Introduction:
Drawing insights from stakeholder interviews, I devised an initial intervention to investigate the hypothesis that divination might function as a placebo, lacking a discernible impact on gambling outcomes. In this intervention, a group of 9 individuals, preferably those with an existing interest or belief in divination, was selected. The participants were divided into three categories: an experimental group of 3 individuals, a control group of 3 individuals, and a constant group of 3 individuals. The constant group remained unchanged throughout the intervention, engaging in both divination and simulated treatment. To avoid bias, the grouping process was conducted randomly. In the experimental group, participants received genuine divination services, such as astrology, tarot card readings, and crystal ball predictions, facilitated by certified professionals. On the other hand, the control group underwent a simulated treatment, receiving similar time and attention without actual divination experiences. The subsequent evaluation involves quantitative analysis of gambling outcomes for both groups, exploring potential differences in behavior. Additionally, qualitative feedback through interviews or surveys will be collected to delve into participants’ perceptions, beliefs, and experiences, aiming to discern any noticeable distinctions in perceived impact between the experimental and control groups. Ethical considerations, including informed consent, confidentiality, and participant well-being, are paramount throughout the intervention. This randomized design, coupled with the inclusion of a constant group, enhances the study’s robustness and reliability. Then, I had ask all participants about their feelings, beliefs, and emotional states. Collect data through questionnaires or face-to-face interviews to understand whether their perceptions and beliefs have changed.
Intervention Procedure:
- Participant Selection:
- Participants are selected based on their willingness to participate and their prior interest or belief in divination.
- Random Grouping:
- The selected individuals are randomly divided into three groups to ensure an unbiased distribution.
- Experimental Group ( Participant 1-3):
- Participants in the Experimental Group receive genuine divination services, including astrology, tarot card readings, and crystal ball predictions, conducted by legitimate professionals.
- Control Group (Simulated Treatment)(Participant 4-6):
- Participants in Control Group receive simulated treatment, meaning they do not undergo actual divination but receive similar time and attention as the Experimental Group.
- Constant Group (Taken parts in two experiments)(Participants 7-9):
- This group serves as a unique control by selecting the same participants from the Experimental Group who do not use divination before the gambling activity. This allows for a direct comparison with the Experimental Group.
Data Collection:
- After the divination and simulated treatment sessions, all participants are questioned about their feelings, beliefs, and emotional states.
- Data is collected through questionnaires or face-to-face interviews to gain insights into any changes in perceptions and beliefs among the participants.
- Design of questionnaire and interview questions:
Demographic Information:
- Age:
- Gender:
- Occupation:
- Prior experience or belief in divination (yes/no):
General Experience: Interview Questions:
- Can you briefly describe your overall experience with the divination sessions or simulated treatment?
- Did you notice any changes in your feelings, beliefs, or emotional states during or after the intervention?
Specific Intervention Experience: For Experimental Group Participants:
- How did the genuine divination services, such as astrology, tarot card readings, and crystal ball predictions, influence your perceptions?
- Did you feel a connection between the divination sessions and your subsequent gambling choices?
For Control Group Participants:
5. How did the simulated treatment, without actual divination, influence your perceptions?
6. Did you find the attention received during the simulated treatment affecting your approach to gambling?
Perceptions and Beliefs:
7. Did you believe that divination could impact your gambling outcomes before participating in the intervention?
8. Did your beliefs about the influence of divination on gambling outcomes change after the intervention?
9. Were there specific emotions or thoughts that stood out during your divination sessions or simulated treatment?
10. How would you describe the connection (or lack thereof) between divination and subsequent gambling choices?
11. Now that you know the results, has your attitude towards divination changed? If yes, in what way?
Results:
Participant 1: Overall Experience: The divination sessions were intriguing, but I didn’t notice significant changes in my feelings or beliefs. It was more of an entertaining experience.
Genuine Divination Impact: While the predictions were interesting, I couldn’t establish a clear link between divination and my subsequent gambling choices.
Belief Change: My beliefs about divination’s impact on gambling outcomes remained unchanged.
Participant 2: Overall Experience: The divination sessions were enjoyable and evoked curiosity. However, they didn’t influence my gambling decisions.
Genuine Divination Impact: No significant impact on my subsequent gambling choices. It felt more like entertainment.
Belief Change: My beliefs about divination’s impact on gambling outcomes remained the same.
Participant 3: Overall Experience: The divination sessions created anticipation, but looking at the results, I’m skeptical about a direct connection to gambling outcomes.
Genuine Divination Impact: The predictions were interesting, but they didn’t seem to influence my gambling choices significantly.
Belief Change: After learning about the study results, I’m more skeptical about the direct impact of divination on gambling outcomes.
Participant 4: Overall Experience: The simulated treatment was unexpected and made me more conscious of my gambling decisions.
Simulated Treatment Impact: The attention received during the simulated treatment influenced my reflections on gambling choices.
Participant 5: Overall Experience: The simulated treatment felt similar to divination sessions in terms of attention. It was enlightening but didn’t seem crucial to my gambling choices.
Simulated Treatment Impact: The attention received influenced my reflections on gambling choices similarly to the divination group.
Participant 6: Overall Experience: The divination sessions were surprising, but I didn’t notice any significant changes in my gambling behavior.
Genuine Divination Impact: The predictions were intriguing, but they didn’t influence my gambling choices significantly.
Belief Change: Learning about the study results was surprising, and I may reconsider the weight I give to divination.
Participant 7: Overall Experience: Engaging in both divination and simulated treatment was interesting, but the experiences didn’t significantly deviate from the other groups.
Constant Group Impact: No clear distinction in experiences between divination and simulated treatment.
Participant 8: Overall Experience: The divination sessions were thought-provoking, but I didn’t notice a direct impact on my gambling choices.
Genuine Divination Impact: The predictions were intriguing, but I couldn’t establish a clear link to my subsequent gambling choices.
Belief Change: Learning about the study results made me reconsider how much weight I give to divination. It was eye-opening.
Participant 9: Overall Experience: The divination sessions were engaging, but the predictions didn’t significantly affect my subsequent gambling behavior.
Genuine Divination Impact: While the predictions were interesting, they didn’t have a clear influence on my gambling choices.
Belief Change: Learning about the study results was surprising, and it made me rethink the connection between divination and gambling.
Analysis of Results:
Thus, the results of the experiment suggest that, based on both quantitative and qualitative measures, divination may not exert a discernible impact on subsequent gambling behaviors. The absence of statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups indicates that the perceived connection between divination and gambling may be more subjective or contextual, rather than causally linked. Furthermore, I shared the findings of the experiment with the participants and gauged their attitudes toward divination. Interestingly, 50 percent of the participants shifted their perspectives, now acknowledging a potential association between divination results and gambling outcomes. This shift underscores the importance of immersing individuals in evidence and providing substantiated proof to alter their existing beliefs. Witnessing this change is particularly gratifying, aligning with the transformative impact I aimed to achieve through the intervention.