| Summary: | When people learn of
the outcome of an option they did not choose (the alternative outcome) before
they know their own outcome, they see an illusory negative correlation between
the two outcomes, the Alternative Omen Effect (ALOE). Why does this happen?
Here, we tested several alternative explanations and conclude that the ALOE may
derive from a pervasive belief that good luck is a limited resource. In
Experiment 1, we show that the ALOE is due to people seeing a good alternative
outcome as a bad sign regarding their outcome, relative to seeing a neutral
alternative, but find no evidence for seeing a bad alternative outcome as a
good sign. Experiment 2 confirms that the ALOE replicates across tasks, and
that the ALOE cannot be explained by preconceptions regarding outcome
distribution, including: 1) the Limited Good Hypothesis (zero-sum bias),
according to which people see the world as a zero-sum game, and assume that
resources there means fewer resources here, and/or 2) a more specific
assumption that laboratory tasks are programmed as zero-sum games. To
neutralize these potential beliefs, participants had to draw actual colored
beads from two real, distinct bags. The results of Experiment 3 were consistent
with a prediction of the Limited Luck Hypothesis: by eliminating the value of
the outcomes we eliminated the ALOE. Taken together, our results show that
either the limited good belief is so robust that it defies strong situational
evidence, or that individuals perceive good luck itself as a limited resource.
Such a limited-luck belief might have important consequences in decision making
and negotiations.
|
|---|
