Team identification and sport fandom: gender differences in relationship-based and recognition-based perceived antecedents.
Koch, Katrina ; Wann, Daniel L.
In recent decades, sport scientists from a number of disciplines
have shown an increased interest in the antecedents of sport team
identification (the extent to which a fan feels a psychological
connection to a team, Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001). Wann
(2006a) developed a typology in which antecedents were classified as
psychological, environmental, or team-related. Psychological antecedents
involve basic psycho-social needs and include the need for
belonging/affiliation (Donavan, Carlson, Zimmerman, 2005; Gwinner &
Swanson, 2003; James, Kolbe, & Trail, 2002; Pritchard, Stinson,
& Patton, 2010) and the need for distinctiveness (Dimmock &
Gucciardi, 2008; Hyatt & Andrijiw, 2008). Environmental antecedents
focus on the fan's surroundings. Thus, factors such as one's
socialization into fandom (James, 2001; Kolbe & James, 2003), the
presence of rivals (Luellen & Wann, 2010), living in close proximity
to the team (Jones, 1997; Wann, Tucker, & Schrader, 1996), and the
team's stadium (Swyers, 2005; Underwood, Bond, & Baer, 2001)
are best classified as environmental causes. Team-related reasons focus
on the team and players. These include perceived similarity with the
team (e.g., fans' beliefs that they share commonalities with the
players and have similar attitudes, see Aden & Titsworth, 2012;
Fisher, 1998; Pritchard et al., 2010), player attributes (Nelson, 2004),
and the team's history (Boyle & Magnusson, 2007; Kolbe &
James, 2003).
Gender Differences in Antecedents to Team Identification
Although major advances have been established in our understanding
of the antecedents of team identification, little research has been
devoted to the examination of individual difference variables. Although
a few studies have targeted specific groups such as fans of women's
sports (Nelson, 2004), followers of newly formed teams (Lock, Darcy,
& Taylor, 2009; Lock, Taylor, & Darcy, 2011), and fans varying
in levels of self-esteem (Dimmock & Gucciardi, 2008), our
understanding of how persons from different demographic groups varying
in causes of identification is extremely limited. Yet demographics have
been found to play a critical role in the sport fan and spectator
experience. For instance, researchers have noted racial differences in
fan motivation (Bilyeu & Wann, 2002) and reasons for sport
attendance (Armstrong, 2008). Age has also been found to be important.
For instance, older fans tend to be more "old school" than
younger fans (Aiken, Campbell, & Sukhdial, 2010; Sukhdial, Aiken,
& Kahle, 2002). That is, older ("old school") fans tend to
be upset by athletes' materialism, believe athletes should serve as
role models, and feel that how a sport is played (i.e., the process) is
just as important as the outcome of an event (i.e., the product). In
other research, younger fans were more likely to report disappointment
in response to poor team outcomes (Rainey, Larsen, & Yost, 2009).
In addition to race and age, gender has been identified as an
important predictor of sport fan and spectator reactions. For example,
gender differences in fan motivation have often been found (but not
always, e.g., Allen, Drane, & Byon, 2010; Armstrong, 2002). Female
fans often report higher levels of family motivation while men report
higher levels of eustress (i.e., positive stress) and self-esteem
motives (Wann, 1995; Wann, Schrader, & Wilson, 1999). Men and women
also report different behaviors as fans, as men more frequently discuss
sport with friends and watch sport on television (Dietz-Uhler, Harrick,
End, & Jacquemotte, 2000). Consistent with this finding, men have
typically been found to report higher levels of fandom than women (Bahk,
2000; End, Meinert, Worthman, & Mauntel, 2009; Meier &
Leinwathre, 2012; Wann, 2002).
The gender difference most relevant to Study 1 of the current
investigation concerns differences in team identification. Researchers
have found that men often report higher levels of identification than
women. This finding has been replicated across a wide variety of
settings including college athletic programs (Judson & Carpenter,
2005; Kwon & Armstrong, 2002), Arena Football (Greenwood, 2001), and
professional baseball, basketball, and football teams (Wann, Dolan,
McGeorge, & Allison, 1994). Interestingly, other researchers have
failed to find gender differences in identification (Reding, Grieve,
Derryberry, & Paquin, 2011; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Wann,
Dimmock, & Grove, 2003) and, in certain circumstances (e.g.,
women's sports), women have reported higher levels of
identification than men (Williamson, Zhang, Pease, & Gaa, 2003).
Thus, although the precise pattern of effects is likely complicated,
research suggests that, in many instances, men and women differ in their
level of team identification.
The Current Investigation
The current investigation was designed to further our understanding
of gender differences in team identification by investigating the
origination of identification. Two antecedents were investigated:
relationship-based origins of team identification and recognition-based
origins of team identification. We operationally defined
relationship-based origins as one's desire to originally follow a
team to help establish and maintain connections with others. This
antecedent is similar to affiliation and, as noted above, investigators
have found that the desire to affiliate and establish relationships can
serve as a powerful antecedent to team identification (Donovan et al.,
2005; Gwinner & Swanson, 2003; James et al., 2002; Pritchard et al.,
2010). On the other hand, recognition-based origins of team
identification is defined as one's aspiration to be known,
perceived, or recognized as a fan of a particular team. Individuals will
typically choose to engage in sport (both as a fan and as a player) in
an effort to be viewed by others in a particular manner (Leary, 1992;
Wann, 1997; Wann, Royalty, & Roberts, 2000). As it relates to team
identification, some individuals may choose to follow a team to be
viewed by others as a fan of that team (Wann et al., 2001).
With respect to gender, although researchers had yet to examine
differences between men and women in recognition-based origins of team
identification, recent work suggests that women may be more likely than
men to originally follow a sport team for relational reasons, that is,
for the opportunity to increase connections with others. One such study
(Koch & Wann, 2013) investigated differences in team identification
among fans socialized to follow a team (i.e., "parents, siblings,
and/or friends actively encouraged" the following of the team, p.
135) and those who self-selected the team (i.e., "because I chose
to, without the encouragement of others", p. 135). These authors
reported an unexpected finding in that female fans were more likely to
report having been socialized to follow a team than men, suggesting that
relationships may have been particularly important in the development of
identification for women. There is prior work in social and
developmental psychology to substantiate this finding. For instance,
research indicates that women are particularly likely to value group
memberships for the relationships they accrue (Seeley, Gardner,
Pennington, & Gabriel, 2003). Others have argued that women tend to
be more interdependent than men, placing greater importance on
establishing and maintaining relationships (Cross & Madsen, 1997;
McGuire & McGuire, 1982) and strong empirical support for this
pattern of effects has been established (Gabriel & Gardner, 1999).
Koch and Wann (2013) concluded that women may be more likely to
become fans of a team to bond with their socialization agents (e.g.,
peers, family, friends) while men become fans of the team both to bond
with others and to be a member of the fan group. There is support for
Koch and Wann as research suggests that the importance of the
relationship antecedent is greater for female fans than male fans. Aiken
and Koch (2009) examined gender differences in importance rankings for a
variety of antecedents to team identification. Women reported that
social affiliation was the number one antecedent while men rated this
factor near the bottom. Similarly, Yoh, Pai, and Pedersen (2009) found
that female adolescents were more likely than men to report that friends
and family were influential in the development of their loyalty to a
team. In the current line of investigation, we expanded on these prior
investigations by specifically assessing and examining gender
differences in relationship-based and recognition-based origins for
originally identifying with a sport team.
Based on the aforementioned literature, we examined the following
hypotheses and research questions:
Hypothesis 1: It was hypothesized that female fans would be more
likely than male fans to report that their team identification had
originated for relationship-based reasons.
Research Question 1: Will women and men significantly differ in
their level of recognition-based team identification? This issue was
addressed as a research question rather than a hypothesis because the
lack of prior research on this topic rendered the development of a
hypothesis inappropriate.
Research Question 2: Will women and/or men be more likely to report
having originally identified with a team due to relationship-based or
recognition-based origins? This issue was also addressed as a research
question rather than a hypothesis because the lack of prior research on
this topic rendered the development of a specific hypothesis
inappropriate.
Study 1
Method
Participants. The original sample contained 174 university
students. Twenty-seven questionnaires were discarded because the
participant did not have a favorite team. This resulted in a final
sample of n = 147. Of these participants, 57 were male and 90 were
female. Their ages ranged from 18 years old to 51 years old, with a mean
age of 20.66 (SD = 4.25). Men's varsity sports offered at the
participants' university were baseball, basketball, cross country,
football, golf, rifle, and tennis. Women's sports offered were
basketball, cross country, golf, rifle, soccer, softball, tennis, track
and field, and volleyball.
Materials and procedure. Subsequent to receiving IRB approval and
gaining participant consent, participants then received a questionnaire
packet containing three questionnaires. The first questionnaire
consisted of two demographic items (age and gender) and one contingency
question that assessed whether the participant had a favorite team. A
positive response to the third item necessitated the completion of the
remainder of the packet. A negative response to the third question
terminated the session for those participants. These individuals were
then debriefed and excused from the testing session.
The second questionnaire began with an open-ended item asking
participants to indicate their favorite sport team. They then completed
the Sport Spectator Identification Scale (SSIS; Wann & Branscombe,
1993) targeting that team. The SSIS is comprised of seven Likert-scale
items with response options varying from 1 to 8; a lower score
indicating low identification and a higher score indicating high
identification. The scale has been successfully translated into multiple
languages (Wann et al., 2001) and is psychometrically sound. For
instance, Wann and Branscombe (1993) report Cronbach's alpha
greater than .90, a significant one-year test-retest reliability (r =
.60), and demonstrated the validity of the measure as scores on the SSIS
were logically related to external assessments such as involvement,
biased attributions, and consumption. A sample item from this scale
reads, "How important to you is it that (Target Team) wins?"
The third questionnaire was developed specifically for this
project. This scale was labeled the Relationship and Recognition Fan
Origin Scale--Team (RRFOS-T) and contained 9 Likert-format items.
Response options ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 8 (Strongly Agree)
and, similar to the SSIS, participants were instructed to target their
favorite team when completing the RRFOS-T. A higher score on each item
reflected a greater belief that the origin of one's fandom for the
favorite team was due to either relationship-based or recognition-based
reasons. That is, questions on the RRFOS-T were designed to assess the
extent to which a participant originally began following his or her
favorite team for relationship-based reasons and the degree to which he
or she began following the team for recognition-based reasons. As noted
previously, relationship-based origins involve following a given team to
connect with friends, family, and peers who are also fans of that team.
Recognition-based origins involve following a team to be recognized as a
fan of that team. A sample item designed to assess relationship-based
origins of team identification read: "I became a fan of my favorite
team to bond with my family, friends, and/or peers." A sample item
designed to assess recognition-based origins of team identification
read: "I became a fan of my favorite team to be known as a fan of
that team."
After completing the questionnaire packet, participants received a
debriefing statement explaining the purpose of the study. This form
provided contact information if the participant wished to obtain a copy
of the results. The entire session lasted approximately 15 minutes.
Results
Preliminary analyses. The Relationship and Recognition Fan Origin
Scale-Team (RRFOS-T) was first examined via exploratory factor analysis
with varimax rotation. This analysis revealed two subscales containing a
total of nine items. The first subscale was labeled the
Relationship-based Origin subscale and contained six items (Eigenvalue =
4.95, percent of variance = 55.02). The second subscale,
Recognition-based Origin, contained three items (Eigenvalue = 2.08,
percent of variance = 23.12). (1)
Items contained in each scale/subscale were summed and then divided
by the number of items in each to establish scale scores for each
measure. Cronbach's reliability alphas revealed that each was
internally consistent (SSIS alpha = .91; Relationship-based Origin =
.95; Recognition-based Origin = .84). The sample reported a mean SSIS
score of 5.91 (SD = 1.51) on a scale ranging from 1 to 8. This indicates
that the sample, as a whole, had a moderately high level of
identification with their favorite team (Wann et al., 2001). There were
no significant gender differences found on team identification (male M=
6.12, SD = 1.56; female M = 5.77, SD = 1.47; F< 2.00, p > .15).
Therefore, team identification was not included in subsequent analyses.
The correlation between the Relationship-based and Recognition-based
subscales was not significant (r = .030, p = .722).
Tests of hypotheses. To test the hypothesized pattern of effects, a
2 (Gender: male or female) x 2 (RRFOS-T Subscale: Relationship-based
Origin and Recognition-based Origin) multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was used (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). A
gender multivariate main effect was found, Wilks' Lambda F(2, 144)
= 5.03, p < .01. Follow up univariate analyses found that, consistent
with Hypothesis 1, women were significantly more likely to become fans
of their favorite team for relationship-based reasons {M = 4.82; SD =
1.90) than were men (M = 3.89; SD = 1.87), F(1, 145) = 8.46, p < .01.
With respect to Research Question 1, there were no significant gender
differences for recognition-based fandom, F(1, 145) = 1.28, p > .05
(male M = 5.83, SD = 1.61; female M = 5.53; SD = 1.50). As for Research
Question 2, follow-up paired samples t-tests indicated that both men and
women were more likely to report originally following a team for
recognition-based reasons than for relationship-based reasons (women t =
2.95, p < .005; men t = 5.90, p < .001).
Discussion
Although a number of authors have examined antecedents of sport
team identification, the relationship between gender and antecedents had
yet to be fully investigated. In Study! we tested for gender differences
in relationship-based origins (one's desire to originally follow a
team to help establish and maintain connections to others) and
recognition-based origins (aspirations to be perceived as a fan of a
particular team). Based on previous literature (Aiken & Koch, 2009;
Koch & Wann, 2013), we hypothesized that women would be more likely
than men to report that their team identification had originated for
relationship-based reasons. This hypothesis was supported. As noted
previously, women tend to highly value relationships they receive from
their group members (Cross & Madsen, 1997; Gabriel & Gardner,
1999; Seeley et al., 2003). The current data suggest that this pattern
of effects extends to the realm of sport team identification and the
process of becoming allegiant to a specific team. Women appear to be
more likely than men to originally follow a sport team to establish
and/or maintain social relationships via their team fandom.
However, the findings of Research Questions 1 and 2 further frame
the aforementioned finding. Although women were more likely than men to
endorse relationship-based origins for identifying with a team (as
expected), both genders were more likely to endorse recognition-based
origins than relationship-based. Men and women did not report
differential levels of recognition-based team identification. Thus,
although persons do report originally following a team for
relationship-based reasons (especially women), they are significantly
more likely to originally support a team in an attempt to be perceived
as a fan of that particular team. Potential explanations for the
processes underlying these findings are examined in the General
Discussion section.
Study 2
Study 1 focused on the antecedents of team identification and
gender differences in relationship-based and recognition-based origins.
Study 2 extended Study 1 by investigating relationship-based and
recognition-based origins of sport fandom. Although similar concepts,
team identification and sport fandom are distinct (Wann et al., 2001).
Sport fandom involves having an interest in a sport, team, and/or
specific player(s). On the other hand, as noted above, team
identification concerns one's specific association with a team and
its players. Sport fans may be found at all levels of identification.
Some persons may enjoy following sport (i.e., have high levels of
fandom), yet have low levels of identification for any particular team.
Likewise, it is conceivable for an individual to develop a strong
attachment to a particular team yet remain less enthusiastic about the
sport played by the team. Empirical support for the distinctiveness of
these concepts is found in research finding that the positive
correlation between fandom and identification is moderate in magnitude
(Hoogland et al., in press; Wann, 2002).
Study 2 was designed to test for gender differences in
relationship-based and recognition-based origins of fandom. We examined
two forms of fandom: general fandom (i.e., one's level of overall
interest in sport) and fandom for one's favorite sport. Similar to
research on team identification, authors have identified important
predictors of sport fandom. For instance, the socialization process is a
key factor in one's original decision to follow sport (both
generally and for a specific team). In fact, the powerful influence of
socialization has been documented in a number of countries including the
United States (Wann et al., 2001), Norway (Melnick & Wann, 2004),
Australia (Melnick & Wann, 2011), Greece (Theodorakis & Wann,
2008), and the United Kingdom (Parry, Jones, & Wann, 2014).
Essentially, individuals are far more likely to originally become sport
fans if others in their environment (i.e., socialization agents)
encourage participation in the pastime. Trait curiosity is another
antecedent to fandom (Park, Andrew, & Mahony, 2008). These authors
found that individuals high in trait curiosity (interest in novel
stimuli) were more likely to be interested in consuming new sports than
those with lower levels of trait curiosity. Other potential antecedents
include socioeconomic status (Liebennan, 1991; Mashiach, 1980) and
one's own prior involvement in sport as an athlete (Grove, Pickett,
& Dodder, 1982; Shank & Beasley, 1998).
As noted previously, research has consistently (but not
exclusively) identified a gender difference in fandom in which men
report higher levels than women (Bahk, 2000; End et al., 2009; Meier
& Leinwathre, 2012; Wann, 2002). More importantly for the current
study, studies suggest there may be gender differences in antecedents of
fandom. That is, consistent with past work on team identification and
the results of Study 1 above, male and female fans may be differentially
influenced by various antecedents. Although patterns vary across culture
(Parry et al., 2014), research suggests that socialization agents may
differentially influence men and women. For instance, women often report
that mothers were a more influential agent than do men (Melnick &
Wann, 2004; Melnick & Wann, 2011; Wann et al., 2001). In addition,
researchers have found that relationships (e.g., enjoyment of sport
consumption with others) are a greater antecedent for women than men
(Dietz-Uhler et al., 2000). This mirrors research in developmental
psychology indicating that young girls tend to emphasize relationships
to a greater extent than young boys (Nicoloppulou, 2008) and these
patterns can be prominent in the socialization process of young female
sport fans (Markovits & Albertson, 2012).
Thus, Study 2 was designed to extend Study 1 by investigating
gender differences in relationship-based and recognition-based fandom
origins. We investigated the following hypotheses and research
questions:
Hypothesis 2: Consistent with Study 1 and past work (Dietz-Uhler et
al., 2000; Markovits & Albertson, 2012), it was hypothesized that
women would be more likely than men to report that their fandom (both
general fandom and fandom for their favorite sport) had originated for
relationship-based reasons.
Research Question 3: Will women and men significantly differ in
their level of recognition-based origins of fandom? This issue was again
addressed as a research question rather than a hypothesis because of the
lack of prior research on this topic. Although Study 1 results suggested
there should not be differences, this single study (and one with a focus
on identification rather than fandom) was not deemed sufficient to
warrant the development of a hypothesis.
Research Question 4: Will women and/or men be more likely to report
having originally followed sport for relationship-based or
recognition-based origins? Once again, this topic was examined as a
research question rather than a hypothesis due to the lack of prior
research. Again, although the findings of Study 1 suggest that persons
will be more likely to endorse recognition-based origins than
relationship-based origins, this single study (targeting identification)
was not viewed as sufficient to warrant the development of a hypothesis.
Method
Participants. The original sample contained 204 university
students. However, 56 participants were removed from the sample because
they were not a sport fan. This resulted in a final sample of n = 148.
Of these participants, 70 were male and 78 were female. Their ages
ranged from 18 years old to 38 years old, with a mean age of 20.22 (SD =
3.07). Participants comprising the Study 2 sample were acquired from a
new participant pool and, therefore, had not participated in Study 1.
Materials and procedure. Subsequent to receiving IRB approval and
gaining participant consent, participants then received a questionnaire
packet containing five questionnaires. The first questionnaire consisted
of two demographic items (age and gender) and one contingency question
that assessed whether the participant was a sport fan. A positive
response to the third item necessitated the completion of the remainder
of the packet. A negative response to the third question terminated the
session for those participants. These individuals then debriefed and
excused from the testing session.
The second scale was the Sport Fandom Questionnaire (SFQ; Wann,
2002) used to measure participants' degree of general sport fandom.
The SFQ is a reliable and valid unidimensional scale contains five
Likert-scale items. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 8 (strongly agree). Therefore, higher numbers represented greater
levels of general sport fandom. A sample item read: "Being a sport
fan is very important to me."
The third questionnaire was based on the previously discussed
9-item RRFOS-T. However, rather than targeting origin of identification
for a team, the current version (labeled the Relationship and
Recognition Fan Origin Scale--General Fandom; RRFOS-GF) investigated
reasons for originally becoming interested in sport as a fan. Once
again, response options ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 8 (Strongly
Agree) and, thus, a higher score on each item reflected a greater belief
that the origin of one's general sport fandom was either
relationship-based or recognition-based. A sample item designed to
assess relationship-based origins of general fandom read: "I became
a sport fan, in general, to bond with my family, friends, and/or
peers." A sample item designed to assess recognition-based origins
of general fandom read: "I became a sport fan, in general, to be
known as a sport fan."
The fourth scale was a second version of the SFQ. Rather than
targeting general fandom, items on this version targeted fandom for a
favorite sport (SFQ-FS). Each participant listed his/her favorite sport
to follow and then answered the five SFQ-FS items for that sport. Once
again, response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 8 (strongly
agree) resulting in higher numbers reflecting greater levels of fandom
for the participant's favorite sport.
The final questionnaire was a second version of the RRFOS. Rather
than assessing origin for general fandom, this form focused on fandom
for one's favorite sport. This version, labeled the Relationship
and Recognition Fan Origin Scale--Favorite Sport (RRFOS-FS), measured
one's reasons for originally becoming interested in his or her
favorite sport. Participants listed the same favorite sport they
targeted when completing the SFQ-FS and then answered the nine RRFOS-FS
items for that sport. Response options again ranged from 1 (Strongly
Disagree) to 8 (Strongly Agree). Consequently, a higher score reflected
a greater belief that the origin of one's fandom for a favorite
sport was due to either relationship-based or recognition-based reasons.
A sample item assessing relationship-based origins for a favorite sport
read: "I became a sport fan of the sport listed above to bond with
my family, friends, and/or peers." A sample item assessing
recognition-based origins for a favorite sport read: "I became a
sport fan of the sport listed above to be known as a fan of that
sport."
After completing the questionnaire packet, participants received a
debriefing statement explaining the purpose of the study. This form also
provided contact information should the participant wish to obtain a
copy of the results. The session lasted approximately 15 minutes.
Results
Preliminary analyses. The Relationship and Recognition Fan Origin
Scale--General Fandom and the Relationship and Recognition Fan Origin
Scale--Favorite Sport were analyzed via exploratory factor analysis with
varimax rotation. Consistent with Study 1, each analysis revealed two
subscales containing nine items. Once again, the first subscale was
labeled Relationship-based Origin and contained six items (RRFOS-GF
Eigenvalue = 5.77, percent of variance = 64.06; RRFOS-FS Eigenvalue =
5.99, percent of variance = 66.59). The second subscale, again called
Recognition-based Origin, contained three items (RRFOS-GF Eigenvalue =
1.91, percent of variance = 21.25; RRFOS-FS Eigenvalue = 1.85, percent
of variance = 20.54). (1)
Items contained in each scale and subscale were summed and divided
by the number of items in each to establish scores for each measure.
Cronbach's analyses revealed that each was internally consistent
(SFQ alpha = .92; SFQ-FS = .91; Relationship-based General Fandom Origin
= .96; Recognition-based General Fandom Origin = .92; Relationship-based
Favorite Sport Origin = .97; Recognition-based Favorite Sport Origin =
.93). The sample reported a mean SFQ score of 5.52 (SD = 1.63) and a
mean SFQ-FS score of 6.15 (SD = 1.56) on scales ranging from 1 to 8.
This indicates that the sample, as a whole, had a moderately high level
of fandom for both general fandom and fandom for a favorite sport (Wann,
2002). Significant gender differences were not found for either general
fandom (SFQ male M= 5.65, SD = 1.89; female M = 5.40, SD = 1.35; F <
1.00, p > .30) or fandom for one's favorite sport (SFQ-FS male M
= 6.23, SD = 1.75; female M = 6.07, SD = 1.39; F < 1.00, p > .50).
Therefore, neither general nor favorite sport fandom was included in
subsequent analyses. Correlations among the four origin subscales are
listed in Table 2.
Tests of hypotheses. To test the hypothesized pattern of effects, a
pair of 2 (Gender: male or female) x 2 (RRFOS Subscale:
Relationship-based Origin and Recognition-based Origin) multivariate
analyses of variance (MANOVA) were utilized, one each for
participants' general fandom (RRFOS-GF) and their favorite sport
(RRFOS-FS). With respect to the origin of participants' general
fandom, a gender multivariate main effect was found, Wilks' Lambda
F(2, 145) = 8.41, p < .001 (see Table 1 for means and standard
deviations). Follow up univariate analyses found that, consistent with
Hypothesis 2, women were significantly more likely to originally become
sport fans for relationship-based reasons (M = 5.64; SD = 1.34) than
were men (M = 4.74; SD = 1.88), F(1, 146) = 11.55, p < .001. There
were no significant gender differences for recognition-based origins
(Research Question 3), F(1, 146) = 0.37, p > .50 (male M= 3.51, SD =
1.91; female M= 3.35; SD = 1.33). With respect to Research Question 4,
follow-up paired samples t-tests indicated that both women and men were
more likely to report originally becoming a sport fan, in general, for
relationship-based reasons than for recognition-based reasons (female t
= 11.91, p < .001; male t = 5.87, p < .001).
As for the origin of fandom for a favorite sport, a gender
multivariate main effect was again found, Wilks' Lambda F(2, 145) =
8.01, p < .001 (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations).
Consistent with Hypothesis 2 and the previous analysis on one's
general fandom, follow up univariate analyses found that women were
significantly more likely to become fans of their favorite sport for
relationship-based reasons (M= 5.88; SD = 1.37) than were men (M= 4.94;
SD = 1.90), F(1, 146) = 12.14, p < .001. As for Research Question 3,
consistent with general fandom, there were no significant gender
differences for recognition-based origins, F(1, 146) = 0.21, p > .80
(male M = 3.94, SD = 2.10; female M= 3.89; SD = 1.70). Also consistent
with the previous analysis (Research Question 4), follow-up paired
samples t-tests indicated that both women and men were more likely to
report originally becoming a fan of their favorite sport for
relationship-based reasons than for recognition-based reasons (female t
=8.96, p < .001; male t = 4.90, p < .001).
Discussion
The results of Study 2 indicated that, consistent with
expectations, women were more likely than men to report originally
became sport fans for relationship-based reasons, a pattern of effects
found both for one's favorite sport and general sport fandom. Men
and women did not differ in their levels of recognition-based origins.
Overall, both men and women were more likely to report becoming a fan
(both in general and of a favored sport) for relationship-based reasons
than for recognition-based reasons.
General Discussion
Combining the findings of Study 2 with those reported in Study 1
leads to several interesting patterns. First, in both studies women
reported higher scores for relationship-based origins than did men.
Specifically, women more frequently indicated that the origin of their
identification with a favorite team, fandom for a sport favorite sport,
and fandom in general were a function of their desire to establish and
maintain connections to others. These findings are not only consistent
within this research, but also substantiate prior work as well. That is,
the data reported above mirror previous studies suggesting that the
establishment of relationships is a particularly key factor for women in
the development of both their sport fandom (Dietz-Uhler et al., 2000;
Markovits & Albertson, 2012) and team identification (Aiken &
Koch; 2009; Koch & Wann, 2013; Yoh et al., 2009). This pattern of
effects is also consistent with gender research in both social
psychology (Cross & Madsen, 1997; Gabriel & Gabriel, 1999;
Seeley et al., 2003) and developmental psychology (Nicoloppulou, 2008).
A second consistent result indicated that men and women did not
report differential levels of recognition-based origins for any of the
three indices of fandom (i.e., team identification, general fandom, and
fandom for a favorite sport). Due to a lack of work relevant to this
issue, the relationships between gender and levels of recognition-based
origins were examined within the framework of research questions rather
than specific hypotheses. Thus, the current findings are quite novel.
However, because the same pattern was found in each of the three
analyses, the effect appears to be robust. Evidently, the importance of
being recognized as either a sport fan or a supporter of a specific team
is equally important to men and women.
However, other results were inconsistent across the two studies.
For origins of team identification, men and women reported higher levels
of recognition-based than relationship-based origins. Thus, for the
development of identification, being recognized as a follower of a team
was of greater importance than the establishment of relationships.
However, this pattern was reversed for the origin of fandom. For both
general fandom and fandom for one's favorite sport, men and women
were more likely to endorse relationship-based than recognition-based
origins. Therefore, in terms of development of fandom, establishing
relationships was of greater prominence than was gaining recognition as
a fan. There appear to be several potential explanations for this
pattern of effects.
With respect to sport fandom, it is likely that most (but not all)
persons are exposed to sport fandom prior to being socialized to support
a specific team (Wann et al., 2001). Because exposure to sport itself
likely occurs very early in one's journey into fandom, at this
stage, individuals may be investigating those types of people with which
they would like to associate. As a result, these persons are interested
in becoming fans in part to assist in the formation of social
relationships. Essentially, they see fandom as a way to increase
connections with others. These persons could choose from any number of
activities (e.g., various forms of pop culture, academics, etc.) but
they select sport fandom because they wish to establish relationships
with others who have a similar general interest in sport. This process
continues with interest in a specific sport. Once an individual has
determined that he or she would like to establish relationships with
others who are sport fans, they then become more particular,
establishing relationships with fans of specific sports. That is, they
likely become aware that sport fan groups often differ (e.g., fans of
golf differ from fans of auto racing) and they choose a specific sport
to follow in an attempt to establish relationships with those specific
fans. In essence, the decision to become a fan in general and of a
specific sport is impacted by an individual's decision to establish
relationships with others engaging in that activity.
Having chosen a specific sport to follow, fans now turn to choosing
a favorite team. Our data indicate that the choice of one's
favorite team is more likely to be a function of a desire to be
recognized (i.e., perceived) as a fan of that team. The selection of a
favorite team is strongly connected to self-presentational concerns
(Cialdini et al., 1976; Wann & Branscombe, 1990; Wann et al., 2000),
and persons appear to be more interested in announcing teams they
support than sports they follow. For instance, fans purchase a great
deal of sports apparel that publicizes their team allegiances. However,
it is less common to see apparel describing a fan's favorite sport
(e.g., there are fewer persons wearing shirts simply saying
"football" or "I'm a basketball fan"). In fact,
theory and research suggests that team identification has greater
ingroup and well-being implications than does fandom (Wann, 2006b; Wann,
Dunham, Byrd, & Keenan, 2004; Wann & Weaver, 2009), a pattern of
effects that is consistent with the logic presented here.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Certain limitations of the current work and suggestions for future
research are warranted. First, the current data were collected at a
single collegiate institution, thus resulting in a rather homogeneous
sample. Subsequent research is needed from other geographic locations
and with a wider age range. Second, we limited our investigation to
gender differences in antecedents. However, it may be that other
demographic variables also relate to relationship-based and
recognition-based origins. Thus, additional research is needed that
examines additional demographics such as age and race (such an
investigation was not appropriate in the current study due to the
homogeneous composition of the sample). Given that past work has found
that both of these variables are related to fandom (Bilyeu & Wann,
2002; Murrell & Deitz, 1992; Wann et al., 2001), such investigations
are justified. Third, the chronological pattern suggested above (i.e.,
general sport fan [right arrow] fan of a specific sport [right arrow]
fan of a specific team) is speculative at this point. Additional
research is needed to provide empirical support for its validity.
In addition, it is important to note that although the current work
examined gender differences in fandom and identification, past research
has indicated that gender role orientation is also critical.
Specifically, previous investigations have found that gender role
orientation is important in predicting both sport fandom (Wann, Waddill,
& Dunham, 2004) and sport fan motivation (Wann & Waddill, 2003).
With respect to fandom, Wann et al. (2004) found that masculinity was a
better predictor of fandom than was anatomical sex. As for motivation,
Wann and Waddill (2003) reported that masculinity was a good predictor
of motivation but that femininity best predicted family motivation
(i.e., the desire to use fandom to spend time with one's family).
Given these findings, future researchers should attempt to examine the
relationships among gender role orientation (masculinity, femininity,
and androgyny) and relationship-based and recognition based origins for
team identification and sport fandom.
In addition, it was noted that the current work is consistent with
the notion that one's identification with a sport team is more
central to his or her identity than one's sport fandom. However,
given that this pattern of effects is speculative, future researchers
may want to investigate this issue. Three such studies using slightly
different methodologies would be beneficial. First, experimenters may
want to adopt a strategy similar to that employed by Wann et al. (2000)
in which participants described themselves to another student (they were
given a response sheet asking them to list up to 20 self-descriptors).
The authors were able to use subjects' mention of their fandom for
a team as well as the position of listing as measures of centrality
(e.g., listing "I am a fan of the Kentucky Wildcats" as the
first descriptor relative to mentioning it later in the list). A similar
procedure could be adopted by examining the extent to which individuals
mention following a team versus a sport and the relative position of
each.
Second, researchers could modify existing scales to compare the
relative strength of one's identity as a fan of a sport and a fan
of a team. For example, Deaux (2001) suggested that relative strength of
varying identities could be assessed by utilizing a slightly modified
version of the Collective Self-esteem Scale (Luhtanen & Crocker,
1991, 1992). This psychometrically sound instrument contains items such
as "Being a member of a social group is an important reflection of
who 1 am" and "In general, belonging to social groups is an
important part of my self-image." These and similar items comprise
the identity subscale, which was designed to assess "the importance
of one's social group memberships to one's self-concept"
(p. 305). Deaux suggests that by replacing "a social group"
with a specific group, one can assess the strength of the identity for
that particular domain. Extending this logic to the current work,
researchers could have participants complete the scale twice, once for
their fandom for a certain sport (e.g., "Being a fan of baseball is
an important reflection of who I am" and once for their fandom for
a specific team (e.g., "Being a fan of the Chicago Cubs is an
important reflection of who 1 am"). A similar stagey was used by
Smith, Grieve, Zapalac, Derryberry, and Pope (2012). These investigators
altered the identification scale developed by Crisp, Stone, and Hall
(2006) so that it specifically assessed degree of identification with
specific groups (e.g., religious, sport, school). By modifying scales as
suggested by Deaux (2001) and Smith et al. (2012), researchers should be
able to assess the relative strength of social categories for fan of a
specific sport and fan of a certain team.
And finally, investigators may wish to assess the loyalty of
individuals toward their favorite team and sport using a methodology
similar to that employed by Sebastian and Bristow (2000). These authors
asked participants to rate their loyalty toward several entities via
Likert-scale items such as "Once I get used to a brand of--, I hate
to switch." They found that brand loyalty to sport teams was much
greater than loyalty to other products such as clothing and food/drink
companies. By slightly modifying their scale, researcher should be able
to establish relative loyalty of persons to teams versus sports.
Conclusion
The current investigation examined gender differences in the origin
of sport fandom and team identification for two antecedents:
relationship-based and recognition-based. Women reported higher scores
for relationship-based origins than did men and this effect was found
for both team identification and fandom. Men and women did not report
differential levels of recognition-based origins for any of the three
indices of fandom/ identification. For the development of team
identification, recognition-based origins were more prominent than were
relationship-based origins. This pattern was reversed for the origin of
fandom as for both general fandom and fandom a favorite sport, men and
women were more likely to endorse relationship-based than
recognition-based origins. Subsequent research is needed to extend these
findings to other populations and to determine if fandom for a team is
typically a more central component of a fan's social identity than
is following a specific sport.
Footnote
(1) Factor loadings are available from the second author upon
request. Scale items are available from the second author upon request.
References
Aden, R. C., & Titsworth, S. (2012). Remaining rooted in a sea
of red: Agrarianism, place attachment, and Nebraska Comhusker football
fans. In A. C. Eamheardt, P. M. Haridakis, & B. S. Hugenberg (Eds.),
Sports fans, identity and socialization: Exploring the fandemonium (pp.
9-23). Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Aiken, K. D., Campbell, R. M., & Sukhdial, A. (2010). An
investigation of Old School values in the Arena Football League. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 19, 125-131.
Aiken, K. D., & Koch, E. C. (2009). A conjoint approach
investigating factors in initial team preference formation. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 18, 81-91.
Allen, J. T., Drane, D., & Byon, K. K. (2010). Gender
differences in sport spectatorship among college baseball fans.
International Journal of Sport Management, 11, 418-439.
Armstrong, K. (2002). Race and sport consumption motivations: A
preliminary investigation of a black consumers' sport motivation
scale. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 309-330.
Armstrong, K. L. (2008). Consumers of color and the
"culture" of sport attendance: Exploratory insights. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 17, 218-231.
Bahk, C. M. (2000). Sex differences in sport spectator involvement.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 79-83.
Bilyeu, J. K., & Warm, D. L. (2002). An investigation of racial
differences in sport fan motivation. International Sports Journal, 6(2),
93-106.
Boyle, B. A., & Magnusson, P. (2007). Social identity and brand
equity formation: A comparative study of collegiate sport fans. Journal
of Sport Management, 21, 497-520.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thome, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman,
S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three
(football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
34, 366-375.
Crisp, R. J., Stone, C. H., & Hall, N. R. (2006).
Recategorization and subgroup identification: Predicting and preventing
threats from common ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 32, 230-243.
Cross, S. E., & Madsen, L. (1997). Models of the self:
Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37.
Deaux, K. (2001). Social identity. In J. Worell (Ed.) Encyclopedia
of women and gender: Sex similarities and differences and the impact of
society on gender (pp. 1-9). Waltham, MA: Academic Press.
Dietz-Uhler, B., Harrick, E. A., End, C., & Jacquemotte, L.
(2000). Sex differences in sport fan behavior and reasons for being a
sport fan. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 219-231.
Dimmock, J. A., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2008). The utility of
modern theories of intergroup bias for research on antecedents to team
identification. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 284-300.
Donavan, D. T., Carlson, B. D., & Zimmerman, M. (2005). The
influence of personality traits on sports fan identification. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 14, 31-42.
End, C. M., Meinert, J. L., Jr., Worthman, S. S., & Mauntel, G.
J. (2009). Sport fan identification in obituaries. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 109, 551-554.
Fisher, R. J. (1998). Group-derived consumption: The role of
similarity and attractiveness in identification with a favorite sports
team. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 283-288.
Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Are there "his"
and "hers" types of interdependence? The implications of
gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for
affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 642-655.
Greenwood, P. B. (2001). Sport fan team identification in a
professional expansion setting. Unpublished Masters Thesis, North
Carolina State University.
Grove, S. J., Pickett, G. M., & Dodder, R. A. (1982).
Spectatorship among a collegiate sample: An exploratory investigation.
In M. Etzel & J. Gaski (Eds.,) Applying marketing technology'
to spectator sports (pp. 26-40). South Bend, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press.
Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S. R. (2003). A model of fan
identification: Antecedents and sponsorship outcomes. Journal of
Services Marketing, 17, 275.294.
Hoogland, C. E., Schurtz, D. R., Cooper, C. M., Combs, D. Y. J.,
Brown, E. G., Smith, R. H. (in press). The joy of pain and the pain of
joy: In-group identification predicts schadenfreude and gluckschmerz
following rival groups' fortunes. Motivation and Emotion.
Hyatt, C. G., & Andrijiw, A. K. (2008). How people raised and
living in Ontario became fans of non-local National Hockey League teams.
International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 4, 338-355.
James, J. D. (2001). The role of cognitive development of
socialization in the initial development of team loyalty. Leisure
Sciences, 23, 233-261.
James, J. D., Kolbe, R. H., & Trail, G. T. (2002).
Psychological connection to a new sport team: Building or maintaining
the consumer base? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 215-225.
James, J. D., & Ridinger, L. L. (2002). Female and male sport
fans: A comparison of sport consumption motives. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 25, 260-278.
Jones, I. (1997). A further examination of the factors influencing
current identification with a sports team, a response to Wann et al.
(1996). Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 257-258.
Judson, K. M., & Carpenter, P. (2005). Assessing a university
community's identification to sport in a changing climate. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 4, 217-226.
Koch, K., & Wann, D. L. (2013). Fans' identification and
commitment to a sport team: The impact of self-selection versus
socialization processes. Athletic Insight, 5, 129-143.
Kolbe, R. H., & James, J. D. (2003). The internalization
process among team followers: Implications for team loyalty.
International Journal of Sport Management, 4, 25-43.
Kwon, H. H., & Armstrong, K. L. (2002). Factors influencing
impulse buying of sport team licensed merchandise. Sport Marketing
Quarterly 3, 151-163.
Leary, M. R. (1992). Self-presentational processes in exercise and
sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 339-351.
Lieberman, S. (1991, September/October). The popular culture: Sport
in America-a look at the avid sports fan. The Public Perspective: A
Roper Center Review of Public Opinion and Polling, 2(6), 28-29.
Lock, D., Darcy, S., & Taylor, T. (2009). Starting with a clean
slate: An analysis of member identification with a new sports team.
Sport Management Review, 12, 15-25.
Lock, D., Taylor, T., & Darcy, S. (2011). In the absence of
achievement: The formation of new team identification. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 11, 171-192.
Luellen, T. B., & Wann, D. L. (2010). Rival salience and sport
team identification. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, 97-106.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1991). Self-esteem and intergroup
comparison: Toward a theory of collective self-esteem. In J. Suls &
T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparisons: Contemporary theory and research
(pp. 211-234). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem
scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302-318.
Markovits, A. S., & Albertson, E. K. (2012). Sportista: Female
fandom in the United States. Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
Mashiach, A. (1980). A study to determine the factors which
influence American spectators to go see the Olympics in Montreal, 1976.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 3, 17-26.
McGuire, W. J., & McGuire, C. V. (1982). Significant others on
self-space: Sex differences and developmental trends in social self. In
J. Suls (Ed.) Psychological perspectives on the self(Vol. 1, pp. 71-96).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meier, H. E., & Leinwathre, M. (2012). Women as "armchair
audience"? Evidence from German National Team Football. Sociology
of Sport Journal, 29, 365-384.
Melnick, M. J., & Wann, D. L. (2004). Sport fandom influences,
interests, and behaviors-among Norwegian university students.
International Sports Journal, 5(1), 1-13.
Melnick, M. J., & Wann, D. L. (2011). An examination of sport
fandom in Australia: Socialization, team identification, and fan
behavior. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 46, 456-470.
Murrell, A. J., & Dietz, B. (1992). Fan support of sports
teams: The effect of a common group identity. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 14, 28-39.
Nelson, K. (2004). Identification with sports teams by fans of
women's sports. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 575-576.
Nicolopoulou, A. (2008). The elementary forms of narrative in young
children's story-telling. Narrative Inquiry, 18, 299-325.
Park, S.-H., Andrew, D. P. S., & Mahony, D. F. (2008).
Exploring the relationship between trait curiosity and initial interest
in sport spectatorship. International Journal of Sport Management, 9,
286-302.
Parry, K. D., Jones, I., & Wann, D. L. (2014). An examination
of sport fandom in the United Kingdom: A comparative analysis of fan
behaviors, socialization processes, and team identification. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 37, 251-267.
Pritchard, M. P, Stinson, J., & Patton, E. (2010). Affinity and
affiliation: The dual carriage way to team identification. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 19, 67-77.
Rainey, D. W., Larsen, J., & Yost, J. H. (2009). Disappointment
theory and disappointment among baseball fans. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 32, 339-356.
Reding, F. N., Grieve, F. G., Derryberry, W. P., & Paquin, A.
R. (2011). Examining the team identification of football fans at the
high school level. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34, 378-391.
Robinson, M. J., & Trail, G. T. (2005). Relationships among
spectator gender, motives, points of attachment, and sport preference.
Journal of Sport Management, 19, 58-80.
Sebastian, R. J., & Bristow, D. N. (2000). Win or lose, take me
out to the ball game! An empirical investigation of loyalty proneness
among college students. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9, 211-220.
Seeley, E. A., Gardner, W. L., Pennington, G., & Gabriel, S.
(2003). Circle of friends or members of a group? Sex differences in
relational and collective attachment to groups. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 6, 251-263.
Shank, M. D., & Beasley, F. M. (1998). Fan or fanatic: Refining
a measure of sports involvement. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 435-443.
Smith, S. E., Grieve, F. G., Zapalac, R, K., Derryberry, W. P.,
& Pope, J. (2012). How does sport team identification compare to
identification with other social institutions? Journal of Contemporary
Athletics, 6, 69-82.
Sukhdial, A., Aiken, D., & Kahle, L. (2002). Are you Old
School? A scale for measuring sport fan's old-school orientation.
Journal of Advertising Research, 42(A), 71-81.
Swyers, H. (2005). Community America: Who owns Wrigley Field? The
International Journal of the History of Sport, 22, 1086-1105.
Theodorakis, N. D., & Wann, D. L. (2008). An examination of
sport fandom in Greece: Influences, interests, and behaviors.
International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 4, 356-374.
Underwood, R., Bond, E., & Baer, R. (2001). Building service
brands via social identity: Lessons from the sports marketplace. Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9, 1-13.
Wann, D. L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the Sport Fan
Motivation Scale. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 19, 377-396.
Wann, D. L. (1997). Sport psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Wann, D. L. (2002). Preliminary validation of a measure for
assessing identification as a sport fan: The Sport Fandom Questionnaire.
International Journal of Sport Management, 3, 103-115.
Wann, D. L. (2006a). The causes and consequences of sport team
identification. In A. A. Raney & J. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of
Sports and Media (pp. 331-352). Erlbaum.
Wann, D. L. (2006b). Understanding the positive social
psychological benefits of sport team identification: The Team
Identification--Social Psychological Health Model. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 272-296.
Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Die-hard and
fair-weather fans: Effects of identification on BIRGing and CORFing
tendencies. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 14, 103-117.
Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1993). Sport fans: Measuring
the degree of identification with their team. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 24, 1-17.
Wann, D. L., Dimmock, J. A., & Grove, J. R. (2003).
Generalizing the Team Identification --Psychological Health Model to a
Different Sport and Culture: The Case of Australian Rules Football.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 289-296.
Wann, D. L., Dolan, T. J., McGeorge, K. K., & Allison, J. A.
(1994). Relationships between spectator identification and
spectators' perceptions of influence, spectators' emotions,
and competition outcome. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology',
16, 347-364.
Wann, D. L., Dunham, M. D., Byrd, M. L., & Keenan, B. L.
(2004). The five-factor model of personality and the psychological
health of highly identified sport fans. International Sports Journal,
8(2), 28-36.
Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Pease, D. G.
(2001). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Wann, D. L., Royalty, J., & Roberts, A. (2000). The
self-presentation of sport fans: Investigating the importance of team
identification and self-esteem. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 198-206.
Wann, D. L., Schrader, M. R, & Wilson, A. M. (1999). Sport fan
motivation: Questionnaire validation, comparisons by sport, and
relationship to athletic motivation. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22,
114-139.
Wann, D. L., Tucker, K. B., & Schrader, M. P. (1996). An
exploratory examination of the factors influencing the origination,
continuation, and cessation of identification with sports teams.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 995-1001.
Wann, D. L., & Waddill, P. J. (2003). Predicting sport fan
motivation using anatomical sex and gender role orientation. North
American Journal of Psychology, 5, 485-498.
Wann, D. L., Waddill, P. J., & Dunham, M. D. (2004). Using sex
and gender role orientation to predict level of sport fandom. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 27, 367-377.
Wann, D. L., & Weaver, S. (2009). Understanding the
relationship between sport team identification and dimensions of social
well-being. North American Journal of Psychology, 11, 219-230.
Williamson, D. P, Zhang, J. J., Pease, D. G., & Gaa, J. P.
(2003). Dimensions of spectator identification associated with
women's professional basketball game attendance. International
Journal of Sport Management, 4, 59-91.
Yoh, T., Pai, H.-T., & Pedersen, P. M. (2009). The influence of
socialisation agents on fan loyalty of Korean teens. International
Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 6, 404-416.
Katrina Koch and Daniel L. Wann
Murray State University
Address correspondence to: Daniel L. Wann, Department of
Psychology, Murray State University, Murray, KY 42071. Email:
[email protected]
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Study 1 and Study 2
Female
M SD
Study 1 (Team Identification)
Relationship-based Team Identification * 4.82 (1.90)
Recognition-based Team Identification 5.53 (1.50)
Study 2 (Fandom)
Relationship-based General Fandom ** 5.64 (1.34)
Recognition-based General Fandom 3.35 (1.33)
Relationship-based Favorite Sport ** 5.88 (1.37)
Recognition-based Favorite Sport 3.89 (1.70)
Male
M SD
Study 1 (Team Identification)
Relationship-based Team Identification * 3.89 (1.87)
Recognition-based Team Identification 5.83 (1.61)
Study 2 (Fandom)
Relationship-based General Fandom ** 4.74 (1.88)
Recognition-based General Fandom 3.51 (1.91)
Relationship-based Favorite Sport ** 4.94 (1.90)
Recognition-based Favorite Sport 3.94 (2.10)
Notes: Significant gender differences indicated
by * = p < .01; ** = p < .001.
Table 2
Pearson Correlations among the RRFOS Subscales
for General Fandom and Favorite Sport
1 2 3 4
Relationship-based General Fandom (1) --
Recognition-based General Fandom (2) .41 * --
Relationship-based Favorite Sport (3) .88 * .38 * --
Recognition-based Favorite Sport (4) .35 * .78 * .44 * --
Note. * = p < .01.