Whether it’s the half-time show or something on the field, every Super Bowl needs a little controversy, right? Often, it’s the officiating, and the 57th edition proved no exception. With 1:54 left in a tie game, KC appeared to be settling for a 4th down field goal that would have given them a 38-35 lead but would allowed Philadelphia plenty of time to tie or even win the game in most dramatic fashion. But then, officials threw a flag on Eagles cornerback James Bradberry for holding KC wide receiver Juju Smith-Schuster. It allowed the Chiefs to milk the clock and in anti-climactic fashion, kick a game winning FG with only 8 seconds remaining. Jets TE CJ Uzomah commented, “Are you kidding me. Another SUPER suspect holding call deciding the end of the Super Bowl.[1]” Former NFL player and ESPN commentator Mike Golic said, “what a terrible ending to an absolute classic game.[2]” Twitter erupted with condemnation including Philadelphia sports podcaster Victor Williams who called it the “worst call in SB history.[3]” You get the idea.
But earlier, it was KC fans who were angry over a supposed 3rd down catch by Eagle’s Tight end Dallas Goedert that extended a Philadelphia scoring drive in the 3rd quarter. Goedert bobbled the ball near the sideline, and it wasn’t clear that both his feet touched in bounds before he secured possession. The Chiefs challenged the completed pass ruling on the field, but instant replay officials upheld the call. KC fans predictably took to twitter to protest[4].
Wasn’t instant replay supposed to put an end to all this disagreement? Wasn’t it designed to correct on-the-field errors and to allow for careful analysis of video evidence resulting in flawless decisions? The system has come a long way since its inception in the mid-eighties. Did you know that in 1986, a booth review determined that a Raiders TD pass was incomplete but the umpire mistakenly heard “pass complete” on his walkie-talkie, leading to an Oakland 24-17 victory over the Chiefs? After much improved communication and camera technology, the modern-day instant replay system is supposed to take in-time human error out of the equation and make decisions that everyone sees as fair. In short, to take the controversy out of the game.
But I watch an embarrassingly large amount of NFL football, and at some point earlier this season in a Monday night game, ESPN commentator Troy Aikman made a striking comment that went seemingly unnoticed. There was a booth review during the game, and to paraphrase Aikman, he said that he believed the instant replay system had only made officiating controversies worse. This was shocking because while I have heard analysts disagree with individual calls, how long decisions sometimes take, or with specific aspects of the challenge system, I have never heard an analyst complain about the general principle of the thing. Here was Aikman, a popular and influential commentator suggesting that not only was the instant replay system ineffective, but that it made matters worse. (Apparently, it wasn’t the first time Aikman has said as much – Troy Aikman gives his take on controversial non-call in NFC Championship, overtime rules (dallasnews.com)
Video sowing discord, increasing the gap in our disagreement?
It turns out that Aikman’s surprising observation has support in social science research.
This research tells us that what we see with our eyes isn’t simply the result of physical reality, but rather is influenced by what we want to see. Our goals, motives, and prior beliefs affect what we see. And even on straightforward decisions!
In a 2012 study, Yale Law Professor Dan Kahan and colleagues[5] showed participants a 3 ½ minute video of a real-life protest. It included several hundred people who were congregating near the entrance of a building. There were also helmeted police officers at the scene and pedestrians, who veered away from the protestors.
The visuals needed some context to unleash the power of motivated seeing. Half the participants were told the demonstrators were protesting against doctors and nurses performing abortions outside an abortion clinic. The other half were informed that the demonstrators were protesting the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy outside an Army college campus recruitment center.
Obviously, these descriptions appeal to different political persuasions. Those on the left would find the abortion protestors offensive but the military protestors admirable. For those on the right, these affinities would be reversed.
It’s worth mentioning that in either case, the information was believable because the viewer couldn’t really see anything in the video to disconfirm it. All one could see were the protestors, the police, and onlookers – no signs or anything else like that were visible.
Remarkably, what people saw happening in the video depended on their own values and what they believed to be the cause of the protestors. They saw bad behavior by those they were motivated to dislike and good behavior by those they were motivated to admire. Only 39% of those with anti-abortion values saw the protestors as blocking access to the abortion clinic whereas 74% of this group saw the protestors as blocking the military recruitment center. The results were nearly reversed for those with opposing values: 76% of them saw the abortion clinic as blocked and 45% saw the demonstrators as blocking access to the military recruitment center.
Keep in mind, the study isn’t simply showing that we don’t like or agree with those protesting a cause we support – it suggests that our biases influence how we literally see the basic facts inherent in visual images. Whether people are blocking a building should be a fairly straightforward judgment and depends on how many of them there are, where they are positioned, and other physical aspects of the situation. But our motives affect these basic determinations.
Plenty of other studies have supported Kahan’s basic conclusion. In one study[6], what participants saw in a 49-second dash cam video where a white civilian was killed by a police officer depended on their prior views of the police. Those who heavily identified with the police were more likely to report seeing that the civilian was hiding something from the officer and less likely to remember seeing that the officer hit the citizen. They were also more likely to make subjective judgments favoring the police, such as that the civilian was likely armed and was being arrested for a severe crime. Pro-police individuals judged the police officer’s behavior as fair, treating the civilian with respect and dignity. Following these perceptions, it’s not surprising that police supporters also believed the use of force was justified.
Not only did people see what they wanted to see in the video – even their own facts – those identifying with the police came to be more certain that their judgments were correct compared to those that had only read about the incident.
So, video doesn’t cause us all to come to greater consensus about the truth. It only makes us more confident that our take on reality is the correct one!
Returning back to football and to the Super Bowl, it is no wonder that fans are so upset by officiating, even when coaches challenge calls under the instant replay system. All the replays do is reinforce our prior beliefs and motives. If we’re rooting for KC, we see Goedert juggling the ball and see his foot come off the turf before he secures the catch. If we’re Philadelphia fans, we see Goedert securing possession of the ball while his foot is still contacting the ground.
[1] CJ Uzomah on Twitter: “Are you kidding me? Another SUPER suspect holding call deciding the end of the SuperBowl 🧐🤔” / Twitter
[2] Mike Golic Jr on Twitter: “god what a terrible ending to an absolute classic game.” / Twitter
[3] Victor Williams on Twitter: “Worst call in SB history and it ain’t close. https://t.co/GnNHjWG0Wq” / Twitter
[4] Super Bowl 57: Chiefs fans furious over Dallas Goedert catch (clutchpoints.com)
[5] Kahan, D. M., Hoffman, D. A., Braman, D., Evans, D., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2012). ” They Saw a Protest”: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech conduct Distinction. Stanford Law Review, 851-906. “They Saw a Protest”: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction (upenn.edu)
[6] Sommers, Roseanna. (2015) Will Putting Cameras on Police Reduce Polarization. Yale Law Journal 125 (5): 1,304–362. Will Putting Cameras on Police Reduce Polarization? (yale.edu)