Short answer: one study reported an effect, but replications did not confirm it
Kind of knowledge: UnprovenNot enough evidence. Someone has claimed it, but no source or study is strong enough to confirm it. The five labelsIf you have heard that "carrying a lucky charm helps you do better," that claim comes from a 2010 study by Lysann Damisch and colleagues, which reported that activating belief in luck improved performance on some tasks. However, when other researchers replicated the experiment with larger samples, they found no such effect. This is not a story about whether lucky charms are "sacred" or not, but about how science tests a claim: a single result, however appealing, still needs replication before it is believed.
This article walks through the original experiment, the failed replication, the broader context of the replication crisis in psychology, and a few practical suggestions for users of lucky objects.
The "lucky golf ball" experiment by Damisch in 2010
Kind of knowledge: UnprovenNot enough evidence. Someone has claimed it, but no source or study is strong enough to confirm it. The five labelsIn 2010, Lysann Damisch and colleagues published a series of experiments in the journal Psychological Science, in which they activated belief in luck in participants through very simple means, such as telling them "this ball is a lucky ball" before they played golf. The reported results showed that the group told they had a lucky ball sank more putts than the control group.
The mechanism proposed by the authors was that belief in luck increases feelings of confidence and control, which in turn improves performance. This is a plausible hypothesis: if you believe you have an advantage, you may try harder, focus more, or worry less. Notably, this effect, if it exists, does not come from the object itself but from the psychological state the object evokes.
Kind of knowledge: UnprovenNot enough evidence. Someone has claimed it, but no source or study is strong enough to confirm it. The five labelsHowever, this is a result reported in a single study. Under the hierarchy of evidence, this is level B: someone has proposed it and there is initial data, but it has not been independently replicated. In other words, this result needs to be checked again before it can be considered solid.
The 2014 replication by Calin-Jageman and Caldwell
Kind of knowledge: UnprovenNot enough evidence. Someone has claimed it, but no source or study is strong enough to confirm it. The five labelsIn 2014, Robert J. Calin-Jageman and Tracy L. Caldwell published a replication study in the journal Social Psychology. They ran the experiment with a much larger sample than the original study, and the results showed that the group given the lucky ball performed no differently from the control group. In other words, the effect Damisch reported in 2010 did not appear in this replication.
This is an important result because it comes from an independent research group, with a procedure designed to test exactly the reported effect. When an effect fails to replicate, caution is warranted: either the original effect was a chance result, or it holds only under very specific conditions that the replication did not reproduce. Whatever the reason, the practical conclusion is: there is no solid evidence that carrying a lucky charm improves performance.
Why do many appealing psychological effects fail to replicate?
This phenomenon is not limited to lucky charms. From around 2015 onward, many areas of psychology have gone through what is often called the "replication crisis": a series of famous, heavily cited experiments failed to replicate when other groups reran them with larger samples and stricter procedures.
Kind of knowledge: UnprovenNot enough evidence. Someone has claimed it, but no source or study is strong enough to confirm it. The five labelsMichiel van Elk and Paul Lodder published in 2018 in the journal Collabra: Psychology a series of seven experiments testing the link between sense of control and perception of patterns, including belief in luck. The results showed no significant effects, and a meta-analysis indicated signs of publication bias: studies with positive results are more likely to be published, while studies finding nothing often stay in the file drawer.
This explains why an apparently appealing effect may not exist in reality. When only "pretty" results get published, the overall picture is distorted: we see more supporting evidence than actually exists. Failed replications, when carried out and published, help correct that picture.
Distinguishing positive and negative superstition: a point to note
Richard Wiseman and Caroline Watt published in 2004 in the journal Personality and Individual Differences a study on how superstition is measured. They pointed out that most previous scales focused only on negative superstition, such as fear of walking under a ladder or fear of the number 13, while ignoring positive superstition such as carrying a lucky charm or knocking on wood.
Wiseman and Watt conducted two studies: one with 4,339 people via the internet and one with 116 people via mail. The results showed that positive and negative superstition correlate differently with psychological traits such as gender and life satisfaction. This suggests that the two types of superstition may serve different psychological functions, and lumping them into a single scale may obscure important differences.
For the question in this article, the takeaway is: when we talk about "lucky charms," we are talking about a form of positive superstition, and it may operate differently from fear of bad luck. Measuring them separately is necessary to understand the phenomenon correctly.
Summary table of key studies
| Study | Year | Data scope | Main result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damisch et al. | 2010 | Participants in Germany, golf experiment | Reported that a lucky ball improved performance |
| Calin-Jageman and Caldwell | 2014 | Larger sample, replication of golf experiment | Found no difference between the lucky ball group and the control group |
| van Elk and Lodder | 2018 | Seven experiments, testing the effect of sense of control on pattern perception | No significant effects; meta-analysis indicated publication bias |
| Wiseman and Watt | 2004 | 4,339 people (study 1) and 116 people (study 2) | Positive and negative superstition need separate measurement |
Nhat Nguyet's suggestion: sentimental and aesthetic value are real, the promise of increased luck is not yet evidenced
If you are considering buying a feng shui stone or a lucky object, there are a few things worth distinguishing clearly. The aesthetic value of a beautiful stone is real: it can make you feel good when you look at it, and that pleasant feeling is a valid psychological experience. Sentimental value is the same: an object tied to memories or loved ones can carry important spiritual meaning, and that does not need science to prove it matters to you.
What lacks solid evidence is the promise that the object will improve your performance, luck, or destiny. Existing studies show that the reported effect has not replicated, and broader experiments on belief in luck also found no significant effects. If you choose to carry an object because it is beautiful, because it evokes memories, or because it helps you feel more confident, that is a perfectly reasonable personal choice. Just distinguish between "I like it" and "it will definitely change outcomes."
Kind of knowledge: UnprovenNot enough evidence. Someone has claimed it, but no source or study is strong enough to confirm it. The five labelsOne point to state clearly: no research has been conducted on Vietnamese people regarding the effect of feng shui objects sold in Vietnam on performance or luck. Existing results come from other countries, mainly Western ones, and should not be automatically extrapolated to the Vietnamese context without local data.
If you want to learn more about how to choose feng shui stones according to traditional beliefs, you can read the article What is feng shui stone? How to choose stones that match your destiny and age. That article presents beliefs about destiny and age compatibility according to the five elements, while this article focuses on the scientific question: does carrying a lucky object actually improve performance.
Conclusion: a single study is not enough
The story of lucky charms and performance is a clear example of an important principle in science: a single result, even if published in a prestigious journal and however appealing, is not enough to conclude. Science advances through replication, cross-checking, and publishing failed results as well. When an effect fails to replicate, that is not a failure of science but how science corrects itself.
For users of lucky objects, this does not mean you should give them up. It only means: be clear-headed about what they can and cannot do. A beautiful stone can make you happy. A keepsake can remind you of loved ones. But if someone promises it will guarantee luck or success, that promise does not have solid scientific evidence behind it.
