B.E. and Kite, M.E. (2010), The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination,
Belmont, CA. Wadsworth.
Whitson, J.A. and Galinsky, A.D. (2008), “Lacking control increases illusory pattern
perception”, Science, vol. 322, no. 5898, pp. 115-117.
Wikström, S.R. (2008), “A consumer perspective on experience creation”, Journal of
Customer Behaviour, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 31-50.
Wilson, S.M., Grieve, F.G., Ostrowski, S., Mienaltowski, A. and Cyr, C. (2013), “Roles of
team identification and game outcome in sport fan superstitious behaviors”, Journal of
Sport Behavior, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 417-429.
Winer, R. S. (1999), “Experimentation in the 21st century: The importance of external
validity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 349-358.
Wiseman, R. (2003), “UK Superstition Survey”,
richardwiseman.com/research/superstition.html (accessed August 11, 2014).
Wiseman, R. and Watt, C. (2004), “Measuring superstitious belief: Why lucky charms
matter”, Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1533-1541.
Wong, K. F. and Yung, L. (2005), “Do dragons have better fate”? Economic Inquiry, vol. 43,
no. 3, pp. 689-697.
Woo, C. K., Horowitz, I., Luk, S. and Lai, A. (2008), “Willingness to pay and nuanced
cultural cues: Evidence from Hong Kong’s license-plate auction market”, Journal of
Economic Psychology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 35-53.
Woo, C. K. and Kwok, R. H. (1994), “Vanity, superstition and auction price”, Economics
Letters, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 389-395.
Yang, Z. (2011), ““Lucky” numbers, unlucky consumers”, Journal of Socio-Economics, vol.
40, no. 5, pp. 692-699.
Zeidner, M. and Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1988), “Sex, ethnic, and social class differences in
parareligious beliefs among Israeli adolescents”, Journal of Social Psychology, vol.
128, no. 3, pp. 333-343.
