Will the Super Bowl influence fans' political views? Bet on it.
Damian R. Murray, a psychologist at Tulane University, studies how different social circumstances and life events influence people's political views. For example, he recently discovered that growing older saves a lot of money person becomes more socially conservative. On the eve of the Super Bowl, he sat down for an interview with The New York Times to discuss another recent study, which explored how sports fans' political perspectives can be changed by their teams' wins and losses.
This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
What inspired this work?
These games are so emotionally powerful and people are so emotionally invested. The question is: what could be the downstream, real-world implications for things that have nothing to do with the sporting event itself? Are there consequences for political attitudes or voting patterns, or for our group memberships?
To be clear, we're talking about fans, not people who actually play in the game.
Right. As viewers, we experience the ups and downs of athletes we otherwise have no relationship with. The material changes we experience, whether the players win or lose, are essentially zero. But we're still along for the ride on this psychological ride.
Can you describe the research?
We did two different studies in two different populations. The first sample was of Britons in England during the 2016 European Championship.
a month-long tournament held every four years to determine the best national football team in Europe.
It's huge there, the closest thing to the Super Bowl outside of the World Cup. That's why we took a closer look at Brits immediately after significant wins and losses in the tournament. We asked questions about their national prejudices within the group – that is, for example, how intelligent or charismatic they perceived a typical UK resident to be. We also asked them about what we call their financial egalitarianism.
Which one is?
We asked them whether or not they agreed that it is the responsibility of people who are better off to help people who are worse off, and things like that. It's about how tolerant people are towards financial inequality.
In our second study, we asked similar questions to the general population: people outside Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge, La., attending Louisiana State University football games. We interviewed people before and after the games. Luckily for us, there were two wins and two losses during our time in college.
Not so fortunate for LSU
Right. What we found was that LSU fans had greater in-group bias after a win: They saw more positive characteristics of other LSU people, such as the average LSU fan being more intelligent and physically stronger compared to the typical American. Same as we did in England, similar results. In England, after a national team victory, fans believed that the average Briton had more positive qualities than after a defeat.
And after a win, fans in both places felt less financially equal. So in both England and LSU, fans were more likely to agree with statements that too much money is allocated to those who are worse off. The opposite happened after a loss: fans after losses were more supportive of financial equality in society.
So if we find ourselves in a losing group, perhaps we are more protective of the idea of egalitarianism because we are aware that we may end up on the short end of the coin?
Precisely. We like to think that our moral positions and our politics are rational, but we know from much previous work that our morals are strategically calibrated. The research seems to capture this psychological pull we have toward greater group bias and attachment to winners and losers, no matter how random the context or competition.
In the sense that we have no control over the game?
Yes. Moreover, in almost all cases the game has no impact on our livelihood, our wallets, our family life or anything like that.
How long does this effect last? Will Chiefs fans or Niners fans feel a win or loss in November?
The emotional memories of victory or defeat will certainly remain for many fans, but I hope these small political changes are fairly temporary and don't last more than a few days. But even short-lived effects can have real consequences. One of the biggest British football victories came shortly before the Brexit vote. This vote was decided by the narrowest of margins. It's a testament to how something fleeting, like a sporting event that moves the political needle just a little bit, has the potential to have major consequences downstream.
Have you actually looked at the link between Brexit and football?
No, and to my knowledge no one else has either.
But if the Super Bowl were to be held in late October, for example, could that impact the presidential election in November?
If I had to speculate, I'd say a Super Bowl in late October could potentially influence a major election. Given the limited decision-making power of many states, a temporary shift of even half a percent or less of the voting majority could change the outcome of the election.
Is it healthy to get so caught up in a game?
It's completely psychologically healthy, if you consider that it's because we enjoy having vicarious sensations. We love connecting and pouring our emotions into these otherwise completely unrelated jerseys on a football field. But after the game I would encourage fans to just leave it on the field or on your screen.