That is basically all this study is showing. The NFL (American football) used to subscribe to this and had strict rules over what numbers people could wear. 1-19 were reserved for the smallest players (quarterbacks, punters, and kickers). That was loosened roughly 25 years ago to allow slightly bigger players (wide receivers). They loosened it even more drastically within the last few years to allow most players to wear 0-19. It therefore isn't a surprise that people who see small numbers have a bias to think that player is smaller as that has been historically true. It would be interesting to repeat this study among younger generations of Americans and then international people who have no knowledge of the NFL. I would expect the first group would have a weaker effect and it might disappear entirely for the second group.
*Number ranges used to be used to indicate a player position, not their size... The average quarterback is significantly larger than the average cornerback, for example, and punters or kickers have no typical size (body size/shape doesn't factor into kicking ability).
There's also a "share" button on ChatGPT. One of the things I find objectionable about ChatGPT posts is that they take up a huge amount of real estate that I feel should be reserved for human commenters. A share link is economical and opt-in.
When I showed up for double sessions freshman year, I found that the sizes of the shirts corresponded to the numbers. Even without rules about what number an interior lineman must wear, the big body positions just aren’t going to physically fit in jersey number three.
I've always associated single-digit numbers to "skill positions," especially speedsters like WRs, RBs, and CBs. If you're in the 50s and above, I'll assume you're one of the "big uglies" duking it out in the trenches.
> When we looked at the relationship between the ratings of size and slenderness and the numbers, [and] we did a very small range, like from 17 to 19, we see a very robust correlation."
It’s such a great proof at how absolutely fundamentally tragically terrible humans are at evaluating things consistently based on purely sense perception.
It reinforces my priors that human knowledge is Bayesian (we don’t just take in knowledge, we are constantly comparing it to a prior and updating that prior, but we aren’t aware of our own biases which can take a huge precedence over new information).
I wore "11" as a sophomore HS running back, then moved to "40" for my junior & senior years. I gained almost zero weight (or muscle), but I swear I looked GOOD with those skinny ones on my front & back.
I remember my teammates being extremely picky about which numbers they’d wear and I always caught grief for wearing #8 as a running back since it’s thought of as a QB number (Troy Aikman, Steve Young). In hindsight maybe they were on to something.
I think of it as a "bold" 9. Gretzky agreed it to be kinda synonymous with his favorite Howe's number 9. Yet it's 16 that Gretzky wanted at the time, instead of assigned 19...
I think all else being equal, numbers like xx, x0, and x (<10) are more desirable for perceived significance. If a player desires anything else it's presumably out of some personal significance to them (even if just 'the number I was randomly assigned on my first team').
This seems similar to observing that vertical and horizontal stripes on clothes (and the width of the stripes) can affect how one perceives a silhouette.
Context and history matter as this is the complete opposite for soccer:
- Smaller numbers go to the defenders and big guys
- Larger numbers are given to younger & academy player
- Numbers like 7, 9, 10, 8 & 6 all have a specific meaning on the pitch
So yeah, numbers matter, but so does everything else.