title: The evolution of superstitious and superstition-like behaviour.
abstract: Superstitious behaviours, which arise through the incorrect assignment of cause and effect, receive considerable attention in psychology and popular culture. Perhaps owing to their seeming irrationality, however, they receive little attention in evolutionary biology. Here we develop a simple model to define the condition under which natural selection will favour assigning causality between two events. This leads to an intuitive inequality--akin to an amalgam of Hamilton's rule and Pascal's wager--that shows that natural selection can favour strategies that lead to frequent errors in assessment as long as the occasional correct response carries a large fitness benefit. It follows that incorrect responses are the most common when the probability that two events are really associated is low to moderate: very strong associations are rarely incorrect, while natural selection will rarely favour making very weak associations. Extending the model to include multiple events identifies conditions under which natural selection can favour associating events that are never causally related. Specifically, limitations on assigning causal probabilities to pairs of events can favour strategies that lump non-causal associations with causal ones. We conclude that behaviours which are, or appear, superstitious are an inevitable feature of adaptive behaviour in all organisms, including ourselves.
authors.affiliation: Center for Systems Biology, Harvard University, 7 Divinity Avenue, Harvard, MA 02138, USA. kfoster@cgr.harvard.edu
authors.forename: Kevin R
authors.initials: KR
authors.lastname: Foster
authors.forename: Hanna
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Kokko
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D005075:Biological Evolution; D006801:Humans; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D012641:Selection, Genetic; D013483:Superstitions
references.citation: Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Dec;159(12):2110-1
references.pmid: 12450968
references.citation: Hum Nat. 2007 Mar;18(1):35-46
references.pmid: 26181743
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1948 Apr;38(2):168-72
references.pmid: 18913665
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jun 24;105(25):8548-51
references.pmid: 18559861
references.citation: J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Nov;44(3):279-99
references.pmid: 4086972
references.citation: Science. 2006 Dec 8;314(5805):1569-72
references.pmid: 17158320
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Oct 23;425(6960):785-91
references.pmid: 14574401
references.citation: Nature. 2001 Mar 15;410(6826):323
references.pmid: 11268195
references.citation: Am J Psychol. 1957 Jun;70(2):308-11
references.pmid: 13424783
references.citation: Med Hypotheses. 1999 Feb;52(2):119-23
references.pmid: 10340292
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jan 8;99(1):123-7
references.pmid: 11742065
references.citation: Med Hypotheses. 1994 Dec;43(6):397-402
references.pmid: 7739412
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1993 Jul;8(7):232-4
references.pmid: 21236156
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Dec;23(12):664-71
references.pmid: 18951656
references.citation: J Evol Biol. 2007 Mar;20(2):415-32
references.pmid: 17305808
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 1998 Nov 23;158(21):2303-10
references.pmid: 9827781
references.citation: Science. 2006 Dec 8;314(5805):1555-6
references.pmid: 17158313
references.citation: BMJ. 1998 Dec 19-26;317(7174):1680-3
references.pmid: 9857123
references.citation: Nature. 1970 Aug 1;227(5257):520-1
references.pmid: 5428476
references.citation: Science. 1979 Aug 17;205(4407):721-3
references.pmid: 462183
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2004 May;79(2):301-35
references.pmid: 15191226
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 1964 Jul;7(1):1-16
references.pmid: 5875341