The primary research question that the paper is attempting to investigate is the relationship between superstitious belief and performance, in a situation where the individual has no control in and ultimately to analyse if such beliefs can either positively or negatively affect one’s performance in that situation.
For Experiment 1, describe the: primary hypothesis, independent variable(s), dependent variable(s).
The dependent variable is the variable that is being measured and it is dependent on other factors. The independent variable is not changed by other variables and is the one being manipulated. Within Experiment 1, the dependent variable is the amount of anagrams solved and the independent variables are the degree of superstition of the individual and amount of words contained in the puzzles.
The primary hypothesis of this experiment would be that, a higher degree of superstition will lessen the development of learned helplessness, which will be achieved as an increasing degree of superstition will allow for an increase in amount of anagrams solved.
Explain the difference between an experimental and a quasi-experimental design. Which of these terms would best describe Experiment 1, and why?
The difference between an experimental and a quasi-experimental design is random allocation. In an experimental design the participants can be randomly allocated to any condition or situation. Whereas, in a quasi-experimental design the option of random allocation is absent, which is due to the fact that the independent variable is a fixed quality of the participant. Therefore, Experiment 1 is a quasi-experiment, because the independent variable, the degree of superstition, is a quality of the participant and hence they cannot be randomly allocated to different conditions or situations (low or high believers).
Describe how the ‘anagrams solved’ score (depicted in Fig 1) was calculated? What were the maximum and minimum possible scores on this measure?

On page 1059 the author states: “Participants were subsequently divided into low and high believers based on a median split”. Explain what the author means by the term “median split”?
The median split is a method in which you are able to split the participants in order to categorise them. After you find the median of the variable, you are then able to apply a split in which any value below the median will be categorised as “low” and any value above the median will be categorised as “high”.
In his description of Experiment 1 (page 1059), the author refers to the “Experimental Group” and the “Control Group”. Explain what the author means by these terms, and how they relate to the terms “Unsolvable Group” and “Solvable Group” used on the same page.
The experimental group is the group that is exposed to a change in a variable, whereas the control group is exposed to no change and then the results from each group can be compared later on for analysis. The term “unsolvable group” refers to the experimental group since there is a changed variable (3 of the 20 words were listed). The term “solvable group” refers to the control group since it is exposed to normal conditions (20 words listed).
Imagine that you are explaining the results of Experiment 1 to a fellow student, using Figure 1 as an aid. In 200 words or less, describe the pattern of results depicted in Figure 1 and the conclusions the author has drawn from them.
As shown through the results in Figure 1, there is a significant difference between the amount of anagrams solved by the Solvable group with low superstition and the Unsolvable group with low superstition. Whereas, within the high superstition group it can be seen that the difference between the Solvable and Unsolvable puzzle is miniscule. This clearly shows that the participants with low superstition did in fact struggle when it came to the Unsolvable puzzle and the participants with high superstition seemed to have the upper hand. Also depicted through Figure 1 and the results, there is once again a significant difference within the Unsolvable puzzle, as the participants with low superstition solved fewer anagrams than participants with high superstition. Again, this substantial difference is juxtaposed to the slight difference within the Solvable puzzle, between participants with low and high superstition. Hence, from the results depicted in Figure 1, it is evident that participants with high superstition in general had a greater benefit than that of those with low superstition. As such, the author has come to the conclusion that superstitious beliefs can in fact prevent the development of helplessness.
For Experiment 2, describe the: primary hypothesis, independent variables, dependent variables.
The dependent variable is the superstition score since it is the variable that we are actually measuring, whereas the independent variable is the amount of words contained in the puzzle since it is the variable that we are purposely manipulating.
The primary hypothesis for Experiment 2 would be that, an exposure to uncontrollable situations (the unsolvable puzzle) will allow for an increase in the level of superstitious belief.
Describe how the ‘superstition score’ (depicted in Fig 2) was calculated. What were the maximum and minimum possible scores on this measure?

Imagine that you were explaining the results of Experiment 2 to a fellow student, using Figure 2 as an aid. In 200 words or less, describe the pattern of results depicted in Figure 2 and the conclusions the author has drawn from them.
As shown through the results in Figure 2, all the participants had the same superstitious belief. There is an evident increase in superstition score from the Unsolvable puzzle group pre-test scores to the Unsolvable puzzle group post-test scores. This suggests that the participants’ superstitious belief did in fact increase after exposure to the unsolvable problem. Contrastingly, there is a slight decrease in superstition score between the Solvable puzzle group pre-test and post-test scores. This indicates that participants within the Solvable puzzle group noted that they felt a decrease in superstitious belief after being exposed to the solvable puzzle. Furthermore, participants exposed to the Unsolvable puzzle declared that they had higher superstitious beliefs than those exposed to the Solvable puzzle, as seen through the significant difference between the post-scores of the Solvable and Unsolvable puzzles shown in Figure 2. Hence, from these results the author has come to the conclusion that exposure to uncontrollable situations, such that of the Unsolvable puzzle, will allow for an increase in the level of superstitious belief.