Placing archetypal "underdogs" or "losers" in the roles of protagonists allows and encourages the viewer to identify with them or understand them as an idealized Other, though the audience may differ from the failure protagonist in social class, gender, or any other condition. In film, one of the most persuasive and ubiquitous media of the 20th century, underdog and weakling characters germinated in early popular comedies such as those by Charlie Chaplin and the other silent clowns. Using Chaplin's filmography to illustrate the underdog's ironic supremacy, this thesis aims to unravel the initial values and expectations inherent in Hollywood underdog comedy films, trace these components to their paradoxical political and economic roots, and draw conclusions on their social and economic consequences.

No description available.

I november 2015 avgjordes en tvist mellan havredrycksproducenten Oatly och branschorganisationen Svensk Mjölk i Marknadsdomstolen. Svensk Mjölk stämde Oatly eftersom de ansåg att deras marknadsföring var vilseledande. Stämningen ledde till att Oatly dömdes till förbud för marknadsföring som antyder att havremjölk är ett bättre val än komjölk. Denna studies syfte är att undersöka hur tvisten påverkat Oatlys lojala kunders varumärkesuppfattning utifrån begreppet brand image. För att undersöka detta genomfördes en kvalitativ studie med 18 konsumenter som representerat Oatlys lojala kunder: veganer, vegetarianer, laktosintoleranta och mjölkallergiker. Deras uppfattningar undersöktes utifrån teorier om Cause Related Marketing, negativ publicitet och självkongruens hos konsumenter. Majoriteten av respondenternas uppfattningar av Oatly har förbättrats efter tvisten, framförallt för att de ansåg att Oatly var i underläge och att de stod upp för en samhällsfråga. Studiens resultat tyder på att ett företag som upplevs vara en underdog kan undvika att ta skada från negativ publicitet.

Previous organizational research has shown that people who perceived discrimination can bounce back from their negative experiences by constructing underdog stories: narratives in which others do not believe an individual could succeed, but in the end, the person succeeds. However, this concept has not been tested in the educational setting. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine if constructing underdog stories can influence how college students perceive potential barriers in education. Participants were randomly assigned conditions: Underdog and control (neutral stories) condition. We hypothesized that creating underdog stories would reduce perceived barriers in college. We further hypothesized that creating "neutral" control stories, narratives where people do not have to overcome any challenges, will not affect perceived barriers in college. These hypotheses were tested by comparing participants' underdog story reflections and the control group's story reflections. McWhirter's Perceived Barriers Scale (1992), a commonly instrument used in perceived college barriers and education studies, was used to establish and analyze participants' perceived barriers in education.

Research on underdogs has suggested that consumers feel sympathy for and a desire to support the underdog. However, it is unclear how their evaluations of the underdog will change if they receive negative information about it. The current research aims to explore the role of negative word-of-mouth of the underdog, compared to the top dog, in consumers’ brand attitude, brand value, and purchase intention. Specifically, drawing on two streams of research, two competing hypotheses are proposed and tested. An experiment was conducted with online consumer panel members. Consistent with confirmation bias and familiarity principle, the results supported a hypothesis that an underdog brand suffers more than a top dog brand from negative online word-of-mouth. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings along with future research directions are discussed.

In accordance with structural theory and distributive justice theory, this study investigates if Americans' personal encounters with the opportunity structure and their existing reward conditions will influence their perceptions toward distribution outcomes in the U.S. I argue that higher-status individuals possessing various "attributes of structural privilege" will exhibit less support for regulating income inequality in society than lower-status individuals. Upward mobility should also be negatively related to support for restoring greater equality in allocation outcomes. However, the effect of mobility on justice perceptions should vary by class status, since class has been known to be a reliable predictor of these attitudes. The study employed a sample of 438 American adults from the GSS 2000 dataset, and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was applied in the analyses of the data. Two of the three above hypotheses received partial confirmation, that is, there were class, race, and gender differences in distributive justice perceptions. Class also interacted significantly with occupational mobility in altering distributive justice perceptions.

In an interview conducted by Matthew C. Roudané, Arthur Miller elaborates on the extent the myth of the American Dream infuses our literature: “The American Dream is the largely unacknowledged screen in front of which all American writing plays itself out—the screen of the perfectibility of man. Whoever is writing in the United States is using the American Dream as an ironical pole of his story” (374). Suzan-Lori Parks is no exception to this rule. In her Pulitzer-Prize winning Topdog/Underdog, Parks reveals the illusory nature of the American Dream on a private, deeply personal level by focusing her drama on two brothers living in one under-furnished room in a rooming house. As the audience watches the main characters spiral into their tragic undoing, we are forced to question the validity of the American Dream and our free-enterprise system that supposedly enables that dream.

Individuals are affected by different biases and heuristics in different ways. This dissertation explores the two of these (underdog bias and self-rated performance) and their relationship with personal risk propensity in the South African investment professional community. To measure risk propensity in investment professionals, a new instrument was developed. This was tested against a risk measurement scale based on the original work in prospect theory. Both risk propensity measures found similar and comparable results in the investment professionals, and similar results when compared to other studies that studied risk propensity in a more general population and risk tolerance in investment professionals in Europe. Similarly, self-rated performance had comparable results to other studies on overconfidence bias and the better than average effect. Investment professionals, on average, think that they are better than their average peer. Underdog bias, or the headwinds/tailwinds asymmetry, had an unexpected result where the investment professionals felt they did not suffer from stronger headwinds and barriers compared to their peers. This was an unexpected result and may show that the South African investment industry feel more grateful than others to be where they are or, the sample may have triggered the boundary condition of underdog bias where individuals feel their personalised benefits more than their shared headwinds. Further testing is required in the same population as well as similar populations to confirm the boundary condition. The three constructs were tested to understand the relationship between them. In each of the three cases, there was no significant relationship between any of the constructs. The results were different to what was expected and, subject to further testing, may have found a blind spot in investment professionals where they believe that what when they are doing something they consider to be right, they do not perceive the increased risks associated with the action. These blind spots have an impact on how risk is managed investment firms and needs to be monitored to protect the overall firm. / Mini Dissertation (MBA)--University of Pretoria, 2018. / Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) / MBA / Unrestricted

The deleterious impact of negative stereotypes toward gays has been established, but less thoroughly examined are the potentially harmful effects that positive stereotypes may carry. Gay Americans lack multiple legal rights enjoyed by heterosexual citizens, yet many people do not see gays as a genuinely disadvantaged group. One possible reason for this is the popular misconception that gays are wealthier than the average American. Drawing on previous research regarding popular support for underdogs, it was predicted that, to the extent people endorsed the conception of gay affluence, they would be less likely to support legal reform benefiting gays. This hypothesis was supported: after controlling for overall homophobia and religiosity, perceiving gays as wealthy negatively predicted support for gay rights. This project also explored what emotional or cognitive mechanisms might influence the predicted relationship. Support was found for both resentment and system justification motivations as potential contributors to the effect.

Nya hot gör sig ständigt påtagliga där asymmetriska inslag blir alltmer förekommande. Luftmakt finns idag som ett kraftfullt maktmedel i de allra flesta stater men det finns få luftmaktsteorier ämnade för kvantitativt underlägsna stater. Luftmaktsteorier är relevanta för staters luftmaktsstrategier då teorier skänker svar till varför vi utbildas och tränas på ett visst sätt. The Underdog´s model, en luftmaktsteori gällande asymmetrisk luftmakt, påvisar teoretiskt hur kvantitativt underlägsna stater kan öka sina chanser mot en överlägsen motståndare genom att använda sina resurser på bästa sätt. Syftet med denna studie är att teoripröva ”The Underdog´s model” och undersöka dess validitet. Genom att pröva denna luftmaktsteori utifrån två fall, Sexdagarskriget 1967 och Gulfkriget 1990–1991, kan även ny kunskap om asymmetriska luftmaktskonflikter skapas. Fallen studeras utifrån ett luftmaktsperspektiv. Studiens resultat visar på att chanserna för en stat kan öka om teorins sex faktorer uppfylls och den underlägsna staten presterar bättre än sin motståndare, teorins validitet bedöms som stor. Däremot kan inte analysen med säkerhet säga om det finns andra aspekter som kan vara avgörande för en stats framgång som inte analyseras under teorins framträdande faktorer.