本研究探討員工在面對不確定與壓力情境下，透過迷信信念來建立心理控制感，進而
影響其創新行為與職場焦慮的現象。透過控制感理論為理論基礎，將迷信信念區分為主動
型（Proactive Superstition）與被動型（Negative Superstition）兩種類型，並以混合方法設
計進行實證驗證。 量化部分蒐集176份來自知識密集型產業員工的問卷資料， 質性部分則透
過6位職場中高階人士的訪談補充分析。
研究結果顯示，主動型迷信與創新行為及職場焦慮皆呈顯著正相關，顯示主動迷信可
同時作為心理支持與焦慮來源；被動型迷信亦與上述變項呈正相關，但其影響力皆低於主
動型迷信。質性資料則指出，儀式化行為在短期內能穩定情緒，但長期依賴可能反造成心
理耗損。
理論上，本研究首先將迷信納入組織與管理研究脈絡，補足華人職場中此一現象的理
論空白；其次，細緻區分主動與被動迷信信念，提供更具辨識力的心理行為模型；最後，
修正傳統控制感理論對其穩定正向效果的假設，提出控制感具有心理成本，應視其來源與
持續性而定。實務上，本研究結果有助於理解員工非理性行為背後的心理邏輯，並為職場
心理支持機制提供更多人性化思考。

This study explores how employees utilize superstitious beliefs to construct a sense of
psychological control in the face of uncertainty and stress, and how this process influences both
innovative behavior and workplace anxiety. Drawing on control theory, the study distinguishes
between two types of superstition: proactive superstition and negative superstition. A
mixed-methods approach was adopted, combining quantitative data from 176 employees in
knowledge-intensive industries with qualitative insights from interviews with six mid- to
senior-level professionals.
The findings reveal that proactive superstition is significantly and positively associated with
both innovative behavior and workplace anxiety. This suggests that while proactive superstition
may serve as a psychological resource, it also imposes emotional costs. Negative superstition
exhibits similar patterns but with weaker effects. Qualitative data further indicate that while
ritualized behaviors may stabilize emotions in the short term, long-term reliance may lead to
psychological depletion.
Theoretically, this study contributes by (1) introducing superstition into organizational and
management research, particularly in the Chinese workplace context; (2) offering a nuanced
psychological model by distinguishing between proactive and negative superstition; and (3)
challenging the assumption in traditional control theory that perceived control is inherently
beneficial, arguing instead that control may entail psychological costs depending on its source
and sustainability. Practically, the findings offer insights into the underlying logic of employees’
non-rational behaviors and inform the development of more human-centered workplace support
systems.