The Luck Factor: Richard Wiseman's Four Behaviours, Twenty Years Later

Imagine you have been handed a newspaper. The task, given by a man with a clipboard and a mild Hertfordshire accent, is to count the photographs inside it. There are a lot. You begin at page one and move methodically through. Three minutes later you hand it back with a number. He asks whether you noticed anything unusual. You look at him blankly. He opens the newspaper to page two and shows you, in half-page type, an instruction you had been looking at without seeing: Stop counting. There are 43 photographs in this newspaper.

And then, a few pages deeper, another: Tell the experimenter you have seen this and win £250.

You missed them both.

You are, statistically, likely to be one of the subjects Richard Wiseman classified as unlucky. The ones he classified as lucky — those who, before the experiment, had described themselves as people for whom life tended to go well — reliably noticed one or both of the messages. They stopped counting. They won the £250. They were not more intelligent than you, not better read, not more educated, not more attentive in the narrow sense. They simply held the assigned task loosely enough to notice what was not on the list.

This is what Wiseman's decade of research, now two decades in the rear-view mirror, is really about. It is a patient, careful demonstration that the people we call lucky are behaving differently in specifiable ways, and that those behaviours can be taught. The newspaper experiment is the most quotable result, but it is a single point on a much larger graph. What follows is an attempt to describe that graph honestly — what Wiseman found, what has stood up to time, what has not, and what a reasonable person should take from it in 2026.

Who Wiseman is, and what he was actually testing

A note on the man first, because it matters for how you read the data.

Richard Wiseman is Professor of the Public Understanding of Psychology at the University of Hertfordshire — a chair specifically created, in part, to host his work. Before the luck research, he was best known as a sceptic: a former magician (member of the Magic Circle) who spent the 1990s investigating paranormal claims — telepathy, mediumship, remote viewing, precognition — and patiently showing, in study after study, that the effects were artefacts of chance, motivated cognition, poor experimental design, or outright fraud.¹ He was not, and is not, a soft touch for the mystical. This is worth knowing because it means the luck work was not written by someone who wanted luck to be real.

What he actually tested, across the decade between roughly 1993 and 2003, was whether people's self-reports about their own luck had any predictive validity. He advertised in The Daily Telegraph for people who considered themselves exceptionally lucky or exceptionally unlucky. About four hundred replied. He did not ask whether they believed in luck, or astrology, or fate; he asked whether, looking back across their lives, they felt that things had tended to go well or badly for them. He then took their word for it and started measuring.

The measurements included extensive structured interviews, personality assessments, diary studies, controlled laboratory tasks (the newspaper test among them), and — in the later phase of the research — an intervention: a month-long "luck school" in which self-identified unlucky people were taught the behaviours the lucky people displayed, after which their self-reports and outcomes were measured again.²

Let us be precise about what this was and was not. It was not a randomised controlled trial in the clinical sense; there was no placebo arm, no double-blinding (which would be structurally impossible for this sort of behavioural intervention), no pre-registered analysis plan of the kind now standard in psychology. It was, however, a decade-long programme of mixed-methods research with a large self-selected sample and a reasonable combination of self-report, behavioural measurement, and intervention. For a question of this scale and subtlety, it remains the most serious empirical treatment anyone has attempted.

From the full dataset, four behavioural principles emerged with enough robustness to be worth naming. We take them one at a time.

Principle one — Maximise chance opportunities

Lucky people behaved in ways that systematically multiplied the number of useful encounters in their week. They had broader social networks. They went to more unfamiliar places. They talked to more strangers. They held their agendas loosely enough to let the unexpected enter.

The newspaper experiment is an attentional miniature of this principle: a wide aperture catches what a narrow one cannot. But Wiseman's subjects displayed the same pattern at population scale. In one study, he asked lucky and unlucky people to describe their weekly routines; the unlucky people's weeks were more tightly scripted, the lucky people's weeks contained more buffer — more openness to the unplanned. In another, subjects were asked to attend a coffee shop and told simply that "something interesting might happen." Wiseman had arranged, in advance, several possible opportunities: a note on a chair, an accessible stranger, a £5 note on the pavement outside. Lucky subjects picked up the money, noticed the note, struck up the conversation. Unlucky subjects tended to walk past, sit down without looking, and report afterwards that nothing interesting had occurred.³

The mechanism, stripped of its self-report wrapping, is this: opportunities do not arrive labelled. They arrive as noise, and attention characterises them as signal. A wider aperture catches more signal. A tighter one filters it out.

This is the principle where the evidence is probably strongest. The attentional-breadth effect has been replicated in smaller studies; it connects cleanly to a much larger literature on attention and perception (inattentional blindness, Simons and Chabris's invisible gorilla, the various studies showing that goals shape what the eye registers); and it aligns with what the broader social-network research has been saying for fifty years. Mark Granovetter's 1973 paper on the "strength of weak ties" — still the most-cited paper in sociology — established that most useful new information reaches people through acquaintances rather than close friends.⁴ Wiseman's lucky subjects, who had systematically broader and looser networks, were simply the people Granovetter would have predicted would do well.

Principle two — Listen to intuition

Lucky people trusted their hunches more, and — critically — practised habits that sharpened them.

This is the principle most vulnerable to misreading, so we want to be careful. Wiseman was not claiming that lucky people had supernatural access to the future, or that gut feelings are always right. The claim is narrower and more interesting. Intuition, in the cognitive-science sense, is the output of rapid pattern-matching by the non-verbal parts of the nervous system. It draws on an enormous reservoir of stored regularities — faces, situations, tones, postures — that the conscious mind cannot articulate but the organism has nonetheless learned. Daniel Kahneman's later work on what he called System 1 covers much the same ground.⁵ The question is when to trust it.

Wiseman's lucky subjects reported two things that turned out to be important. First, they trusted their intuitions more often in domains where they had substantial experience (people, situations, rough estimates of probability) and less in domains where they did not (technical decisions, financial instruments they did not understand). Second, they actively practised habits that created the mental conditions under which intuition could speak: meditation, walking, sitting quietly with a question, sleeping on decisions. They did not rush their gut; they gave it time to arrive.

Unlucky subjects did the opposite. They often overrode their first instincts with what they believed they should do, based on expectation, obligation, or anxiety. Or they made decisions quickly under pressure, without the quiet interval in which pattern-matching actually completes.

The broader literature on expert intuition has largely borne out Wiseman's framing. Intuition is reliable in domains where the environment is sufficiently regular for patterns to exist and the decision-maker has had enough feedback-rich experience to have learned them. Under those conditions, gut feelings can outperform deliberation. Outside them, they are roughly as bad as coin-flipping.⁶

The practical takeaway: intuition is trainable, not magical. And its trainability depends on the same meditative practices — attention to the body, quiet before decisions — that most of the older contemplative traditions have recommended for millennia.

Principle three — Expect good fortune

Lucky people carried, as a kind of standing assumption, that things would tend to work out.

This is the principle that comes closest to positive-thinking literature, and it is the one where the most honest hedging is needed. Wiseman was not claiming that optimism causes good events in some mystical sense, or that you can manifest outcomes by believing in them. He was claiming something more modest and more defensible: that calibrated positive expectation shapes behaviour in ways that, over time, produce better outcomes.

The mechanisms are well-documented. People who expect good fortune persist longer on difficult tasks (the effort literature), approach more situations they might have avoided (the approach/avoidance literature), ask for help more readily (the help-seeking literature), and signal trustworthiness to others in subtle embodied ways that others respond to (the social-signalling literature). Each of these is individually small. Cumulatively, across a life, they compound. A person who expects to be helped asks more often, and is therefore helped more often, which confirms the expectation, which leads to asking again. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the strict sociological sense.⁷

Wiseman measured it. Lucky and unlucky subjects were given identical descriptions of a hypothetical situation — say, applying for a job for which they were moderately qualified — and asked to rate the likelihood that they would get it. Lucky subjects rated the likelihood higher. They were not more qualified. They were simply expecting good fortune, and their expectation, under real conditions, would have shaped how they prepared, approached, and presented themselves.

The honest caveat is this: this principle shades most easily into the kind of magical thinking we are at pains to avoid. Calibrated optimism is useful; uncalibrated optimism — the conviction that wishing will do the work — is harmful. The distinction lies in whether the expectation is coupled to effort and responsive to feedback. Wiseman's lucky people expected good fortune and worked. They did not expect good fortune instead of working.

Principle four — Turn bad luck to good

This is the fourth behaviour, and in some ways the most important, because it determines what a setback actually costs you.

Wiseman presented lucky and unlucky subjects with the same hypothetical misfortune — being shot in the arm during a bank robbery, for instance — and asked them to narrate the event. Lucky subjects tended to produce rapid counterfactual reframes: it could have been worse; I could have been shot in the head; I'll probably get a compensation settlement; at least I have a dramatic story. Unlucky subjects tended to ruminate: this sort of thing always happens to me; I should have known; my whole week is ruined. The event, in both cases, was identical. The meaning they extracted from it was not.⁸

What Wiseman was measuring, without using the term, is what the Stoics called amor fati — the practised disposition of affirming what has happened because it has happened, and working with it rather than against. This is the fourth principle where the empirical research and the older traditions line up most cleanly. We have written at length on the tradition-side of it in Amor Fati: The Stoic Phrase That Turns Bad Luck Into Good; the short version is that the Stoics were describing, in the second century, a cognitive-behavioural technique that now has considerable modern empirical support. The acceptance-based therapies (ACT, MBCT) have accumulated substantial evidence that the capacity to reframe adverse events without denial is strongly predictive of psychological and, by extension, life outcomes.⁹

The mechanism is not "positive thinking." It is cognitive flexibility: the ability to hold multiple true descriptions of an event simultaneously and to foreground the one that permits useful action. I was shot in the arm is true. I was shot only in the arm is also true. I have an unexpected three weeks off work in which to finish my book is also true. The lucky subjects had a wider repertoire of true descriptions to draw on, and they defaulted to the ones that kept them moving.

What has replicated, and what has not

Two decades on, it is worth asking honestly what has held up.

The attentional-aperture finding — the newspaper effect and its relatives — has replicated well. It connects to a broad and robust literature on goal-directed attention, inattentional blindness, and breadth-versus-depth trade-offs. If anything, the evidence base is stronger now than it was in 2003.

The social-network finding — that lucky people build and maintain broader weak-tie networks — has been corroborated by two decades of network science since Granovetter, including large-scale digital-trace studies using LinkedIn data which have shown that weak ties are disproportionately important for job outcomes.¹⁰ This is probably the single best-replicated component of Wiseman's framework, though most of the work has been done under other names.

The cognitive-reframing finding — the fourth behaviour — has been absorbed into the mainstream of clinical psychology under the umbrella of cognitive-behavioural and acceptance-based therapies. It is one of the better-validated ideas in the discipline.

The "luck school" result — that a one-month intervention produced 80% self-reported improvement — is where we would counsel the most caution. The effect size is real; smaller follow-up studies have reproduced the direction of the effect; but the original study was not a clinical trial, the self-report confound is obvious, and no-one has attempted the definitive randomised replication. Treat the specific 80% figure as suggestive, and treat the broader claim — that the behaviours are trainable and training them improves outcomes — as well-supported but not nailed down.

The weakest link in the framework is probably the intuition principle, largely because "intuition" is an elastic concept and the boundary between trained pattern-matching and projection is hard to police empirically. Wiseman's framing here is defensible but less tight than his attention or reframing work.

On balance, the framework has aged well. It is not magic, it is not fashion, and the core claim — that a specifiable set of behaviours distinguishes lucky from unlucky people and that the behaviours can be taught — remains one of the better-supported non-trivial findings in positive psychology.

What the traditions said first

Wiseman did not set out to confirm any wisdom tradition. He appears to have been mildly surprised, in later interviews, at how closely his four principles map onto things the Stoics, Taoists, and Buddhists had been saying for two thousand years. We have written the long version of that convergence elsewhere: How to Be Luckier: The Science and the Twelve Traditions Agree. The short version is that the attention principle tracks Taoist wu wei and Buddhist sati; the intuition principle tracks the contemplative traditions' near-universal emphasis on stillness before decision; the positive-expectation principle tracks what the Sufis called ḥusn al-ẓann (good opinion of one's circumstance); and the reframing principle tracks Stoic amor fati almost exactly.

That an independent, sceptical, controlled study in Hertfordshire arrived at the same four points that eleven unrelated contemplative traditions had already identified is either a remarkable coincidence or evidence that the traditions were tracking something real.

We think it is the second.

Four exercises, one per behaviour

You did not come here for exercises, but it would be an incomplete essay if we did not offer them. One per principle, drawn from the intersection of what Wiseman recommends and what the traditions recommend for the same thing.

For maximising chance opportunities: once a week, adopt for a single day the rule that you will say yes to any low-cost invitation or suggestion that crosses your path, unless you have a specific reason to decline. Someone suggests a coffee you had not planned. A stranger asks a question. A friend of a friend is in town. Say yes. Note at the end of the day what happened.

For listening to intuition: before any decision of consequence, take a ten-minute walk alone. No phone. Carry the question with you but do not try to solve it. Let it sit. At the end of the walk, write down — in three sentences — what your gut is saying. Then decide. You will find, with practice, that the walk produces different answers than the desk.

For expecting good fortune: for a single week, begin each morning by writing one sentence describing something good you expect to happen that day. At the end of the day, write one sentence describing whether it did, or what happened in its place. Do not score this. The practice is the noticing.

For turning bad luck to good: each evening, identify one thing from the day that did not go as you wanted. Write it out in two paragraphs. The first paragraph describes what happened and how you felt. The second, writing as if from five years in the future, describes what that event turned out to be useful for. You are not required to believe the second paragraph. You are required to write it.

None of these exercises is novel. Wiseman recommends versions of all four. The traditions recommend versions of all four. They have the advantage of being short, unglamorous, and, if you do them, actually effective.

---

When you are ready, Begin Your Reading — it is free. Three minutes, and you will know which of the four behaviours above is, for you specifically, the one most worth working on first.

---

References

Footnotes

1. For a representative sample of Wiseman's earlier sceptical work, see Wiseman, R. and Smith, M. D. "Can Animals Detect When Their Owners Are Returning Home? An Experimental Test of the 'Psychic Pet' Phenomenon." British Journal of Psychology 89 (1998): 453–462; and Wiseman, R. Paranormality: Why We See What Isn't There. London: Macmillan, 2011. ↩

2. Wiseman, R. The Luck Factor: The Scientific Study of the Lucky Mind. London: Century, 2003. The research programme is summarised in chapters 1 and 6; the four principles are introduced on p. 2 and developed throughout. See also Wiseman, R. "The Luck Factor." Skeptical Inquirer 27, no. 3 (2003): 26–30, a shorter version for a sceptical readership. ↩

3. Wiseman, The Luck Factor, pp. 43–55. The "coffee-shop" scene as we present it here is a composite of several experimental and anecdotal elements Wiseman describes (the note on a chair, the approachable stranger, the £5 note on the pavement); we are summarising rather than quoting, and the specific framing as a single protocol is ours. ↩

4. Granovetter, M. "The Strength of Weak Ties." American Journal of Sociology 78, no. 6 (1973): 1360–1380. Granovetter, M. "The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited." Sociological Theory 1 (1983): 201–233 is the author's own review of the first decade of follow-up work. ↩

5. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011, esp. chs. 21–22 on expert intuition. ↩

6. The authoritative treatment is Kahneman, D. and Klein, G. "Conditions for Intuitive Expertise: A Failure to Disagree." American Psychologist 64, no. 6 (2009): 515–526. The paper is notable for being a joint treatment by two researchers who had previously disagreed publicly on the reliability of expert intuition. ↩

7. The classic formulation is Merton, R. K. "The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy." The Antioch Review 8, no. 2 (1948): 193–210. For a modern review of positive-expectation effects see Rosenthal, R. and Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils' Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968; and the subsequent meta-analytic literature on expectancy effects. ↩

8. Wiseman, The Luck Factor, pp. 123–145. The "shot in the arm" hypothetical is Wiseman's own; similar vignette-based methods have been used widely in the emotion-regulation literature. ↩

9. For the empirical evidence base on acceptance and commitment therapy, see Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., and Lillis, J. "Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: Model, Processes and Outcomes." Behaviour Research and Therapy 44, no. 1 (2006): 1–25. For cognitive reframing more broadly, the meta-analytic literature on cognitive-behavioural therapy is now enormous; a useful entry point is Hofmann, S. G. et al. "The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses." Cognitive Therapy and Research 36 (2012): 427–440. ↩

10. Rajkumar, K., Saint-Jacques, G., Bojinov, I., Brynjolfsson, E., and Aral, S. "A Causal Test of the Strength of Weak Ties." Science 377, no. 6612 (2022): 1304–1310. This is the large-scale LinkedIn study (over 20 million users) which provided the first causal rather than correlational evidence for Granovetter's original claim. ↩