Journal of Distribution Science (유통과학연구)

Korea Distribution Science Association (한국유통과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Distribution of Consumer Support for Underdog Brands: A Systematic Review of the Underdog Effect

  • HAN, Bangwool (Department of International Trade, Faculty of School of Business, Jeonbuk National University)
  • Received : 2022.04.05
  • Accepted : 2022.07.05
  • Published : 2022.07.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The underdog effect refers to a positive attitude towards the underdog who lacks resources and opportunities but has passion and determination. Extensive research has been investigated how the underdog effect affects distributing consumer preference and purchase intention. The purpose of this study is to identify the theoretical basis on which the underdog effect is grounded by analysing the prior research in the underdog literature. Research design, data and methodology: This study organizes the literature on the underdog effect by analyzing a total of 33 journals published in the past 16 years. Constructs and variables were extracted from the selected articles through the content analysis on a systematic literature review. Results: This literature review reveals that identity theories served as an overarching theoretical lens when examining the underdog effect. Additionally, the underdog effect was rooted in theories of justice and equity to explain the relationship between underdog brand positioning and consumer preference. Conclusions: This paper paves the way for future research based on prior research and trend analysis of underdog brand positioning. This article also provides an insightful interpretation and synthesis of the theoretical underpinnings of the impact of underdog effects on consumers' overall brand evaluations.

Keywords

1. Introduction

Malcolm Gladwell, the author of David and Goliath: Underdog, misfits, and the art of battling giants, offers a new interpretation of obstacles and disadvantages from the battle between a shepherd boy, David, and a mighty warrior, Goliath. Three thousand years later, David’s improbable victory exemplifies the role of adversities in miraculous success and motivation. Contemporary dictionaries define that an underdog is 1) a competitor thought to have little chance of winning a fight or contest, 2) a person, team, or country that is thought to be in a weaker position than others, and, 3) less powerful person or thing that struggles against a more powerful entity (Merriam-Webster, 2021). Today, however, the term underdog is often considered optimistic and is usually attributed to positive expectations that the underdog eventually overcomes great odds to be successful. That is, underdogs are also portrayed with characters of never-give-up spirits in challenging discrepancies of resources and determination to overcome external disadvantages (Kim, Allison, Eylon, Goethals, Markus, Hindle, & McGuire, 2008; Paharia, Keinan, & Schor, 2011; Goldschmied & Vandello, 2009). Such figures and the selected triumphant underdogs have often been used in movies, sport, art, and academic domains. The underdog individuals or sports teams struggling to win in competition are described as heroes and hopeful figures. Further, scholars have investigated the phenomenon of underdogs in various fields such as social psychology, political science, and business.

The classification of underdog and top dogs initially comes from the context of sports arenas and has been widely used in politics and business competition including marketing and advertising (Jun, Sung, Gentry, & McGinnis, 2015; McGinnis & Gentry 2009). In sports psychology research, a tendency to support top dogs has been identified by the concept of “bask in reflected glory (BIRG)” (Cialdini, Borden, Thorne, Walker, Freeman, & Sloan, 1976). Related research shows that most people tend to openly associate with ‘winner’ teams and elicit positive emotions about these connections. Conversely, people distance themselves from losing teams, and this is termed as “cutting off reflected failure (CORF)” (Wann, Keenan, Burnett, Martin, Smith, & Lantz, 2002). In addition to sports-related literature, studies on individual support for top dogs and underdogs in politics have been discussed. In fact, the term bandwagon effects and underdog effects were coined in the political literature to describe how voter tendencies can be affected when describing one candidate as a favorite and another as underdogs (Ceci & Kain, 1982). Specifically, Traugott and Lavrakas (2016) devise underdog effects theory as sympathy effects that describe some voters tend to support the candidate whose pre-election polls predict the loss of the elections. Much earlier, Simon (1954) reflects the notion of the underdog effect in the political environment and argues that people have a tendency to vote for a candidate who is expected to be defeated compared to the candidate who is highly anticipated in an election. Moreover, Goldschmied and Vandello (2009) suggest that political candidates positioned as underdogs generate significant influences on voting changes because they devise the image as a warm contender.

More importantly, the definition and focus of underdog and top dog research has received considerable attention in the business domain. A number of companies today have used underdog brand biographies to increase consumer choices for products and services (McGinnis & Gentry, 2017; Paharia et al., 2011). Furthermore, the underdog effect, which refers to consumers’ tendency to support and endorse underdogs due to the passion and determination to overcome lack of resources (Kim et al., 2008; Paharia et al., 2011), has been employed by firms when developing effective brand positioning strategies in promotion and distribution. For example, in relation to small local retailers who lack of technology and innovative skills often build partnership with other local suppliers to acquire network capability as reducing middlemen and avoiding distribution channel cost (Sequeira, Weeks, Bell, & Gibbs, 2018).

In line with this, the current paper aims to review the theories on which the underdog effect is based by analyzing the previous studies selected for the underdog effect. To do so, this paper organizes a total of 33 articles related to the topics of underdog brand positioning, published over the past 15 years between 2007 and 2021. The present paper contributes to the field of underdog brand positioning by answering the following research question: What are the theoretical foundations underlying the underdog effect research? In other words, to provide a better understanding of the underdog effect, the author attempts to analyze how the existing literature has been classified according to the different theoretical underpinnings from which the underdog effect was derived.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follow. First, the methodology section outlines the process of selecting and appraising relevant prior research. The author conducts a literature review of the underdog effect with a focus on underdog positioning and underdog biographies. Then, the following section provides the findings of a literature review analysis that identifies the theoretical underpinnings of the underdog effect. Finally, this paper concludes with a discussion of the findings and implications of the current study.

2. Methodology

The current study conducts a search for journals and publications on “underdog”, “underdog effect”, and “underdog brand positioning” on Google Scholar. As one of the largest search engines available, the database offers convenience, reliability, and accessibility for researchers to gather a variety of sources (Gusenbauer, 2019). Specifically, the author systematized journal articles published between 2007 to 2022 in renowned journals such as Journal of Business Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Brand Management, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Journal of Service Management, and Marketing Intelligence and Planning.

From the search, a total of 33 papers were adopted as the final outcomes for the literature review analysis of this study. Based on the content analysis of the prior literature, the two main constructs of underdog positioning and underdog biographies are derived from the underdog effect, which underpins the theoretical concept.

Figure 1 outlines the methodological approach used in this paper.

3. Findings: Theories of the Underdog Effect

3.1. The Underdog Effect

Traditionally, underdogs are defined as weak and underprivileged, thus less likely to be favored. Whereas, top dogs are defined as a person or group in a position of authority especially through victory in competition (Kim et al., 2008; McGinnis & Gentry, 2009). Underdogs have appeared in various themes of history, literature, and movies by depicted as those who are expected to lose in the competition against top dogs that are endowed with abundant resources and power. However, the concept of the underdog effect takes a counterintuitive view of underdogs, by defining underdogs as a positive entity who possesses passion and determination despite external disadvantages and lack of resources (Paharia et al., 2011). The underdog effect focuses on the underdog’s passion and determination to face overwhelming adversity (McGinnis & Gentry, 2009; Paharia et al., 2011), and this is known to be the main reason consumers support underdogs.

The underdog effect appears when comparison with the top dog is clearly presented. The comparison requires a condition of which underdogs compete with top dogs to gain the well-defined outcome such as larger market share. In addition, while both underdogs and top dogs are equally restricted by the competitive rules, compared to top dogs, underdogs face considerably fewer resources in terms of connections, knowledge, financing, and so on, but face more disadvantages and obligations (McGinnis & Gentry, 2009). More importantly, by showing the never-give-up attitude and a winning mentality, underdogs separate themselves from mere losers. This is to evoke the underdog effect regardless the lack of competitive resources (Kim et al., 2008; Paharia et al., 2011).

In the domains of marketing and consumer behavior, Paharia et al. (2011) conceptualized underdog brand biographies and suggested the use of underdog biographies has a positive effect on consumers’ purchase intentions. The underdog biography describes the brand's status in terms of humble origins, resource scarcity, and a resolute struggle against odds, and this company-generated narrative emphasizes external disadvantage, and passion and determination as two dimensions underlying underdog biographies (Paharia et al., 2011). Accordingly, recent accumulated research has identified various consumer motivations for underdog preferences. As such, consumer characteristics involved in underdog disposition and self brand identification have been adopted in the studies of Kao (2015) and Paharia et al. (2011) respectively to suggest the underdog appeals. Jun et al. (2015) also conducted a study in the context of psychological process underlying underdog support. They argued that individuals with the personal trait of strong empathic concerns are more likely to show favorable attitudes towards underdogs. Furthermore, the usefulness of the underdog effect and underdog brand biographies has been demonstrated through hopeful marketing strategies (Siemens, Smith, & Fisher, 2013).

As a preparatory phase, a comprehensive summary of the underdog literature on which the present study is based for further investigation is provided. Specifically, selected articles for the underdog effect literature are analyzed by segmenting the key constructs into antecedents that include underdog positioning and underdog biographies (Table 1). In addition, Table 2 summarizes the selected studies examining the effect of underdog themed antecedents on consumer responses. The author also classifies variables identified in previous studies that mediate or moderate the relationship between the underdog effect and consumer responses, in which purchase intention and consumer preference are often designated as outcome variables.

Table 1: Summary of Selected Studies: The Underdog Effect, Underdog Biographies, and Underdog Positioning as Independent Variables

Table 2: Summary of the Antecedents of the Underdog Effect on Consumer Responses and Mediating/Moderating Variables

In short, based on the literature analysis of previous studies surrounding the underdog effect, this paper found that consumer evaluations of products and services positioned as underdogs are actually diverse. For example, in the domains of marketing and consumer psychology, prior research showed that the underdog effect mainly constitutes relationships with key psychological processes of disadvantages tend to prefer brands with underdog consumers’ emotions, perceptions, and motivation. In biographies (Kim, Park, & Stacey Lee, 2019; Li & Zhao, addition, the effectiveness of underdog positioning in 2018; Paharia et al., 2011). In light of these findings, consumer evaluation can vary depending on brand detailed theoretical explanations related to the underdog characteristics such as product types and service categories.

Evidently, firms often create brand stories that highlight the characteristics of underdog traits because underdog brand biographies can increase consumer support and brand choice. When consumers identify themselves as underdogs, they are more likely to associate with underdog brands. In fact, consumers who believe that they themselves have passion and determination despite perceived external disadvantages tend to prefer brands with underdog biographies (Kim, Park, & Stacey Lee, 2019; Li & Zhao, 2018; Paharia et al., 2011). In light of these findings, detailed theoretical explanations related to the underdog effect deserve discussion in depth. From the journals selected in this study, the author scrutinizes theories surrounding underdog effects for further analysis. In other words, the author can grasp the theoretical basis for explaining the underdog effect based on the previous studies scrutinized in this paper. In the next section, this article begins by focusing on self-identification and its impact on the underdog effect.

3.2. Identification Theory

People choose to associate with those who are successful and distance themselves from groups that are viewed unfavorably and perceived to have negative identities (Neuberg, Smith, Hoffman, & Russell, 1994; Schimel, Pyszczynski, Greenberg, O’Mahen, & Arndt, 2000). Within research on social status, individuals of higher status are seen as more influential, competent, and worthy than low status individuals or groups (Ridgeway, 2003). Conversely, low-status individuals and groups are more likely to be subject to bias and negative stereotypes and are more likely to be considered worthless and incompetent (Ridgeway, 2001). Therefore, it appears to be at risk of aligning oneself with underdogs to the extent that underdogs share characteristics of low-status entities. Following this logic, it is reasonable to assume that people would not want to associate with underdogs. In addition, according to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), individuals are motivated to achieve positive self-esteem by affiliating with groups that can influence their self-evaluation. Social identity theory suggests that when people observe uneven competition, they identify with groups that are more likely to succeed, in order to achieve positive self-esteem (top dogs). Positive social identity is also enhanced when individuals compare their group favorably with others (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Given this, theories of identification make predictions about which groups people are more likely to identify with.

Nonetheless, the underdog effect can be explained based on the theory of self-identification. Identity may be formed in part by similarities people see between themselves and others (Owens, Robinson, & Smith-Lovin, 2010), and that most people identify themselves as underdogs, indeed. According to previous research, people have shown their preference towards underdogs with various motives and demonstrated support for underdogs because they can identify with underdogs (Jin & Huang, 2019; Kim et al., 2019; Li & Zhao, 2018; Paharia et al., 2011). For instance, Paharia et al. (2011) argue that based on self-identification, the underdog effect occurs because people see themselves as underdogs, reflecting the underdog aspects of their own lives and creating a sense of similarity. A strong sense of identity with underdogs allows people to align themselves with the struggling underdog, which produces the underdog effect. In other words, people sympathize and identify with external disadvantages that underdogs face and yet willing to share the underdog’s passion and determination to succeed in difficult situations.

In the marketing field, underdog effect can be explained by high perceived consumer-brand identification, one of the underlying motives to support underdog brands (Kao, 2015; Kim et al., 2019; Paharia et al., 2011). The identification based explanation of the underdog effect means that consumers feel a psychological unity with the brand based on how much the brand reflects their own identity. That is, consumers interact with a brand through their own underdog position. In the consumer choice literature, self-consistency refers to the degree of cognitive adaptation between self concept and brand image (Sirgy & Su, 2000). Consumers choose brands that reflect their actual or ideal self-concept, and they believe that the high identification brand shares self-defining attributes with them (Sirgy 1982; Stokburger- Sauer, Ratneshwar, & Sen, 2012). Consequently, consumers demonstrate positive responses to a brand when they perceive that their identity matches that of the brand (Reed II, Forehand, Puntoni, & Warlop, 2012). The following Table 3 provides some previous studies employing the theory of identity as an overarching theoretical lens when investigating the underdog effect.

Table 3: Underpinning theories of the underdog effect: Identity theories

3.3. System Justification Theory

There is a body of research that the underdog effect is built on theories of the justice, fairness, and inequality (Allison & Burnette, 2009; Han & Kim, 2020; Kim et al., 2008; McGinnis & Gentry, 2009; Vandello, Goldschmied, & Richards, 2007; Vandello, Goldschmied, & Michniewicz, 2016). For instance, Kim et al. (2008) indicate that people are more likely to sympathize and identify with underdogs than top dogs because underdogs can satisfy their desire to actualize fairness and equality. To reduce cognitive dissonance, individuals tend to believe that the world is basically a fair and just place (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004). System justification theory (SJT) states that individuals have a general motive to maintain the perceived fairness and justice (Jost et al., 2004; van der Toorn & Jost, 2014). More specifically, within socioeconomic systems, people seek to maintain perceived fairness, equality, and legitimacy in their own status quo when their beliefs in the idealistic image of the system are challenged (Shepherd, Chartrand, & Fitzsimons, 2015).

In the context of supporting underdogs, system justification theory helps explain the underdog effect because underdogs experience inequalities in direct competitions with top dogs as signaling external disadvantages that are perceived as unfair, and thus activate people’s concern of justice and equity. Generally, when competitions reveal injustice and disparities in power, people, as observers, decide which party to support according to their internal concepts of justice and deservingness (Han & Kim, 2020; Vandello et al., 2007, 2016). In other words, these observers may implicitly employee the sense of fairness to make their judgement on whom to support, especially when they have no control of changing the outcome directly. That is, they question the fairness of the distribution of rewards with respect to general principles of justice and legitimized norms (Lerner, 2003; Skitka & Tetlock, 1992).

Given that people distaste inequality and competitive situations of inequality provoke people’s sense of fairness and justice (Fehr & Schmidt, 1999; Messick, 1995), supporting the underdog may be one way to restore a sense of fairness. In addition, people’s concerns about fair outcomes can override selfishness, allowing them to experience greater utility with equality than favorable inequality (Camerer, 2003). In this sense, compared to more lucrative rivals, people are motivated to evaluate the performance of underdogs in a more positive light. Consequently, supporting underdogs and viewing their performance from a positive perspective clearly create a psychological balance that minimize the dissonance (Shin Legendre, Warnick, & Baker, 2018; Vandello et al., 2007, 2016).

Table 4 below summarizes a selection of the prior studies that have used the theory of justice and equity to explain the relationship between the underdog effect and consumer response.

Table 4: Underpinning theories of the underdog effect: Justice and Equity theories

4. Conclusion

The present study considers that the majority of brands are not strong market leaders, so employing underdog positioning is one of the effective strategies for companies. Studies of the underdog effect should focus on the lack of resources and market opportunities in which relatively small and less-established companies are generally perceived by consumers. Due to underdog affection, a company’s underdog status, for instance, can strengthen the sales of the underdog consumption experiences by effectively operating a company’s channel and supply chain strategy (Gao & McGinnis, 2020). Further, such consumer affection for underdog condition, which is motivated by a belief in the balance of market power, enables underdog firms to distribute products and services as viable alternatives to customers of dominant companies.

That is, companies can exploit the underdog effect by leveraging consumers’ concerns for justice and fairness, as evidenced by the systematic literature review conducted in this paper. Moreover, research may need to re-evaluate self- congruency, consumer socioeconomic level, and brand images as underlying processes of underdog effect while controlling for the perceived authenticity of the focal products and services (Siemens, Weathers, Smith, & Fisher, 2020). In addition, further research should extend beyond external disadvantages, passion and determination to explore alternative mechanisms that account for the underdog effect on consumer preference, as perceptions of the benefits of underdogs are diluted across industries and cultures (Goldschmied, Galily, & Keith, 2018; Paharia et al., 2011). Alternatively, studies of the underdog effect should also incorporate motivational theories, such as self-efficacy theory (Han, Sembada, & Johnson, 2021), to explore boundary conditions that may limit consumers from supporting brands positioned as underdogs.

In short, across businesses such as brand positioning, advertising, distribution and logistics, the underdog effect results in a positive consumer response for brands facing underprivileged conditions while remaining enthusiastic and perseverant to overcome uncontrolled obstacles. Despite the limitations of the non-empirical paper, it is hoped that the explanations provided here has shed more light on the understanding of the conceptual background and managerial practices of underdog brand positioning.

References

  1. Allison, S. T., & Burnette, J. L. (2009). Fairness and preference for underdogs and top dogs. Social Decision Making: Social Dilemmas, Social Values, and Ethical Judgements, 291, 291-314.
  2. Boytos, A., Smith, K., & Kim, J. (2017). The underdog advantage in creativity. Thinking skills creativity, 26, 96-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.10.003
  3. Bradley, A., Lawrence, C., & Ferguson, E. (2019). When the relatively poor prosper: the underdog effect on charitable donations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 108-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018794305
  4. Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral studies of strategic thinking in games. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(5), 225-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00094-9
  5. Ceci, S. J., & Kain, E. L. (1982). Jumping on the bandwagon with the underdog: The impact of attitude polls on polling behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46(2), 228-242. https://doi.org/10.1086/268715
  6. Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of personality social Psychology of Education, 34(3), 366-375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.366
  7. Delgado-Ballester, E. (2020). Effect of underdog (vs top dog) brand storytelling on brand identification: exploring multiple mediation mechanisms. Journal of Product Brand Management, 30(4), 626-638. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-11-2019-2639
  8. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The quarterly journal of economics, 114(3), 817-868. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151
  9. Gao, T. T., & McGinnis, L. P. (2020). Building a compelling underdog consumption experience. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 30(2), 93-105.
  10. Goldschmied, N., & Vandello, J. A. (2009). The advantage of disadvantage: Underdogs in the political arena. Basic Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530802659810
  11. Goldschmied, N., Galily, Y., & Keith, K. (2018). Evidence for cross-cultural support for the underdog: is the affiliation driven by fairness and competence assessments? Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2246, 1-7.
  12. Goldschmied, N., McDaniel, C., & Ramirez, V. (2017). Preference for the underdog when sampling commercial products: Assessment of the effect and limiting conditions. Journal of Marketing Behavior, 3(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1561/107.00000041
  13. Gusenbauer, M. (2019). Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics, 118(1), 177-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5
  14. Han, B., & Kim, M. (2020). Interaction of the underdog with equality and scarcity. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 38(2), 254-267. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-10-2018-0453
  15. Han, B., Sembada, A. Y., & Johnson, L. W. (2021). Leveraging Underdog Positioning and Consumer Trait Agreeableness for Sustained Marketing Strategy. Sustainability, 13(23), 12940. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312940
  16. He, Y., You, Y., & Chen, Q. (2020). Our conditional love for the underdog: The effect of brand positioning and the lay theory of achievement on WOM. Journal of Business Research, 118, 210-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.007
  17. Jin, L., & Huang, Y. (2019). How Power States Influence the Persuasiveness of Top-Dog versus Underdog Appeals. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(2), 243-261. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1069
  18. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political psychology, 25(6), 881-919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
  19. Jun, S., Sung, J., Gentry, J. W., & McGinnis, L. P. (2015). Effects of underdog (vs. top dog) positioning advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 495-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996199
  20. Kao, D. T. (2015). Is Cinderella resurging? The impact of consumers' underdog disposition on brand preferences: Underdog brand biography and brand status as moderators. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(5), 307-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1521
  21. Kao, D. T. (2019). The impact of envy on brand preference: brand storytelling and psychological distance as moderators. Journal of Product Brand Management, 28(4), 515-528. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2018-2004
  22. Kim, J., Allison, S. T., Eylon, D., Goethals, G. R., Markus, M. J., Hindle, S. M., & McGuire, H. A. (2008). Rooting for (and then abandoning) the underdog. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(10), 2550-2573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00403.x
  23. Kim, Y., Park, K., & Stacey Lee, S. (2019). The underdog trap: The moderating role of transgression type in forgiving underdog brands. Psychology & Marketing, 36(1), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21155
  24. Kirmani, A., Hamilton, R. W., Thompson, D. V., & Lantzy, S. (2017). Doing well versus doing good: The differential effect of underdog positioning on moral and competent service providers. Journal of Marketing Behavior, 81(1), 103-117. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0369
  25. Lerner, M. J. (2003). The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may not find it again. Personality social psychology review, 7(4), 388-399. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0704_10
  26. Li, Y., & Zhao, M. (2018). Must the underdog win? The moderation effect of product type in the underdog effect of brand stories. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 21(4), 237-245. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12326
  27. McGinnis, L. P., Gao, T., Jun, S., & Gentry, J. (2017). Motivational bases for consumers' underdog affection in commerce. Journal of Service Management, 28(3), 563-592. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-02-2016-0052
  28. McGinnis, L. P., & Gentry, J. W. (2009). Underdog consumption: An exploration into meanings and motives. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 191-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.026
  29. Messick, D. M. (1995). Equality, fairness, and social conflict. Social Justice Research, 8(2), 153-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02334689
  30. Nagar, K. (2019). Support for the underdog brand biography: Effects on consumer attitude and behavior. Journal of Marketing Communications, 25(5), 477-493. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2017.1356349
  31. Nagar, K. (2021). Using topdog versus underdog brand biography in advertising: Effects of similarity and consumption decision of non-deceptive counterfeits. Journal of Marketing Communications, 27(4), 415-435. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2020.1777579
  32. Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D. M., Hoffman, J. C., & Russell, F. J. (1994). When We Observe Stigmatized and "Normal" Individuals Interacting: Stigma by Association. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 20(2), 196-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294202007
  33. Nurmohamed, S. (2020). The underdog effect: When low expectations increase performance. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1106-1133. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0181
  34. Owens, T. J., Robinson, D. T., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2010). Three faces of identity. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 477-499. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134725
  35. Paharia, N., Avery, J., & Keinan, A. (2014). Positioning brands against large competitors to increase sales. Journal of marketing Research, 51(6), 647-656. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0438
  36. Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J., & Schor, J. B. (2011). The underdog effect: The marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 775-790. https://doi.org/10.1086/656219
  37. Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Social status and group structure. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes, 352-375.
  38. Ridgeway, C. L. (2003). and Leadership. Leadership Power: Identity Processes in Groups Organizations, 65.
  39. Reed II, A., Forehand, M. R., Puntoni, S., & Warlop, L. (2012). Identity-based consumer behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 310-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.08.002
  40. Schimel, J., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., O'Mahen, H., & Arndt, J. (2000). Running from the shadow: Psychological distancing from others to deny characteristics people fear in themselves. Journal of Personality Social Psychology of Education, 78(3), 446-462. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.446
  41. Schmidt, H. J., & Steenkamp, P. (2021). Beware, an underdog may bite: literature review and brand management framework in the context of underdog brands. Journal of Brand Management, 29, 85-110. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-021-00259-1
  42. Sequeira, J., Weeks, K., Bell, M., & Gibbs, S. (2018). Making the case for diversity as a strategic business tool in small firm survival and success. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 28(3), 31-47.
  43. Shepherd, S., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2015). When brands reflect our ideal world: The values and brand preferences of consumers who support versus reject society's dominant ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(1), 76-92. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv005
  44. Shin Legendre, T., Warnick, R., & Baker, M. (2018). The support of local underdogs: System justification theory perspectives. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 59(3), 201-214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965517748773
  45. Shirai, M. (2017). Underdog effects: The role of consumption domain and retail crowding. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(5), 384-392. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-07-2016-1872
  46. Siemens, J. C., Smith, S. D., & Fisher, D. (2013). Second best: Exploring the effectiveness of underdog brand positioning. Paper presented at the AMA Winter Educators' Conference Proceedings, Vol.24, 454-455.
  47. Siemens, J. C., Weathers, D., Smith, S., & Fisher, D. (2020). Sizing Up Without Selling Out: The Role of Authenticity in Maintaining Long-Run Consumer Support for Successful Underdog Brands. Journal of Advertising, 49(1), 78-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1712273
  48. Simon, H. A. (1954). Bandwagon and underdog effects and the possibility of election predictions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 18(3), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1086/266513
  49. Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287-300. https://doi.org/10.1086/208924
  50. Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behavior: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 340-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750003800402
  51. Skitka, L. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (1992). Allocating scarce resources: A contingency model of distributive justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(6), 491-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90043-j
  52. Staton, M., Paharia, N., & Oveis, C. (2012). Emotional marketing: How pride and compassion impact preferences for underdog and top dog brands. ACR North American Advances, 40, 1045-1046.
  53. Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Drivers of consumer-brand identification. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 406-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.06.001
  54. Tang, Y. E., & Tsang, A. S. (2020). Inspire me to purchase: Consumers' personal control and preference for underdog brand positioning. Journal of Business Research, 115, 101-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.031
  55. Tayfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of intergroup relations, 7-24.
  56. Tezer, A., Bodur, O., & Grohmann, B. (2022). When Goliaths Win and Davids Lose: The moderating role of perceived risk in brand biography effects. Psychology & Marketing, 39(1), 27-45.
  57. van der Toorn, J., & Jost, J. T. (2014). Twenty years of system justification theory: Introduction to the special issue on "Ideology and system justification processes". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(4), 413-419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214531509
  58. Traugott, P. D. M. W., & Lavrakas, P. D. P. J. (2016). The voter's guide to election polls. 3d ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
  59. Vandello, J. A., Goldschmied, N., & Michniewicz, K. (2016). Underdogs as heroes. In Handbook of heroism and heroic leadership (pp. 361-377): Routledge.
  60. Vandello, J. A., Goldschmied, N. P., & Richards, D. A. (2007). The appeal of the underdog. Personality social psychology bulletin, 33(12), 1603-1616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207307488
  61. Wann, D. L., Keenan, B. L., Burnett, S., Martin, J., Page, L., Smith, L., & Lantz, C. D. (2002). The impact of sport team identification and attributions of ability and effort on spectators' impressions of athletic performance. North American Journal of Psychology, 4(3), 347-354.
  62. Zourrig, H., & El Hedhli, K. (2018). Consumers' motivations and roles in rooting for or against underdog consumer. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 42(1), 164-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12395