Exploring the psychology of luck

Thoughts from a recent podcast episode in which we discuss our work on attitudes to luck, including in relation to the climate crisis

Photo by kiki Wang on Unsplash

How do people explain inequalities in life outcomes, and what does this mean for their support for more progressive social and economic policies? 

We set out to explore this question in April, in our Rotten Luck report. Our polling looked at people’s beliefs about the role played by external factors (such as luck) versus internal factors (such as merit) in determining life outcomes.

The report argued that the British public might be underestimating the role of external factors, and placing greater emphasis on internal factors, such as traits, abilities, and effort. This bias would be consistent with a belief in meritocracy and a just world: success is achieved through effort, and people get what they deserve. 

Previous research on people’s beliefs about the causes of poverty suggests that, if we explain inequalities through internal rather than external factors, we tend to be less likely to support policies that would reduce these inequalities. Drawing on attribution theory and research, this work demonstrates that people typically focus on two dimensions when explaining the causes of poverty:

1. The locus of the cause, i.e. whether it is internal (e.g. traits, dispositions, effort) or external to the individual (e.g. situational or environmental factors, and luck)

2. Controllability, i.e. whether or not the individual is able to exert any influence over the outcome

Research suggests that when people attribute the cause of poverty to factors internal to the individual and within their control, they are more likely to hold them responsible for their lot in life. This tends to make people less likely to support policies to alleviate poverty and economic inequalities. In contrast, people that consider external and uncontrollable factors, such as luck or policy choices, as determinants of poverty may be more inclined to support efforts to tackle poverty and inequality, because inequalities caused by factors beyond the individual’s control are perceived as less fair or deserved. 

Our own polling for the Rotten Luck report found that:

• A majority of respondents think they have been affected by bad luck; only one in ten say they have had good luck

• More people say that luck has had a small impact on their life than say that it has had a large impact on their life

• People think physical health and education are within their control, but mental health is outside their control

• People are more likely to associate issues like talent, education, family wealth and productivity with merit than with luck

• More than twice as many think we need to do more to reduce the impact of luck on people’s lives than think we have  gone too far

We discussed these findings in more depth in a recent episode of Your Brain on Climate, a podcast hosted by Dave Powell. Dave is also Senior Advocacy Manager at Climate Outreach, a charity based in the UK that aims to facilitate public engagement with climate change.

You can listen to the podcast episode here, and here’s a short extract:

Dave also asked us to consider the role of luck in people’s beliefs about climate change: how does luck impact how we conceive of climate change as a concept, and how does it influence the policies that we design to manage and mitigate its impacts? 

Luck certainly has a role in shaping how we think about climate change. We do not choose where in the world we are born, into what bodies, or at what stage of the climate crisis we exist in, for example. These are all determined by factors beyond our control. However, they all have clear impacts on how exposed or vulnerable we are, and on how aware we are of the impacts of climate change, and subsequently on how we perceive climate change as a threat.

Interestingly, however, the notion of ‘luck’ itself plays little role in explaining the causes of climate change. People in the UK increasingly accept the anthropogenic nature of climate change, which has been shown to be one of the strongest predictors of risk perception, and to be positively related to support for climate action. As with poverty, beliefs about the cause of climate change influence whom we hold to account for managing its potential harms to both people and planet.

Considering the compounding effects of social and ecological degradation, as well as concerns about a fair transition, ensuring that the public understands the source of the problem, where the problem lies, its impacts, and what can be done by all of us to tackle these intersecting issues is pivotal to our collective ability to protect our societal wellbeing, both now and in the future.