Gender Roles In Sports Broadcasting

Do you ever wonder why you only hear male announcers during Men’s March Madness games?

It’s because for as long as March Madness has been around, only two women have ever been hired as sports analysts. According to a New York Times article, Debbie Antonelli was hired as the first woman since 1995 to be an analyst in the 2017 N.C.A.A men’s tournament games. Debbie Antonelli has been a sideline reporter for 29 years, studying hundreds of teams and players. There are plenty of women qualified to call men’s tournament games. But it took twenty two years for another woman to have an opportunity to work on a men’s tournament broadcast. Debbie Antonelli knows that a lot of pressure rides on her performance, because if she makes a mistake people will say, “Oh it’s because she is a woman.”

If women are just as qualified as men to broadcast, then why have there only been two women calling March Madness games in history?

Gender roles are a big factor. Gender roles are expectations for male and female behavior. In society, men are expected to be better at sports, therefore better at announcing them. Previous studies show that men tend to be more outspoken, confident, athletic and dominant. All these traits make a good sports broadcaster. But other studies show that people perceive women to be shy, quiet, and less sports oriented. Since society has such strong views on males and females, it’s no wonder the sports broadcasting industry is overfilled with males. Gender roles make males the perfect candidates for this job and make people question if females would qualify for such a position. Expectations for gender roles are real, but are not applicable to every individual. Not all girls are quiet and uninterested in sports. Many girls play college basketball, study the March Madness games and have worked in the men’s basketball field for years. Just because gender roles depict girls one way does not mean every girl has those characteristics. Women can be just as confident and knowledgeable about basketball as men.

According to a study done on Sex Segregation in Television Sports Broadcasting, women work mainly on sideline reporting, but are underrepresented as studio analysts and live announcers. This study focuses on the relationship between job classification within sports broadcasting and explanatory variables such as sex. Ninety Five percent of play-by-play announcers are male and 93 percent of sports analysts are males. Gender is a big factor in job distribution. Women are concentrated in lower sideline jobs, while males occupy higher positions. In society gender roles associate women to be less qualified as sports announcers than men because of their expected behaviors. The New York Times article shows how gender roles can be challenged. Debbie Antonelli has been working with college basketball for years, but it took the broadcasting industry two decades to finally hire her as a play-by-play announcer. Gender roles play a big role in Sports Broadcasting, but powerful women like Debbie Antonelli and enlightening news articles challenge the expected behaviors of women and men.

References

Macur, J. (2017, March 10). Another Woman at the March Madness Mike? That Only Took 2 Decades. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/sports/ncaabasketball/another-woman-at-the-march-madness-mike-that-only-took-2-decades.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FESPN&action=click&contentCollection=business&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection

Coventry, B.T. (2004). On the Sidelines: Sex and Racial Segregation in Television Sports Broadcasting. Sociology of Sport Journal, 21(3), 322-341. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=511b6c1c-df33-4909-8ab2-26c6a0536da9%40sessionmgr101&hid=101

Myers, D. (2015). Exploring Social Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education

Swift Refuses to Conform

The 2016 election was probably one of the most memorable elections of this generations’ lifetime. No one could have guessed that TV personality and businessman Donald Trump would not only run for presidency, but also win and become the 45th president of the United States. Besides Donald Trump’s lack of political experience, what really surprised many was his outspoken, unfiltered, and more times than not, very controversial way of speaking. During this election, many well-known names spoke out against Trump and publicly voiced their political position. Celebrities such as Beyoncé, Meryl Streep, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, and many others made it known that they were against Trump and fully supported his opposing candidate, Hillary Clinton. Though many celebrities spoke out and against Trump, one celebrity in particular, one who many would expect to follow the same route remained relatively silent and because of this has received some backlash for it.

In an article by one of Cosmopolitan’s contributors and authors, Mehera Bonner, Bonner discuses how singer-songwriter Taylor Swift recently received some backlash from actress Lola Kirke for not using her platform to denounce Trump. Kirke’s stance was that Taylor might as well have supported Trump since she remained silent during the election. Bonner writes, “There’s no obligation for celebrities to tell their fans who they voted for. But — in the age of Trump — the phrase “silence is compliance” gets thrown around for good reason.” This article presents an example of conformity. Conformity is a change in behavior or belief as the result or real or imagined group pressure (Myers, 2015). Two main reasons why individuals conform are because they believe that the mass majority knows something that they don’t, and therefore they must be right. The other reason is to avoid any discomfort or possible judgment that comes with disagreeing or going against the mass. This article presents a perfect example of nonconformity and what can result. By not conforming and not following the same path as other popular celebrities, Taylor Swift received some pretty harsh feedback. Though she did not reveal whom she was voting for, Swift made it clear that she was voting through social media. Many would assume that she did in fact vote for Clinton due to her public support for her in 2008. Did Swift remain silent because she supported Trump, or did she just want to remain private for this personal matter? In one article, the topic of political conformity is explored.

In one particular study, it was tested to see if individuals would conform on political issues and which individual differences influence this behavior. The study revealed that individuals do alter their political opinions they share with others whom they disagree with (Carlsen, 2016). It was found that many individuals, more than 80%, did alter their previously stated political views. It was also found that when in a group with other participants, the majority disagreeing with the main subject’s viewpoint, the participant was more likely to conform.

Taylor Swift’s reason for remaining silent during this past election is still unknown, but based on the study there could be several theories as to why she kept quiet. Taylor Swift has been very active in various causes throughout her career. She has promoted the Every Woman Counts campaign and she has spoken out against LGBT discrimination. Due to her active participation in more liberal causes, the mass majority of her fan base more than likely supported Clinton. If Taylor Swift did have opposing views to the majority and possibly decided to vote for Trump for other reasons, her awareness of her fan base may have led her to keep her silence in regards to this election. By remaining silent, Swift would avoid possible controversy and fallout with her and her fans.

 

 

 

 

 

Carlson, Taylor N. and Jaime E. Settle. “Political Chameleons: An Exploration of Conformity in Political Discussions.” Political Behavior, vol. 38, no. 4, Dec. 2016, pp. 817-859. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9335-y.

 

Bonner, M. (2017, March 17). Lola Kirke Slams Taylor Swift for Staying Silent About Trump. Retrieved from

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/a9146655/lola-kirke-taylor-swift-trump-interview/

 

Myers, D. G. (2015) Exploring Social Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.

Don’t dump because of Trump

url.jpg

By: Andrew Lacativa

Due to the recent presidential election results, many people have struggled to decide whether or not they should take their investments out of the stock market or keep them in. Before the decision is made to remove your funds from the stock market, you should be aware of a possible flaw in your decision-making. According to New York Times journalist, Neil Irwin, the president has a minimal affect on most of the stock market’s flow (Irwin, 2017). These recent heuristics of American citizens demonstrate the illusory correlation. People often perceive the existence of a relationship between two things as stronger than they really are; sometimes they really have no relationship which is a correlation error (Myers, 2015).

Today, mass numbers of people find hundreds of ways to blame Trump for certain situations because of his current image in our government. A prime example is the Liberals who are consulting with stock market specialists about cashing out or not (Irwin, 2017). People automatically think that every move our president makes will somehow make or break our economy and affect themselves directly. The simple truth is that there isn’t solid evidence that our president has a heavy influence on the stock market. The state of stock prices can either fall or rise, no matter who is in office. Economists can also agree that the president does not have an affect on how fast the stock markets grows as well. To continue, the stock market is constantly breaking down as the years continue, due to many demanding fixes. It does not matter whether our president will be able to handle the economy, because people will continue to invest in big companies which will ultimately affect the stock market regardless. A psychological study performed in 2014 involving political ideologies and the illusory correlation enhances the existing debate whether people actually are influenced more by politics more than we think (Carraro, 2014). The results of the study seem to indicate that an implicit and explicit illusory correlation bias emerged both in the case of liberals and in the case of conservatives, although remarkably stronger in the explicit illusory correlation bias (Carraro, 2014)

 

References

Carraro, L., Negri, P., Castelli, L., & Pastore, M., Pastore. (2014). Implicit and explicit illusory

correlation as a function of political ideology. Plos One, 9(5), e96312. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096312  

 

Irwin, N. (2017, February 13). It’s Probably a Bad Idea to Sell Stocks Because You Fear Trump.

Retrieved February 10, 2017, from

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/upshot/its-probably-a-bad-idea-to-sell-stocks-because-you-fear-trump.html https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_8rzY-5rSAhXM6yYKHQ6iCVIQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aol.com%2F2014%2F03%2F05%2Frepublican-democrat-presidents-better-stock-market-performance%2F&bvm=bv.147448319,d.amc&psig=AFQjCNHfwMZcopBMyzempFjIpufpUExxkA&ust=1487552630521758

Swipe Right (For Republican)

 

By Connor Wills

While we watch policy and government morph and change with the recent inauguration of President Trump, most people are continuing on with their day to day lives. They’re buying groceries, going to school and work- and they’re even dating! But what does dating have to do with Donald Trump? Does politics play a role in relationships? According to NPR, it sure does. When talking to individuals, they found that a person’s political party will either immediately connect or disconnect individuals looking for a romantic relationship. Why? Likely it has something to do with confirmation bias.

According to a study published by the Polish Psychological Bulletin, people exhibit a confirmation bias when faced with making judgements based on moral character and intelligence/competence. The study’s results showed that people were more likely to search for reasons to support their judgements based on character than they were to search for support of intelligence. They exhibited more bias when it came to moral situations and moral traits- such as honesty- than when it came to competence- such as logical reasoning. And- get this- it made no difference whether one was aware of their bias or not, they still expressed the same amount of bias towards the individual. So, people are likely to act biased towards people based on perceptions of moral character- and they will actively search for reasons to back up their claim.

So, wait- how does this connect to dating? Shared morals and values are one of the things that allow relationships to work. And so, these values are often included on online dating profiles. If I were to mention Hillary Clinton, what kind of ideas would pop into your mind? Likely her morals and values expressed during her campaign. What if I mentioned Donald Trump? The same, right? People are including their political stances on their dating profiles, which puts a perception of character in an individual’s mind. So, when people are browsing through, say, Tinder, and open someone’s profile to see that they have a political affiliation listed, an individual will immediately start looking for validation to support the perception that comes along with it. This confirmation bias is pushing Democrats and Republicans even farther apart, as it is only enforcing the perceived moral differences between the groups. Will Republicans and Democrats be able to get over their differences any time soon? Well, we’ll just have to wait and see.

 

Citations:

Brycz, H., Wyszomirska-Góra, M., Bar-Tal, Y., & Wiśniewski, P. (2014). The effect of metacognitive self on confirmation bias revealed in relation to community and competence. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 45(3). doi:10.2478/ppb-2014-0037

 

Myers, D. G. (2012). Exploring social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 

Smith, T. (2017, February 14). When Dating In The Era Of Divisive Politics, Both Sides Stick To Themselves. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://www.npr.org/2017/02/14/515179534/when-dating-in-the-era-of-divisive-politics-both-sides-stick-to-themselves

The Spotlight Effect in Entertainment

 

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

BLOG POST #1-

MEMBERS: LynJoy Robinson, Tess Petreycik, Christina Marciante, Jacqueline Recio, Matt Benedict

Author: LynJoy Robinson

 

The Spot Light Effect in Entertainment

The Spotlight Effect is the tendency for one to have a self-conscious approach to situations, essentially overestimating how intensely one’s actions and/or appearance are scrutinized by others. A recent video clip published online featured the Kardashian-Jenner clan on vacation in Costa Rica. The video was tagged Kourtney Kardashian brings her beautifying team on vacation. The video featured Kourtney Kardashian sitting down getting her makeup done, by a member of her beauty team, while she made a snapchat video for her fans to see. (Anthony, 2017)

The Kardashian girls jump through hoops to ensure their appearance is always on point, both in person and on their social media pages. They typically do not like being photographed without their makeup and hair done. But do people really care about how these ladies look? Are the Kardashians making a big fuss out of something insignificant? I believe the answers to these questions are Yes!  Based on how these ladies think they should look, they are evidently experiencing the Spotlight Effect.

A peer reviewed article, The Spotlight Effect in Social Judgement, written by Thomas Gilovich et.al (2000) eloquently explains this concept.  The article draws the conclusion that people typically “overestimate the extent to which their actions and appearance are noted by others (Gilovich, Medvec, Savitsky., 2000, p. 1).” The researchers conducted a three-part study. The participants were asked to wear t-shirts that had either a flattering image, or an embarrassing image. The participants wearing these t-shirts overestimated the amount of observers that would be able to recall the words/ images on their shirt. In another study, participants were placed in a group discussion, where they again overestimated the extent to which their exchange of words were remembered by their fellow group members.

The research concluded that the Spotlight Effect is very present in everyday life. The assessment of one’s self sparks the perception that one’s actions are ‘under the microscope’ of others. People “typically end up overestimating their own prominence in the eyes of others” (Gilovich, et al., 2000, p. 9).

As humans, we are all guilty of over assessing our own behaviors and actions, even when we don’t realize it. The article and video cited earlier gave a pronounced example of the Spotlight Effect. The Kardashian-Jenner ladies payed presumably thousands of dollars for a beauty team to follow them all the way throughout Costa Rica, just so they could look their absolute best while on vacation to maintain the image they thought was necessary. They believe the world is scrutinizing their imperfections. But the reality is, no one seem to care as much as they think. People are largely caught up with more concerning issues happening in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Anthony, R. (2017). Kourtney Kardashian Strips Naked For A Sexual Skinny-Dipping Picture.

Elite Daily. Retrieved from http://elitedaily.com/entertainment/celebrity/kourtney-kardashian-naked-skinny-dipping-snapchat/1772727/

Anthony, R. (2017). Kourtney Kardashian brings her beautifying team on vacation. Elite Daily.

Retrieved from http://elitedaily.com/entertainment/celebrity/kourtney-kardashian-naked-skinny-dipping-snapchat/1772727/

Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An

egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 78(2), 211-222. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.211

Myers, David G. (2012). Exploring Social Psychology. New York: McGraw- Hill.

A False Sense of Reality

By: Christina Stewart

Just a day after Trump’s inauguration on January 20th, 2017, him and his administration stunned the public with false assertions about how many people attended the ceremony.

In an article from NBC News titled “Some Experts Say Trump Team’s Falsehoods Are Classic ‘Gaslighting’,” by Maggie Fox, she and two psychologists explain the impact of these false assertions. Trump and White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, came under fire after claiming that the media misrepresented the crowd size of the inauguration. According to Trump, more people were in attendance than had been reported on and depicted in photos (Fox, 2017). Spicer furthered this comment saying that the inauguration had the largest audience in history (Fox, 2017). Not surprisingly, news agencies were quick to dispute the claims. The general public’s psychological health was undoubtedly affected by these statements as they felt manipulated and dumbed-down.

According to clinical psychologist Bryant Welch and Robert Feldman, the systemic lying from Trump’s camp is a sign of “gaslighting”: a term used to describe when one manipulates and confuses another making them question reality. Confusing people makes them vulnerable —  making it easier to gain power over them whether or not they believe what they’re being told (Fox, 2017). The deliberate nature of these false allegations showed arrogance and disrespect for the American audience.

Reading about this event reminded me of the cognitive dissonance theory. When the American public heard the statements disputing the crowd sizes, this resulted in cognitive dissonance: a feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from having two inconsistent thoughts or beliefs at the same time (Myers, 2012, pp. 97-98). The general public recognized that the crowd size was significantly smaller despite what Trump’s administration claimed. With these two viewpoints clashing, the public was left in a state of disarray. This dissonance not only induced shock, but also mentally affected the public − so much so that it affected their memories.

The public’s reaction was expected and can be explained by findings from a cognitive dissonance study conducted by Dario Rodriguez and Deryn Strange. Authors of the article “False Memories for Dissonance Inducing Events,” Rodriguez and Strange tested just how common it is for people to alter and distort their past to support their self-concepts. They sought to test the hypothesis of whether or not cognitive dissonance causes people to misrepresent their memories and attitudes.

In the experiment, around one hundred undergraduates were told to write an essay where they were either allowed to choose their stance, or were told which stance to take regarding a tuition increase (Rodriguez and Strange, 2014). Before and after the experiment, participants had to complete an online questionnaire asking for their true opinions on several school-related issues. On the questionnaire following the experiment, participants were instructed to think back to the initial online survey, and answer the items as they did at that time (Rodriguez and Strange, 2014). The hope was that attitudes would change after the experiment had ended.

Those who chose their stance exhibited the predicted attitude-shift, and were more likely to misremember their initial attitudes than those whose stances were dictated. Overall, the results provide that cognitive dissonance may cause memory distortion. In terms of the American public, those who recognized the real crowd size were more likely to distort and question this initial belief than those who did not. In other words, those who had agreed with Trump’s statements were less likely to feel any kind of dissonance. Therefore, being told to believe in a false crowd size challenged the public’s memory. People’s memories had to be re-adjusted to fit their self-perceptions after being told the crowd was larger than it was.

It’s fascinating to see how Trump’s behavior is reinforced by psychological data. His willingness to distort the truth is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance, as is his willingness to distort reality.

 

Works Cited

AP. (2017, January 25). Some Experts Say Trump Team’s Falsehoods Are Classic ‘Gaslighting’ [Digital image]. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from This pair of photos shows a view of the crowd on the National Mall at the inaugurations of President Barack Obama, above, on Jan. 20, 2009, and President Donald Trump, below, on Jan. 20, 2017. The photo above and the screengrab from video below were both shot shortly before noon from the top of the Washington Monument.

Fox, M. (2017, January 25). Tall tales about Trump’s crowd size are “gaslighting”, some experts say. Retrieved January 29, 2017, from http://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/some-experts-say-trump-team-s-falsehoods-are-classic-gaslighting-n711021.

Myers, D. G. (2012). Exploring Social Psychology (7th ed.). New York:    McGraw-Hill.

Rodriguez, D. N., & Strange, D. (2014). False memories for dissonance inducing events Memory, 23(2), 203-212. doi:10.1080/09658211.2014.881501

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Women In The Film Industry

By: Emily Indriolo

In today’s media,we see a lot of controversy over gender inequalities in the industry almost every day. If you go on social media, it will likely be one of the first news topics to pop up. This was the case when we found the article “Women still woefully underrepresented in Oscar nominations, study finds,” written by Nicole Sperling on Entertainment Weekly (or EW). The article outlines the disappointment of this years Oscar nominations, a very lacking lineup of female nominees. The behind the scenes roles seemed to be the ones to suffer the most, dropping by 2% compared to last years nominees. The Women’s Media Center conducted an investigation on the matter and concluded that 80% of all the nominees of behind the scenes roles are men. San Diego State’s Center for the study of Women in Television and Film also conducted research on the matter. They found that of all the top-grossing 250 films in the United States in 2016, that only 17% percent of all the behind the scenes workers were women. This article gave interesting points for how women are being forgotten in the industry, but it also contradicted itself. The writer may not have realized it but for as many negative points as she gave, she provided just as many positive ones.

This article presents examples of two important concepts. The first concept shown in this article is of an illusory correlation. An illusory correlation is a concept to describe the imagined relationship between two things or, in the case of the article, a stronger relationship perceived between two things (Myers, 2015). The two “things” would be the nominations and women. The imagined relationship is the theory this article suggests, that because they are women they are not receiving Oscar nominations. The author of the article makes it seem like there is a stronger relationship between the two. Those who vote for the Oscars are those in the industry themselves and they vote for who they believe to be the best of that year. Hollywood is a very vocal community in demanding equality for everyone, so it would be odd to think that they would purposely snub women. The second concept presented in this article is of confirmation bias. A confirmation bias is when a person seeks out information to further prove or confirm what they already believe (Myers, 2015). This article decided to highlight the negative factors and gloss over the positive ones. Some points the author briefly mentioned was that there were films nominated with strong female characters as the main protagonists, nine female producers were nominated in the Best Picture Category as well as women taking nominations in usually male dominated categories. Those are quite honorable and noticeable achievements but that is not what the article was focusing on. The author brought in facts, which are mentioned in the first paragraph, that further confirm her point.

Although this article may show examples of an illusory correlation and confirmation bias that does not mean that there is not a real issue at hand here. In 2004 two studies were conducted by Dean Keith Simonton that analyzed the gender differences in the film industry. Study 1 analyzed 2,157 films that received Oscar nominations or awards between 1936 and 2000. In study 2, 1,367 films were analyzed that received awards or nominations from seven major professional, journalistic, and critical associations between the years 1968 and 2000. Both studies showed a statistical difference between genders. Both studies uncovered that outstanding acting performances by women are less likely to be associated with outstanding films (Simonton, 2004). Simonton coined this phrase the “Best Actress Paradox.” While Simonton proved there was a statistical difference between the two genders, he also made sure to include the fact that other factors, such as time period, genre, and acting performance, play a role when it comes down to it.

 

Works Cited

Simonton, D. K. (2004). The ‘Best Actress’ Paradox: Outstanding Feature Films Versus Exceptional Women’s Performances. Sex Roles, 50(11-12), 781-794. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000029097.98802.2c

Sperling, N. (2017, January 30). Women still woefully underrepresented in Oscar nominations, study finds. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://ew.com/awards/2017/01/30/oscars-2017-women-underrepresented/

Myers, D. G. (2015) Exploring Social Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.

We Knew They’d Win

By: Jordan Benavides 

The city of Boston has been glorified by historic sports teams like The New England Patriots, which has pleased the city with five Super Bowl wins since 2002. Led by arguably the greatest quarterback of all-time Tom Brady and multiple players with Super Bowl experience, a 21-3 halftime deficit during Super Bowl LI was “obviously” nothing to worry about for their supporters and some players.

After the Patriots had completed the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history, many of their fans claimed “they knew it all along.” Even one of their own players, Matthew Slater claimed to be calm about the huge hole they had put themselves in. “No panic. We are squatting 80 percent of our maxes on Super Bowl week. We worked for this,” he said. Another one of their players, Chris Hogan said, “There wasn’t a doubt in my mind. We have one of the best quarterbacks that ever played the game.”

The look on most of the Patriots and even their fans didn’t express much confidence when they were down 25. Broadcasters praised the play of the Atlanta Falcons as cameras kept showing a look of defeat in the eyes of Tom Brady, who AFTER winning the game claimed he “wasn’t thinking much” when the Falcons went up 28-3 during the third quarter.

Optimism? Cockiness? Both? Or just your average case of the hindsight bias. Also humorously known as the I-knew-it-all-along phenomenon, hindsight bias occurs when we don’t expect something to happen, but when it does, we claim to have “known it all along.” The hindsight bias is composed of three levels. Memory distortion, inevitability, and foreseeability (Roese 2012).

These three levels were all clear and seen during Super Bowl LI.

Level One: Memory Distortion

There’s no question some Patriots and their fans had to have given up during the start of the 4th quarter. The second they finally tied the game, all those negative thoughts quickly disappeared.

Before comeback: “Damn, it’s over. We lost.”

After comeback: “I knew we’d come back!” (Previous opinion gone like it never came)

Level Two: Inevitability

One has to justify this complete change in opinion after the amazing comeback.

“The falcons didn’t have enough experience. Tom Brady’s the greatest, he played in 6 Super Bowls before this, he had to bring us back.”

Level Three: Foreseeability

“I knew we’d come back, and win!” (Or every other Patriot quote mentioned above)

The hindsight bias comes up frequently in sporting events, especially if you’re a “die hard” fan. Everyone loves “knowing” that it was going to happen, even after the majority has given up. Patriot nation didn’t look like they had much confidence when Stephen Gostkowski clanged the extra point field goal off the post to end the 3rd quarter. They didn’t look confident when Tom Brady was sacked for a fifth time during the 4th quarter. But with the Patriots being the historic franchise they are, who could have doubted this historic comeback???   

 References

Pells, E. (2017, February 6). Patriots Comeback Tops Them All. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from http://newbostonpost.com/2017/02/06/patriots-comeback-tops-them-all/

 

Roese, N. J. (2012). Hindsight Bias. Association For Psychological Science. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691612454303

 

Tom Brady’s Super Bowl LI Press Conference, “Been on the Other Side of Those Catches”(2017,February 05). Retrieved February 13, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1pkGdGHKWM