Not Our Favorites

In this huge Slate article, Daniel Engber collates the academic research on why we tend to root for the underdog.  Here are a few additional points he missed.

1.  We cheer for the underdog because we want to see history made, and a big upset usually has more historical significance.  Support for this theory comes from the exceptions to the underdog rule:  sometimes its more historic for the favorite to win, and in those cases, public sentiment tends to shift towards the potential legend.  The main example for this is with Tiger Woods and Roger Federer - if some no-name underdog beats Tiger, it turns a Major event into just another golf tournament.

2.  Engber says "Maybe (the underdog) appeals instead to something deeper—a primal sense of fairness."
The "sense of fairness" seems innacurate, it suggests a meritocracy, which would be the opposite of cheering for the underdog.  Our support isn't merit-based, its need-based, and this is probably an artifact of our evolutionary past, specifically, the nurturing instinct.

During our caveman days, instead of supporting sports teams, we provided for tribe-mates, and if you're gonna help someone out, its not going to be the big, wealthy fuck with the huge power-belly, it's going to be the little guy who might not make it on his own.  There's already a vague consensus that rooting for the hometeam is a surrogate for the tribalism of our primitive past, but when we don't have a tribal preference for either team, we'll pull for the underdogs, in the same way a mother might give more attention to the runt of the litter.

 Sean Astin might be exception to the sympathy hypothesis.

3.  Engber says cheering for the underdog is a "global phenomenon", existing in almost every culture, but seemingly more prevalent in some than others.  There was a study where people were given the choice between a hypothetical sports underdog and a favorite, and the following preferences were found:

• Japan 72% preferred the underdog
• USA 67% preferred the underdog
• China 57% preferred the underdog
• Israel 52% preferred the underdog

Engber says its "not clear" why Israel would rank so low, although he says there's sociological data to suggest that Israelis (including those of lower-status) are unusually accepting of the reigning power structure in their country.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Israelis interviewed in each case were Israeli citizens, and not members of the oppressed Palestinian minority.  Whether right or wrong, these Israelis may be conditioned to view underdogs as enemies and possibly as terrorists.

 In modern-day Israel, the stone-slinging David is an Arab, not a Jew.

You can counter that by saying that, in the greater context of the Middle East as a whole, the Israelis are the outnumbered and persecuted minority, with enemies on all sides trying to take their property, but isn't that also the way a lot of rich people view their position in society?  Maybe Israel is like Duke's basketball team:  wealthy, ethnically distinct, and held to a higher standard than those around them.