The attractive underdog

Can we be attracted to losers?

Despite theory and research suggesting a ubiquitous attraction to winners, we propose that people are, at times, attracted to disadvantage. One potential underlying motivator for this attraction is the maintenance of justice beliefs. Lerner’s (1980) Just World Theory (JWT) argues that people benefit psychologically from perceiving the world as an orderly, predictable place. Specifically, when people observe incongruent events that violate their sense of justice (e.g., a good person being punished), they react in one of three ways: punishment or derogation of the victim’s character (e.g., secondary victimization; Correia, Vala, & Aguiar, 2001), attribution of responsibility to the target (e.g., blaming the victim; Abrams, Viki, Masser, & Bohner, 2003), or character enhancement or compensation (e.g., victim compensation; Smith, 2006). Haynes and Olson (2006) expanded on Lerner’s prediction, finding that these resolutions correspond to situational cues. Unlikable victims of high or low responsibility receive derogation, likable, high-responsibility victims receive blame, and likable, low-responsibility victims receive compensation.

Our focus is on the latter category. People may be motivated to see individuals who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own as especially likable as a way of compensating for the injustice. Of relevance is recent research that has examined people’s attitudes toward underdogs— defined here as individuals or groups engaged in competition with a low probability of success (Vandello, Goldschmeid, & Richards, 2007). Vandello and colleagues demonstrated that people compensate underdogs’ disadvantage by offering sympathy, support, and attributions of increased effort. This tendency to root for underdogs occurs both when considering relatively inconsequential competitions, such as sporting events or the movements of abstract geometrical figures, and in more consequential domains, such as political conflict, war, and business (Goldschmied & Vandello, 2009; Kim et al., 2008; Vandello, Michniewicz, & Goldschmied, 2011). However, the fairness of one’s disadvantage may be a key moderator of the tendency to support those at a disadvantage. If one’s relative success or failure is perceived as controllable, outcomes are likely to be perceived fair; conversely, uncontrollable successes or failures are likely to be perceived as due to factors other than merit and are likely to be perceived as unfair. For example, when an underdog (e.g., a team heavily favored to lose a game) has ample resources with which to succeed (a large payroll), their disadvantage is seen as fair and people withdraw sympathy and support (Vandello, Goldschmeid, & Richards, 2007). Thus, disadvantage may only create perceptions of likability and feelings of sympathy when the disadvantage is perceived as unfair.

The present study

The present study explored whether the support and sympathies people often give to underdogs would extend to interpersonal attraction. Specifically, we tested whether fairness moderates the robust attraction to advantage. Research on underdogs suggests that situations of perceived unfair disadvantage arouse people’s sympathies, which subsequently increase liking and support. More generally, research from a just world perspective suggests that disadvantaged individuals perceived as unfairly victimized are often compensated with character enhancements. Conversely, individuals perceived as unfairly advantaged can elicit resentment and dislike (Feather & Sherman, 2002).

Therefore, we presented participants with a description of a job applicant while varying both the advantage (i.e., the likelihood of getting the job) and fairness (i.e., whether or not likely success stems from the applicant’s own merit) of the applicant’s circumstances. Under fair circumstances, we expected to find support for conventional theory: an advantaged individual will be perceived as more physically attractive and personally desirable than a disadvantaged individual. However, given the compensatory reactions to underdogs in the form of attributions of socially desirable qualities (Vandello et al., 2007), coupled with the finding that such socially desirable qualities generate heightened perceptions of physical attractiveness (Gross & Crofton, 1977), we predicted the reverse for unfair circumstances: an unfairly disadvantaged individual will be perceived as more physically and personally attractive than an unfairly advantaged individual.

Method

Results

Manipulation checks

Prior to analyses, four participants were removed for failing the manipulation check items (i.e., reporting a Likert response completely opposite to the assigned condition) or not answering them. Ultimately, 78 participants (49% male, 51% female) remained for all subsequent analyses. Independent samples t tests confirmed the success of our manipulations: participants in the unfair conditions rated the application process as significantly less fair (M = 3.51, SD = 2.26) than participants in the fair conditions (M = 7.80, SD = 1.42), t(76) = 10.03, p < .001, d = 2.27, and participants in the advantage condition rated the job applicant’s position as significantly more advantaged (M = 6.39, SD = 1.96) than participants in the disadvantage condition (M = 3.81, SD = 1.82), t(76) = 5.98, p < .001, d = 1.36.

Attractiveness ratings

Each dependent measure was analyzed using a 2 (job advantage or disadvantage) × 2 (fair or unfair situation) × 2 (participant gender) factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA). There was a main effect such that male participants rated the target as more attractive than female participants did (ps < .05). However, the results reported below are not affected by participant gender (i.e., the predicted interactions are not qualified by a three-way interaction with gender, ps > .60), and so the remaining analyses test the predicted 2 (advantage vs. disadvantage) × 2 (fair vs. unfair) ANOVA. As predicted, there were significant two-way interactions between fairness and advantage on participants’ perceptions of physical attractiveness of the job applicant, F(1,74) = 8.38, p < .01, d = .73, and personal desirability of the job applicant, F(1,74) = 11.88, p < .01, d = .99 (Figure 1). No main effects were statistically significant, ps > .26.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

(a) Ratings of physical attractiveness as a function of a target being fairly or unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged. (b) Ratings of personal desirability as a function of a target being fairly or unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged.

Simple effects analyses revealed that, as predicted, when reading about job applicants facing an unfair circumstance, people rated the disadvantaged job applicant as more physically attractive (M = 5.85, SD = 1.13) than the advantaged job applicant (M = 4.49, SD = 1.40), F(1,74) = 8.29, p < .01, d = .67 as well as more personally desirable (M = 6.18, SD = 1.34) than the advantaged job applicant (M = 5.18, SD = 1.13), F(1,74) = 5.78, p < .02, d = 0.56. No significant difference between ratings of physical attractiveness of the fairly advantaged and fairly disadvantaged job applicant emerged, F(1,74) = 1.52, n.s., but the fairly advantaged job applicant received higher ratings of personal desirability (M = 6.42, SD = 1.41) than the fairly disadvantaged job applicant (M = 5.35, SD = 1.36), F(1,74) = 6.14, p < .02, d = 0.58.

Finally, we explored the role of participant age and ethnicity by submitting physical attractiveness and personal desirability ratings separately to advantage × fairness factorial analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) with age and ethnicity as covariates. Interestingly, participant age emerged as a significant covariate for physical attractiveness, F(1,70) = 6.58, p < .02, d = .60, and personal desirability, F(1,70) = 4.23, p < .05, d = .40, indicating that older participants perceived the target as more physically attractive and personally desirable than younger participants. Additionally, participant ethnicity emerged as a significant covariate for physical attractiveness, F(1,70) = 5.26, p < .03, d = .53, but not personal desirability, F(1.70) = 1.54, n.s. Neither covariate, however, qualified the fairness by advantage interaction term for physical attractiveness, F(1,70) = 6.56, p < .02, d = .60, nor personal desirability, F(1,70) = 11.64, p < .01, d = 1.13.

Because of the underrepresentation of specific nonwhite ethnicities in our sample, we could not conduct a significance test comparing each specific ethnicity’s attractiveness ratings without severely violating assumptions of the statistical test. We thus replicated the fairness × advantage ANCOVA with participant age and shared ethnicity as covariates, where participants either shared the target’s ethnicity (i.e., white participants) or did not share the target’s ethnicity (i.e., nonwhite participants). Results suggest that participants sharing the target’s ethnicity evaluated the target as more physically attractive (M = 6.15, SD = 1.05) than participants not sharing the target’s ethnicity (M = 5.28, SD = 1.61), F(1,70) = 14.05, p < .01, d = .64, and as more personally desirable (M = 5.86, SD = 1.10) than participants not sharing the target’s ethnicity (M = 4.76, SD = 1.75), F(1,70) = 9.41, p < .01, d = .75. Once more, however, the interaction terms for physical attractiveness (F(1,70) = 4.85, p < .04, d = .43) and personal desirability (F(1,70) = 9.65, p < .01, d = .77) remained significant with age and shared ethnicity as covariates.

Discussion

In this study, we find that people unsurprisingly rate an applicant with a strong, complete job application (fairly advantaged) as more attractive than an applicant who lacks a complete application (fairly disadvantaged). This finding replicates the well-established notion that under fair circumstances (which are typically presumed by default; Lerner, 1980), people experience an attraction to advantaged others (e.g., Buss, 1998; Langlois et al., 2000). Novel to the present study, however, we find in support of our hypothesis that disadvantage, when perceived as unfair, may make one appear more physically and socially attractive in the eyes of others. Indeed, our participants were significantly more attracted to the job applicant whose list of references was misplaced (unfairly disadvantaged) than the job applicant with a friend willing to favorably bias human resources (unfairly advantaged). Thus, we argue that the benefits of an objective advantage (e.g., likely employment), as well as the implicit benefits associated with advantage, depend upon the nature by which one acquires this advantage (i.e., fairly or unfairly).

This result combined with our finding that a fairly advantaged individual was perceived as more personally desirable (but not more physically attractive) than an unfairly advantaged individual expands upon recent theory arguing the importance of moral virtue in mate selection. For example, Miller (2007) argues that one’s demonstration of fairness in judgment may signal a commitment to potential mates seeking long-term sexual relationships. Novel about our findings, however, is that our participants’ evaluations of the applicant’s attractiveness varied even when the applicant had no personal control over his/her unfair advantage or unfair disadvantage, making them theoretically unable to deliberately signal fairness as a personal attribute. The unfairly advantaged target could have been seen as less attractive because of an association with an unscrupulous friend (i.e., people might assume poor judgment on the part of the target). While we cannot rule this interpretation out, we note that this does not account for the relatively high ratings of attractiveness and desirability given to the unfairly disadvantaged target. Future research should examine both the influence of environmental factors on interpersonal attraction and the implications of one’s personal control over such factors when assessing evaluations of others’ perceptions of their attractiveness.

Particularly striking is that a target’s relative advantage or disadvantage influenced judgments of physical attractiveness despite the fact that all participants viewed the same photos, suggesting that the circumstances preceding exposure to the photographs adjusted participants’ assessment of the physical features of the person within the photograph. This interpretation is consistent with research showing that recall of specific facial features varies according to personality characteristics (Cunningham, 1986; Paunonen, 2006). Future research would benefit from examining the emotional and attitudinal mechanisms that might mediate the relationship between advantage/disadvantage and perceived attractiveness.

A similar pattern emerged for personal desirability. Unfairly disadvantaged and fairly advantaged applicants were the most desirable dating partners, whereas fairly disadvantaged and unfairly advantaged were the least. The growing body of underdog literature shows that people respond favorably to underdogs, but the question of whether or not underdogs receive support under more costly or personally relevant circumstances (e.g., Kim et al., 2008) remains under debate. Our participants not only found job applicants with underdog status to be more physically attractive but expressed a greater desire to date them. These findings corroborate previous research on JWT showing that, when participants can support the disadvantaged, they do so through political endorsement (Ceci & Kain, 1982) and financial compensation (Haynes & Olson, 2006; Lerner & Simmons, 1966). Given that this willingness to date the job applicant appeared to reflect underdog support, we believe underdogs may be liked and preferred beyond competitive contests in which observers have no personal stake. Ultimately, more research should be conducted to address this issue, preferably in a real dating context.

Additionally, future research should explore the role of individual differences in people’s attraction to underdogs. Many characteristics of those in a dyadic relationship influence perceptions of an individual’s romantic appeal (Eagly et al., 1991; Feingold, 1988). The present study found evidence that men, older participants, and participants with the same ethnicity as the target all found the target more attractive on both measures, but these differences did not qualify our main thesis. Thus, while we optimistically argue that these differences could suggest greater breadth and validity of people’s attraction to the unfairly disadvantaged, future research should use more nuanced measures of these and other variables. For example, Zeigler-Hill and Myers (2011) found that individuals perceived to have higher self-esteem are generally presumed to have more socially desirable characteristics. We offer the interpretation that unfairly disadvantaged individuals may derive self-esteem in others’ eyes from alternative sources (theoretically reflected in their heightened attractiveness) or, alternatively, that perceived self-esteem motivates character perceptions under fair circumstances, whereas a different motive (i.e., justice concerns) operates during unfair circumstances. Additionally, Feingold (1988) finds that romantic relationships develop most successfully between individuals of similar socioeconomic status: In the present study, our sample of undergraduate college students strongly homogenizes socioeconomic status, but perceptions of an underdog’s socioeconomic status and subsequent evaluations of his or her attractiveness remain an important empirical question.

We end by speculating on how the present results might inform dating strategies. We do not advise strategically presenting oneself as an underdog to attract potential mates (and in fact, the very nature of an unfair disadvantage is that it is outside of one’s control). Indeed, a well-established phenomenon in Just World literature demonstrates that continued misfortune can generate negative perceptions of one’s personal character (Imhoff & Banse, 2009; Lerner & Simmons, 1966) and, presumably, their attractiveness to others.

However, these results suggest that perhaps one need not worry about hiding an unfortunate disadvantage should it occur. Despite research documenting the powerful interpersonal draw of advantage, success, and status (Cialdini et al., 1976; Davis, 1990), possessing a disadvantage may at times work to one’s benefit. As Jones and Pittman (1982) noted, modest or self-effacing self-presentational tactics (e.g., ingratiation, supplication) can be effective in increasing liking, while self-presentational strategies that emphasize one’s advantage (e.g., self-promotion) can come with significant costs. In fact, people seem to be quite sensitive to the possibility of threatening others with upward social comparisons (Exline & Lobel, 1999, 2001). Similarly, the present study suggests a silver lining to being unfairly disadvantaged—people may find underdogs attractive and easy to love.