摘要
本研究的目的在探討：「迷信中的理性」是否存在？怎樣的思考缺陷才是迷信的基礎？希望藉此初步釐清迷信式思考的特質。研究的具體焦點集中於探究，在與「靈異觀點」有關的思考中，「具預測力的說法」是否比「單純的事後解釋」更有說服力？實驗一讓受試者閱讀幾個可用靈異觀點來解釋的故事，然後讓他評定某一靈異觀點成立的可能性。控制組讀到的故事版本，僅有故事情節的描述；預測組的版本除該故事外，幷叙述事前有人根據某種靈異觀點，成功地預告了事態的發展；解釋組的版本除故事情節外，幷說明有人事後提出訴諸某種靈異觀點的解釋。實驗的結果顯示，在受試者的思考上，有一種「解釋效果」存在－單純的事後解釋即能擁有不低於（甚至高於）具預測力說法的說服力。實驗二用類似的方式進行實驗，以加進一個「內隱預測組」來澄清，「應驗的預言」之說服力之所以不高於事後解釋，幷不是因爲該預言被受試者視爲「自我應驗的預言」。內隱預測組的故事版本包含一個正確但不爲人知（也因此不可能有暗示效果）的預言。實驗三採用一些與「靈異觀點」無關的故事，結果顯示，「解釋效果」不僅是關於「靈異觀點」的思考之特有現象，在非關靈異的思考上也存在。
並列摘要
The purpose of the present research is to find out if there is ”rationality' in superstitious thinking and to explore the thinking deficit of superstition. The main focus of the research lies in the effect of a supernatural explanation when it is offered as ”predictive” or ”post-hoc explanation” views. In Experiment 1, the subjects read five stories and were asked to rate how likely the supernatural explanation stands as the cause of the events. The control group read the stories with mere event description. The ”predictive group” read the stories with supernatural views successfully predict the events, while the ”post-hoc explanation group” with supernatural views offered after the events occurred. The results indicated that there is Post hoc Explanation Bias in responses. That is, contrary to scientific thinking, subjects did not prefer predictions to post hoc explanations. In Experiment 2, another ”implicit predictive group” was added in order to dispel the possibility that the ”predictive views” was taken as self-fulfilling prophecy. Experiment 3 was designed to examine the explanation effect in non-supernatural thinking. The results demonstrated that the explanation effect may be a thinking deficit for most people which makes superstitious thinking inevitable.