Underdog

Last updated
In the battle between David and Goliath, David is an archetypal example of an underdog. Osmar Schindler David und Goliath.jpg
In the battle between David and Goliath, David is an archetypal example of an underdog.

An underdog is a person or group in a competition, usually in sports and creative works, who is largely expected to lose. [1] The party, team, or individual expected to win is called the favorite or top dog. In the case where an underdog wins, the outcome is an upset. An "underdog bet" is a bet on the underdog or outsider for which the odds are generally higher.

Contents

The first recorded uses of the term occurred in the second half of the 19th century; [2] [3] its first meaning was "the beaten dog in a fight". [4]

In British and American culture, underdogs are highly regarded. This harkens to core Judeo-Christian stories, such as that of David and Goliath, and also ancient British legends such as Robin Hood and King Arthur, and reflects the ideal behind the American dream, where someone who is poor and/or weak can use hard work to achieve victory. [5] Underdogs are most valorized in sporting culture, both in real events, such as the Miracle on Ice, and in popular culture depictions of sports, where the trope is omnipresent. [5] The idea is so common that even when teams are evenly matched, spectators and commentators are drawn to establishing one side as the underdog. [5]

In a story, the Fool is often an underdog if they are the main character. Their apparent ineptitude leads to people underestimating their true abilities, and they are able to win either through luck or hidden wisdom against a more powerful, "establishment" villain. An example in film is The Tramp portrayed by Charlie Chaplin. [6]

Social Norms

People often root for underdogs for various psychological and cultural reasons; for example, witnessing and experiencing underdog challenges can lead us to empathise with the effort required to overcome such obstacles, fostering a connection with others who confront similar hardships. [7] This shared understanding may, in turn, contribute to breaking social norms by challenging prevailing expectations and disrupting established power dynamics. Social norms often dictate that success is reserved for those in privileged or dominant positions; however, the underdog narrative challenges this norm by portraying individuals or groups who are perceived as disadvantaged, less powerful, or less likely to succeed. [8] One could argue that individuals or groups perceived as underdogs may face a different set of expectations and allowances within a social context. The underdog is often seen as disadvantaged or less likely to conform to established norms. In this context, society might be more lenient or accept norm violations from underdogs, as their perceived struggles or challenges may evoke empathy or understanding.   

Social Justice

We also rally round the underdog to satisfy our need for social justice. Supporting the underdog gives us a sense of agency and empowerment as we align ourselves with those fighting against the odds. It reinforces the belief that individuals can overcome adversity and effect positive change, promoting a sense of hope and optimism for social justice efforts. Humans naturally support social justice, as seen in a study publicised by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. [9] This study examined how individuals and groups manage shared resources. The results revealed differences in resource allocation and outcomes based on group size. These findings shed light on our innate preference to fairness and equality, as how individuals and groups allocate and utilise these resources reflects principles of fairness and equality.

Underdog and Schadenfreude

Austrian psychologist Fritz Heider argues that the concept of schadenfreude plays an essential role in the sympathy gained by the underdog particularly when the dominant party is perceived as undeserving of their success. This phenomenon has received attention from social scientists who argue that resentment towards high-status individuals can fuel Schadenfreude when they experience a downfall. [10]  Heider suggests there is tendency to root against the "top dog," or those perceived as riding high, indicating a pleasure from watching them fail, thus we support the underdog. The interconnection between rooting for the underdog and Schadenfreude is illustrated in a study by Stephen Ceci and Edward Kain (1982) in the context of political elections. [11] Their findings suggest that exposure to polls depicting a candidate as having a dominant position did not evoke positive feelings towards the underdog but instead created a negative reaction towards the dominant candidate. This negative reaction could be indicative of a form of schadenfreude, where individuals derive satisfaction from seeing the dominant figure falter. When participants were shown the leading contender in the polls, they tended to move away from supporting them, possibly due to a subconscious pleasure in witnessing their potential downfall. However, when presented with information indicating a shift in the polls towards the underdog, participants shifted their support back to the leading contender. This shift in support suggests that the pleasure derived from the underdog's potential victory may not necessarily stem from genuine support for the underdog but rather from the satisfaction of seeing the leading candidate lose their position of power. This highlights how opposition reactivity, possibly driven by schadenfreude towards the leading candidate, influences shifts in support towards the underdog during electoral contests.

Both underdog support and Schadenfreude are influenced by perceptions of deserving and fairness within competitive contexts. [12] The interplay between these two phenomena sheds light on the complex motivations underlying individuals' reactions to competitive situations, where notions of justice, fairness, and deserving play crucial roles in shaping emotional responses. [13]

Limitations of the Underdog

Studies supporting the underdog effect often face challenges in accurately assessing its implications. Despite efforts to create realistic scenarios, limitations persist in capturing the emotional nuances and social dynamics present in real-life situations where underdog support is observed. For instance, Stephen Ceci and Edwards Kain's (1982) [11] study may be susceptible to demand characteristics or social desirability bias, potentially influencing participants' responses. Such biases could affect the authenticity of participants' expressions of support or disdain for candidates depicted in polls, especially in sensitive contexts like political elections.

Moreover, reliance on self-report measures in the study may oversimplify participants' emotional reactions, particularly concerning complex psychological phenomena like schadenfreude. Additionally, the study's exclusive focus on electoral contexts may limit the generalizability of its findings to other domains, such as sports or business competitions, where underdog phenomena and schadenfreude may manifest differently. Future research could mitigate these limitations by employing diverse methodological approaches and exploring underdog and schadenfreude dynamics across various contexts to gain a more comprehensive understanding of these phenomena.

Furthermore, there are challenges in distinguishing underdog support from schadenfreude, underscoring the intricate relationship between these psychological constructs. While the assumption is that both forces operate in the same direction, they may represent interchangeable phenomena rather than distinct processes. Attempts to disentangle them may have inadvertently created a byproduct, complicating rather than clarifying their distinction. This suggests that the emotions associated with supporting underdogs and experiencing schadenfreude may be more intertwined than previously recognized, posing difficulties for researchers seeking to isolate and comprehend each theory independently. [13] Further investigation into the complex interplay between underdog support and schadenfreude is necessary to unravel their intricate dynamics fully.

Additionally, underdog narratives can sometimes reinforce stigmatization, highlighting the need to address paternalistic tendencies that may portray underdogs as objects of sympathy rather than active agents. [14] Such portrayals risk overlooking the agency and dignity of individuals marginalised by society, perpetuating symbolic tokenism rather than genuine empowerment.

Cinderella

In sports, the terms Cinderella, "Cinderella story", and Cinderella team are used to refer to situations in which competitors achieve far greater success than would reasonably have been best expected. [15] [16] Cinderella stories tend to gain much media and fan attention as they move closer to the tournament final game. [17]

The term comes from the well-known European folk tale of Cinderella , which embodies a myth-element of unjust oppression and triumphant reward, when the title character's life of poverty is suddenly changed to one of remarkable fortune. In a sporting context the term has been used at least since 1939, but came into widespread usage in 1950, when the Disney movie was released that year, and in reference to City College of New York, the unexpected winners of the NCAA Men's Basketball championship also that year. [18] The term was used by Bill Murray in the 1980 movie Caddyshack where he pretends as the announcer to his own golf fantasy: "Cinderella story. Outta nowhere. A former greenskeeper, now, about to become the Masters champion." [19] Referring somewhat inaccurately to the plot details of the classic Cinderella story, the media will debate whether the given "Cinderella" team or player will "turn into a pumpkin", i.e. fail to win the prize and then return to its former obscurity. [20] In the fairy tale, it was the carriage that turned into a pumpkin at midnight, not Cinderella herself. Another popular term is "strike midnight", when a Cinderella team does finally get beaten. [21]

Prior to the widespread use of Cinderella in this way, the more common term for unexpected and dramatic success was Miracle, as in the "Miracle Braves" of 1914, the "Miracle on Grass" in 1950, the "Miracle of Coogan's Bluff" in 1951, the "Miracle Mets" of 1969, and the "Miracle on Ice" in 1980.[ citation needed ]

Cinderella teams are also referred to as a surprise package or surprise packet, and their success would be termed a fairy-tale run. A related concept is the giant-killer, which refers to a lesser competitor who defeats a favorite, reflecting the story of David and Goliath. In Soviet sport, particularly team sports like football and hockey, there appeared a term Thunder to the Dominant [teams] (Russian : Гроза авторитетов, Groza avtoritetov) that referred to underdog, often a strong mid-table team, of which the dominant teams were afraid. The title is still in use in the post-Soviet period and sometimes is given to "dark horse" teams which manage to win a major tournament. [22] There was an official sports award that was introduced by the Soviet sports weekly "Sportivnaya Moskva" in the 1970s and 1980s for football and hockey top competitions awarded to teams that managed to take away the biggest number of points from the last season top-three placed teams. [23]

See also

Related Research Articles

Paranormal events are purported phenomena described in popular culture, folk, and other non-scientific bodies of knowledge, whose existence within these contexts is described as being beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding. Notable paranormal beliefs include those that pertain to extrasensory perception, spiritualism and the pseudosciences of ghost hunting, cryptozoology, and ufology.

Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group, or between social groups. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.

The bandwagon effect is the tendency for people to adopt certain behaviors, styles, or attitudes simply because others are doing so. More specifically, it is a cognitive bias by which public opinion or behaviours can alter due to particular actions and beliefs rallying amongst the public. It is a psychological phenomenon whereby the rate of uptake of beliefs, ideas, fads and trends increases with respect to the proportion of others who have already done so. As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence.

<i>Schadenfreude</i> Pleasure from the misfortunes of others

Schadenfreude is the experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, pain, or humiliation of another. It is a borrowed word from German; the English word for it is "epicaricacy", which originated in the 18th century. Schadenfreude has been detected in children as young as 24 months and may be an important social emotion establishing "inequity aversion".

The spiral of silence theory is a political science and mass communication theory which states that an individual's perception of the distribution of public opinion influences that individual's willingness to express their own opinions. Also known as the theory of public opinion, the spiral of silence theory claims individuals will be more confident and outward with their opinion when they notice that their personal opinion is shared throughout a group. But if the individual notices that his opinion is unpopular with the group he will be more inclined to be reserved and remain silent. In other words, from the individual's perspective, "not isolating himself is more important than his own judgement", meaning his perception of how others in the group perceive him is more important to himself than the need for his opinion to be heard.

In psychology, an attribution bias or attributional errors is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors. It refers to the systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, often leading to perceptual distortions, inaccurate assessments, or illogical interpretations of events and behaviors.

In social psychology, group polarization refers to the tendency for a group to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. These more extreme decisions are towards greater risk if individuals' initial tendencies are to be risky and towards greater caution if individuals' initial tendencies are to be cautious. The phenomenon also holds that a group's attitude toward a situation may change in the sense that the individuals' initial attitudes have strengthened and intensified after group discussion, a phenomenon known as attitude polarization.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pluralistic ignorance</span> Incorrect perception of others beliefs

In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a phenomenon in which people mistakenly believe that others predominantly hold an opinion different from their own. In this phenomenon, most people in a group may go along with a view they do not hold because they think, incorrectly, that most other people in the group hold it. Pluralistic ignorance encompasses situations in which a minority position on a given topic is wrongly perceived to be the majority position, or the majority position is wrongly perceived to be a minority position.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theory of planned behavior</span> Theory that links behavior

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a psychological theory that links beliefs to behavior. The theory maintains that three core components, namely, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, together shape an individual's behavioral intentions. In turn, a tenet of TPB is that behavioral intention is the most proximal determinant of human social behavior.

Nicholas Peter Spanos, was professor of psychology and director of the Laboratory for Experimental Hypnosis at Carleton University from 1975 to his death in a single engine plane crash on June 6, 1994. Spanos conducted multiple studies that challenged common beliefs. He tried to distinguish the difference between common beliefs about hypnosis and what was actually occurring. These studies conducted by Spanos led to the modern understanding that hypnosis is not an altered state and is actually suggested behaviors that the participant chooses to go along with or not. Along with this, Spanos conducted studies regarding dissociative identity disorder in which he stated that multiple personalities are not a product of trauma but are based on social norms.

Attribution is a term used in psychology which deals with how individuals perceive the causes of everyday experience, as being either external or internal. Models to explain this process are called Attribution theory. Psychological research into attribution began with the work of Fritz Heider in the early 20th century, and the theory was further advanced by Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner. Heider first introduced the concept of perceived 'locus of causality' to define the perception of one's environment. For instance, an experience may be perceived as being caused by factors outside the person's control (external) or it may be perceived as the person's own doing (internal). These initial perceptions are called attributions. Psychologists use these attributions to better understand an individual's motivation and competence. The theory is of particular interest to employers who use it to increase worker motivation, goal orientation, and productivity.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

According to some theories, emotions are universal phenomena, albeit affected by culture. Emotions are "internal phenomena that can, but do not always, make themselves observable through expression and behavior". While some emotions are universal and are experienced in similar ways as a reaction to similar events across all cultures, other emotions show considerable cultural differences in their antecedent events, the way they are experienced, the reactions they provoke and the way they are perceived by the surrounding society. According to other theories, termed social constructionist, emotions are more deeply culturally influenced. The components of emotions are universal, but the patterns are social constructions. Some also theorize that culture is affected by the emotions of the people.

Compliance is a response—specifically, a submission—made in reaction to a request. The request may be explicit or implicit. The target may or may not recognize that they are being urged to act in a particular way.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

Impression formation in social psychology refers to the processes by which different pieces of knowledge about another are combined into a global or summary impression. Social psychologist Solomon Asch is credited with the seminal research on impression formation and conducted research on how individuals integrate information about personality traits. Two major theories have been proposed to explain how this process of integration takes place. The Gestalt approach views the formation of a general impression as the sum of several interrelated impressions. As an individual seeks to form a coherent and meaningful impression of another individual, previous impressions significantly influence the interpretation of subsequent information. In contrast to the Gestalt approach, the cognitive algebra approach asserts that individuals' experiences are combined with previous evaluations to form a constantly changing impression of a person. A related area to impression formation is the study of person perception, making dispositional attributions, and then adjusting those inferences based on the information available.

Creepiness is the state of being creepy, or causing an unpleasant feeling of fear or unease. A person who exhibits creepy behaviour is called a creep or a stalker. Certain traits or hobbies may make people seem creepy to others. The internet has been described as increasingly creepy. Adam Kotsko has compared the modern conception of creepiness to the Freudian concept of unheimlich. The term has also been used to describe paranormal or supernatural phenomena.

Muzafer Sherif was a Turkish-American social psychologist. He helped develop social judgment theory and realistic conflict theory.

An empathy gap, sometimes referred to as an empathy bias, is a breakdown or reduction in empathy where it might otherwise be expected to occur. Empathy gaps may occur due to a failure in the process of empathizing or as a consequence of stable personality characteristics, and may reflect either a lack of ability or motivation to empathize.

References

  1. ↑ Keinan, Anat; Avery, Jill; Paharia, Neeru (November 2010). "Capitalizing on the Underdog Effect". Harvard Business Review (November 2010). Archived from the original on 13 April 2021. Retrieved 13 April 2013.
    "Everyone loves a scrappy underdog", as the article observes.
  2. ↑ "Definition of UNDERDOG". www.merriam-webster.com. Archived from the original on 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
  3. ↑ The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Third Edition, 1983. First use 1887.
  4. ↑ The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Third Edition, 1983.
  5. 1 2 3 Halberstam, J. Jack; Lowe, Lisa (2016). "Everybody Loves an Underdog". Asian American Sporting Cultures. NYU Press. p. 79. ISBN   978-1479840816.
  6. ↑ Snyder, Blake (2005). "Give Me The Same Thing... Only Different!". Save the Cat!: The Last Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need. Michael Wiese Productions. p. 37. ISBN   1615930000.
  7. ↑ Kim, JongHan; Allison, Scott T.; Eylon, Dafna; Goethals, George R.; Markus, Michael J.; Hindle, Sheila M.; McGuire, Heather A. (October 2008). "Rooting for (and Then Abandoning) the Underdog". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 38 (10): 2550–2573. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00403.x. ISSN   0021-9029.
  8. ↑ HENRICH, JOSEPH (2015-10-27). The Secret of Our Success. Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvc77f0d. ISBN   978-1-4008-7329-6.
  9. ↑ Allison, Scott T.; Messick, David M. (October 1985). "Effects of experience on performance in a replenishable resource trap". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 49 (4): 943–948. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.943. ISSN   1939-1315.
  10. ↑ Heider, Fritz (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1037/10628-000. LCCN   58010801.
  11. 1 2 Ceci, Stephen J.; Kain, Edward L. (January 1982). "Jumping on the Bandwagon With the Underdog: The Impact of Attitude Polls on Polling Behavior". Public Opinion Quarterly . 46 (2): 228. doi:10.1086/268715.
  12. ↑ Orujov, Ayan; Jones, Laurence (2023). "Schadenfreude or Support for the Underdog?: How Unexpected Sporting Outcomes Influence Retail Investor Behaviour". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4423168. ISSN   1556-5068.
  13. 1 2 Vandello, Joseph A.; Goldschmied, Nadav P.; Richards, David A. R. (December 2007). "The Appeal of the Underdog". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 33 (12): 1603–1616. doi:10.1177/0146167207307488. ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   18000097.
  14. ↑ Cowden, Birton J.; Bendickson, Joshua S.; Mathias, Blake D.; Solomon, Shelby J. (December 2022). "Straight OUTTA Detroit: Embracing Stigma as Part of the Entrepreneurial Narrative". Journal of Management Studies. 59 (8): 1915–1949. doi:10.1111/joms.12839. ISSN   0022-2380.
  15. ↑ Merron, Jeff. "ESPN.com: Page 2 : Who are the greatest Cinderella stories?". ESPN.com. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  16. ↑ Kim, Suzie (26 March 2004). "Cinderella stories: Battling from the bottom up". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 28 February 2014.
  17. ↑ Bonsor, Kevin (17 March 2003). "How March Madness Works". HowStuffWorks.com. Retrieved 28 February 2014.
  18. ↑ Forde, Pat (2009). "The Sweetest 16: Nobody loves a Cinderella story more than a college hoops fan. Here are some of the best.". ESPN College Basketball Encyclopedia: The Complete History of the Men's Game. New York: ESPN Books. p. 28. ISBN   9780345513922.
  19. ↑ "Soundclip of Bill Murray in Caddyshack". MovieSoundsCentral. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
  20. ↑ "March Madness 2013: Is Harvard the next 'Cinderella'?". Christian Science Monitor. 22 March 2013. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
  21. ↑ "Clock Strikes Midnight for Cinderella Team George Mason - WRIC Richmond News and Weather -". Archived from the original on 2013-12-12. Retrieved 2013-03-24. "Clock Strikes Midnight For Cinderella Team George Mason"
  22. ↑ Oleg Koshelev. The Thunder to the Dominant": the main sensations of the Russian Cup in football (Гроза авторитетов: главные сенсации Кубка России по футболу) . TASS.
  23. ↑ Thunder to the Dominant (Гроза авторитетов). HSF.narod.ru

Works cited

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.