{"id":{"repo_id":"middlesex","oai_identifier":"oai:repository.mdx.ac.uk:89664"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/middlesex/oai:repository.mdx.ac.uk:89664","repository":{"repo_id":"middlesex","name":"Middlesex University","base_url":"https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/oai2"},"display":{"title":"Inevitable magic – reason, magic and manipulation","abstract":"Magical thinking occurs when supernatural causes, as opposed to rational ones, are assumed in events that defy reasonable probability. To investigate magical thinking, 64 adults were tested in a novel experiment where they were told they were playing an online game with opposing players. However, neither the “Game” nor the opposing players were real. It was a presentation designed to provide an illusion of game play. The “game” consisted of two sessions, each showing three opposing players (six rounds each). Half the opposing players were “seen” (pre-recorded videos with confederates posing as players) and the other half were “unseen”. To play the “game”, participants were asked to choose a card (from a set of five) and then observe the opposing player attempt to guess that card without being able to see it. Participants were then shown that one-third of opposing players displayed “good luck” (many correct guesses, defined by an above average score), one-third “neutral luck” (some correct, defined by an average score), and one-third “bad luck” (almost none correct, defined by a below average score). After the game, participants were asked to score each player on how likely they are to choose that player for a second stage of the game (in reality, there was no second stage). In the results, there was a significant effect of “luck” (with higher preferences for higher luck). There was also a significant effect of visibility (seen players preferred over unseen). Participants also completed two questionnaires to assess their disposition for magical thinking. There was a weak effect of questionnaire scores on the preference for luck. Results are considered in the context of research in anthropology and psychology.","abstract_html":"Magical thinking occurs when supernatural causes, as opposed to rational ones, are assumed in events that defy reasonable probability. To investigate magical thinking, 64 adults were tested in a novel experiment where they were told they were playing an online game with opposing players. However, neither the “Game” nor the opposing players were real. It was a presentation designed to provide an illusion of game play. The “game” consisted of two sessions, each showing three opposing players (six rounds each). Half the opposing players were “seen” (pre-recorded videos with confederates posing as players) and the other half were “unseen”. To play the “game”, participants were asked to choose a card (from a set of five) and then observe the opposing player attempt to guess that card without being able to see it. Participants were then shown that one-third of opposing players displayed “good luck” (many correct guesses, defined by an above average score), one-third “neutral luck” (some correct, defined by an average score), and one-third “bad luck” (almost none correct, defined by a below average score). After the game, participants were asked to score each player on how likely they are to choose that player for a second stage of the game (in reality, there was no second stage). In the results, there was a significant effect of “luck” (with higher preferences for higher luck). There was also a significant effect of visibility (seen players preferred over unseen). Participants also completed two questionnaires to assess their disposition for magical thinking. There was a weak effect of questionnaire scores on the preference for luck. Results are considered in the context of research in anthropology and psychology.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Goodwin Self, B."],"institution":"Middlesex University","degree_name":null,"degree_level":"Masters thesis","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2021,"date_issued":"2021","date_published":"2021","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:04:17Z","subjects":[],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["oai:repository.mdx.ac.uk:89664"],"render_values":[{"text":"oai:repository.mdx.ac.uk:89664","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":null,"outbound_label":null,"outbound_source":null},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Goodwin Self, B."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2021"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2021"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.department","label":"Dc Publisher Department","values":["School of Science and Technology"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["Middlesex University"]},{"key":"dc:relation","label":"Dc Relation","values":["https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/item/89664"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby","values":["https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/item/89664"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis or dissertation"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Masters thesis"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["oai:repository.mdx.ac.uk:89664"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/download/7ffce520d116a97b7d4e5fc0f462fe720483e2fabfb11b283789b26d9fa9f475/63184291/BGoodwinSelf%20thesis%20EMBARGO.pdf"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Magical thinking occurs when supernatural causes, as opposed to rational ones, are assumed in events that defy reasonable probability. To investigate magical thinking, 64 adults were tested in a novel experiment where they were told they were playing an online game with opposing players. However, neither the “Game” nor the opposing players were real. It was a presentation designed to provide an illusion of game play. The “game” consisted of two sessions, each showing three opposing players (six rounds each). Half the opposing players were “seen” (pre-recorded videos with confederates posing as players) and the other half were “unseen”. To play the “game”, participants were asked to choose a card (from a set of five) and then observe the opposing player attempt to guess that card without being able to see it. Participants were then shown that one-third of opposing players displayed “good luck” (many correct guesses, defined by an above average score), one-third “neutral luck” (some correct, defined by an average score), and one-third “bad luck” (almost none correct, defined by a below average score). After the game, participants were asked to score each player on how likely they are to choose that player for a second stage of the game (in reality, there was no second stage). In the results, there was a significant effect of “luck” (with higher preferences for higher luck). There was also a significant effect of visibility (seen players preferred over unseen). Participants also completed two questionnaires to assess their disposition for magical thinking. There was a weak effect of questionnaire scores on the preference for luck. Results are considered in the context of research in anthropology and psychology."]},{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Magical thinking occurs when supernatural causes, as opposed to rational ones, are assumed in events that defy reasonable probability. To investigate magical thinking, 64 adults were tested in a novel experiment where they were told they were playing an online game with opposing players. However, neither the “Game” nor the opposing players were real. It was a presentation designed to provide an illusion of game play. The “game” consisted of two sessions, each showing three opposing players (six rounds each). Half the opposing players were “seen” (pre-recorded videos with confederates posing as players) and the other half were “unseen”. To play the “game”, participants were asked to choose a card (from a set of five) and then observe the opposing player attempt to guess that card without being able to see it. Participants were then shown that one-third of opposing players displayed “good luck” (many correct guesses, defined by an above average score), one-third “neutral luck” (some correct, defined by an average score), and one-third “bad luck” (almost none correct, defined by a below average score). After the game, participants were asked to score each player on how likely they are to choose that player for a second stage of the game (in reality, there was no second stage). In the results, there was a significant effect of “luck” (with higher preferences for higher luck). There was also a significant effect of visibility (seen players preferred over unseen). Participants also completed two questionnaires to assess their disposition for magical thinking. There was a weak effect of questionnaire scores on the preference for luck. Results are considered in the context of research in anthropology and psychology."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Inevitable magic – reason, magic and manipulation"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["Goodwin Self, B."],"dc:date":["2021"],"dc:date.issued":["2021"],"dc:description":["Magical thinking occurs when supernatural causes, as opposed to rational ones, are assumed in events that defy reasonable probability. To investigate magical thinking, 64 adults were tested in a novel experiment where they were told they were playing an online game with opposing players. However, neither the “Game” nor the opposing players were real. It was a presentation designed to provide an illusion of game play. The “game” consisted of two sessions, each showing three opposing players (six rounds each). Half the opposing players were “seen” (pre-recorded videos with confederates posing as players) and the other half were “unseen”. To play the “game”, participants were asked to choose a card (from a set of five) and then observe the opposing player attempt to guess that card without being able to see it. Participants were then shown that one-third of opposing players displayed “good luck” (many correct guesses, defined by an above average score), one-third “neutral luck” (some correct, defined by an average score), and one-third “bad luck” (almost none correct, defined by a below average score). After the game, participants were asked to score each player on how likely they are to choose that player for a second stage of the game (in reality, there was no second stage). In the results, there was a significant effect of “luck” (with higher preferences for higher luck). There was also a significant effect of visibility (seen players preferred over unseen). Participants also completed two questionnaires to assess their disposition for magical thinking. There was a weak effect of questionnaire scores on the preference for luck. Results are considered in the context of research in anthropology and psychology."],"dc:description.abstract":["Magical thinking occurs when supernatural causes, as opposed to rational ones, are assumed in events that defy reasonable probability. To investigate magical thinking, 64 adults were tested in a novel experiment where they were told they were playing an online game with opposing players. However, neither the “Game” nor the opposing players were real. It was a presentation designed to provide an illusion of game play. The “game” consisted of two sessions, each showing three opposing players (six rounds each). Half the opposing players were “seen” (pre-recorded videos with confederates posing as players) and the other half were “unseen”. To play the “game”, participants were asked to choose a card (from a set of five) and then observe the opposing player attempt to guess that card without being able to see it. Participants were then shown that one-third of opposing players displayed “good luck” (many correct guesses, defined by an above average score), one-third “neutral luck” (some correct, defined by an average score), and one-third “bad luck” (almost none correct, defined by a below average score). After the game, participants were asked to score each player on how likely they are to choose that player for a second stage of the game (in reality, there was no second stage). In the results, there was a significant effect of “luck” (with higher preferences for higher luck). There was also a significant effect of visibility (seen players preferred over unseen). Participants also completed two questionnaires to assess their disposition for magical thinking. There was a weak effect of questionnaire scores on the preference for luck. Results are considered in the context of research in anthropology and psychology."],"dc:identifier":["oai:repository.mdx.ac.uk:89664"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/download/7ffce520d116a97b7d4e5fc0f462fe720483e2fabfb11b283789b26d9fa9f475/63184291/BGoodwinSelf%20thesis%20EMBARGO.pdf"],"dc:publisher.department":["School of Science and Technology"],"dc:publisher.institution":["Middlesex University"],"dc:relation":["https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/item/89664"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby":["https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/item/89664"],"dc:title":["Inevitable magic – reason, magic and manipulation"],"dc:type":["Thesis or dissertation"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Masters thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:04:17Z"}