Harvard Study Shows Kids Prefer Lucky to Unlucky Characters

A rather interesting Harvard study in Psychological Science suggests that children have an innate preference for lucky kids rather than unlucky children. At first blush, one’s response is, “No Kidding? That’s the kind of thing that makes me want to send my child to Stanford.” Yet, on further reflection, the experiment has rather broad implications.

The researchers showed 32 kids aged 5-7 fictional children in one of four situations: intentional good actors (a kid who helps the teacher); intentional bad actors (a brat who lies to a parent); uncontrollable good events (a child who finds $5); and uncontrollable bad events (the child whose game is rained out). Then, they asked the tikes to rate on a scale of 1 to 6 how much they liked each child.

Not surprisingly, the goody-two-shoes who helped teacher was liked most with a 5.2 average. The little liar was despised with an average of 1.7. This isn’t very much of a surprise. Where things get interesting is in the difference between the others. The kid who found five bucks got an average rating of 4.8, which the kid upon whom the rain fell got an average rating of 3.2. In other words, through no fault of his own, one kid was less attractive to the study group than someone else. A second run showed the same applied to groups.

Napoleon, it is said, was less interested in appointing a good general than a lucky one. And as any ball player knows, luck is vital on the playing field and is the one thing that cannot be practiced. And mathematicians know that no matter how improbable, the laws of statistics demand that the unlikely outcome occur at some time or another. Yet, none of this has anything to do with the person whom Fortune favors or does not. So why the difference?

It is human nature to dislike unpleasantness. Also, people who have just experienced good fortune tend to be express happiness more than those upon whom Fates have frowned, which may in turn affect the reactions of others. Further, there is superstition that misinforms us that lucky can “rub off” on others. Additionally, there is the religious nonsense that says Fortune is God-given and a mark of favor; wanting to be “in” with God is not much of a reason for liking or hating another child of the aforementioned deity.

When these children grow up, they may well change, but it is human nature not to do so without significant external influences. They will most likely become adults who dislike unlucky people, who favor the fortunate in their dealings with others. They will vote, opine on the internet, sit on juries, and go to parties with that bigotry in their hearts. They may merely shrug and move on or they may justify it by arguing that the less fortunate have brought it on themselves through laziness or some other flaw. But if this study is right, the biggest problem those who are down on their luck have isn’t their luck; it’s other people.

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home