Damian R. Murray, a psychologist at Tulane University, studies how various social conditions and life events affect people’s political views. For example, he recently found that becoming a parent makes a person 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 looked at 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 project?
These games are so emotionally powerful and people are so emotionally invested. The question is: What might be the real world consequences 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 relationships?
To be clear, we’re talking about fans, not people who actually play the game.
Correctly. As viewers, we experience the ups and downs of athletes with whom we otherwise have no connection. The material changes we experience, whether the players win or lose, are essentially zero. But we still go on this psychological ride.
Can you describe the research?
We did two different studies in two different populations. The first sample was Brits in England during the 2016 Euro Cup.
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 a Super Bowl, outside of the World Cup. So we sampled Brits right after major tournament wins and losses. We asked questions about their in-group ethnic bias — 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 economic equality.
Which is?
We asked them if they agreed or disagreed that it is the responsibility of the better off to help the worse off and things like that. He understands how tolerant people are of economic inequality.
We asked similar questions to the population in our second study: people outside Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge, La., attending Louisiana State University football games. We surveyed people before and after the games. Fortunately for us, there were two wins and two losses during our study.
Not so lucky for LSU
Correctly. What we found was that after a win, LSU fans had more in-group bias: they perceived more positive attributes about other LSU people, such as that the average LSU fan is smarter and physically stronger compared to the typical American . As we did in England, similar results. In England, after a national team victory, fans felt that the average Briton had more positive attributes than after a defeat.
And after a win, fans in both parties felt less financially equal. Thus, at both England and LSU, fans were more likely to agree with statements that too much money goes to the disadvantaged. The opposite happened after a loss – fans after losses were more in favor of economic equality in society.
So if we’re on a losing team, maybe we’re more protective of the idea of equality because we know we could end up on the short end of the stick?
Exactly. We like to think that our moral positions and politics are rational, but we know from much previous work that our morals are strategically calibrated. The study seems to capture that psychological pull we have for more group bias and association with winners and losers, no matter how arbitrary the context or competition.
In the sense that we have no control over the game?
Yes. Also, in almost every case, gaming doesn’t affect our livelihood, pocketbook, family life, or anything like that.
How long does this effect last? Will Chiefs fans or Niners fans feel a sense of victory or defeat in November?
The emotional memories of win or lose will certainly linger for many fans, but I hope these minor 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 wins in British football came just 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 a bit, has the potential to have big downstream effects.
Did you really see the connection between Brexit and football?
No, and no one else has, as far as I know.
However, if the Super Bowl were held in, say, late October, could that affect the November presidential election?
If I had to guess, I’d say that, yes, a Super Bowl in late October could potentially affect an important election. Given how closely many states have been decided, moving the needle even temporarily by half a percentage point or less of a majority vote could change the outcome of the election.
Is it healthy to be so wrapped up in a game?
It’s perfectly psychologically healthy, if you just remember that it’s because we like to have these alternative thrills. We like to collaborate and put our feelings on these otherwise completely unrelated jerseys on a football field. After the game, however, I would encourage fans to just leave it on the court or on your screen.
