Cinderella Stories
In the early days of April of 2010, a young, unknown team out of Indianapolis were pitted against the behemoths of college ball in the biggest college basketball game of the year. After an improbable run to the championship game, fifth seed, Butler University, were playing first seed, Duke University, for a chance to be crowned the winners of the Big Dance. No one expected Butler to make it this far, and even when they did, no one expected them to win. But why is that when Gordon Hayward heaved the ball from half court as time was expiring, that we held our collective breaths and prayed to God that ball went in?
And as the ball hit the backboard and rimmed out, we felt as if the team we had been rooting for all year had lost it all. Simply put, it’s the American way to root for the little guy. But we still have to ask ourselves, why is it cool to root for the underdog?
In an article published by USA today on October 3, 2011, it said: “President Obama said today that the condition of the economy makes him an underdog for re-election next year, but he doesn’t mind playing that role. “I’m used to being the underdog,” Obama said during an interview with ABC News and Yahoo!News. A year later, President Obama went on to win the election with a comfortable margin: an electoral vote of more than 61%.
Was President Obama truly an underdog? We might not know the answer without a thorough study; however, we do know that being an underdog might not necessarily mean that he or she would not get supports. That was the reason why President Obama was not afraid to admit that he was an underdog. In fact, many people in the world including myself would support or cheer for the underdogs. Throughout history, there were many successful stories of the underdogs. In 1948, Truman was perceived as an underdog before the election, but eventually won the election. According to an article on PBS.org, it stated that “Harry Truman entered the 1948 presidential campaign an almost certain loser. As America moved from war to peace, the economy was faltering. The country suffered through strikes and shortages of consumer goods. Two years earlier, in the 1946 midterm elections, voters had delivered solid majorities in both houses of Congress to the GOP. Now Truman, known as a lackluster campaigner, faced an uphill battle against Republican Thomas Dewey, the popular governor of New York. Every poll, every journalist, and even Bess Truman, the president’s wife of 28 years, predicted that Truman would lose by a landslide. But Harry Truman would not give up.”
Hence, is it true that we, the ordinary people, have a tendency to support the underdogs? If the answer is “yes”, we would question about the reasons behind it. The important question is whether we could generalize the reasons for supporting the underdogs. Alternatively, the reasons for supporting the underdogs are just random, a case-by-case basis. Indeed, there was a study conducted by a group of sociologist at the University of South Florida trying to answers the questions list above.
According to the website, eurekalert.com, researchers Joseph A. Vandello, Nadav P. Goldschmied, and David A. R. Richards conducted a study to explain the reasons behind people’s tendency supporting the underdogs using the sports and political examples. The following gave a good summary of the findings of this study: “Researchers propose that those who are viewed as disadvantaged arouse people’s sense of fairness and justice — important principles to most people. The researchers also found that people tend to believe that underdogs put forth more effort than top-dogs, but that favorable evaluation disappeared when the underdog status no longer applies, such as when people are expected to lose but have a lot of available resources.” This study actually provides further evident to back up our daily observation. It basically found that we supported the underdogs because of the values that we believed. We believe in fair and justice while admiring hardworking people.
Besides the findings from academic research, there are plenty of daily-life examples to demonstrate the impact of our belief on cheering the underdogs. For example, I attended a high school with a good portion of the students from a low-income family. While I was the president of the student council, I was very keen to help my high school secure funding to help disadvantage students getting subsidized internet access at home.
I was eager to help out because I found that many hardworking students who were behind academically did not have a level-playing field. Their families could not afford to pay $40 or $50 a month to have an internet line at home while a lot of school work these days required us to do research on the web. Due to my belief in fair competition and hard work, I was willing to cheer for the underdogs and went for the extra mile to help them.
Besides our beliefs, we also have some selfish reasons to support the underdogs. These selfish reasons are also related to “risks and rewards”. While we live in a very competitive world, we want to stand out. In order to stand out, we need to be different and to have visions. The rewards of supporting the eventual winners who were perceived as a loser in the beginning are much larger than supporting the original favorites. For example, if I were an investor and invest in an underdog stock, my potential return from the investment would be much higher than investing in a popular stock. In terms of price-value, the relative price of popular stocks is much higher than the underdogs. At the same time, if I was proved to be correct of supporting the underdogs, I would be perceived as smarter and having vision. In contrary, if I cheered for a favorite, I would be perceived as following the herd regardless of the outcomes. Therefore, we have many reasons wanting to be a contrarian.
As a matter of fact, we would not only cheer for the underdogs but would also tirelessly look for the underdogs. For example, during the annual NCAA March Madness, many of us would join one or more brackets and bet on the winning teams. While we were analyzing the capabilities of each team, we were putting quite a bit of effort in searching for the underdogs so that we could be different from our peers. If we were making the right bet and the teams we picked were the underdogs, we could get a bigger share, potentially the sole winner, of the reward.
While cheering for the underdogs could have personal benefits, sometimes it’s just cool to watch a miracle take place. For example, when the 12th seeded Cornell’s basketball team faced off the fifth seeded Temple team in the first round of NCAA tournament in 2010, President Obama picked Cornell before the game. Eventually, Cornell went on to upset both Temple and Wisconsin and proceed to the final sixteen. The Cornell basketball team was considered as an underdog and a “Cinderella team” before the tournament began. Many people had considered Cornell getting into the final sixteen as a miracle before they made it happen in March 2010. Although we can claim that miracles happened from time to time, we cannot deny that with the blessing from the President may substantially increase the energy level of the players, and that could in turn help produce the unexpected outcomes.
Indeed, the impact of cheering for the underdogs could potentially go beyond a specific targeted group of underdogs. The ripple effect of the underdog’s win could potentially inspire many other underdogs. In other words, the success story of one “perceived underdog” could be served as a role model for many people. Naturally, this would give the “cheer leaders” another reason to cheer for the underdogs. For example, many of us love inspirational movies. One of the well-known one is “The Pursuit of Happyness” featuring the success story of Chris Gardner.
While many people were touched by Gardner’s true life story and view him as our role model, many of us were also hoping that Gardner would serve as a role model for people who currently struggle with life.
As we believe that cheering for the underdogs is a universal phenomenon, it also has a specific historical tie to the American cultures and heritage. According to an article on the Houston Business Journal, “underdog” is part of our American dream. It stated that “Americans have always cheered for the underdog. In fact, love of the underdog is deeply ingrained in the American character. The nation was given birth by an unlikely victory as a band of farmers, blacksmiths, peddlers and other upstarts defied the odds and defeated the mightiest army in the world. The American experience is also deeply rooted in the dreams and aspirations of countless waves of immigrants — underdogs cast away from other lands.” The author was linking our roots to our tendency to support the underdogs. Our country was built by many underdogs. Our parents, our grandparents, or our ancestors came to this land of opportunities to look for a better life, and in many cases they were underdogs in their homeland. They came here to start a new life and to pursue their dreams. So, we have every reason to support underdogs.
However, just like most things, there is another side to this underdog phenomena. Let’s take a look at another Hollywood product, the new ABC comedy, “Fresh off the Boat”, which is inspired by the life of Eddie Huang a celebrity chef and a first generation immigrant from Taiwan.
The show is the first show in over twenty years to feature an all Asian family as the protagonists since “All American Girl” starred Margaret Cho was canceled after one season. On May 7, 2015, “Fresh off the Boat” was renewed for a second season. The question we beg to ask now is why did it take so long for a show like this to get picked up by a major network? In other words, what caused the shift in the way our society’s perception of Asian families from radical to underdog and will it ever become to norm. First we have to make the distinguish the difference between a radical idea and an underdog story. Both radicals and underdogs have their doubters; that’s what is inherent about them. In my eyes, “Fresh off the Boat” has always been an underdog because I could relate to the show on a personal level due to my background, even before it garnered hit reviews and ratings. However, for other Americans the show does not resonate as well. To this point, to differentiate radicals and underdogs becomes even more complicated because they are not universal labels within a population. Although in the moment it may be difficult to distinguish between the two, with time a consensus can be reached, and a differentiation can be made.
To gain a better understanding of how time can help single out whether something is a radical or an underdog. Let’s examine a case that has had the time to reach maturation. We all know that the story of Martin Luther King Jr., and the struggles he went through to change the world forever. Dr. King’s renowned “I have a Dream” speech delivered on August 28, 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial has touched the heart of many people in the world.
According to a Huffington Post article published on August 28, 2013, “When he rose to speak, King was clearly aiming his remarks at his fellow Americans … he would inadvertently set off a worldwide movement for racial emancipation … the American civil rights leader’s universal cry for a more generous and humane world.” Precisely fifty years later, Dr. King was recognized as one of the greatest inspirational leaders in the history of mankind. However, the reaction was very different fifty years ago when he delivered his speech in Washington D.C. According to another Huffington Post article published on January 19, 2015, “Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was considered a dangerous troublemaker. Even President John Kennedy worried that King was being influenced by Communists. King was harassed by the FBI and vilified in the media … the Gallup Poll found that 63 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of King, compared with 33 percent who viewed him favorably. Today King is viewed as something of an American saint. A recent Gallup Poll discovered that 94 percent of Americans viewed him in a positive light.”
So, how could the action of a great man be considered as radical in the 60s? In hindsight, Dr. King was actually not even close to being a radical. While he might be considered as an underdog with 63% of Americans viewed him unfavorably, time has proved that he and his supporters in the 60s were right all along. Many people at King’s time just did not have the vision he and his supporters had. Besides the time dimension, King’s case also highlights the close relationship between visionaries and underdogs. That actually gives us another reason to cheer for the underdogs.
In conclusion, majority of time we all have the tendency to cheer for the underdogs, and supporting the losers would not only benefit individuals and the overall society, but might also have positive ripple effect. However, not all scenarios where there is a favorite and a non favorite is the non favorite depicted as an underdogs. In fact, those that are not favored to win can be seen as a radical or an underdog in the beginning and over time a consensus can be reached. Supporting either the favorite or the underdog is largely a personal judgment call. We could be right or wrong. We made our decision based on our judgment of costs and benefits, personal situation, cultures and values. While history always repeats itself, there are many past examples of the success stories of the underdogs. The bottom line is that we will not be afraid of cheering for the underdogs, and most importantly like President Obama we will not be steered away from admitting of being an underdog.
