1. Results in Major Sporting Events Affect Spectators’ Ingroup Bias and Attitudes to Wealth Distribution
Iina Savolainen1, Nicholas Kerry1, Damian R. Murray1, Jason Harman2, John-Luke McCord2 Tulane University1, Louisiana State University2
Introduction
Abstract
Results of sporting events can influence fans’ social attitudes and cognition. The current study examined how results from sporting events affect spectators’ moral and political attitudes. We hypothesized that spectators would report increased in-group biases and be less likely to approve egalitarian approaches to wealth distribution after seeing their sports team win than after seeing them lose. Two studies in different countries examined people’s attitudes immediately after wins and losses at major sporting events. Study 1 surveyed 589 United Kingdom residents during the Euro 2016 soccer tournament. Study 2 surveyed 649 home football fans outside LSU’s Tiger Stadium. We found consistent evidence that vicarious winners were more biased in favor of their own group and less egalitarian than vicarious losers.
Sport results affect fans emotionally and physiologically (Bernhardt, Dabbs, Fielden, & Lutter, 1998; Kerr, Wilson, Nakamura, & Sudo, 2005).
Fans can vicariously experience their team’s failures or successes as their own, leading them to alter their predictions of their own future successes.
Such experiences may further influence people’s moral judgments and behavior: Vicarious losing, for instance, makes people eat more unhealthy foods (Cornil & Chandon, 2013).
Past research has found evidence that sports results influence people’s political views, and sport has further been linked to nationalism (Bairner, 2001).
Existing research suggests that sporting success can have modest, medium-term effects on national pride (Elling, Van Hilvoorde, & Van Den Dool, 2014).
No previous research has examined whether specific results differentially affect nationalistic bias. Across two studies, we examined people’s attitudes towards their respective ingroup and egalitarianism, immediately after a major sporting event.
Graph 2.1: Spectator attitudes and cognition measured before four LSU football games.
Results
Predictions
A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) including the IV of Result and six DVs, was conducted for both studies. In Study 1, the overall multivariate effect of Condition was significant and main effects of Result on National Bias was also observed, F(2, 568) = 3.57, p = .029, partial η2 = and (marginally) Egalitarian Wealth Distribution, F(2, 568) = 5.82, p = .051, partial η2 = (Graph 1). Effects were larger for people who had watched the games in question, and for more dedicated fans.
In Study 2, there were significant effects of Result on Team Bias, F(1, 327) = 6.18, p = .013, partial η2 = .019, and Egalitarian Wealth Distribution, F(1, 327) = 10.22, p = .002, partial η2 = .030 but not on National Bias.
People have stronger ingroup biases after vicarious victory and weaker after defeat.
People consider nationality to be more important after victory and less so after defeat.
Vicarious winners approve less of egalitarian statements of wealth distribution, social dominance, and the deservedness of wealth, than vicarious losers.
Graph 2.2: Spectator ingroup bias increased after a win, while attitude towards egalitarian wealth distribution decreased.
Discussion
Two studies examining different sports in different countries found evidence that winning fans expressed less financially egalitarian views than losing fans.
In Study 1; Nationalistic bias was increased by a national team winning.
In Study 2; University bias was increased by the university team winning.
The findings have important implications; they provide support for the idea that humans moralize strategically, as well as suggest that people are highly sensitive to cues of ingroup superiority.
The findings propose that ostensibly trivial events, such as sports results may, at least in the short-term, influence moral and political opinions.
Method
Study UK residents were recruited online during the Euro 2016 Soccer tournament. A baseline measure was taken on the evening before the first England game. Online surveys opened 45 minutes after the target games finished and were left open a maximum of 16 hours.
Study 2 was conducted in the United States. Participants were 649 adult LSU football fans, who were approached outside LSU’s Tiger Stadium before and after the last four home games of the 2016 season.
Graph 1: National bias increased and approval of egalitarian wealth distribution decreased after winning.