Cassandra Hayes, Assistant Professor of Journalism
We love rooting for the underdog. Whether it’s a sports team facing impossible odds, a self-funded startup fighting industry giants or a local hero overcoming challenges. There’s something undeniable about cheering for the one expected to fail. Psychologists call this the “Underdog Effect”: a phenomenon where people favor, root for or support a competitor perceived to have a low chance of winning.
But why does this narrative resonate so deeply? Schieffer College faculty expert, Cassandra Hayes, assistant professor of journalism, explains how underdog narratives shape the way fans, media and even teams interpret competition. And what rooting for the unlikely victor says about us as people.
Is the underdog story unique to sports coverage, or do journalists rely on that same storytelling framework when covering politics, business or other beats?
The underdog story is common in sports coverage, but I wouldn’t say it’s totally unique. Deep down, the underdog story is really a “rags to riches” plot, outlined by story scholar Christopher Booker as meaning a character starting out poor, gaining all they dreamed of, losing all of it and then gaining it back — learning about themselves in the process. Sometimes these are also called “Horatio Alger” narratives, based on the work of a 19th-century author. The “rags to riches” story archetype is universal, so it ultimately appears in all journalistic narratives but also in literature, film, etc. For instance, the films Rocky and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory are “rags to riches” narratives. If the “loss and regain, learning about themselves,” part of the story doesn’t happen, then the underdog story can at times become another archetypal plot outlined by Booker — “the quest,” which usually involves some everyman character going on a dangerous journey and getting what they need by the end.
When a team is the underdog, who really decides that — the media, the fans or their stats?
I’d say it’s a combination of all three—but the media have the greatest narrative sense-making power. The media has the power to set the agenda of what people are talking about and provide the framing for how they talk about it. So, media professionals can provide a story structure for people to interpret confusing, complex events beyond their present realities. Stats can definitely indicate potential for that underdog story, but numbers alone don’t mean anything without some sort of communicative structure. And fans definitely help spread and amplify stories. I’d also add that teams/leagues/players themselves have some narrative power in sports media now too, shaping the interpretation of events. But media professionals are still usually the originators of the larger story framing of sporting events.
Should media stick to telling the facts about a team’s actual chances, or is leaning into the underdog story just part of telling a good story?
Sports media has always been a bit more muddled between objective fact and entertainment. In fact, the very first American full-time sports journalist, Henry Chadwick, was an active promoter of baseball in addition to relaying the facts of baseball stories (and inventing statistical ways to compare players, such as the batting average). In addition, in The Elements of Journalism, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel emphasize that engaging reporting is almost as important as truthfulness, because people are so busy now. If you don’t engage them, you don’t actually communicate your facts to them. So, in my opinion, within journalism, the facts should not be sacrificed for a good story, but telling a good story is important to communicating those facts.
What does rooting for the underdog say about us as fans, and maybe as people?
The reason the “rags to riches” and “quest” archetypes are so universal, used really since the earliest records we have of stories told by humans, may be because they’re so relatable. Unlike other story structures, in these plots the hero is not a naturally gifted or socially elite individual but a scrappy dreamer who rises to do amazing things. Statistically, underdogs in sports rarely prevail. But narratively, they offer regular people an opportunity to make sense of their own circumstances and ambitions. It’s the narrative form of Jim Carrey’s Dumb and Dumber quote: “So you’re saying there’s a chance.”