TL;DR

Before you orderOffer from Amazon

Get the little things that make your day delivered free with Prime

• Fast, free delivery on millions of items
• Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
• Member-only deals all year

Start your free Prime trial →Free trial for eligible customers · Cancel anytime

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.Hide

Guillermo Rodriguez’s unexpectedly strong fan support on Dancing With the Stars has kept him in the competition despite low judges’ scores, according to the account. Psychology Today explains the response partly through “basking in reflected glory,” in which fans share in the positive feelings of a favorite’s success. The article also notes that the voting outcome, the role of the show’s format and how long the support will last remain uncertain.

Guillermo Rodriguez, Jimmy Kimmel’s sidekick and a contestant on the current season of Dancing With the Stars, has continued in the competition despite low judges’ scores, prompting an analysis of why viewers are supporting him. Psychology Today points to his underdog appeal and the social-psychology concept of basking in reflected glory, or taking pleasure in a favorite’s success.

The article says Rodriguez’s popularity did not begin with the dance competition. He was already known as a quirky security guard turned onstage sidekick on Jimmy Kimmel’s show, where viewers came to appreciate his unpretentious manner. Psychology Today argues that his willingness to be himself and acknowledge when he is not skilled at something can make him seem authentic to audiences.

That image has carried into the competition, where Rodriguez dances with professional partner Witney Carson. The account describes him as having acknowledged his limitations, including after a performance when he opened his shirt to reveal the words “Dancing 4 The People.” The gesture framed audience enthusiasm, rather than technical skill, as the reason for his continued run.

In the episode discussed, Rodriguez and Carson received 13 out of 30 from the judges for a samba. Yet the article reports that viewer votes were sufficient to keep them in the show. The description does not give vote totals or a complete comparison with other contestants, so it establishes the contrast between the judges’ score and his survival, not the precise scale or cause of the voting result.

Why Fans Rally Around Rodriguez

The analysis offers a way to understand how a contestant’s appeal can extend beyond performance scores. Psychology Today describes basking in reflected glory, or BIRG, as the satisfaction people may feel when someone they support succeeds, even though they did not cause that success. It can help explain why viewers might take pleasure in Rodriguez advancing and identify themselves with his run.

The concept was introduced by social psychologist Robert Cialdini and colleagues in a 1976 study of football supporters, as cited in the article. Psychology Today characterizes BIRG as a form of impression management: people can signal a favorable identity by associating themselves with a person or team enjoying success. Applied to the show, that interpretation suggests that support for Rodriguez may reflect both affection for his persona and the pleasure of backing an unexpected contender.

The distinction matters because a popularity vote is not the same measure as a judges’ assessment of dancing. Rodriguez’s continued participation shows that audience support can affect who remains in the competition, even when the judges assign a comparatively low score. The article does not establish that BIRG caused the result; it presents the concept as one possible explanation alongside his established fan base and perceived authenticity.

From Kimmel Sidekick to DWTS

Rodriguez entered the show with public recognition from his role on Jimmy Kimmel’s program. The article presents that history as relevant: viewers were not encountering a complete unknown, but a familiar television personality whose appeal had developed through a comic, unpolished style. That prior connection may help explain why audiences were receptive when he appeared as a less technically accomplished dancer.

Psychology Today also points to the broader appeal of an underdog who keeps advancing. The article suggests that viewers facing pressure in their own lives may find encouragement in watching a contestant persevere. That is an interpretation of audience motivation, not a finding based on survey data reported in the article.

The article contrasts BIRG with cutting off reflected failure, or CORFing: distancing oneself from a group or favorite after a loss. It cites a 1986 study by Snyder, Lassegard and Ford on distancing after group success and failure. In the show’s setting, the idea helps describe how fan attachment may shift with a contestant’s fortunes, but it does not show how Rodriguez’s particular viewers would respond if he were eliminated.

“Just like everybody else, I’m obsessed with you.”

— Dancing With the Stars judge Derek Hough, as quoted by Psychology Today

What the Vote Does Not Show

The article does not report the episode date, viewer-vote totals, vote share, or the full judges’ scores for other contestants. It therefore does not show how close the elimination outcome was or how much Rodriguez’s support differed from that of his competitors. The claim that viewers voted in numbers sufficient to keep the pair in the show is presented without published totals in the account.

Nor can the available details establish why individual viewers voted for him. BIRG is a proposed explanation, but the article also points to his existing fan base, perceived authenticity and underdog story. It does not provide audience research that measures how much each factor contributed. The article mentions accusations on social media that the show was rigged, but provides no evidence substantiating those allegations; they should not be treated as confirmed.

It is also unknown from the account whether the judges’ scores and public votes are combined under a particular formula, or whether the voting rules shaped the outcome. The article’s description supports a contrast between a low score and continued participation, but not a conclusion that the contest was unfair or that fans were motivated by a single psychological process.

Rodriguez’s Next Competition Result

The immediate next development is whether Rodriguez and Carson survive another round of Dancing With the Stars. The article closes by asking whether his support could carry him all the way to the mirror ball, but it does not report a final result or offer a confirmed prediction. Further episodes and vote outcomes would show whether the current backing persists.

For readers following the popularity question, detailed voting figures or audience research would provide a firmer basis for judging the role of BIRG. Until then, the article’s explanation remains an analysis of a striking contrast: Rodriguez’s modest samba score and his continued presence in the competition.

Key Questions

Why is Guillermo Rodriguez popular on Dancing With the Stars?

Psychology Today points to his established fan base, unpretentious public persona and appeal as an underdog. It also offers basking in reflected glory as one possible reason viewers may enjoy his success.

What does “basking in reflected glory” mean?

BIRG describes taking positive feelings from the success of a person or group one supports, despite not having contributed to that success. The article connects the concept to viewers identifying with Rodriguez as he advances.

Did Rodriguez receive a high score for his samba?

No. Psychology Today reports that Rodriguez and Witney Carson received 13 out of 30 from the judges for the samba discussed. The article says viewer votes nevertheless kept them in the competition.

Does the article prove that BIRG caused the votes?

No. BIRG is presented as a possible explanation, not a demonstrated cause. The article gives no viewer survey or vote totals that could establish why people supported Rodriguez.

Was Dancing With the Stars rigged to keep Rodriguez on?

The article mentions social-media accusations but provides no evidence that the show was rigged. Those posts are unverified allegations, not established facts.

Source: psychologytoday.com