Superstitious Behaviors in Sports and Exercise: A Systematic Literature Review Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Superstitious behavior is highly prevalent in sports, providing athletes control over anxiety, psychological comfort, and perceived performance benefits. The first literature review on the topic was published in 2016. Since then, new research has expanded the knowledge in the area from cultural, psychological, and situational perspectives. Following the PRISMA guidelines, this systematic review aimed to update and expand the first review on the area. PubMed and Google Scholar articles were scrutinized after the original 2016 review (from 2016 to 2024), and Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases (not included in the original review) were examined without a time limit. We found 27 eligible studies, including 26 observational and one experimental study. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to assess study quality. The included studies stem from India, Canada, Taiwan, Greece, Türkiye, Ghana, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, the UK, the USA, Italy, Serbia, and Congo. Data extracted included age, gender, sport type, athletic level, cultural influences, psychological traits, and validated measurement tools. Superstitions in sports remain widespread. About 55.1% of athletes reported engaging in at least one superstition, and over 90% reported sport-specific rituals. Younger athletes exhibited higher levels of superstition than older ones. Gender differences were nuanced and context-dependent. Team and elite athletes relied more on superstitions than individual sports and amateurs. Cultural practices strongly influence superstitions, which often serve as coping mechanisms. They reduce anxiety and improve performance through placebo-like effects. However, excessive reliance on them can lead to burnout. This review confirms the enduring relevance of superstitions in sports. It emphasizes their cultural, psychological, and situational roles. The findings highlight gaps in understanding the placebo effects and long-term impacts of superstitious behaviors. Multidisciplinary research is needed to deepen insights into this complex phenomenon.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".