Magical thinking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Magical thinking (disambiguation).

Magical thinking is a term used in anthropology and psychology, denoting the fallacious
attribution of causal relationships between actions and events, with subtle differences in
meaning between the two fields. In anthropology, it denotes the attribution of causality
between entities grouped with one another (coincidence) or similar to one another.
In psychology, the entities between which a causal relation has to be posited are more
strictly delineated; here it denotes the belief that one's thoughts by themselves can bring
about effects in the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it. [1] In both
cases, the belief can cause a person to experience fear, seemingly not rationally justifiable
to an observer outside the belief system, of performing certain acts or having certain
thoughts because of an assumed correlationbetween doing so and threatening calamities.

Contents

• 1 Anthropology

• 2 Other forms

• 3 Symbolic approach to magic

• 4 Psychological functions of magic

• 5 Phenomenological approach

• 6 Idiomatic difference

• 7 Substantive difference

• 8 In children

• 8.1 Grieving children

• 9 Related terms
• 10 See also

• 11 References

• 11.1 Explanatory notes

• 11.2 Citations

• 12 Further reading

• 13 External links

Anthropology[edit]
In religion, folk religion, and superstitious beliefs, the posited causality is between
religious ritual, prayer, sacrifice, or the observance of a taboo, and an expected benefit or
recompense. The use of a lucky item or ritual, for example, is assumed to increase the
probability that one will perform at a level so that one can achieve a desired goal or
outcome.[2]
Researchers have identified two possible principles as the formal causes of the attribution
of false causal relationships:

the temporal contiguity of two events

"associative thinking", the association of entities based upon their semblance to one
another
Prominent Victorian theorists identified associative thinking (a common feature of
practitioners of magic) as a characteristic form of irrationality. As with all forms of magical
thinking, association-based and similarities-based notions of causality are not always said
to be the practice of magic by a magician. For example, the doctrine of signatures held
that similarities between plant parts and body parts indicated their efficacy in treating
diseases of those body parts, and was a part of Western medicine during the Middle Ages.
This association-based thinking is a vivid example of the general human application of
the representativeness heuristic.[3]
Edward Burnett Tylor coined the term "associative thinking", characterizing it as pre-
logical,[4][not in citation given] in which the "magician's folly" is in mistaking an imagined
connection with a real one. The magician believes that thematically linked items can
influence one another by virtue of their similarity.[5] For example, in E. E. Evans-Pritchard's
account, members of the Azande tribe[6] believe that rubbing crocodile teeth on banana
plants can invoke a fruitful crop. Because crocodile teeth are curved (like bananas) and
grow back if they fall out, the Azande observe this similarity and want to impart this
capacity of regeneration to their bananas. To them, the rubbing constitutes a means of
transference.
Sir James Frazer (1854-1941) elaborated upon Tylor's principle by dividing magic into the
categories of sympathetic and contagious magic. The latter is based upon the law of
contagion or contact, in which two things that were once connected retain this link and
have the ability to affect their supposedly related objects, such as harming a person by
harming a lock of his hair. Sympathetic magic and homeopathy operate upon the premise
that "like affects like", or that one can impart characteristics of one object to a similar
object. Frazer believed that some individuals think the entire world functions according to
these mimetic, or homeopathic, principles.[7]
In How Natives Think (1925), Lucien Lévy-Bruhl describes a similar notion of mystical,
"collective representations". He too sees magical thinking as fundamentally different from
a Western style of thought. He asserts that in these representations, "primitive" people's
"mental activity is too little differentiated for it to be possible to consider ideas or images
of objects by themselves apart from the emotions and passions which evoke those ideas or
are evoked by them".[8] Lévy-Bruhl explains that natives commit the post hoc, ergo
propter hoc fallacy, in which people observe that x is followed by y, and conclude that x
has caused y.[9] He believes that this fallacy is institutionalized in native culture and is
committed regularly and repeatedly.
Despite the view that magic is less than rational and entails an inferior concept of
causality, in The Savage Mind (1966), Claude Lévi-Strausssuggested that magical
procedures are relatively effective in exerting control over the environment. This outlook
has generated alternative theories of magical thinking, such as the symbolic and
psychological approaches, and softened the contrast between "educated" and "primitive"
thinking: "Magical thinking is no less characteristic of our own mundane intellectual
activity than it is of Zande curing practices."[10][n 1]

Other forms[edit]
Bronisław Malinowski's Magic, Science and Religion (1954) discusses another type of
magical thinking, in which words and sounds are thought to have the ability to directly
affect the world.[11] This type of wish fulfillment thinking can result in the avoidance of
talking about certain subjects ("speak of the devil and he'll appear"), the use
of euphemisms instead of certain words, or the belief that to know the "true name" of
something gives one power over it, or that certain chants, prayers, or mystical phrases will
bring about physical changes in the world. More generally, it is magical thinking to take
a symbol to be its referent or an analogy to represent an identity.
Sigmund Freud believed that magical thinking was produced by cognitive
developmental factors. He described practitioners of magic as projecting their mental
states onto the world around them, similar to a common phase in child development.
[12] From toddlerhood to early school age, children will often link the outside world with
their internal consciousness, e.g. "It is raining because I am sad."

Symbolic approach to magic[edit]

Another theory of magical thinking is the symbolic approach. Leading thinkers of this
category, including Stanley J. Tambiah, believe that magic is meant to be expressive,
rather than instrumental. As opposed to the direct, mimetic thinking of Frazer, Tambiah
asserts that magic utilizes abstract analogies to express a desired state, along the lines
of metonymy or metaphor.[13]
An important question raised by this interpretation is how mere symbols could exert
material effects. One possible answer lies in John L. Austin's concept of "performativity," in
which the act of saying something makes it true, such as in an inaugural or marital rite.
[14] Other theories propose that magic is effective because symbols are able to affect
internal psycho-physical states. They claim that the act of expressing a certain anxiety or
desire can be reparative in itself.[15]
Psychological functions of magic[edit]

A healing ritual (the laying on of hands)

Some scholars believe that magic is effective psychologically. They cite the placebo
effect and psychosomatic disease as prime examples of how our mental functions exert
power over our bodies.[16] Similarly, Robin Horton suggests that engaging in magical
practices surrounding healing can relieve anxiety, which could have a significant positive
physical effect. In the absence of advanced health care, such effects would play a
relatively major role, thereby helping to explain the persistence and popularity of such
practices.[17][18]
According to theories of anxiety relief and control, people turn to magical beliefs when
there exists a sense of uncertainty and potential danger and few logical or scientific
responses to such danger. Magic is used to restore a sense of control over circumstance. In
support of this theory, research indicates that superstitious behavior is invoked more often
in high stress situations, especially by people with a greater desire for control. [19][20]
Another potential reason for the persistence of magic rituals is that the rituals prompt their
own use by creating a feeling of insecurity and then proposing themselves as precautions.
[21] Boyer and Liénard propose that in obsessive-compulsive rituals — a possible clinical
model for certain forms of magical thinking — focus shifts to the lowest level of gestures,
resulting in goal demotion. For example, an obsessive-compulsive cleaning ritual may
overemphasize the order, direction, and number of wipes used to clean the surface. The
goal becomes less important than the actions used to achieve the goal, with the
implication that magic rituals can persist without efficacy because the intent is lost within
the act.[21] Alternatively, some cases of harmless "rituals" may have positive effects in
bolstering intent, as may be the case with certain pre-game exercises in sports. [22]

Phenomenological approach[edit]
Ariel Glucklich tries to understand magic from a subjective perspective, attempting to
comprehend magic on a phenomenological, experientially based level. Glucklich seeks to
describe the attitude that magical practitioners feel which he calls "magical
consciousness" or the "magical experience." He explains that it is based upon "the
awareness of the interrelatedness of all things in the world by means of simple but refined
sense perception."[23]
Another phenomenological model is that of Gilbert Lewis, who argues that "habit is
unthinking." He believes that those practicing magic do not think of an explanatory theory
behind their actions any more than the average person tries to grasp the pharmaceutical
workings of aspirin.[24] When the average person takes an aspirin, he does not know how
the medicine chemically functions. He takes the pill with the premise that there is proof of
efficacy. Similarly, many who avail themselves of magic do so without feeling the need to
understand a causaltheory behind it.

Idiomatic difference[edit]
Robin Horton maintains that the difference between the thinking of Western and of non-
Western peoples is predominantly "idiomatic". He asserts that the members of both
cultures use the same practical common-sense, and that both science and magic are ways
beyond basic logic by which people formulate theories to explain whatever occurs.
However, non-Western cultures use the idiom of magic and have community spiritual
figures, and therefore non-Westerners turn to magical practices or to a specialist in that
idiom. Horton sees the same logic and common-sense in all cultures, but notes that their
contrasting ontological idioms lead to cultural practices which seem illogical to observers
whose own culture has correspondingly contrasting norms. He explains, "[T]he layman's
grounds for accepting the models propounded by the scientist are often no different from
the young African villager's ground for accepting the models propounded by one of his
elders."[25]
Along similar lines, Michael F. Brown argues that the Aguaruna of Peru see magic as a type
of technology, no more supernatural than their physical tools. Brown says that the
Aguaruna utilize magic in an empirical manner; for example, they discard any magical
stones which they have found to be ineffective. To Brown—as to Horton—magical and
scientific thinking differ merely in idiom.[26]
These theories blur the boundaries between magic, science, and religion, and focus on the
similarities in magical, technical, and spiritual practices. Brown even ironically writes that
he is tempted to disclaim the existence of 'magic.' [27]

Substantive difference[edit]
One theory of substantive difference is that of the open versus closed society. Horton
describes this as one of the key dissimilarities between traditional thought and Western
science. He suggests that the scientific worldview is distinguished from a magical one by
the scientific method and by skepticism, requiring the falsifiability of any scientific
hypothesis. He notes that for native peoples "there is no developed awareness of
alternatives to the established body of theoretical texts." [28] He notes that all further
differences between traditional and Western thought can be understood as a result of this
factor. He says that because there are no alternatives in societies based on magical
thought, a theory does not need to be objectively judged to be valid.

In children[edit]
Magical thinking is most prominent in children between ages 2 and 7. During this age,
children strongly believe that their personal thoughts have a direct effect on the rest of the
world. Therefore, if they experience something tragic that they do not understand, e.g. a
death, their minds will create a reason to feel responsible. Jean Piaget, a developmental
psychologist, came up with a theory of four developmental stages. Children between ages
2 and 7 would be classified under his preoperational stage of development. During this
stage children are still developing their use of logical thinking. A child's thinking is
dominated by perceptions of physical features, meaning that if the child is told that a
family pet has gone away, then the child will have difficulty comprehending the
transformation of the dog not being around anymore. Magical thinking would be evident
here, since the child may believe that the family pet being gone is just temporary. Their
young minds in this stage do not understand the finality of death and magical thinking
may bridge the gap.

Grieving children[edit]
Children who evidence magical thinking often feel that they are responsible for an event or
events occurring or are capable of reversing an event simply by thinking about it and
wishing for a change.[29] Make-believe and fantasy are an integral part of life at this age
and are often used to explain the inexplicable.[30][31]
According to Piaget, children within this age group are often "egocentric," believing that
what they feel and experience is the same as everyone else's feelings and experiences.
[32] Also at this age, there is often a lack of ability to understand that there may be other
explanations for events outside of the realm of things they have already comprehended.
What happens outside their understanding needs to be explained using what they already
know, because of an inability to fully comprehend abstract concepts. [32]
Magical thinking is found particularly in children's explanations of experiences about
death, whether the death of a family member or pet, or their own illness or impending
death. These experiences are often new for a young child, who at that point has no
experience to give understanding of the ramifications of the event. [33] A child may feel
that they are responsible for what has happened, simply because they were upset with the
person who died, or perhaps played with the pet too roughly. There may also be the idea
that if the child wishes it hard enough, or performs just the right act, the person or pet
may choose to come back, and not be dead any longer. [34] When considering their own
illness or impending death, some children may feel that they are being punished for doing
something wrong, or not doing something they should have, and therefore have become
ill.[35] If a child's ideas about an event are incorrect because of their magical thinking,
there is a possibility that the conclusions the child makes could result in long-term beliefs
and behaviours that create difficulty for the child as they mature. [36]

Related terms[edit]
"Quasi-magical thinking" describes "cases in which people act as if they erroneously
believe that their action influences the outcome, even though they do not really hold that
belief".[37] People may realize that a superstitious intuition is logically false, but act as if it
were true because they do not exert an effort to correct the intuition. [38]

See also[edit]
Cognitive bias
Cognitive restructuring, a therapy that can treat this
Confirmation bias
Dreyfus model of skill acquisition, especially at higher stages of proficiency, experts rely
on intuitive decision making rather than an analytical approach, which can lead the
unaware into believing it has something to do with magical thinking.
Grief
Illusion of control
Law of attraction (New Thought)
Mythopoeic thought
New Thought
Pareidolia
Placebo button
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
Psychology of art
Psychology of religion
Schizotypy
Self-deception
The Year of Magical Thinking, an account of how mourning the death of a spouse led to
magical thinking.
Superstitious pigeon
Synchronicity
Wishful thinking, the formation of beliefs and making of decisions according to what
might be pleasing to imagine rather than with reference to reality, rationality, or evidence.

J
u
m
p

t
o

ns
ea
av
ri
cg
ha
t
i
o
n