Abstract
Prior research suggests that underdogs elicit from others an increased affiliation (e.g., liking, identification) as well as an increased desire for success (e.g., support). In the present study, we examined whether or not people similarly endorsed underdog, relative to topdog, musicians. In Study 1, we found that underdog (relative to topdog) musicians received greater affiliation, in the form of higher interpersonal evaluations, and support, in the form of greater desire for career success. Moreover, this support weakened when statistically accounting for interpersonal support. Study 2 replicated Study 1 but additionally asked participants to listen to a sample of music ostensibly produced by the musician described prior to answering questions about the musician. Findings suggest that although underdog status did not bolster liking of the music sample itself, people nonetheless expressed greater affiliation and support for the musician. These findings emphasize the critical role of identity presentation in listeners’ evaluations of musicians, particularly when that musician communicates underdog status. We discuss the implications of underdog status on a musician’s identity as well as future research directions exploring the ways underdog status may be established and maintained. We additionally discuss the role of the aspects of music, such as the musician’s genre or platform, in communicating this underdog status.
Keywords
Introduction
The blossoming of technology in recent decades has fostered novel mediums for the dissemination of music and of music artists. Often, this has yielded the “discovery” of these artists who may not otherwise have the opportunity to showcase their talents. For instance, Susan Boyle was met with incredulous laughter by the audience on Britain’s Got Talent in 2009 (“Susan Boyle: A dream come true,” 2009); she specifically noted that she was not yet a professional singer because she never received a chance. She then performed I Dreamed a Dream from Les Misérables to overwhelming adulation, with many fans drawn to her humble background.
People point to Susan as an underdog success story. We define underdogs here—as others have—as an entity at a competitive disadvantage compared to peers (Vandello, Goldschmied, & Michniewicz, 2016; Vandello, Goldschmied, & Richard, 2007). While the notion of an underdog frequently involves sporting events, recent research also explores the role of underdog identities in domains such as politics (Goldschmied & Vandello, 2009), business (Paharia, Keinan, & Avery, 2011), and even romantic attraction (Michniewicz & Vandello, 2013). To our knowledge, however, no research has examined whether or not portraying a musician specifically as an underdog motivates heightened support paralleling these recent findings. Inspired by anecdotal examples such as Susan Boyle, we empirically examined the influence of an underdog identity in the perception of musicians.
Why Root for an Underdog Musician?
Prior research suggests that non-aesthetic biases influence evaluations of creative arts (see Kieran, 2010; Lundy, 2016 for a review). Lundy, Stephens, Hinners, and Whitton (2018) specifically found that evaluations of both liked and disliked musicians often contain a substantial amount of non-aesthetic reasoning. Of particular note, a musician’s identity can impact evaluations of created music: for example, people evaluate New Age compositions more negatively when ostensibly composed by a female rather than male composer (Colley, North, & Hargreaves, 2003). Additionally, people evaluate rap artists more negatively when under the impression that the artist’s racial identity is White (versus Black; Phelan & Rudman, 2010).
Given the significance of an artist’s identity in people’s perception of their music, we propose here that underdog status should yield similar beneficial outcomes. The notion of an underdog conjures a seemingly contradictory image. On one hand, people view underdogs as lovable losers, lauding their hard work and effort as defining characteristics relative to competitors (Vandello et al., 2007). On the other hand, people optimistically view underdogs as eventual winners in spite of the obstacles placing them at a competitive disadvantage. Indeed, when asked to generate words associated with the term underdog, people conjure both negative terms, such as loser, alongside positive terms, such as favorite, hero, or winner (Goldschmied & Vandello, 2012).
This complex definition nevertheless yields a generally positive reception of underdogs. That is, in spite of the likelihood of failure, people still support underdogs and may expect their success despite unfavorable odds (Vandello et al., 2016). Theoretical accounts for this support suggest that we root for underdogs because we find them more likeable (Vandello et al., 2007), potentially because we see them as a victim of unfair disadvantage relative to their opponents (McGinnis & Gentry, 2009). Moreover, Kim et al. (2008) propose that our exposure to cultural underdog narratives, and our own experiences as underdogs, facilitates identification and sympathy for underdogs. Paharia et al. (2011) directly tested this mechanism of identification, showing that identification statistically accounted for people’s greater intentions to purchase products from an underdog brand.
Importantly, a growing body of research has explored the domains in which we offer support for underdogs. Businesses marketing themselves as underdogs facilitate support and greater buying intentions from consumers as a result of heightened identification with the brand (Jun, Sung, Gentry, & McGinnis, 2015; Paharia et al., 2011). People also express an increased desire to vote for political candidates they describe as underdogs (Goldschmied & Vandello, 2009). When viewing artwork ostensibly produced by an underdog, people attribute more skill to the artist, though they do not necessarily find the artwork more enjoyable (Kim et al., 2008). Participants asked to sample chocolate produced by both an underdog and a topdog enjoyed the underdog chocolate more, reported greater intentions to purchase it, and were more likely to recommend it to a friend (Goldschmied, McDaniel, & Ramirez, 2017).
Of course, underdog status—and, by extension, likelihood of failure—can involve clear disadvantage in particular contexts. Individuals or groups already successful generally experience a greater likelihood of future success, suggesting accumulating advantage for those in initially favorable or successful positions (Allison & Stewart, 1974; Altszyler, Berbeglia, Berbeglia, & Hentenryck, 2017; Gladwell, 2011; Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002; Merton, 1968). In terms of support from observers, research historically suggests that group success (e.g., local sports teams) leads affiliated observers to identify more with these groups (i.e., “Basking in Reflected Glory”), whereas group failure leads affiliated observers to identify less (i.e., “Cutting Off Reflected Failure”; Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986). In contrast to these scenarios, however, underdogs are unlikely to succeed in a competition that remains to be decided, and in the present work, musicians do not ostensibly share a social identity with participants (e.g., from the same town). Thus, underdog musicians, in spite of the costs for their failure, likely receive greater support and identification from observers.
In sum, research currently suggests that people’s emotional responses to underdogs yield favorable perceptions of an underdog’s character and a greater desire to see underdogs succeed. Applying this research to music, we test here whether or not underdog musicians would receive similar benefits. In Study 1, we presented participants with an underdog (versus topdog) musician and assessed their interpersonal evaluations (liking, perceived similarity, identification) of the musician and the desire to see them achieve career success. We expected underdogs to receive more favorable evaluations on both measures.
In Study 2, we replicated Study 1 by having participants read about and evaluate an underdog (versus topdog) musician, but we additionally had participants listen to music ostensibly composed by this musician. To our knowledge, all straightforward tests of the underdog effect result in heightened support and interpersonal evaluations. Additionally, people evaluate the underdog’s product more favorably (e.g., Goldschmied et al., 2017; Jun et al., 2015), though not always (e.g., Kim et al., 2008). Consequently, we explore here whether or not people more favorably evaluate music ostensibly composed by underdogs (versus topdogs).
Study 1
The purpose of Study 1 was to test whether or not people affiliated more strongly with, and desired the success of, a hypothetical underdog musician. We therefore randomly assigned participants to read about a recent college graduate who either experienced a life of financial struggle (i.e., underdog status), or who experienced a life of financial ease (i.e., topdog). We measured general emotional reactions to the person as well as liking of them and support for their success as a musician.
Participants
Thirty-four participants (Md age = 35 years; 41% men, 59% women) completed an online survey on Qualtrics through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (http://www.mturk.com/) in exchange for USD$0.25. Participants described themselves as White/Caucasian (82.4%), African American (7.8%), Hispanic (2.0%), Asian (5.9%), or Other (not specified; 1.9%). All participants currently lived within the USA. On a scale ranging from 1= Much Less to 7 = Much More, participants described themselves as having a fairly average amount of prior music experience (M = 3.37, SD = 1.69).
Procedure and Materials
Ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board at Muhlenberg College was granted for all study procedures. Participants completed all materials in the following order through an online survey.
Underdog status vignette
Participants were randomly assigned to read one of two vignettes describing a hypothetical 22-year-old musician named Alex, a name chosen to allow the musician’s gender to remain ambiguous, and the experiences that led to Alex’s aspirations in a music career (see Appendix for exact wording).
We modified each description to manipulate the relative disadvantage that Alex faced competing against other musicians in having a music career. In the underdog condition, participants learned that Alex came from a relatively poor family, thus requiring them to work during high school to fund music lessons and having outstanding student loans from their undergraduate education. In the topdog condition, participants instead learned that Alex came from a relatively affluent family who could afford private lessons during high school and pay for Alex’s college expenses.
Modified Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—Expanded Form (PANAS-X)
The PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994) contains 60 items measuring the degree to which respondents have experienced a battery of emotions, grouped into positive and negative, within the previous four weeks. Responses to each item range from 1 = Very Slightly or Not At All to 5 = Extremely. We reduced this scale to 28 items (14 positive, 14 negative) and asked participants to consider their emotions at the present time rather than the previous four weeks. 1 Sample items included “cheerful” and “disgusted” (positive subscale α = .91, negative subscale α = .90).
Interpersonal support
Because of previous research highlighting perceived similarity and identification (Kim et al., 2008), as well as sympathy and liking (Vandello et al., 2007), as mechanisms for supporting underdogs, we created a composite of five items to assess participants’ interpersonal support for the target. These items included “I feel like I can relate to Alex,” “Alex seems like a likable person,” “I feel like I can identify with Alex,” “Alex seems similar to myself,” and “I feel sympathy for Alex’s situation” (α = .93). Ratings for each statement ranged from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree.
Career support
Respondents finally evaluated the desired and expected outcomes for the musician. Statements included “I hope that Alex succeeds as a musician,” “My gut feeling is that people will want to listen to Alex’s musical pieces,” “I hope that people are willing to pay to listen to Alex’s music,” and “My gut feeling is that, relative to peers, Alex is a more skilled musician.” As these items all reflected positive expected outcomes for the underdog, we combined them to reflect general career support (α = .88). As with the previous scale, ratings for each statement ranged from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree.
Underdog status
Finally, to determine our success in operationalizing underdog status through the vignettes offered, participants rated the statement “Alex seems like what I would consider an ‘underdog’.” As with the previous scale, ratings ranged from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree.
Results
Manipulation Check
We first submitted underdog status to a one-way ANOVA with Underdog Status (underdog, topdog) as the between-groups variable. Results were significant, F(1,32) = 40.96, p < .01, large partial η 2 = .56; 2 participants viewed Alex as most consistent with the underdog label when described as an underdog (M = 5.29, SD = 1.53), compared to when described as a topdog (M = 1.88, SD = 1.58).
Positive and Negative Affect
To test whether or not reading about an underdog elicited heightened positive or negative emotions during the study, we submitted positive and negative affect composites to separate one-way ANOVAs with Underdog Status (underdog, topdog) as the between-groups variable. Neither test produced significant results, F(1,32) < 1, ps > .58. Despite these non-significant effects, we nevertheless included both the positive and negative subscales of the PANAS in all subsequent analyses to allay any concerns that they could have influenced results.
Interpersonal Support
We submitted interpersonal support to a one-way ANCOVA with Underdog Status (underdog, topdog) as the between-groups variable while covarying both the positive and negative subscales of the modified PANAS. Results were significant, F(1,30) = 22.19, p < .01, large partial η2 = .43; interpersonal support was higher for the underdog condition (M = 4.78, SD = 1.40), compared to the topdog condition (M = 2.61, SD = 1.35).
Career Support
We submitted career support to a one-way ANCOVA with Underdog Status (underdog, topdog) as the between-groups variable while covarying both the positive and negative subscales of the modified PANAS. Results were significant, F(1,30) = 6.85, p < .02, medium partial η2 = .18; career support was higher for the underdog condition (M = 5.62, SD = 0.97), compared to the topdog condition (M = 4.52, SD = 1.46).
To explore interpersonal support as a potential mechanism for career support, we repeated the ANCOVA described above while including interpersonal support as a covariate. Interpersonal support significantly predicted career support, F(1,29) = 10.30, p < .01, medium partial η2 = .26. Underdog Status, however, no longer predicted career support F(1,29) < 1.
Discussion
Given the capacity for the underdog label to generate heightened identification, liking, sympathy, and support in past research (Kim et al., 2008; Vandello et al., 2007), we expected here that an underdog musician would receive greater interpersonal and career support. Supporting this hypothesis, participants offered more support to underdogs relative to topdogs on both measures. Notably, the nature of the support pertained to the person’s aptitude as a musician specifically rather than simply to their general likeability; thus, while prior research suggests that people endorse underdogs specifically in other domains (e.g., chocolate consumption; Goldschmied et al., 2017), these results are the first to our knowledge to demonstrate the application of these findings to a music career.
Reading about an underdog did not yield heightened positive or negative emotion as measured by the positive and negative subscales of the modified PANAS, respectively. The short story participants read may have not elicited a particularly strong emotional response. Nevertheless, our controlling for PANAS scores suggests that underdogs received greater support in spite of the emotional reactions participants experienced. Given that reactions to underdogs are ostensibly complex and often involve simultaneous positive and negative concepts (e.g., hero and loser, Goldschmied & Vandello, 2012), we alternatively suggest the need to for future research to survey more complex emotional responses (e.g., hope or optimism).
Finally, echoing prior theoretical accounts for the motive behind underdog support (Kim et al., 2008; Paharia et al., 2011), we find that people desire underdogs to succeed as musicians provided that they find these underdogs more likeable, similar to the self, and identifiable. We return to this point in the General Discussion.
Although the results of Study 1 provide promising evidence that underdog musicians receive greater support, both interpersonally and for career prospects, Study 1 did not require participants to experience music the underdog produced. This leaves open the question of whether or not people perceive underdog musicians as producing higher-quality music compared to topdogs, a question we addressed in Study 2.
Study 2
Whereas Study 1 suggests that underdog status can bolster evaluations hypothetically for aspiring musicians, we designed Study 2 to test how people respond to actual musical pieces in the same context. As with Study 1, we described an aspiring musician as either an underdog or topdog and assessed support for this person both interpersonally as well as for career goals. However, between the vignette description and the evaluations of the person, we randomly assigned participants to listen to one of two piano compositions that varied in terms of their happy or sad content. We then asked participants to appraise the musical piece.
How might the emotional valence of the musical piece influence these outcomes? Hunter, Schellenberg, and Griffith (2011) found that participants’ ratings of both liking and the emotional tone of music depended on their mood prior to hearing the music. Listeners induced into a happy, neutral, or sad mood rated happy or sad music. Participants in a happy or neutral mood liked the happy music more than the sad, but participants in a sad mood liked the happy and sad music equally. The induced mood did not influence the emotion ratings of the music; however, when the emotion in the music was ambiguous, participants induced into a sad mood rated the music as sadder than those in the happy or neutral mood. Vuoskoski and Eerola (2011) did not induce their participants into a specific mood, but measured their naturally occurring mood before they listened to the music. They found a mood-congruent effect: participants’ ratings of the emotions in the music were biased to match up with the participants’ pre-existing mood. Based on these results, if reading about an underdog triggers an emotional response in the participant, we might expect differing evaluations of emotionally valenced music. Given that underdogs elicit feelings associated with sympathy or loss, we might expect people to respond more favorably to the negatively valanced musical piece. Alternatively, if underdogs elicit feelings of optimism or hope, people may respond more favorably instead to the positively valanced piece.
Of course, the music could have no influence at all on the evaluations of the underdog. Kim et al. (2008) asked people to evaluate artwork ostensibly created by underdogs (versus non-underdogs): underdogs receive heightened character evaluations and support, but people do not enjoy their artwork more. Accordingly, we may find that the underdog’s creative product—music, in this case—has no influence on support the underdog receives. We explored these competing predictions in Study 2.
Participants
Sixty-five participants (Md age = 32) recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (www.mturk.com) completed an online survey in exchange for USD$0.50 compensation. Participants described themselves as White/Caucasian (78.5%), African American (10.8%), Hispanic/Latinx (1.5%), Asian (4.6%), or Other (not specified; 4.6%). No data on participant gender was recorded. All participants again came from the USA. Using the same scale from Study 1, participants described themselves as having a fairly average amount of prior music experience (M = 3.37, SD = 1.87).
Procedure and Materials
Ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board at Muhlenberg College was granted for all study procedures. Participants read the same underdog status vignette and completed the PANAS subscales (positive α = .93, negative α = .93) as with Study 1. Participants completed the remaining measures in the order described.
Musical pieces
Participants were randomly assigned to listen to one of two 15-second music clips, ostensibly written by Alex, that varied in emotional valence. We chose piano compositions to keep both clips as consistent on other music-related variables as possible. The negatively valenced piece, Sad Day, was retrieved by the authors from BenSound (www.bensound.com). The positively valenced piece, Jump, was retrieved from YouTube. 3 To ensure participants listened to the entire clip, we embedded the music in a video that contained a code at the end that participants had to report during the survey. All participants passed this check.
Music valence
To evaluate the valence of the musical piece, participants evaluated the following statements on a scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree: “I found the music exciting,” “The music was happy,” and “The music was sad” [reversed]. We created a valence composite (α = .83) with higher scores reflecting more positive valence.
Music liking
To evaluate the liking of the musical piece, participants evaluated a single statement, “I liked the music,” on a scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree.
Participants finally completed the measures of interpersonal support (α = .85) and of career support (α = .86) from Study 1.
Results
Manipulation Check
We submitted underdog status to a one-way ANOVA with Underdog Status (underdog, topdog) as the between-groups variable. Results were significant, F(1,63) = 33.61, p < .01, large partial η 2 = .35; participants viewed Alex as most consistent with the underdog label when described as an underdog (M = 5.00, SD = 1.37), compared to when described as a topdog (M = 2.72, SD = 1.78). We also submitted the valence composite to a one-way ANOVA with Musical Piece (positive, negative) as the between-groups variable. Results were significant, F(1,63) = 77.25, p < .01, large partial η 2 = .55; participants rated the positive music as more positively valenced (M = 5.47, SD = 1.16), compared to the negatively valenced music (M = 2.99, SD = 1.11). 4
Interpersonal Support
We submitted interpersonal support to a two-way factorial ANCOVA with Underdog Status (underdog, topdog) and Musical Piece (positive, negative) as the between-groups variables while covarying both the positive and negative subscales of the modified PANAS. 5 This test failed to produce a main effect for musical piece, F(1,59) = 1.64, p > .20, and did not produce a significant underdog status by musical piece interaction, F(1,59) < 1. However, a main effect for underdog status emerged, F(1,59) = 10.35, p < .01, medium partial η2 = .15; interpersonal support was higher for the underdog condition (M = 4.56, SD = 1.27), compared to the topdog condition (M = 3.60, SD = 1.25).
Career Support
We submitted career support to a two-way factorial ANCOVA with Underdog Status (underdog, topdog) and Musical Piece (positive, negative) as the between-groups variables while covarying both the positive and negative subscales of the modified PANAS. This test failed to produce a main effect for musical piece, F(1,59) < 1, and did not produce a significant underdog status by musical piece interaction, F(1,59) < 1. However, a main effect for underdog status emerged, F(1,59) = 17.00, p < .01, medium partial η2 = .22; career support was higher for the underdog condition (M = 5.24, SD = 1.11), compared to the topdog condition (M = 4.07, SD = 1.09).
We again explored interpersonal support as a potential mechanism for career support, by repeating the factorial ANCOVA described above while including interpersonal support as a covariate. Interpersonal support significantly predicted career support, F(1,60) = 32.54, p < .01, large partial η2 = .35. Underdog Status remained a significant, though somewhat weaker, predictor of career support F(1,60) = 6.36, p = .01, medium partial η2 = .10.
Music Evaluations
We submitted the composite of music evaluations to a two-way factorial ANCOVA with Underdog Status (underdog, topdog) and Musical Piece (positive, negative) as the between-groups variables while covarying both the positive and negative subscales of the modified PANAS. Only a main effect of musical piece emerged, F(1,61) = 71.85, p < .01, large partial η2 = .54, indicating that participants found the positively valenced music more positively valenced (M = 5.47, SD = 1.16), compared to the negatively valenced music (M = 2.99, SD = 1.11). The underdog condition and interaction term were both not significant, F(1,61) < 1.
Music Liking
Finally, we submitted the single item to the same two-way factorial ANCOVA with Underdog Status (underdog, topdog) and Musical Piece (positive, negative) as the between-groups variables while covarying both the positive and negative subscales of the modified PANAS. This test failed to produce a significant main effect for musical piece or for underdog status and also failed to produce a significant musical piece by underdog status interaction effect, all F(1,59) < 1. Overall, average evaluations of the music were M = 4.55 (SD = 1.61), approximately in the middle of the scale participants used to evaluate the score.
Discussion
In Study 2, we sought to replicate and extend the finding from Study 1 that people like and support underdog musicians more than topdog musicians. However, we tested whether or not this finding would remain or change once observers had the chance to listen to a musical piece ostensibly composed by the musician. Consistent with Study 1, participants liked the underdog more interpersonally and desired greater success for their careers.
Interestingly, we did not find evidence that participants actually enjoyed the musical piece itself more when an underdog ostensibly composed it. In fact, the average liking of the music was fairly neutral: this could suggest that participants did not experience an especially strong reaction to the musical piece and that more engaging pieces might yield different results. We are unaware of any research that examines whether or not underdog support varies based on the actual objective quality of the underdog’s outcome, but this finding parallels earlier findings that people can support underdogs without actually finding their work of higher quality (Kim et al., 2008). Here, this could imply that people support underdogs more regardless of the actual music they produce, though this remains a question for future research.
While participants clearly distinguished between the musical pieces with regard to the emotional valence, we found no evidence that positive or negative emotional valence in the musical pieces affected support for an underdog’s composition. As noted earlier, the complex nature of an underdog identity may not simply involve positive or negative emotions and, thus, positive or negative compositions may not resonate with an underdog identity. This raises the question more broadly for future research of the kind of music people expect underdogs to produce. For example, a lyrical acoustic song highlighting one’s struggles may seem consistent and authentic with an underdog identity, whereas a joyful song about one’s own contentment may not.
Finally, in exploring interpersonal evaluations as a mechanism by which people support underdog musicians, we find that statistically controlling for interpersonal evaluations weakens, but does not eliminate, the support offered to underdog musicians. We return to this point in the General Discussion.
General Discussion
The underdog narrative remains a recurring theme within many cultures (Vandello et al., 2016), and anecdotal examples of this narrative exist widely in music. Not only do people root more for underdogs, but the underdog identity has tangible beneficial outcomes (Goldschmied & Vandello, 2009; Kim et al., 2008; Paharia et al., 2011). In the current research, we find that people react to underdog musicians with greater interpersonal liking and a greater desire to see them succeed as musicians (Study 1). Moreover, this reaction remains even when people listen to a sample of the music ostensibly composed by an underdog musician (Study 2). While this finding is not surprising given the breadth of research highlighting support for underdogs, no research to our knowledge has explored this effect within the domain of music.
When statistically controlling for the interpersonal evaluations (e.g., liking, identification), we find that desired career success weakens (Study 2) or vanishes entirely (Study 1). These findings support prior research showing that such evaluations motivate support for underdogs (e.g., Kim et al., 2008; Paharia et al., 2011). This naturally does not suggest that affiliative motives such as liking and identification serve as the only route to underdog support, though future research should explore alternative potential explanations.
The current studies have some limitations in the form of relying on self-report measures: inherently, these measures may not necessarily reflect actual behavioral support for underdogs. Moreover, our choice of short pieces of music in some ways may have inadequately tested the underdog effect; while our participants could clearly discern the emotional valence of the short piece, participants seemed largely indifferent to the piece’s quality. This may suggest the need to vary the quality, genre, or other features of the music to explore any benefit underdogs receive for writing music. To our knowledge, no research has explored the underdog effect by manipulating the quality of an underdog’s product, musically or otherwise, making this an important question for future research. Additionally, although people evaluated the descriptions of musicians as strongly consistent or inconsistent with an underdog, the specific facets of the individual’s biographical story that contributed to this conclusion remain unknown. Future research should assess why and under what contexts certain biographical information may contribute more or less strongly to perceived underdog status.
Nevertheless, these studies have important implications for research on how identities can shape perceptions of musicians. For example, prior research associates particular genres of music with relatively higher or lower social status (North & Hargreaves, 1999, 2007; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2007). People associate the genres of classical and pop with higher status, whereas people associate blues and rap with lower status. Moreover, when an artist with a privileged social status composes music for music genres conventionally associated with underprivileged social status, people may judge the artist more negatively. Indeed, Phelan and Rudman (2010) find that people judge White rap artists (person from privileged group, low-status music) more harshly than Black country singers (person from underprivileged group, high-status music). This finding may coincide with underdog research to the extent that people perceive underdogs as the struggling underprivileged and, moreover, may explain how the privileged, through an underdog identity, may avoid social scorn for writing stereotype-inconsistent music. This remains a question for future research.
Additionally, future research should examine the precise ways that people behaviorally support underdog musicians. While people remain optimistic and supportive of underdogs, they are also cognizant of their likelihood of being unsuccessful; this can result in not supporting underdogs when personal investment is particularly costly (Kim et al., 2008). Still, while people may not invest a great deal initially in an underdog, for musicians, large investments may not be required for a successful career. Modern platforms for music presentation benefit underdogs in at least two ways. First, websites such as Patreon (www.patreon.com) or YouTube (www.youtube.com) allow artists, including musicians, to reach a wide audience. The audience, in turn, may experience little personal cost in opting to follow or subscribe to a musician. While the support of a single audience member might not amount to much for the musician, a larger audience may establish their credibility or appeal for those able to offer more lucrative supporters (e.g., music producers). Second, these platforms allow for artists to interact with their audience in potentially strategic ways: to the extent that artists can successfully present an underdog or otherwise favorable identity, the audience should theoretically offer more support. Ultimately, the way that these platforms foster the potential for an underdog identity, and the behavioral support this identity engenders from an audience, remains a question for future research. To our knowledge, no literature examines the individual qualities that make supporting an underdog more likely. However, given that underdogs seem to garner additional liking, empathy, and identification (Kim et al., 2008; Vandello et al., 2007), we suggest that future research should examine the potency of the underdog effect for those more naturally inclined to empathize with or take the perspective of others.
Finally, we note that while underdogs have many positive qualities, they are certainly not flawless. For instance, people readily associate underdogs with losing and failure (Goldschmied & Vandello, 2012). Moreover, some research suggests that following some competition, people identify more with winners and less with losers (Snyder et al., 1986); this could suggest negative ramifications for assuming an underdog identity as a musician, particularly given the potentially uncertain outcome the underdog identity implies. For reasons discussed prior, supporting an underdog musician may not require much personal sacrifice or investment, but an underdog identity may manifest in detrimental personality evaluations. Even still, supporters of underdogs could experience negative social repercussions to the extent that underdog musicians represent interests or tastes that are unpopular, atypical, or unknown (Denisoff & Levine, 1972; Dixon, 1982). As the current studies asked participants to privately endorse underdogs, future research should explore whether or not this support weakens when expressed publicly instead.
Still, mounting research continues to highlight the benefits of having an underdog status. Here, we extend these benefits to the domain of music. More broadly, this speaks to our need to understand who a musician is perhaps as importantly as what the musician is doing.
