The Advantage of Disadvantage: Underdogs in the Political Arena

Abstract

Political candidates are often labeled as underdogs, either by the press or themselves. This paper explores connotations associated with the underdog label in the political arena. We argue that being labeled an underdog has a strategic advantage because it is associated with positive qualities, particularly likeability. The current studies demonstrate that partisan supporters prefer to see their favored candidate as an underdog compared to people not aligned with the candidate, and underdog-labeled entities are perceived to be warmer, and no less competent, than frontrunners. Discussion focuses on the advantages and risks of carrying the underdog label in the political arena.

Notes

¹It is possible that positive ratings of the underdog on the warmth dimension were driven largely by the inclusion of the “humble” trait. To make sure that the “humble” variable was not driving the effect, we reran the analysis on a four-item warmth dimension that excluded the humble variable (α = .64). Results did not change; specifically, the main effect for underdog status remained significant, F(1, 60) = 5.58, p < .05, and there was no main effect for self- versus other-proclaimed and no interaction (Fs < 1).