Development and validation of the Sport Rivalry Fan Perception Scale (SRFPS).

Havard, Cody T. ; Gray, Dianna P. ; Gould, James 等

In college sport, fans dedicate large amounts of resources to show their affiliation with their favorite teams and schools (Gibson, Willming, & Holdnak, 2002). One way to display that affiliation is by following the rival(s) of the favorite team. The relationship between fans, favorite teams, and favorite team rivals add to the excitement of consuming sport. For this reason, it is short sighted to address sport spectatorship without a discussion of the rivalries that occur between teams, players, and fans. At the collegiate level, rivalries fill out season schedules, make for entertaining contests, and add fervor to the competitive nature of sport. Further, many rivalries date over 100 years, and have become engrained in the cultures of their respective schools (Corbet & Simpson, 2004; Shropshire, 2006; Tucker, 2007).

Kilduff, Eifenbein, & Staw (2010) have identified the antecedents to rivalry, however there is little research explaining what sport rivalry means to fans, or how they are affected by the phenomenon. Additionally, no operational definition of sport rivalry currently exists in the sport or consumer behavior literature, and it is important to study how fans perceive teams identified as rivals to further the understanding of intergroup relations. For this reason, the current study sought to address the lack of empirical investigation into the phenomenon of sport rivalry by quantitatively identifying factors that explain fan perceptions of teams identified as their favorite team's rival. The following research question guided the study: What identifiable factors explain rivalry?

Review of Literature

The psychology of fan and consumer behavior is an area that has received considerable attention by academics over the past two decades. Zaichkowsky (1985) indicated with the Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) that two people could perceive the same product differently. In sport, people tend to be introduced to the "product" through family (Coakley, 2004; de Groot & Robinson, 2008; Havard, 2012) and consume with friends sharing similar team or activity interests (Dietz-Uhler, Harrick, End, & Jacqemotte, 2000). Fan identification with a team can offer individuals opportunities to fulfill socialization needs that can lead to increased mental health and self esteem (Brascombe & Warm, 1991; Crocker & Park, 2004; Wann, 2006). People tend to identify with others to enhance their social-identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and influence others' perceptions of themselves. One way for a fan to do this is to identify with a sport team (Warm, Brame, Clarkson, Brooks, & Waddill, 2008). For this reason, literature addressing social and fan identification begins the discussion.

Social and Fan Identification

Tajfel (1978) asserted that people strive to build and maintain a positive concept of themselves, and desire to be favorably viewed by others (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Social identity theory explains how this self-concept affects the types of people and groups with whom individuals associates (Tajfel, 1981). In order to increase self-identity and esteem, people will join with others who share similar characteristics (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When people with similar interests join together, they form social groups (Turner, 1982), and these groups tend to adopt a collective identity in order to distinguish between members and non-members (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin, 2004).

Heider (1958) introduced balance theory to help explain how and why individuals interact with others. Through unit relations, balance theory states that things are connected in some way and that people engage in dyadic and triadic relationships, whether positive or negative, in order to maintain a balanced state of being. In a dyadic relationship, if person A likes person B, balance is attained if that feeling is reciprocated (i.e., B likes A). In a triadic relationship, a balanced state is attained if all three people like each other or if, as posited by Heider, two negative relationships and one positive relationship are present. This triadic relationship is of particular interest to the study of sport rivalry, as it helps to explain the adversarial relationship fans often have with their favorite team's rival. For example, a fan that has a positive relationship with his or her favorite team will have a negative relationship with the favorite team's rival because of the competitive, or negative relationship the favorite and rival teams share.

Cialdini et al. (1976) utilized the unit relations principle in balance theory to introduce Basking In Reflected Glory (BIRGing), which explains how fan association and identification with a favorite team is affected by game performance. In a study conducted at seven schools with prominent college football programs, the authors found that people were more likely to wear team apparel and use associative words the Monday following a win than a non-win. Further, Cialdini and Richardson (1980) found that individuals highly identified with their favorite team or university would rather derogate, or "Blast" (p. 406) the opposing team, university, or fans than distance themselves from the favorite group when faced with reflected failure.

In a similar vein, the term Cutting Off Reflected Failure (CORFing) describes the tendency of people to distance from the perceived failure of a team, person, or group (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980; Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986). Regarding highly identified sport fans, Wann and Branscombe (1990) found that fans possessing a strong identification with their favorite team were more likely to BIRG and less likely to CORF for long periods of time as compared to fans possessing a weak identification with their favorite team. Bizman and Yinon (2002) assert that highly identified fans may be more likely to CORF but continue, and even increase their involvement with the favorite team after feelings associated with a loss have dissipated. Groups of opposing fans varying in levels of identification often interact when supporting their favorite teams, and these interactions lead to a review of intergroup relations and rivalry.

Intergroup Relations and Rivalry

It is an inherent attribute of humans to strive for high self-esteem (Crocker & Park, 2004), and the mere presence of another can motivate an individual to act in a certain way to display mastery (Deci, 1975), or somehow compare favorably with someone else (Mowen, 2004; Triplett, 1897). For this reason, people will participate in activities where they can exhibit a level of self-efficacy, and one way for a sport fan to do this is through the vicarious experience of supporting their favorite team (Bandura, 1977). By BIRGing, sport fans feel as though they are part of the successful team, and that they can achieve personal goals (Cialdini et al., 1976).

When groups form and share a collective identity (Ashmore et al., 2004), they tend to show favoritism toward in-group members and ostracism toward out-group members. This is known as in-group bias (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and the Robbers Cave Experiment (Sheriff, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sheriff, 1961) was one of the first studies to investigate this phenomenon. Participants in the study were grade school boys in a summer camp setting split into two teams and given the opportunity to compete against each other. During the competitive phase of the study, the teams displayed in-group bias (e.g., team shirts) and out-group ostracism (e.g., vandalizing campsites of the other team) to the point that researchers had to separate the boys on multiple occasions.

In-group bias is also present in the descriptions individuals give of other people (Brewer, 1979). This is known as Linguistic Intergroup Bias (LIB), and asserts that individuals tend to describe in-group actions more favorably and abstractly than out-group actions (Maass, Arcuri, Salvi, & Semin, 1989). LIB is present in sport in the way fans evaluate team and player performance (Wann & Thomas, 1994), and the sportsmanship of in-group and out-group fans (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Grieve, 2005).

The disposition of mirth and sport disposition theories further help to explain in-group bias in intergroup relationships, and the feelings between fans of rival teams in particular. Disposition of mirth theory (Zillmann & Cantor, 1976), similar to the German term schadenfreude (Kahle & Close, 2011), states that a person will feel joy if someone he or she likes is successful and displeasure if that person experiences failure. Particular to sport, sport disposition theory asserts that fans will cheer when their favorite team is successful and the favorite team's opponent is unsuccessful when the two teams are playing each other (Zillmann et al., 1989).

Rivalry in sport can affect a person's physiological reactions (Hillman, Cuthbert, Bradley, & Lang, 2004), perceptions of a team's sponsors (Davies, Veloutsou, & Costa, 2006), and the likelihood to help others in distress (Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher, 2005). Additionally, Lee (1985) asserts that rivalries have the ability to strengthen in-group bias and result in hostility among fans of rival teams. This has certainly been the case with rabid soccer fans commonly referred to as soccer hooligans (Spaaij, 2008). Some authors have asserted that team identification or the presence of a rival did not necessarily increase fan aggression (Dimmock & Grove, 2010; Lewis, 2007), while other research has found that fans would be willing to commit anonymous acts of violence, even murder, against the star player and coach of a rival team (Wann, Haynes, McLean, & Pullen, 2003; Warm, Petersen, Cothran, & Dykes, 1999). The unfortunate story of a University of Alabama fan poisoning the Toomer's Corner trees near the Auburn University campus is an example of fans displaying antisocial behavior toward a rival team (Schlabach, 2011).

The preceding literature review helps explain the underlying theories of rivalry in sport however, there is currently little research addressing how fans feel about their favorite team's rival. It is difficult to properly measure the effects of sport rivalry on fan psychology and behavior absent a valid measurement tool. Thus, the following section details the methods used in the development and validation of the scale.

Methods

Instrument Development

In order to address the perceptions of fans toward their favorite team's rival, the technique for developing marketing measures identified by Churchill (1979) was used. Churchill's technique requires the researcher to: 1) specify the construct(s) being explained, 2) generate sample items, 3) collect data to initially test items, 4) purify the measure, and 5) collect data to assess reliability and validity.

Specify Construct. In order to identify the construct of rivalry in sport, a review of the existing literature regarding fan behavior and team identification was conducted (Creswell, 2005). Utilizing the existing literature, general interview questions regarding rivalry in sport were developed. In particular, these questions gauged participants' feelings regarding their favorite team and the rival team in direct and indirect competitive situations.

Generation of Sample Items. In order to generate sample items to be tested, 15 semi-structured interviews using the constructivist viewpoint (Crotty, 1998) and grounded theory (Creswell, 2007) were conducted over one calendar year. Interview participants were asked to identify their favorite team's rival to provide personal context for the study, and transcripts were used to identify trends regarding fan perceptions of favorite and rival teams. A list of 112 statements was compiled to address the on-field successes and failures of the favorite and rival teams, and the indirect competition (i.e., when the rival team is playing someone other than the favorite team) of the favorite team's rival. Next, in order to ensure the statements properly measured the construct, an expert panel was utilized (Churchill, 1979). The five individuals that served on the expert panel are well known for their work in the areas of fan identification, consumption, and behavior.

Initial Item Testing. Following an initial review by the expert panel, a sample of fans reached through online web sites of teams competing in the football bowl season during December 2010 and January 2011 was used for the first sample. Participants in the first sample were directed to take the survey on formsite.com, and completed surveys were analyzed using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) in SPSS 18 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Purify the Measure. Following the data analysis of the first sample, the expert panelists again reviewed the construct, and identified factors and items to determine any areas of concern regarding question clarity and redundancy. During the second expert panel review, some items were deleted or added to ensure that the scale properly measured the sport rivalry construct.

Collect data to assess reliability and validity. A second sample of 374 fans was collected during February and March of 2011 using participants reached through in-person Self-Administered Questionnaires (SAQ) (Lohr, 2008) and online protocol. SAQ participants were reached at three National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I men's basketball games in the Mountain West region. Online participants in the second sample were reached through team-specific fan web pages and administered the survey via formsite.com.

Instrumentation and Distribution

The final version of the survey sent to the first sample contained items measuring rivalry (37 questions), combined with demographic (3 questions), favorite team (8 questions), and rival team information (3 questions). Participants were asked to identify their favorite team's rival, and indicate their perceptions toward the rival using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1--Strongly Disagree, 3--Neutral, 7--Strongly Agree).

SAQ protocol was used because it gives participants freedom to respond in the manner they desired (de Leeuw & Hox, 2008). An online protocol was utilized because it allowed for a wider sample to be reached (Gaiser & Schreiner, 2009), and visitors to a specific site were given the opportunity to complete the survey (Manfreda & Vehovar, 2008). Online participants in the first and second sample were given one reminder to take the survey during collection, and SAQ collection took place at three college basketball games in an attempt to reach the most respondents (de Leeuw, Hox, & Dillman, 2008; Miller & Smith, 1983). Attempts to ensure no one under the age of 18 completed a survey were taken in both the SAQ and online distribution methods. As an incentive, participants in both samples and collection methods were given a chance to enter for one of eight $25 VISA gift cards.

Results

An operational definition of sport rivalry was developed and refined through the expert panel process in the current study along with the scale, and it is helpful to introduce such definition at this point. Sport rivalry is defined as a fluctuating adversarial relationship existing between two teams, players, or groups of fans, gaining significance through on-field competition, on-field or off-field incidences, proximity, demographic makeup, and/or historical occurrence(s). With the preceding definition, it is now prudent to present the results of the scale development process.

Following a pilot study conducted on the popular online social networking site Facebook, the first expert panel reviewed the scale and survey containing the list of 37 items addressing rivalry along with the external questions (14 items). It was suggested by the expert panel that the Out-group Consumption (OC) factor be deleted from the survey because the factor was measuring consumption rather than perception. It was also suggested that the Out-group Linguistic Bias (OLB) factor be renamed to better represent the items explaining the factor. For this reason, the factor was renamed Out-group Sportsmanship (OS). Additionally, it was advised that team identification information be added to the survey for future use. For this reason, the Team Involvement Inventory (TII) was added to the survey (Trail, Fink, & Anderson, 2003).

Of the 587 participants in the first sample who initially started the survey, 457 completed the instrument and provided useable data, for a completion rate of 78%. Male (89.7%) football fans (98.2%) made up the vast majority of respondents in the first sample, and 59.4% of participants were 18 to 40 years of age. The data were analyzed using EFA with promax rotation in SPSS 18 and factors were identified using the Kaiser criteria, which identifies eigenvalues over 1.0 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The promax rotation consisted of four factors, 15 items and explained 72.2% of the variance. Items were identified by loadings greater than .40, which represent component salience (Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988), and not double loadings greater than .50.

Results from the EFA were submitted to the second expert panel, and it was suggested that the Competition/Vicarious Achievement factor be renamed Sense of Satisfaction (SOS). An additional item was added to both the Out-group Sportsmanship (OS) factor and the SoS factor. Further, one SoS item was replaced because it did not properly measure the factor. It was also suggested to add questions addressing favorite and rival team consumption habits to the survey. The survey distributed to the second sample consisted of 45 questions, with 17 items addressing rivalry in sport.

The second sample consisted of fans following their favorite teams online and attending live games. Of the 387 participants that started the online survey, 292 finished the survey and provided usable data, for a 75% completion rate. In addition, 82 of the 100 participants that started the SAQ survey provided finished instruments with usable data, for a completion rate of 82%. Using both the online and SAQ distribution methods, 374 participants provided usable data from the second sample. Again, male participants (85.3%) made up the majority of respondents. Participants followed football (44.9%) and basketball (42.5%) teams at about the same rate and 65.2% were 18 to 40 years of age.

Data from the second sample were analyzed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in LISREL 8.8. The final model consisted of four factors and 12 items, which are presented in Table 1. The factors identified were 1) Out-Group Competition against Others (Indirect) (OIC), 2) Out-Group Academic Prestige (OAP), 3) Out-Group Sportsmanship (OS), and 4) Sense of Satisfaction (SOS).

Fit indices showed good fit for the model, and can be found in Table 2. The Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) was acceptable according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). Another method commonly used to evaluate model fit, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was also acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) also indicated strong fit for the model. The [chi square] value (74.64) for the model was statistically significant at p < .05 (df = 48).

Chi square scores showing correlations among factors are presented in Table 3 and among items In Table 4 (Glass & Hopkins, 1996). The reliability of the scale was acceptable, indicated by the Chronbach's a for the four factors ranging from .77 to .91. The measure proved to demonstrate acceptable convergent and discriminant validity, as indicated by the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) scores (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

The Sport Rivalry Fan Perception Scale (SRFPS) demonstrated good model fit, and is a reliable and valid measure of fan perceptions toward a favorite team's rival. Table 5 identifies the final SRFPS, which contains four factors and 12 items, and can be used to properly measure fan perceptions of rival teams.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to develop and validate a scale to measure fan perceptions toward the team identified as their favorite team's rival. The four-factor, 12 item SRFPS was validated on two groups of college football and basketball fans, and was determined to be an acceptable measure of fan perceptions toward their favorite team's rival. This discussion will address the theoretical implications of the SRFPS, limitations to the current investigation, and areas for future study.

Implications

Previous research has used rivalry in sport as a variable to explain fan behavior (Davies et al., 2006; Hilman et al., 2004; Luellen & Wann, 2010; Mahony & Moorman, 1999; Sierra et al., 2010; Spaaij, 2008; Warm et al., 2003; Wann et al., 2006), but until now virtually no research existed explaining what a sport rivalry means to fans or how they perceive their favorite team's rival. Providing an operational definition of sport rivalry, along with the development and validation of the SRFPS provides the theoretical basis for future researchers to properly measure fan perceptions toward a rival team. Although further use and validation of the SRFPS is recommended, it can be used in its current form by academics and practitioners studying variables of fan behavior to differentiate fans based on their perceptions of a rival team in collegiate football and basketball.

One way the scale can be used is in the study of fan behavior toward a favorite team or conference. If academics can properly measure the perceptions fans have for their favorite team's rival, they can begin to use the scale in conjunction with other variables and scales to gain a better understanding of how the presence of a rival affects fan behavior. The SRFPS provides another way for academics to continue the study of intergroup relationships, and lends support to the disposition of mirth theory (Zillmann & Cantor, 1976). The various forms of rival derogation stated by fans in the current study (e.g., "Texas Shorthorns", "Kuck Fansas", "Dirty Hillbillies") is consistent with prior research (Wann et al., 1999; Wann et al., 2003).

Limitations

The distribution method through online surveys and in-person SAQ is a possible limitation, as potential respondents were inevitably missed. This is a product of the availability of fans through online and in-person mediums. The SAQ was distributed at college basketball games in reasonable proximity to the researcher, and attempts to distribute at more high-profile games was not logistically possible. Another limitation worthy of mention is that rival team names were piped (i.e., visible) throughout the online survey to add salience for the participant (Luellen &Wann, 2010); this option was not available on the SAQ instrument.

The online version of the survey was posted on fan pages that did not require a paid subscription. It was decided that this method was the best way to reach fans that may not have the financial means or desires to pay for subscription content of their favorite team, but this approach may have resulted in missed potential participants. Some people paying for subscriptions to favorite team content could have different rival perceptions.

Future Study

First, further study is needed to determine the validity of the Out-Group Academic (OAP) factor, or the refinement of the SRFPS to three factors and nine items (Isreal, 1992). For example, some populations in future study (e.g., professional teams) may not lend themselves to the use of the OAP factor. Another area for further study is to compare college sports fans perceptions of rival teams by sex, sport, and competition level. The current scale was developed on fans of college football and men's basketball, and comparing data from women's sports may reveal interesting results. Football and men's basketball are known as revenue producing sports in high-profile intercollegiate athletics, and a comparison of revenue versus non-revenue sports may also provide interesting findings. Rival perceptions may differ at the Division II, III, or NAIA level. It is asserted that the construct, or concept of rivalry remains constant anywhere there is competition, but the extent of perceptions may differ between these groups.

Also, administering the survey to fans with apriori teams identified to determine if fan rival perceptions differ toward various teams within a league or conference would provide valuable results. This was evidenced in the current study by the inconsistencies with which fans identified rivals. For example, Texas A&M fans identified the Texas Longhorns as their biggest rivals, while Texas fans placed the Oklahoma Sooners in the same category.

Administering the SRFPS at the professional level may reveal interesting results. Doing so would allow the validity and reliability of the scale to be tested at the professional level, and may tap into fan perceptions regarding teams in these leagues. For example, an investigation of the New York Yankees/Boston Red Sox rivalry or the intense relationship between the religious-tied Celtic and Ranger football clubs of the Spanish Premier League would provide a wealth of information.

As previously mentioned, it is imperative that the SRFPS be administered to more fan groups so that discernable differences among groups may be identified. It is also recommended that the SRFPS be used in cooperation with other fan identification scales to test for differences in rival perceptions. The SRFPS should also be used to determine favorite team consumption habits among fans. For example, fans of intercollegiate athletics could be administered the survey to determine if and how the rival team's performance affects their likelihood to support their favorite team through the purchase of licensed products, mediated viewership, or monetary support in the form of donations.

Qualitative research into rivalry can also provide areas for future research. With the recent conference expansion and changing conference affiliation of college teams, academics may be able to determine how fans feel about the end of traditional competitive rivalries and the beginning of new ones. Qualitative research would also help to shed light on how fans feel toward rival teams when a coach or player from the team gets into trouble with the NCAA or legal system. A Michigan fan billboard aimed at derogating former Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel for an NCAA investigation is such an example (Michigan billboard, 2011).

Outside of sport, the SRFPS adds to the intergroup relations literature and with further refinement may lend itself to the continued study of groups sharing adversarial relationships (e.g., gangs, factions). Through the understanding of what causes adversarial relationships, we can also gain knowledge on what may diminish some of the negative attributes of such relationships. The participants in the Sheriff et al. (1961) study were able to work together on tasks when the group competition was removed. Aside from few situations involving natural or manmade disasters such as the 2011 storms in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Auburn offers aid, 2011) or the bonfire tragedy at Texas A&M University (Rivalry takes back seat, 1999), it is yet to be seen if rival fan groups would be willing to work cooperatively toward common goals. It is also important that academics and practitioners note the social responsibilities owed by teams and fans to communities and sport.

It is with caution that the SRFPS is presented as a scale to measure the perceptions fans feel toward a rival team. Further research should focus on how the SRFPS can be used to better understand the adversarial relationship between rival fans and teams and regulate potentially negative encounters in and out of the competitive arena. The graphic fight between Cincinnati and Xavier men's basketball players illustrate what can happen when negative feelings in a rivalry are not properly controlled (Katz, 2011).

In conclusion, the SRFPS was demonstrated as a reliable and valid measure of fan perceptions toward a favorite team's rival. The area of sport rivalry has received little attention in the sport literature, and the SRFPS provides academics and practitioners a tool to properly gauge perceptions toward a rival and possible affects to fan behavior and consumption. It is important for academics and practitioners to gain a better understanding of rival perceptions in order to continue study into the phenomenon, and the current study provides such a basis.

Acknowledgements

Portions of this manuscript were developed through Dr. Havard's dissertation at the University of Northern Colorado. Dr. Havard would like to thank Dr. Daniel Warm of Murray State University, Dr. Daniel Mahony of Kent State University, Dr. Daniel Funk of Temple University, Dr. Stephen Shapiro of Old Dominion University, and an unnamed individual for their help while serving as expert panelists during the development of the SRFPS.

References

Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80 PMid:14717651

Auburn offer aid to Alabama (2011, April 30). ESPN. Retrieved from: http://sports.espn.go. com/espn/print?id=6456054&type=story

Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 8, 191-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 PMid:847061

Bizman, A., & Yinon, Y. (2002). Engaging in distancing tactics among sport fans: Effects on self-esteem ad emotional responses. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 381-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540209603906 PMid:12058976

Branscombe, N. R. & Warm, D. L. (1991). The positive social and self concept consequences of sports team identification. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 15, 115-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019372359101500202

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00332909.86.2.307

Churchill, Jr., G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3150876

Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of impression management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.406

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.366

Coakley, J. J. (2004). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (8th ed). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Higher Education.

Corbett, B. M. & Simpson, P. (2004). The only game that matters: The Harvard/Yale rivalry. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Education research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 392-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.392 PMid: 15122925

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davies, F., Veloutsou, C., & Costa, A. (2006). Investigating the influence of a joint sponsorship of rival teams on supporter attitudes and brand preferences. Journal of Marketing Communication, 12, 31-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527260500264574

de Groot, M., & Robinson, T. (2008). Sport fan attachment and the Psychological Continuum Model: A case study of an Australian Football League fan. Leisure, 32(1), 117-138. http ://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2008.9651402

de Leeuw, E. D., & Hox, J. J. (2008). Self-administered questionnaires: Mail surveys and other applications. In E. D. de Leeuw, J. J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (eds.), International handbook of survey methodology. (pp. 239-263) New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. J., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). The cornerstones of survey research. In E. D. de Leeuw, J. J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (eds.), International handbook of survey methodology. (pp. 1-17) New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.

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., & Grove, J. R. (2010). Relationship of fan identification to determinants of aggression. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 37-47. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/10413200590907559

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 39-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151312

Gaiser T. J., & Schreiner, A. E. (2009). A guide to conducting online research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Gibson, H., Willming, C., & Holdnak, A. (2002). "We're Gators...Not just Gator fans": Serious leisure and University of Florida football. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 397-425.

Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Groves, R. M., Fowler, P. J., Couper, M. R, Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265-275. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/00332909.103.2.265 PMid:3363047

Havard, C. T. (2012). Glory out of reflected failure: The examination of how rivalry affects fan behavior. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. http://dx. doi.org/10.1037/10628-000

Hillman, C. H., Cuthbert, B. N., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2004). Motivated engagement to appetitive and aversive fanship cues: Psychophysiological responses of rival sport fans. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 338-351.

Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling, 6, 1-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Isreal G. D. (1992). Sample issues: Nonresponse. University of Florida IFAS Extension, PEOD9. Retrieved from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PD/PD00800.pdf

Kahle, L. R., & Close, A. G. (2011). Consumer behavior knowledge for effective sports and event marketing. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Katz, A. (2011, Dec. 10). Penalties pending after Cincinnati brawl. ESPN. Retrieved from: http://espn.go.com/espn/print?id=7339184&type=story

Kilduff, G. J., Elfenbein, H. A., & Staw, B. M. (2010). The psychology of rivalry: A relationally dependent analysis of competition. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 943-969.

Lee, M. J. (1985). From rivalry to hostility among sports fans. Quest, 38-49.

Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31,343-353. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0146167204271651 PMid:15743980

Lewis, J. M. (2007). Sports fan violence in North America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleton Publishers, Inc.

Lohr S. L. (2008). Coverage and sampling. In E. D. de Leeuw, J. J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (eds.), International handbook of survey methodology. (pp. 97-112) New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Luellen, T. B., &Wann, D. L. (2010). Rival salience and sport team identification. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, 97-106.

Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981-993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.981 PMid:2614663

Mahony, D. F., & Moorman, A. M. (1999). The impact of fan attitudes on intentions to watch professional basketball teams on television. Sport Management Review, 2, 4366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S 1441-3523 (99)70089-6

Manfreda, K. L., & Vehovar, V. (2008). Interact surveys. In E. D. de Leeuw, J. J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (eds.), International handbook of survey methodology. (pp. 264-284) New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Michigan billboard aimed at Jim Tressel (2011, May 9). ESPN. Retrieved from: http://sports. espn.go.com/espn/print?id=6499991&type=story

Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. L. (1983). Handling nonresponse issues. Journal of Extension. 21(5), 45-50.

Mowen, J. C. (2004). Exploring the trait of competitiveness and its consumer behavior consequences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 52-63. http://dx.doi. org/10.1207/s 15327663jcp 1401&2_7

Rivalry takes backseat: A&M, UT students both affected by bonfire tragedy. (1999, November 22). Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football / college/new s/1999/11/22/am_accident_ap/

Schlabach, M. (2011). Yoomer's Comer poising a new low. ESPN. Retrieved from: http:// sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=6132246

Sheriff, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W. R., & Sheriff, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robber's Cave experiment. Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma.

Shropshire, M. (2006). Runnin' with the big dogs: The true, unvarnished story of the Texas_Oklahoma football wars. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Sierra, J. J., Taute, H. A., & Heiser, R. S. (2010). Personal opinions and beliefs as determinants of collegiate football consumption for revered and hated teams. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, 143-153.

Snyder, C: R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum.

Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,382-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.382

Spaaij, R. (2008). Men like us, boys like them: Violence, masculinity, and collective identity in football hooliganism. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 32, 369-392. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0193723508324082

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press Inc.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S. Worchel (eds.), The socialpsychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-48). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.

Trail, G.T., Fink, J. S., & Anderson, D. F. (2003). Sport spectator consumption behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 8-17.

Triplett, N. (1897). The dynamongenic factors in pacemaking and competion. The American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1412188

Tucker, D. (2007, November 21). Rivalry between Missouri and Kansas traces its roots to Civil War period. USA Today. Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2007-11-21-2717383717_x.htm

Turner, J. (1978). Social categorization and social discrimination in the minimal group paradigm. In H. Tajfel (ed.), Differentiation between social groups: The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 101-140). London: Academic Press Inc.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, G. B.: Cambridge University Press.

Wann, D. L. (2006). Understanding the positive social psychological benefits of sport identification: The team identification-social psychological health model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 272-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.272

Warm, D. L., Brame, E. Clarkson, M., Brooks, D., & Waddill, P. J. (2008). College student attendance at sporting events and the relationship between sport team identification and social psychological health. Journal of Intercollegiate Sports, 1, 242-254.

Warm, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-weather fans: Effects of identification of BIRGing and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 14, 103-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019372359001400203

Warm, D. L., & Dolan, T. J. (1994). Spectators' evaluations of rival and fellow fans. The Psychological Record, 44, 351-358.

Wann, D. L., & Grieve, F. G. (2005). Biased evaluations of in-group and out-group spectator behavior at sporting events: The importance of team identification and threats to social identity. Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 531-545. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/ SOCE145.5.531-546 PMid: 16201677

Wann, D. L., Haynes, G., McLean, B., & Pullen, P. (2003). Sport team identification and willingness to consider anonymous acts of hostile aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 406-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.10046

Wann, D. L., Koch, K., Knoth, T., Fox, D., Aljubaily, H., & Lantz., C. D. (2006). The impact of team identification on biased predictions of player performance. The Psychological Record, 56, 55-66.

Wann, D. L., Peterson, R. R., Cothran, C., & Dykes, M. (1999). Sport fan aggression and anonymity: The importance of team identification. Social Behavior and Personality, 27, 567-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1999.27.6.597

Wann. D. L., & Thomas, D. J. (1994). Attributions of highly identified sports spectators. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 783-792. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.199 4.9923013

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208520

Zillman, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976). A disposition theory of humor and mirth. In T. Chapman & H. Foot (eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and application (pp. 93-115). London: Wiley.

Zillman, D., Bryant, J., & Sapolsky (1989). Enjoyment from sports spectatorship. In J. Goldstein (ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (2nd ed) (pp. 241-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Cody T. Havard

The University of Memphis

Dianna P. Gray, James Gould, Linda A. Sharp, and Jay J. Schaffer

University of Northern Colorado

Address Correspondence to: Cody T. Havard, Health and Sport Sciences, The University of Memphis, 310 Elma Roane Fieldhouse, Memphis, TN 38152-3480. Phone: 901-678-5011, Fax: 901-678-3591, Email: [email protected].

Table 1.
Factors and Items identified from Maximum Likelihood CFA

Factors and Items                                              Factor
                                                               Loading

Out-Group Competition against Others (Indirect) OIC (3
items)

Sample mean = 2.52 Std. Deviation = 1.67

I would support my favorite team's rival in a championship      .880
game.

I would support my favorite team's rival in                     .870
out-of-conference play.

I want my favorite team's rival to win all games except when    .750
they play my favorite team.

Out-Group Academic Prestige OAP (3 items)

Sample mean = 3.87 Std. Deviation = 1.64

The academic prestige of my favorite team's rival is poor.      .970

I feel people who attended school where my favorite team's      .850
rival plays missed out on a good education.

I feel the academics where my favorite team's rival plays is    .830
not very prestigious.

Out-Group Sportsmanship OS (3 items)

Sample mean = 3.87 Std. Deviation = 1.64

Fans of my favorite team's rival demonstrate poor               .920
sportsmanship at games.

Fans of my favorite team's rival are not well behaved at        .900
games.

Fans of my favorite team's rival do no show respect for         .810
others.

Sense of Satisfaction SoS (3 items)

Sample mean = 5.96 Std. Deviation = 1.04

I feel a sense of belonging when my favorite team beats my      .760
favorite team's rival.

I feel a sense of accomplishment when my favorite team beats    .750
my favorite team's rival.

I feel I have bragging rights when my favorite team beats my    .680
favorite team's rival.

Table 2.
Fit Indices for Four-Factor Model of Sport Rivalry

Fit Indices

Normed Fit Index (NFI)                            0.98
Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI)                       0.99
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)                       0.99
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)     0.037
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)   0.040
Chi Square (degrees of freedom)                   74.64 * (48)

* significant at the. 05 level

Table 3
Correlations among Factors

Factor      OIC        OAP         OS        SoS

OIC         1.00        --         --         --
OAP       -.153 **     1.00        --         --
OS        -.321 **   .455 **      1.00        --
SoS       -.159 **   .244 **    .237 **      1.00

** Correlation is significant at. 001 (2-tailed)

Table 4
Correlations among Items

Factor     1          2          3          4          5

Champ      1.00       --         --         --         --
DemPoor    -300 **    1.00       --         --         --
Bragging   -.170 **   .229 **    1.00       --         --
NotBch     -288 **    .821 **    .185 **    1.00       --
Accomp     -.150 **   .116 *     .508 **    .160 **    1.00
NResp      -.269 **   .743 **    .196 **    .736 **    .166 **
Belong     -.074 **   .174 **    .508 **    .198 **    .581 **
NofPrest   -.149 **   .362 **    .176 **    .339 *     .146 **
ExFav      .699 **    -.212 **   -0.071     -.170 **   -.104 *
AcnPoor    -145 **    .453 **    .210 **    .411 **    .147 **
OutConf    .757 **    -.320 **   -.169 **   -.314 **   -.165 **
Educ       -.142 **   .463 **    .223 **    .442 **    .181 **

Factor     6          7          8          9          10

Champ      --         --         --         --         --
DemPoor    --         --         --         --         --
Bragging   --         --         --         --         --
NotBch     --         --         --         --         --
Accomp     --         --         --         --         --
NResp      1.00       --         --         --         --
Belong     .205 **    1.00       --         --         --
NofPrest   .321 **    .168 *     1.00       --         --
ExFav      -.182 **   -.023      -.073 **   1.00       --
AcnPoor    .353 **    .195 **    .808 **    -.034      1.00
OutConf    -.312 **   -.146 **   -.193 **   .650 **    -.187 **
Educ       -.340 **   .235 **    .691 **    -.014      .821 **

Factor     11         12

Champ      --         --
DemPoor    --         --
Bragging   --         --
NotBch     --         --
Accomp     --         --
NResp      --         --
Belong     --         --
NofPrest   --         --
ExFav      --         --
AcnPoor    --         --
OutConf    1.00       --
Educ       -.185 **   1.00

** Correlation significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed);
* Correlation significant at 0.05 (2-tailed)

Table 5

Final Sport Rivalry Fan Perception Scale (SRFPS) with factors,
factor descriptions, and items.

Out-Group Competition against Others (Indirect) OIC--Likelihood
that a fan will support the athletic efforts of the favorite team's
rival in indirect competition.

I would support my favorite team's rival in a championship game.

I would support my favorite team's rival in out-of-conference play.

I want my favorite team's rival to win all games except when they
play my favorite team.

Out-Group Academic Prestige OAP--The amount of respect a fan has
for the academic prestige of the institution where the favorite
team's rival plays.

The academic prestige of my favorite team's rival is poor.

I feel people who attended school where my favorite team's rival
plays missed out on a good education.

I feel the academics where my favorite team's rival plays is not
very prestigious.

Out-Group Sportsmanship OS--The perceptions of fan sportsmanship
of the favorite team's rival.

Fans of my favorite team's rival demonstrate poor sportsmanship at
games.

Fans of my favorite team's rival are not well behaved at games.

Fans of my favorite team's rival do no show respect for others.

Sense of Satisfaction SoS--The satisfaction a fan gets when the
favorite team defeats the favorite team's rival.

I feel a sense of belonging when my favorite team beats my favorite
team's rival.

I feel a sense of accomplishment when my favorite team beats my
favorite team's rival.

I feel I have bragging rights when my favorite team beats my
favorite team's rival.