Damisch, Stroberock, and Mussweiller (2010) conducted a series of experiments on whether having a lucky charm could improve performance. One of the studies showed clear benefits of superstition on cognitive performance, while an experiment by Calin-Jageman and Caldwell (2014) attempted but failed to replicate the Damisch et al. findings. Which is the BEST interpretation of the results from both studies?
A) The two studies suggest that engaging in superstitious behaviors can enhance cognitive performance.
B) The discrepancy in the results of the two studies raises questions about whether engaging in superstitious behaviors can enhance cognitive performance.
C) The Damisch et al. study provides clear evidence that engaging in superstitious behaviors can enhance cognitive performance, and others agree.
D) The discrepancy in the results of the two studies leads to the conclusion that engaging in superstitious behaviors does not enhance cognitive performance.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The best interpretation of the results from both studies is that the discrepancy in their findings raises questions about whether engaging in superstitious behaviors can enhance cognitive performance. While Damisch et al. (2010) showed clear benefits of superstition on cognitive performance, the failure of Calin-Jageman and Caldwell (2014) to replicate these findings suggests that the relationship may not be as straightforward as initially thought. Therefore, more research is needed to fully understand the effects of superstitious behaviors on cognitive performance.

Damisch, Stroberock, and Mussweiller (2010) Conducted a Series of Experiments