New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Why Whiz Kids Win

Despite professing to value hard work, we all have a soft spot for natural talent

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Americans never tire of rooting for the underdog or praising the self-starter who climbs his or her way to the top through blood, sweat and tears. But in our hearts we may prefer naturals over strivers. And understanding people's true preferences could help us navigate the worlds of academics, business and art.

Five years ago Chia-Jung Tsay, a psychologist now at University College London School of Management, reported a “naturalness bias.” After listening to two clips from the same classical music recording, subjects said they preferred the clip they were told was performed by a musician who was naturally talented over the one described as having come from a hard worker—even though they explicitly said they valued effortful training over innate ability.

A new paper by Tsay in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin builds on this work by extending it beyond music and also measuring the bias's consequences. Subjects with business experience and novices alike said they preferred business ideas and entrepreneurs when the entrepreneur was described as a natural versus a striver, despite saying earlier that effort was more important than natural talent. This bias was as strong, if not stronger, in business experts; one experiment found that a supposed striver needed 4.5 more years of leadership experience, 28 more IQ points, or $39,000 more in capital, compared with a natural, to be on equal footing when appealing for investment to business experts.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


So why do we have this preference for inborn talent, which Tsay says she has also found in sports and dance? Her data point to a common belief that naturals have more potential for progress. Tsay's interest in this kind of bias derives from her own experience as a pianist competing for prizes. “I saw a lot of this,” she says—to the extent that musicians would present themselves as younger than they really were and downplay how hard they practiced.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe