LEXINGTON, Ky. (March 9, 2026) — Every March, millions of Americans fill out brackets convinced they’re making smart, data-driven picks.

But when the upsets roll in — and our favorite teams advance further on our sheets than the stats suggest they should — it raises a bigger question: are we choosing with our heads, or with our identities?

In the Q&A below, Caroline Brooks, Ph.D., assistant professor in the Department of Sociology in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky, unpacks the hidden biases behind our bracket decisions, from in-group favoritism to the powerful pull of belonging.

The result: A closer look at how March Madness isn’t just about basketball shows us it’s about who we are, whom we root for and why it can feel so personal when our bracket gets busted.

Understanding bias 

UKNow: What types of cognitive bias show up most often in March Madness brackets? For example, why do people often pick their favorite team or alma mater to go further than statistics suggest? 

Brooks: Lots of different biases can creep into March Madness brackets, but the most common is probably in-group bias — our tendency to favor the groups we belong to and see them more positively than other groups. In this case, the in-group means the college teams we identify with as students, alumni or fans. Because that affiliation feels personal, we may overestimate how well our team is actually performing — discount weaknesses and emphasize strengths. The result is that we confidently advance them deeper into the tournament than the objective statistics might justify.

UKNow: When it comes to athletics (particularly brackets) how, and why, does emotional attachment override rational decision-making? 

Brooks: Sports in general, but especially March Madness brackets, can inspire very strong feelings. It’s almost impossible to separate these feelings from our decisions. Most sociologists would argue that humans are actually quite rarely purely rational decision makers. We’re not very good at collecting every possible relevant piece of information and systematically analyzing it to arrive at an optimized, rational decision. Instead, our rationality is often “bounded” by the information and time we have, which means we are inclined to simplify complex problems to arrive at “good enough” answers. 

Social identity and belonging 

UKNow: Why do people feel personally invested in teams they’ve never played for? 

Brooks: People can become deeply invested in teams they’ve never played for because, for many, sports function as a kind of quasi-religion. Like religion, they revolve around shared rituals, traditions and values. Games generate what sociologists call “collective effervescence” — a shared emotional energy that creates a powerful sense of solidarity and belonging, making people feel part of something larger than themselves. Team loyalties are also often something we are socialized into from a young age, feeling like just another thing we inherit from family. Over time, that connection becomes woven into a person’s identity — giving teams immense emotional significance and inspiring lasting passion and loyalty.

UKNow: How do rivalries intensify biased thinking? 

Brooks: Sport rivalries are a clear example of in-group versus out-group bias in action. We don’t just favor our own team — we also attach negative stereotypes to rival teams (“they’re overrated,” or worse). Because of confirmation bias, we’re more likely to notice and remember moments that reinforce those beliefs, while dismissing evidence that contradicts them. Over time, those unchecked assumptions harden — continuing to shape how we see and talk about our rivals.

UKNow How does team loyalty connect to identity and group belonging? 

Brooks: When we’re affiliated with a team — as a student, alum or fan — that connection can become part of our identity. The more relationships we build around that shared affiliation, and the stronger those social ties become, the more deeply committed we are to it. Tight-knit networks create a sense of cohesion and belonging that strengthens our loyalty. So, when we say things like “Bleed Blue,” we’re signaling that our team allegiance isn’t casual — it feels fundamental, almost as if it’s an essential part of our being.

Decision-making behavior 

UKNow: Why do we remember our correct upset picks more than the ones we got wrong? 

Brooks: Only remembering our correct upset picks could be a manifestation of confirmation bias or recall bias. People aren’t always great at accurately recalling things that happened in the past, but we may also be more likely to remember events that confirm our existing thinking, which means we may remember our correct picks more. 

Culture and comparison 

UKNow: Why do people care so deeply about winning office or family bracket pools? 

Brooks: People can care deeply about their bracket pools for different reasons. One is financial: with the rise of sports betting, there’s often money on the line, giving people a literal stake in the outcome. Even a small buy-in can make the possibility of a big win feel meaningful.

Another motivation is identity. For those who see themselves as serious sports fans or basketball experts, their bracket becomes a public test of that reputation. If it falls apart in the first round after they’ve confidently shared their picks, it can feel embarrassing and threaten their credibility. In that sense, bracket pools aren’t just about money — they’re also about validation.

Big-picture takeaway

UKNow: What does March Madness reveal about how humans make decisions through uncertainty? 

Brooks: In general, March Madness highlights just how human we are. It’s baked into our brains to take mental short cuts, to try to infer a clear picture even when we only have limited information. How we fill in all those gaps is often informed by our identities, social connections and upbringing. Despite our best efforts at objectivity, part of being a human is dealing with subjectivity and bias in our daily lives. Is it wrong to pick the 23-9 UK Women’s basketball team to go all the way over the 31-0 UConn Huskies? The data might say so, but the heart wants what it wants, and that’s your prerogative. You never know what might happen in March.

Students interested in exploring these dynamics further can take Brooks’ course, The Sociology of Sport, offered in Spring 2027.