Success may come down to luck more than merit, research suggests

ITHACA, N.Y. — Life is full of chance events that shape our futures, but how much does luck really matter? According to new research from Cornell University, early life chance events, or “contingency” as scientists call it, can create lasting differences in success, especially in competitive environments.

Using a mouse model, the study reveals how early experiences can set individuals on dramatically different life paths. By studying a special strain of laboratory mice called C57BL/6J, which are genetically identical — think of them as natural clones — researchers discovered that competition among males amplifies the effects of early chance events, creating a feedback loop that pushes some individuals toward success while others fall behind.

Researchers at Cornell University’s Department of Neurobiology and Behavior conducted their experiment using 104 baby mice (with 90 surviving to adulthood) from 16 different litters, tracking their development from infancy through adulthood in a large outdoor enclosure that mimicked their natural environment.

The study, published in Science, demonstrates what scientists call the “Matthew effect” — a phenomenon where individuals or institutions that achieve early success tend to achieve ever greater success in the future. While this effect has been well-documented in human society in areas like academic achievement or professional success, this study reveals how similar patterns emerge in the animal kingdom through basic competitive behaviors.

“Our results suggest that the Matthew effect (i) may have a biological origin, (ii) is especially likely to occur in highly competitive environments or among groups that face high levels of competition, and (iii) may emerge even in the absence of any variation in underlying individual quality or ability,” the paper explains. “In populations of humans and nonhuman animals, the additional amplifying impacts of competition and contingency exist against the backdrop of unequal starting position and likely magnify early inequalities that result from structural or environmental adversity or advantage.”

Male mice compete intensely for territory and resources, while females generally don’t. This key difference allowed researchers to compare how competition affects development between the sexes. They found that male mice who gained small early advantages in competitive interactions went on to secure better access to resources, which in turn improved their physical condition and made them more likely to win future competitions.

Picture it like a sports league where early wins give teams better draft picks and more funding, making them even more likely to win future games. These self-reinforcing cycles create lasting advantages from initial lucky breaks.

Female mice, who faced less competition for resources, showed more consistent development paths regardless of early experiences. This striking difference between males and females suggests that competition itself amplifies the importance of early chance events.

The researchers note that “unpredictable, uncontrollable experiences” can generate significant differences in outcomes even when differences in underlying quality or talent are minimal or nonexistent. This finding has profound implications for understanding how social competition can magnify small initial differences into large outcome disparities.

The study also points to an interesting paradox in sexual selection – the evolutionary process where competition for mates drives the development of certain traits. While this competition is supposed to select for the “best” individuals, the study suggests it may actually be self-limiting. As competition increases, luck becomes more important in determining outcomes, potentially making it harder for truly advantageous traits to be selected for reliably.

“Our results add to sociological and biological literature that underscores the potential importance of unpredictable, uncontrollable experiences in generating differences in outcomes even when differences in underlying quality (or ‘talent’) are small or nonexistent,” the authors conclude.

Beyond its implications for understanding animal behavior, this research offers insights into human society. It suggests that in highly competitive environments, small early advantages – whether they come from luck or circumstance – can snowball into much larger differences over time. This has particular relevance for discussions about inequality and opportunity in human societies, where similar feedback loops might operate.