The Eagles Got Screwed (The Philly Perspective) | Volume 11

Shoutout one final time to ma homies on a well-deserved Super Bowl title.

Don't worry Eagles fans, I wrote way too many words about the holding call below.

Here's to hoping this newsletter sucks less than the commercials (sorry, had to say it). And oh yeah...

Here's what I've been thinking about lately:*

*In addition to "has anyone else been listening to Rihanna all week"?

Haven't subscribed? New here? This newsletter, Makes Ya Think, poses questions about human behavior, and hopefully, provides insights that challenge your beliefs, offer a unique perspective and if nothing else...make you think.

How did Chiefs and Eagles fans watch the exact same play, yet interpret it completely differently?

In case you weren’t one of the 113.1 million people that watched the Super Bowl (or stopped after the Rhianna halftime show), here’s a quick recap:

Tie game. Less than two minutes to go. Chiefs ball.

Patrick Mahomes’ third-down pass fell incomplete, but the referees called a holding penalty on the Philadelphia defender, saying he grabbed the jersey of the Kansas City wide receiver.

Chaos ensued. Chiefs fans swore it was the right call. Eagles fans were livid.

The penalty gave the Chiefs a first down, essentially ending the game and helping them secure the victory.

***

I’m not here to debate the call. What interests me is this: how can two groups of people look at the very same play, yet interpret it completely differently?

This relates to much more than just football. How can liberals and conservatives look at the same issue and take such different stances? How can a couple that’s arguing fail to agree on what caused the fight in the first place?

Well, as I’ve mentioned in past newsletters, let’s keep in mind one thing: everyone views events through their own unique lens of knowledge, experience, beliefs, attitudes and intentions.

But is there something specific that causes sports fans to interpret the same event differently based on their allegiance to their team?

Yes, it’s called motivated reasoning: a cognitive bias in which people's reasoning and interpretation of information is unconsciously influenced by their pre-existing beliefs, desires and emotions.

Research has shown that when people hold strong beliefs, such as a strong attachment to a sports team, they are more likely to engage in motivated reasoning. In the case of the holding call, the strong emotional attachment Chiefs and Eagles fans had to their team likely caused them to interpret the same play in a way that supported their preferred outcome.

Chiefs fans agreed with the call because it supported their belief that their team is better and deserved to win. Eagles fans were much more likely to disagree with the call because it didn't support that belief.

Another reason Eagles fans were upset? The flag did support one of their (possible) beliefs - that the refs weren't calling the game fairly.

But this phenomenon isn’t unique to sports.

Let’s look at another fierce debate: Coke vs. Pepsi.

***

As you may be familiar with, Pepsi ran a marketing campaign in 1975, deemed the “Pepsi Challenge”.

The campaign was a blind taste test touting that even Coca-Cola fans preferred Pepsi.

The interesting part was this: at the very same time, Coca-Cola was saying people preferred Coke over Pepsi.

What was going on here? Was one company lying?

Nope. In fact, both were right.

People tended to prefer Pepsi when given a blind taste test, but tended to prefer Coke when they knew what they were drinking.

Wait, what? Yes, I know what you may be thinking – how in the world is this possible? Well, just like the earlier example from the Super Bowl, our friend motivated reasoning can help explain why.

When people aren’t aware of what they’re drinking, their decision is based solely on the sensory experience of drinking the soda.

However, when people are aware of what they're drinking, their decision can be influenced by a variety of factors beyond taste, such as brand loyalty, advertising and personal beliefs.

Let’s say someone had the pre-existing belief that Coke is a more prestigious brand. When they were aware of what they were drinking, this belief likely influenced their choice, even if they couldn’t really taste the difference.

So, what's going on here? People tended to prefer Coke when they knew what they were drinking because Coke had a stronger brand.

The strong emotional attachment people already had to the brand influenced their choice.

I mean, it does make sense.

Ever had a Rum and Pepsi?

Didn’t think so.

***

Let’s get spicy and talk politics for a second too. People’s political beliefs can also be strongly influenced by motivated reasoning.

Research shows that people are more likely to believe information that supports their political party or candidate, and be skeptical of information that contradicts their beliefs. This can lead to a lack of objectivity and open-mindedness, which I think contributes to the political polarization that’s commonplace today.

In fact, a study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Michigan, explored the influence of political identity on people's interpretation of climate change information.

The researchers showed participants a graph that depicted global temperature change over time, with two versions of the graph. In one version, the graph showed a steady increase in temperature over time, while in the other version, the graph showed a fluctuation in temperature with no clear trend.

The study found that participants who identified as politically conservative were more likely to accept the version of the graph that showed fluctuation in temperature, regardless of whether the data supported that interpretation.

This is motivated reasoning 101: the participants' pre-existing beliefs about climate change influenced their interpretation of the data, rather than the other way around – even when the evidence didn’t support that interpretation.

***

Eagles cornerback James Bradberry admitted he held the receiver. The replay confirmed it.

But, to my Eagles fans out there: your (pissed off) reaction is totally normal. You’re all just human, after all.

Eagles and Chiefs fans just simply had different expectations and preferences for the outcome of the game.

Chiefs fans were more likely to agree with the call because it confirmed their belief that they were the better team and deserved to win.

On the other hand, perhaps the loyalty Eagles fans had to their team – and their anticipation of its win – completely clouded their judgment.

As we now see, these biased processes influence how we see other parts of the world too.

I'm still not sold. C'mon dude, there's no way that was a hold (from your favorite Eagles fan).

Ok ok, here are a few other factors at play…it’s impossible to narrow it down to just one thing.

Interpretation of the rule: What in the world is holding anyway? It’s subjective and can be difficult to judge in real time. Eagles fans are more likely to think the contact between Bradbury and Smith-Schuster didn’t warrant a holding call, while Chiefs fans are more likely to believe the opposite.

Context: Context matters. The penalty on Bradbury gave the Chiefs a crucial first down late in a tie game. Chiefs fans are more likely to view the call as a fair one that helped their team win, while Eagles fans are more likely to view the call as an unfair one that hurt their chances to win. If this play happened in the first half, no one would be talking about it.

Selective exposure: Fans may have paid more attention to evidence that supported their pre-existing beliefs. Chiefs fans may have focused on instances where Eagles players appeared to hold throughout the game, whereas Eagles fans may have focused on instances where similar holding penalties weren't called earlier in the game.

In-group bias: Chiefs fans may have been more likely to support the holding call because it benefited their team, which is their "in-group." Eagles fans, on the other hand, may have been more likely to reject the call because it harmed their team, which is also their "in-group."

Emotional reasoning: Fans of both teams were emotionally invested in the game. Given that, Chiefs fans likely felt relieved or happy because the holding call benefitted their team. Eagles fans were more likely to feel mad and pissed off because it hurt their chances to win.

Parting Thoughts

Apologies for no tweets, videos, quotes or Tik Tok this week. But I do want to mention this: I loved how the Eagles took the loss with class.

Full accountability. No excuses. Perspective of the process. Viewing the loss as an opportunity to learn and grow.

The game is never determined by one play (signing off like Jalen Hurts in his press conference),

Kevin