Psychologist Damian R. Murray of Tulane University studies how various social situations and life events influence people's political views. For example, he recently discovered that parenthood causes people to grow up to be more socially conservative. The day before the Super Bowl, he discussed another recent study in an interview with the New York Times. This study examined how sports fans' political views can change depending on whether their team wins or loses.
This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
What inspired this piece?
These games are very emotionally powerful and people get emotionally invested in them. The question is, how can something that has nothing to do with the sporting event itself have any real-world impact? Does it affect our political attitudes, voting patterns, or our group affiliations?
To be clear, we're talking about the fans, not the people who actually play the games.
right. As viewers, we are experiencing the ups and downs of an athlete we have no relationship with. Whether a player wins or loses, the material change we experience is essentially zero. But we are still continuing this psychological journey.
Can you describe your research?
We conducted two different studies in two different populations. The first sample was British people living in the UK during the 2016 Eurocup.
It is a month-long tournament held every four years to determine the best national soccer team in Europe.
Excluding the World Cup, the one closest to the Super Bowl is huge. So we sampled people in the UK right after they had won or lost a significant amount of money in a tournament. We asked them about their national in-group biases. For example, how intelligent or charismatic they think the typical British resident is. We also asked them what they call fiscal egalitarianism.
Which one?
We asked them whether they agreed or disagreed that it is the responsibility of the rich to help the poor. It shows how tolerant people are of financial inequality.
We asked similar questions of the population in the second study. People outside Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge, Louisiana attending a Louisiana State University football game. We surveyed people before and after the game. Fortunately, we recorded 2 wins and 2 losses during our study period.
LSU wasn't so lucky.
right. What we found was that after a win, LSU fans had greater in-group bias. They perceived more positive characteristics about other LSU fans. For example, the average LSU fan is more intelligent and physically stronger than the typical American. It was exactly the same as what was done in the UK, with similar results. In England, fans felt that the average Brit had more positive traits after a national team win than after a loss.
And after the win, fans in both places felt less equal financially. Thus, in both England and LSU, fans were more likely to agree with the statement that too much money is allocated to those who are worse off. After the loss, the opposite happened. After the loss, fans favored more financial equality in society.
If so, we might be more defensive of the idea of egalitarianism because we know that if we belong to a group of losers, we might be left in the lurch.
exactly. We like to think that our moral positions and politics are rational, but we know from much previous research that our morals are strategically adjusted. This research seems to capture the psychological pull that causes us to have more group biases and be aligned with winners and losers, no matter how arbitrary the situation or competition is.
In the sense that we have no control over the game?
yes. Additionally, in almost all cases, games have no impact on our livelihood, wallet, family life, etc.
How long does this effect last? Come November, will Chiefs fans or Niners fans feel the winner?
For many fans, emotional memories of a win or loss are sure to remain. However, we hope that these small political changes will be fairly temporary and will not last more than a few days. But even short-term effects can have real consequences. One of British football's biggest victories came just before the Brexit vote. This vote was decided by the narrowest of margins. It's proof of how something temporary, like a sporting event that moves the political needle just a little, can have a big impact downstream.
Have you actually seen the connection between Brexit and football?
No, as far as I know, no one else does.
But if the Super Bowl is held in late October, could it affect the November presidential election?
If I had to guess, I'd say the Super Bowl in late October could potentially impact major elections. Given how narrowly decided many states are, temporarily moving the needle by less than half a percentage point of the majority vote could change the outcome of the election.
Is it healthy to get too caught up in games?
It's completely psychologically healthy if we remember that it's because we enjoy having these vicarious thrills. We love getting involved and expressing our emotions on the football field in completely unrelated uniforms. However, we would like to encourage fans to leave it on the field or on their screens after the game.