A researcher wanted to know the attitudes of children toward those who experience misfortune. She devised an experiment to determine how children viewed unlucky people. She showed children ages 5 to 7 four pictures of other kids and described the situation of each pictured child. One child had done something good, like helping another person. The second child had done something wrong, perhaps telling a lie. The third child had experienced good fortune by finding a five–dollar bill. The fourth child had bad luck with a rained–out soccer game. After showing all four pictures, the researcher asked the children which of the pictured children they liked the most. As we might expect, they liked best the child who had helped another person. The child who had told a lie landed in fourth place, at the bottom of the heap. So far, we might like the children’s values. Third place, however, went to the kid with the bad luck. Not only did that child miss the soccer game, but the children in the experiment didn’t like that child very much. A rainstorm that only nature could control pushed them into the bottom half of the likeability scale. The rain washed away more than the game.

The researcher took the experiment in another direction. She showed children pictures of groups of kids. She labeled one group “lucky” and the other group “unlucky.” In both cases, she chose the designation arbitrarily. She only attached a label. Nothing behind the label made one group luckier than the other. She then added pictures to the two groups. Again, she added the pictures arbitrarily. The inclusion of a picture in the “lucky” group garnered a designation of “likeable” from the children in the experiment. The luck involved no more real merit than a flip of a coin might, but the children still liked the lucky kids more. We don’t know if the children thought that the luck might rub off on them, or if, even at a young age, they saw luck as deserved. Even children like winners.