Antecedents and consequences of parasocial interaction with sport athletes and identification with sport teams.
Sun, Tao
In today's society sport celebrities can play roles
traditionally assumed by wartime and folk heroes. Sports figures in our
modern media era are broadly regarded as acceptable role models for many
young people. Many TV viewers follow their favorite sports teams with
ritualistic loyalty. For example, Boston Red Sox fans repeatedly filled
Fenway Park to capacity during the team's' 86-year
championship drought (1918-2004). People follow the lives of their
favorite athletes as if he or she were their close friend or next-door
neighbor (e.g., Michael Jordan). To make it more attractive to
advertisers and media audiences, sport media tend to portray sport
athletes as bigger-than-life legends, and frame sporting events as
dramatically as possible (e.g., "game of the century,"
"all-time best").
The majority of sport-related research has focused on sport
athletes (e.g., physiology and psychology). Researchers pay less
attention to spectators and fans that gain satisfaction from watching
sports events and identify with their favorite athlete(s) or team(s)
(Melnick & Wann, 2004). Sport celebrities and elite sports teams
draw extensive media coverage and intense fan interest. Although
fans' social (if not pseudo-social) interactions with their
favorite athletes and their identification with their favorite teams
should be related, there has been no investigation for such a
relationship. This lack of research is surprising, given the practical
and academic significance of this topic.
The purpose of this study is to concurrently test the antecedents
and consequences of sport fans' parasocial interaction with their
favorite athletes and fans' emotional attachment to their favorite
teams. Those who identify with a sports team should pay close attention
to star players from that team. Likewise, those with an affinity for a
particular sport celebrity should care for his or her team as well
(assuming that it is a team sport). Therefore, one should expect that
parasocial interaction with sport athletes and identification with sport
teams share some psychological antecedents that lead to similar
behavioral outcomes. To test such expected relationships, we adopt the
hierarchical framework of personality traits developed by Mowen and
Spears (1999).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, the extant
studies on parasocial interaction and identification with sport teams
are reviewed. Second, the hierarchical approach to personality is
presented. Third, a series of hypotheses are proposed. This is followed
by presentation of the results from an empirical study that investigates
the hypothesized hierarchical relationships. The paper concludes with a
general discussion of academic and practical implications, limitations
of the research, and suggestions for future research.
Parasocial Interaction
The relationship between a media character and an audience member
was originally termed a parasocial relationship by Horton and Wohl
(1956). A relationship characterized by "parasocial" rather
than "social" relations is a "seemingly face-to-face
relationship between spectator and performer" (Horton & Wohl,
1956, p. 215). Parasocial relationships are one-sided interpersonal
relationships that "television viewers establish with media
characters" (Rubin & McHugh, 1987, p. 280), allowing viewers to
perceive a special connection with media characters (Eyal & Cohen,
2006). Previous research has explored audiences' relationships with
a variety of media figures, including TV newscasters (e.g., Rubin,
Perse, & Powell, 1985), soap opera characters (e.g., Rubin &
Perse, 1987), celebrities in commercials (Alperstein, 1991), TV shopping
show hosts (Grant, Guthrie, & Ball-Rokeach, 1991), comedians (Auter,
1992), talk show hosts (e.g., Rubin & Step, 2000), and sport
athletes (e.g., Brown, Basil, & Bocarnea, 2003).
Research has also been conducted on the antecedents and
consequences of this parasocial relationship. It has been found that the
parasocial relationship can be influenced by several psychological
factors: perceived realism (Rubin & Perse, 1987), perceived
similarity, attitude homophily, social and task attraction (Rubin &
McHugh, 1987; Turner, 1993). The existence ofparasocial relationships
has also been found to depend on the media character's looks,
behavior, humor, speech characteristics, emotional state, and nonverbal
behavior (Hoffner & Cantor, 1991; Hoffner, 1996). On the other hand,
the parasocial relationship can impact the audiences' emotions,
beliefs and behaviors. The effects of parasocial interaction can include
intensified audience suspense during a car race (Hartmann, Stuke, &
Daschmann, 2008), beliefs about the positive attributes of minority
group categories (Schiappa, Gregg, & Hewes, 2005), concerns about
the risks of AIDS and intentions to reduce high-risk sexual behaviors
(Brown & Basil, 1995), and distress over a parasocial breakup with
mediated characters (Eyal & Cohen, 2006). Parasocial relationships
can also have positive media impacts in the Third World countries. For
example, viewers' parasocial interaction with the stars of a TV
soap opera in India promoted the status of women and family harmony
(Brown & Cody, 1991). A soap opera in Peru promoted literacy
programs in the country (Singhal, Obregon, & Rogers, 1995).
The concept of parasocial interaction is different from that of
identification, although both deal with the audience's media
involvement. Compared to identification, parasocial interaction does not
imply a loss of identity or personality on the part of the spectator.
Identification involves sharing characters' experiences and a
desire to be like them, whereas parasocial interaction involves coming
to know and imaginatively interacting with characters as if they were
present (Noble, 1975). Parasocial interaction is a necessary but not a
sufficient condition for identification (Brown, Basil, & Bocarnea,
2003). In other words, audience parasocial interaction with a sport
athlete may lead to audience identification with that person, which in
turn promotes certain attitudes and beliefs (e.g., notions about proper
body image and eating habits). However, a fan's parasocial
interaction with an athlete (e.g., Dennis Rodman, a former and
controversial NBA star) does not mean that he or she wants to be like
that person (Brown, Basil, & Bocarnea, 2003).
Sport Fan Team Identification
People develop parasocial relationships with sport celebrities
through their exposure to sporting events, sport TV and movies, and
commercials featuring sport celebrities (Brown & Basil, 1995). It is
likely that fans develop these parasocial relationships with athletes
who play on the Same team (e.g., New York Yankees). Sport fan team
identification is defined as a fan's psychological connection with
and attachment to a team (Wann, 1997). Despite the
"identification" label, the concept of "team
identification" does not necessarily imply that fans take on the
identity of the group. Emotional attachment to a team is better
explained as a one-sided parasocial interaction with the team than as
strictly defined "identification" with the whole group.
Team identification is critical to the integration of the fan
community and as such is a predictor of sporting event attendance and
team-licensed merchandise purchases (Wakefield & Wann, 2006).
Previous studies have examined the connections between team
identification and fans' attempts to influence the outcome of a
sporting event (Wann, Dolan, McGeorge, & Allison, 1994), fans'
willingness to anonymously injure a rival team's player or coach
(Wann, Peterson, Cothran, & Dykes, 1999), and fans' biased
predictions of player performance (Wann et al., 2006). It has been found
that a fan's attachment to a team is an important predictor of
various affective (e.g., level of anxiety), cognitive (e.g., biased
perceptions), and behavior reactions (e.g., aggressive reactions and
game attendance) (Warm & Pierce, 2003). Warm and his colleagues have
identified positive relationships between identification with a local
team and psychological health (e.g., personal and collective
self-esteem, Wann & Pierce, 2005).
In a study of a variety of potential antecedents of team
identification, Wann, Tucker, and Schrader (1996) found that the team
success, geographical reasons, the players' talent and
characteristics, and the influence of friends, parents, and peers are
all contributing factors of fans' identification with sport teams.
A review of literature by Warm (2006) identified three types of
antecedents: psychological, environmental and team-related.
Psychological antecedents can include individual's need for
belonging and affiliation (e.g., Warm et al., 1996), individuals'
desire to feel like a part of a distinctive group (e.g., Wann &
Branscombe, 1995) and the salience of one's mortality (Dechesne,
Greenberg, Arndt, & Schimel, 2000). Environmental causes can involve
the socialization process, fan-to-player contact and the team's
stadium (Wann, 2006). Team-related antecedents can be classified into
three categories: organizational characteristics (e.g., the tradition
and history of a team), team performance and player attributes (Wann,
2006).
Hierarchical Model of Personality
In this study, the antecedents and consequences of parasocial
relationship with favorite athletes and identification with favorite
teams are examined concurrently through a hierarchical approach to
personality. Based on the previous research by Allport (1961), and
Joachimsthaler and Lastovocka (1984), Mowen and Spears (1996) identified
three levels of personality traits (cardinal, central, and surface) that
motivate concrete consumer behaviors. Cardinal traits represent the
basic human predispositions that derive from genetics and early learning
history, such as the big-five personality traits (extraversion,
neurotics or emotional instability, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and openness to experience). Central traits emerge from the interplay of
cardinal traits and an individual's learning history to influence
cross-situational behaviors, such as materialism and value
consciousness. Surface traits result from the interplay of cardinal
traits, central traits, and previous learning history and represent
individual dispositions to act within specific situational contexts,
such as propensity to complain and proneness to bargaining (Harris &
Mowen, 2001). In the current research, the big-five personality
constructs are employed as the cardinal traits, with dispositional
empathy investigated as a central trait, and parasocial interaction with
favorite athletes and sport fan team identification as the surface
traits. Two coping strategies (approach and avoidance) during a
stressful game are entered as the behavioral outcome variables in the
hierarchical model of personality. The following section will propose
and outline the hypothesized relationships in the model.
Hypotheses
Empathy refers to "the reactions of one individual to the
observed experiences of another" (Davis, 1983, p. 113). Previous
studies on the relationships between empathy and the five-factor
personalities have demonstrated that empathy is positively related to
agreeableness (Hahn & Comrey, 1994; Ashton, Paunonen, Helmes, &
Jackson, 1998; Del Barrio, Aluja, & Garcia, 2004; Jolliffe &
Farrington, 2006), extraversion (Hekmat, Khajavi, & Mehryar, 1974;
Klis, 1997; Munro, Bore, & Powis, 2005), and openness to experience
(Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). There were conflicting findings on
the relationship between empathy and neuroticism (emotional
instability), with more studies stating a positive relationship (Eysenck
& Eysenck, 1978; Eysenck & McGurk, 1980; Ashton, Paunonen,
Helmes, & Jackson; 1998), than showing a negative one (Hekmat,
Khajavi, & Mehryar, 1974; Klis, 1997). Based on the above findings,
the following relationships are proposed for the model:
H1a: Emotional instability will be positively related to empathy.
H1b: Extrovertedness will be positively related to empathy.
H1c: Openness to experience will be positively related to empathy.
H1d: Agreeableness will be positively related to empathy.
No previous research seems to have investigated the relationship
between parasocial interaction and each of the five-factor personality
traits, although there are a few studies that explored the relationships
between parasocial interaction and similar personality traits. According
to Cole and Leets (1999), those with anxious-ambivalent attachment
styles in interpersonal relationships are the most likely to form
parasocial bonds. Those with anxious-ambivalent attachment styles also
tend to possess the neurotic personality trait (Moreira et al., 1998).
Thus we develop the following hypothesis:
H2a: Neuroticism (emotional instability) will be positively related
to parasocial interaction.
Parasocial interaction's most important function is to offer
alternative companionship (e.g., Rosengren & Windahl, 1972).
Parasocial relations may substitute for diminished interpersonal contact
(Cohen, 1997). For introverted people, parasocial interaction might
serve as a functional alternative to their limited social relationships.
For extroverted types that actively seek the interactive company of real
people, parasocial relationship might appear too artificial and limiting
to be worth their time and effort. Thus we propose the following:
H2b: Extravertedness will be negatively related to parasocial
interaction.
Sport fan team identification has been found to be negatively
related to loneliness and alienation (Branscombe &Wann, 1991).
Individuals with more need for structure score higher in
cognitive/affective team identification than those with less need for
structure (Dimmock & Grove, 2006). Wann, Dunham, Byrd, and Keenan
(2004) found that identification with a local team is positively
associated with extroversion, conscientiousness, and openness to
experience. Thus the following hypotheses are developed:
H2c: Extrovertedness will be positively related to sports fan team
identification.
H2d: Conscientiousness will be positively related to sport fan team
identification.
H2e: Openness to experience will be positively related to sport fan
team identification.
Parasocial interaction is grounded in attraction, perceived
similarity and empathy (Rubin, Perse, & Powell, 1985). Watching
sports and following sport teams are vicarious experiences (e.g.,
Bernhardt, Dabbs, Fielden, & Lutter, 1998). Empathy is a tendency to
understand and share others' emotional experiences, and is crucial
to many forms of adaptive social interaction (Marcello, 2005). Hence the
following hypotheses are formulated:
H3a: Empathy will be positively related to parasocial interaction.
H3b: Empathy will be positively related to sport fan team
identification.
Finally, two types of possible behavioral outcomes in sport media
involvement are explored in the context of fan responses to stressful
games. One possible outcome is the approach type of coping strategy. The
other is about the avoidance type of coping strategies. Roth and Cohen
(1986) dichotomized coping strategies into these approach and avoidance
categories. Approach coping is defined as an orientation towards a
stressful event (Roth & Cohen, 1986; Krohne, 1993; Anshel & Si,
2008). It represents a person's active efforts to reduce stress
intensity (Krohne, 1993; Anshel & Si, 2008). Avoidance coping is an
orientation that leads to a person's physical or psychological
withdrawal from the stressor (Anshel & Si, 2008). Previous research
has focused on the coping strategies adopted by sport athletes, not
sport fans (e.g., Anshel, Jamieson, & Raviv, 2001). But it is likely
that sport fans watching a close game adopt similar approach and
avoidance coping strategies to those adopted by their favorite athletes
and teams. Thus the following hypotheses are developed:
H4a: Parasocial interaction will be positively related to approach
coping strategy adoption.
H4b: Parasocial interaction will be positively related to avoidance
coping strategy adoption.
H4c: Sport fan team identification will be positively related to
approach coping strategy adoption.
H4d: Sport fan team identification will be positively related to
avoidance coping strategy adoption.
The proposed model is outlined in Figure 1.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
The data were collected among 205 subjects, of whom 199 were
analyzed due to missing values. To enable more statistical analyses by
AMOS (i.e., calculation of modification indices), sporadic missing
values (among the 199 subjects) were replaced via the method of series
mean. In exchange for extra credits in their classes, a group of
undergraduate students at a northeastern state university in the US
participated in this paper-pencil survey study. For those who wanted the
extra credits in two different classes, they were allowed to interview
someone else, which explains why some respondents were 51 or 59 years
old while the average age for the whole group was 21 (SD = 3.89). About
51% were male, and 48% were female. The survey measured the five-factor
personality scale (adapted from Mowen, 2000), interpersonal reactivity
index (taken from Davis, 1980), parasocial interaction scale (adapted
from Rubin, Perse, & Powell, 1985), and sport spectator
identification scale (taken from Wann & Branscombe, 1993). The study
also took the initiative to create questions that measure sport
fans' coping strategies during a stressful event.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Measures
Big-Five Factor. The study borrowed the big-five personality scale
used by Mowen (2000), who originally adopted his items from Saucier
(1994). Mowen's hierarchical model of personality was tested in
various consumer behavior contexts (e.g., compulsive buying, bargaining
proneness and sports participation). Results from those studies have
demonstrated that the traits employed in the model (including the
big-five personality traits) have good predictive, construct,
discriminant and nomological validities (Mowen, 2000). The big-five
personality scale was measured on a nine-point scale, ranging from 1
(extremely inaccurate) to 9 (extremely accurate) with 5 (neither
inaccurate nor accurate) as the midpoint. Like Mowen (2000), we have 5
items that measure neuroticism (with a Cronbach's alpha of .86), 4
questions for conscientiousness ([alpha] = .74), 3 questions for
agreeableness ([alpha] = .77), 4 questions for extrovertedness ([alpha]
= .79), and 3 questions for openness to experience ([alpha] = .74). We
performed a confirmatory factor analysis on the 19 items via AMOS 4.0
(Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). The analysis revealed a satisfactory fit
in which all the fit indices were within acceptable boundaries ([chi
square] = 333.766, df=142, p < .001, NFI=.965, RFI=.953, IFI=.980,
TFI=.973, CFI=.980, RMSEA:.083).
Empathy. The interpersonal reactivity index (Davis, 1980) is a
measure of dispositional empathy that includes four 7-item subscales,
including the perspective taking scale ([alpha] = .76), the empathic
concern scale ([alpha] = .72), the personal distress scale ([alpha] =
.66), and the fantasy scale ([alpha] = .72). The interpersonal
reactivity index was measured on a 5-point scale, anchored by "does
not describe me well" and "describes very well." The
coefficient alpha for the 28-item scale was .79. Our confirmatory factor
analysis on those items produced satisfactory fit indexes ([chi square]
= -760.912, df=344,p<.001, NFI=.948, RFI=.938, IFI=.971, TFI=.965,
CFI = .971, RMSEA = . 078).
Sport Fan Team Identification. The 7-item sport spectator
identification scale (Wann & Branscombe, 1993) was measured on a
7-point semantic differential scale. With documented internal
consistency, test-retest reliability and validity, the scale has been
used in dozens of studies of spectator behavior (Wann, 2006). Before
answering the questions, respondents were asked to identify their
favorite sport team. Then they would answer questions with those teams
in mind. Questions were anchored differently, depending on the context
in which each question was asked. For example, the question "How
important is it that your team wins?" was anchored by "not
important" and "very important." But the question
"How much do you dislike your team's greatest rivals?"
was anchored by "do not dislike" and "dislike very
much." The question "How often do you display your team's
name or insignia at your place of work, where you live, or on your
clothing?" was anchored by "never" and
"always." The scale produced a coefficient alpha of .93.
Results from our confirmation factor analysis revealed a satisfactory
fit ([chi square] = 29.701, df=14,p=.008, NFI=.974, RFI=.961, IFI=.986,
TFI=.979, CFI=.986, RMSEA=.075).
Parasocial Relationship with Favorite Athletes. In measuring
parasocial interaction with sport athletes, subjects were asked to
express their emotional involvement with their favorite sport athlete
seen on TV. A 16-item scale was adapted from the original 20-item
parasocial interaction scale developed by Rubin, Perse and Powell
(1985), who reported a single-factor solution in their factor analysis.
The scale was anchored by "strongly disagree" and
"strongly agree." Our first confirmatory factor analysis on
the 16 items revealed a poor fit (e.g., RMESA =. 176). After 9 items
were eliminated due to low loadings, a satisfactory fit was obtained in
the single-factor model ([chi square] = 29.388, df=14,p=.009, NFI=.992,
RFI=.984, IFI=.996, TFI=.992, CFI=.996, RMSEA=.075). The coefficient
alpha for the final 7-item scale was .83.
Approach and Avoidance Coping Strategies. In this study, a new
measure of coping strategies was created as behavioral outcomes of
parasocial relationship and team identification. Based on online
research of sport fan sites and review of literature on coping
strategies, 36 questions were included in the survey to measure
fans' approach and avoidance coping strategies. Confirmatory factor
analysis was first performed on these questions. But the initial model
did not fit the data well. After certain items were deleted, due to low
loadings, a final model with 9 items produced satisfactory indices ([chi
square] = 50.736, df=26,p=.003, NFI=.982, RFI=.969, IFI=.991, TFI=.985,
CFI=.991, RMSEA=.069). The final model contained 5 items that measure
approach coping strategies ([alpha] = .68) and 4 items that measure
avoidance coping strategies (ct = .79). The questions were measured on
an 8-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 8 (always). Specific items
for each of the above constructs are listed in the Appendix.
RESULTS
Due to the limited sample size, the items of each construct were
first summated to create single-item indicators. Structural equation
modelling was then used to test the above hypotheses. The parsimony of
this partially mediated structural model was appraised with the maximum
likelihood method of parameter estimation via AMOS 4.0.
The overall model fit for the proposed model was not satisfactory
([chi square] =90.935, df= 20, p<.00 l; NFI =.984; RFI=.955;
IFI=.987; TFI=.965; CFI=.987; RMSEA=. 134), since RMSEA is higher than
.08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Thus the original model was rejected
and the modification indices were subsequently examined as a way of
improving the model fit (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The modification
indices showed that the model fit could be improved if the error (or
unique) terms of parasocial interaction and team identification were
allowed to correlate (the chi-square statistics would decrease by at
least 53.456). Each error term represents much more than random
fluctuations due to measurement error. It stands for anything else on
which each variable may depend, but which are not measured in the model
(Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). Since parasocial interaction with
favorite athletes and sport fan team identification both cover
fans' sport involvement, it is reasonable to correlate their error
terms. After the model modification, the goodness of fit statistics
demonstrated that the modified model provided a much stronger fit ([chi
square] =27.015, df= 19,p=. 104; NFI=.995; RFI=.986; IFI=.999; TFI=.996;
CFI=.999; RMSEA=.046). Figure 2 shows the modified model and Table 2
reports the parameter estimates for causal paths.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The path estimates indicated that 7 of the 15 hypotheses were
supported. Empathy was positively related to neuroticism (emotional
instability) and agreeableness (both significant at the .05 level), thus
supporting H1a and Hid. Extrovertedness and empathy were not
significantly correlated, thus rejecting H1b and failing to replicate
the findings by previous researchers (e.g., Hekmat, Khajavi, &
Mehryar, 1974). Neither was openness to experience significantly related
to empathy, thereby rejecting H I c. As expected, neuroticism was
positively related to parasocial interaction with favorite athletes
(significant at the .01 level), supporting H2a. Extravertedness was not
significantly related to parasocial interaction, rejecting H2b (although
the relationship was found to be negative, as originally predicted).
Sport fan team identification was not significantly associated with
extrovertedness, conscientiousness, or openness to experience, thereby
rejecting H2c, H2d and H2e. Empathy was significantly related to
parasocial interaction (supporting H3a, significant at the. 10 level),
but not to sport fan team identification (rejecting H3b). Finally,
parasocial interaction with favorite athletes was positively related to
both approach and avoidance coping strategies (significant at the .01
level). For sport fan team identification, it was only significantly
related to approach coping strategies (significant at the .01 level),
but not to avoidance strategies. Overall, the hierarchical model
accounted for 38% of the variance in approach coping strategies, 11% of
the variance in avoidance coping strategies. A combination of cardinal
traits accounted for 20% of the variance in the central trait
"empathy." The hierarchical level of personality traits
explained 7% of the variance in parasocial relationship with favorite
sport athletes, and only 1% in sport team identification.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The aim of this research was to identity a common set of cardinal
and central traits that underlie parasocial relationship and team
identification. The results failed to provide support for the original
expectation that the two constructs share similar psychological
antecedents (in terms of the big-five personality traits and empathy).
With regards to behavior outcomes, both were significantly related to
the approach coping strategies. However, unlike parasocial interaction
with favorite athletes, team identification was not significantly
associated with avoidance coping strategies, which, compared to approach
coping strategies, might be a more accurate indicator of fans'
stress level. When fans watch a stressful game, their initial and
natural reaction might be simply doing something active to reduce their
stress (e.g., talking to or shouting at the TV). If a fan cares (or
worries) much more deeply about his or her favorite athletes or teams,
he or she might react by turning away from the stressor (e.g., leaving
the room) to minimize further exposure to anxiety and uncertainty. The
results suggested that fans tended to connect more with their favorite
athletes than to their favorite team, both psychologically and
behaviorally. For sport fans, athletes look more personal and tangible
than teams. To have a parasocial relationship with an athlete is mainly
about the one-sided perceived connection to the athlete per se, not
really to other fans that share similar parasocial interaction with the
athlete (although there do exist fan clubs for individual athletes).
However, compared to the concept of parasocial interaction with
individual athletes, the concept of team identification may carry more
connotative meaning (on top of its denotative or primary meanings). Part
of the reasons for identifying with the sport team is to attach oneself
to a larger social group--an imagined fan community. For example, a Red
Sox fan can connect with fellow Red Sox fans not only from New England,
but also from other parts of the world. These associations with other
fans form the basis for a valuable connection to society at large (Wann,
2006). This study examined psychological motivators rather than the
social reasons for parasocial relationship and team identification.
Future research not only can add more psychological factors to the
analysis (such as the needs for arousal and competition), but also to
explore social-cultural motivations for these two constructs (especially
for the team identification).
This study provides a better understanding of how different levels
of personality traits are arranged hierarchically to influence sport
fan's parasocial interaction with their favorite athletes. For the
central trait of empathy, neuroticism (emotional instability) and
agreeableness were significant predictors (both positive), while
extrovertedness, conscientiousness and openness to experience were not.
The significantly positive relationship between emotional instability
and empathy is particularly noteworthy, in light of the previous
conflicting research findings on the relationship. For the surface trait
of parasocial interaction with favorite sport athletes, emotional
instability was also a significant predictor. Previous studies have
hinted at the existence of this relationship (Bernhardt, Dabbs, Fielden,
& Lutter, 1998; Marcello, 2005) but this study substantiates it
directly. The partially mediated model suggests that the more agreeable,
and emotionally unstable a person tends to be, the more empathic he or
she becomes, the more likely one develops parasocial interaction with
certain sport athletes, and the more one is to use approach and
avoidance strategies to cope with a stressful game.
But for the fans' team identification, the model did not
substantiate its hypothesized relationship with any of the three
personality traits (conscientiousness, extrovertedness and openness to
experience). Separate bivariate correlation analyses also failed to
confirm any of the positive relationships previously reported by Wann,
Dunham, Byrd and Keenan (2004) (see Table 3). It should be pointed out
that the relationships identified by Wann and his colleagues applied
only to a fan's identification with a local team. This research
asked respondents to identify with their favorite sport team, which
ranged from the Boston Celtics (a local team) to the Golden State
Warriors (a non-local team). About 84% of the respondents chose a team
that is local to the area where the survey was conducted (i.e., New
England). After the non-local team identification cases were deleted,
still no significant relationships were found between the local team
identification and each of the five-factor personality traits. The
results suggested that an individual's predispositions to be
organized (i.e., conscientiousness), to be with others (i.e.,
extrovertedness), and to be creative (i.e., openness to experience) do
not constitute psychological antecedents of sport fan team
identification.
From a practical perspective, to understand the psychology of sport
fans can help marketers in terms of ticket sales, sport TV ratings,
team-related merchandising, or donations to athletic programs. According
to schema congruity theory, if marketing messages were consistent with
the personality traits of consumers, their self-schemas would likely be
activated (Harris & Mowen, 2001). Although parasocial relationship
and team identification enjoy a positive bilateral relationship
(significant at the .01 level, see Table 3), the study did not identify
any common psychological motivations behind these two constructs.
Therefore, practitioners should treat sport fans that have parasocial
interaction with their favorite athletes differently from those who have
emotional attachment to their favorite teams.
Understanding the parasocial relationship and team identification
can also have positive social consequences, such as increasing the
persuasive power of public service announcements when they feature
celebrities with whom viewers have emotional attachments (Basil, 1996;
Brown et al., 2003). Team identification can also contribute to the
psychological well being of individual fans and the development and
integration of local communities. More research is thus needed to
understand the relationship between the two important concepts.
Appendix
1. Measurement Items for Personality Variables
Constructs Items
Neurotics Moody more than others
(coefficient [alpha] = .86) Temperamental
Touchy
Emotions go way up and down
Testy more than others
Agreeableness Kind to others
(coefficient [alpha] = .77) Tender-hearted with others
Sympathetic
Extroversion Prefer to be alone rather than
(coefficient [alpha] = .79) in a large group R
Shy R
Quiet when with people R
Feel bashful more than others R
Openness to experience Frequently feel highly creative
(coefficient [alpha] = .74) Imaginative
More original than others
Conscientiousness Orderly
(coefficient [alpha] = .74) Precise
Organized
Efficient
NOTE: R denotes item to be scored in reverse fashion
2. Measurement Items for Empathy (with 4 subscales)
(coefficient [alpha] =.79)
Fantasy I daydream and fantasize, with some regularity, about
scale things that might happen to me.
(coefficient I really get involved with the feelings of the
[alpha] = .72) characters in a novel.
I am usually objective when I watch a movie or play,
and I don't often get completely caught up in it. R
Becoming extremely involved in a good book or movie
is somewhat rate for me. R
After seeing a play or movie, I have felt as though
I were one of the characters.
When I watch a good movie, I can very easily put
myself in the place of a leading character.
When I am reading an interesting story or novel,
I imagine how I would feel if the events in the
story were happening to me.
Perspective- I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the
taking scale "other guy's point of view. R
(coefficient I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement
[alpha] = .76) before I make a decision.
I sometimes try to understand my friends better by
imagining how things look from their perspective.
If I'm sure I'm right about something, I don't waste
much time listening to other people's arguments. R
I believe that there are two sides to every question
and try to look at them both.
When fm upset at someone, I usually try to
"put myself in his shoes for a while.
Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how
I would feel if I were in their lace.
Empathic I often have tender, concerned feelings for people
concern less fortunate than me.
scale Sometimes I don't feel very sorry for other people
(coefficient when they are having problems. R
[alpha] = .72) When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel
kind of protective towards them.
Other people's misfortunes do not usually disturb
me a great deal. R
When I see someone being treated unfairly,
I sometimes don't feel very much pity for them. R
I am often quite touched by things that I see happen.
I would describe myself as a re soft-hearted person.
Personal In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and
distress ill-at-ease.
scale I sometimes feel helpless when I am in the middle of
(coefficient a very emotional situation.
[alpha] = .66) When I see someone get hurt, I tend to remain calm. R
Being in a tense emotional situation scares me.
I am usually pretty effective in dealing with
emergencies. R
I tend to lose control during emergencies.
When I see someone who badly needs help a in an
emergency, I go to pieces.
NOTE: R denotes item to be scored in reverse fashion
3. Measurement Items for Parasocial Interaction with Favorite
Athletes (coefficient [alpha] = .83)
1. I feel sorry for my favorite athlete when he or she makes a
mistake.
2. I see my favorite athlete as a natural, down-to-down person.
3. I look forward to watching my favorite athlete on the game day.
4. If my favorite athlete appeared on another TV program, I would
watch that program.
5. If there were a story about my favorite athlete in a newspaper
or magazine, I would read it.
6. I would like to meet my favorite athlete in person.
7. I miss seeing my favorite athlete when he or she is on
off-season vacation.
4. Measurement Items for Sport Spectator Team Identification Scale
(coefficient [alpha] = .93)
1. How important to you is it that your team wins?
2. How important is being a fan of the team to you?
3. How strongly do you see yourself as a fan of your team?
4. How strongly do your friends see you as a fan of your team?
5. How much do you dislike your team's greatest rivals?
6. During the season, how closely do you follow your team via any
of the media (e.g., TV, radio, print media, Internet)?
7. How often do you display your team's name or insignia at
your place of work, where you live, or on your clothing?
5. Measurement Items for Approach Coping Strategies (coefficient
[alpha] = .68)
1. Saying a prayer
2. Talking to or shouting at the TV
3. Yelling or screaming
4. Stopping going to the bathroom
5. Sitting still in my place
6. Measurement Items for Avoidance Coping Strategies (coefficient
[alpha] = .79)
1. Leaving the room
2. Covering the eyes
3. Looking away from the screen
4. Switching TV channel
REFERENCES
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern andgrowth in personality. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Alperstein, N. (1991). Imaginary social relationships with
celebrities appearing in television commercials. Journal of Broadcasting
and Electronic Media, 35, 43-58.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Anshel, M. H., Jamieson, J., & Raviv, S. (2001). Coping with
acute stress among male and female Israeli athletes. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 32, 271-289.
Anshel, M. H., & Si, G.Y. (2008). Coping styles following acute
stress in sport among elite Chinese athletes: A test of trait and
transactional coping theories. Journal of Sport Behavior, 31, 3-21.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user's
guide. Chicago: Smallwater's Corporation.
Ashton, M. C., Paunonen, S.V., Helmes, E., & Jackson, D.N. (!
998). Kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, and the Big Five personality
factors. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 243-255.
Auter, P.J. (1992). TV that talks back: An experimental validation
of a parasocial interaction scale. Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, 36, 173-181.
Basil, M.D. (1996). Identification as a mediator of celebrity
effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 479-495.
Bernhardt, P.C.,Dabbs, J.M., Fielden, J.A., & Lutter, C.D.
(1998). Testosterone changes during vicarious experiences ofwirming and
losing among fans at sporting events. Physiology & Behavior, 65,
59-62.
Branscombe, N.R., &Wann, D. L. (1991). The positive social and
self-concept consequences of sports team identification. Journal of
Sports & Social Issues, 15, 115-127.
Brown, W. J., & Basil, M.D. (1995). Media celebrities and
public health: Responses to "Magic" Johnson's HIV
disclosure and its impact on AIDS risk and high-risk behaviors. Health
Communication, 7, 345-371.
Brown, W. J., Basil, M.D., & Bocarnea, M.C. (2003). The
influence of famous athletes on health beliefs and practices: Mark
McGwire, child abuse prevention, and androstenedione. Journal of Health
Communication, 8, 41-57.
Brown, W. J., & Cody, M.J. (1991). Effects of a parasocial
television soap opera in promoting women's status. Human
Communication Research, 17, 114-142.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing
Structural Equation Model (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications Inc.
Cole, T., & Leets, L. (1999). Attachment styles and intimate
television viewing: insecurely forming relationships in a parasocial
way. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 16, 495-511.
Cohen, J. (1997). Parasocial relations and romantic attraction:
Gender and dating status differences. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 41, 516-529.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual
differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in
Psychology, 10, 85.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy:
Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.
Dechesne, M., Greenberg, J., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2000).
Terror management of the vicissitudes of sports fan affiliation: The
effects of mortality salience on optimism and fan identification.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 813-835.
Del Barrio, V., Aluja, A., & Garcia, L.E (2004). Relationship
between empathy and the Big Five personality traits in a sample of
Spanish adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 677-682.
Dimmock, J. A., & Grove, J. R. (2006). Identification with
sport teams as a function of the search for certainty. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 24, 1203-1211.
Eyal, K., & Cohen, J. (2006). When good friends say goodbye: A
parasocial breakup study. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 50, 502-523.
Eysenck, S.B., & Eysenck, Hans J. (1978). Impulsiveness and
venturesomeness: Their position in a dimensional system of personality
description. Psychological Reports, 43, 1247-1255.
Eysenck, S.B., & McGurk, B.J. (1980). Impulsiveness and
venturesomeness in a detention center population. Psychological Reports,
47, 1299-1306.
Grant, A., Guthrie, K., & Ball-Rokeach, S.J. (1991). Television
shopping: A media dependency perspective. Communication Research, 18,
773-798.
Hahn, R., & Comrey, A .L. (1994). Factor analysis of the NEO-PI
and the Comrey Personality Scales. Psychological Reports, 75, 355-365.
Harris, E.G., & Mowen, J.C. (2001). The influence of cardinal-,
central-, and surface-level personality traits on consumers'
bargaining and complaint intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 18,
1155-1185.
Hartmann, T., Stuke, D., & Daschmann, G. (2008). Positive
parasocial relationships with drivers affect suspect in racing sport
spectators. Journal of Media Psychology, 20, 24-34.
Hekmat, H., Khajavi, E, & Mehryar, A. (1974). Psychoticism,
neuroticism, and extraversion: The personality determinants of empathy.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 559-561.
Hoffner, C. (1996). Children's wishful identification and
parasocial interaction with favorite television characters. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 389-402.
Hoffner, C., & Cantor, J. (1991). Perceiving and responding to
mass media characters. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Responding
to the screen: Reception and reaction processes (pp. 63-101). Hillsdale,
N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Horton, D., & Wohl, R.R. (1956). Mass communication and
para-social interaction. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.
Joachimsthaler, E.A., & Lastovocka, J. L. (1984). Optimal
stimulation level: Exploratory behavior models. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 11,830-835.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and
validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29,
589-611.
Klis, M. J. (1997). The relation of empathy to some dimensions of
teachers personality across their professional life. Polish
Psychological Bulletin, 28, 71-82.
Krohne, H.W. (1993). Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts
in coping research. In H.W. Krohne (Ed.), Attention and avoidance."
Strategies in coping with aversiveness (pp. 19-50). Seattle: Hogrefe
& Huber.
Marcello, S. (2005). Prefrontal substrates of empathy: Psychometric
evidence in a community sample. Biological Psychology, 70, 175-181.
Melnick, M.J., & Wann, D. L. (2004). Sport fandom influences,
interests, and behaviors among Norweigian university students.
International Sports Journal, 8, 1-7.
Moreira, J. M., Bernardes, S., Andrez, M., Aguiar, P., Moleiro, C.,
& de Fatima Silva, M. (1998): Social competence, personality and
adult attachment style in a Portuguese sample. Personality and
Individual Differences, 24, 565-570.
Mowen, J.C. (2000). The 3M model of motivation and personality:
Theory and empirical applications to consumer behavior. Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Mowen, J.C., & Spears, N. (1999). Understanding compulsive
buying among college students: A hierarchical approach. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 8, 407-430.
Munro, D., Bore, M., & Powis, D. (2005). Personality factors in
professional ethical behaviour: Studies of empathy and narcissism.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 57, 49-60.
Noble, G. (1975). Children in front of the small screen. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Rosengren, K.E., & Windahl, S. (1972). Mass media consumption
as a functional alternative. In D. McGuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass
communications: Selected readings (pp. 119-134). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and
coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41,813-819.
Rubin, A.M. & Perse, E.M. (1987). Audience activity and soap
opera involvement: A uses and effects investigation. Human Communication
Research, 14, 246-268.
Rubin, A.M., Perse, E.M., & Powell, R.A. (1985). Loneliness,
parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human
Communication Research, 12, 155-80.
Rubin, A.M., & Step, M. M. (2000). Impact of motivation,
attraction, and parasocial interaction on talk radio listening. Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 635-654.
Rubin, R. B., & McHugh, M. P. (I 987). Development of
parasocial interaction relationships. Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, 31,279-292.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of
Goldberg's unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 63, 506-516.
Schiappa, E., Gregg, P.B., & Hewes, D.F. (2005). The parasocial
contact hypothesis. Communication Monographs, 72, 92-115.
Scott, K., & Mowen, J.C. (2007). Travelers and their traits: A
hierarchical model approach. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 6, 146-157.
Singhal, A., Obregon, R., & Rogers, E. M. (1995).
Reconstructing the story of Simplemente Maria, the most popular
telenovela in Latin America of all time. International Communication
Gazette, 54, 1-15.
Turner, J.R. (1993). Interpersonal and psychological predictors of
parasocial interaction with different television performers.
Communication Quarterly, 41,443-453.
Wakefield, K. L., & Wann, D. L. (2006). An examination of
dysfunctional sport fans: Method of classification and relationships
with problem behaviors. Journal of Leisure Research, 38, 168-186.
Wann, D.L. (1997). Sports psychology. Upper Saddle River, N J:
Prentice Hall.
Warm, D.L. (2006). The causes and consequences of sport team
identification. In A.A. Raney & J. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of sports
and media (pp. 331-352). Mahwah, N J: Erlbaum.
Warm, D. L., & Branscombe, N.R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring
degree of identification with their team. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 24, 1-17.
Wann, D., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Influence of
identification with a sports team on objective knowledge and subjective
beliefs. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 551-567.
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
outcomes. Journal of Sport & 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, 28-36.
Wann, D.L., Koch, K., Knoth, T., Fox, D., Aljubaily, H., &
Lantz, CD (2006). The impact of team identification on biased
predictions of player performance. 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: An International
Journal, 27, 597-602.
Wann, D.L., & Pierce, S. (2003). Measuring sport team
identification and commitment: An empirical comparison of the sport
spectator identification scale and the psychological commitment to team
scale. North American Journal of Psychology, 5, 365-372.
Wann, D.L., & Pierce, S. (2005). The relationship between sport
team identification and social well-being: Additional evidence
supporting the team identification--social psychological health model.
North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 117-124.
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.
Tao Sun
University of Vermont
Address Correspondence To: Tao Sun, Department of Community
Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont. Phone: (802)
686-4698. E-mail:
[email protected]
Table 1. Demographic distribution of respondents
Category N Percentage
Age
18 9 4.5
19 38 19.1
20 37 18.6
21 52 26.1
22 30 15.1
23 23 11.6
24 2 1.0
25 1 0.5
26 1 0.5
34 1 0.5
51 1 0.5
59 1 0.5
Missing 3 1.5
Gender
Male 95 47.7
Female 101 50.8
Missing 3 1.5
Race
White 187 94.0
Black 6 3.0
Asian 1 0.5
Missing 5 2.5
Table 2. Parameter Estimates for Causal Paths
Standardized P
Regression
Hypotheses Causal Paths Weights
1a Emotional Instability 0.172 0.010
[right arrow] Empathy
1b Extrovertedness [right arrow] -0.058 0.385
Empathy
1c Openness to Experience 0.052 0.477
[right arrow] Empathy
1d Agreeableness [right arrow] 0.401 <0.001
Empathy
2a Neuroticism [right arrow] 0.173 0.004
Parasocial Interaction
2b Extrovertedness [right arrow] -0.083 0.233
Parasocial Interaction
2c Extrovertedness [right arrow] 0.041 0.560
Sport Fan Team Identification
2d Conscientiousness [right arrow] 0.037 0.556
Sport Fan Team Identification
2e Openness to Experience -0.074 0.247
[right arrow] Sport Fan Team
Identification
3a Empathy [right arrow] 0.126 0.070
Parasocial Interaction
3b Empathy [right arrow] 0.003 0.965
Sport Fan Team Identification
4a Parasocial Interaction 0.408 <0.001
[right arrow] Approach Coping
Strategies
4b Parasocial Interaction 0.251 0.001
[right arrow] Avoidance Coping
Strategies
4c Sport Fan Team Identification 0.301 <0.001
[right arrow] Approach Coping
Strategies
4d Sport Fan Team Identification 0.117 0.132
[right arrow] Avoidance Coping
Strategies
Table 3. Correlation Matrix
Neuro Agree Extro Open Consc
Neuro 1.000
Agree -0.030 1.000
Extro -.215 ** -.469 * 1.000
Open .170 * .440 ** -.008 1.000
Consc .053 .288 ** -.087 .234 ** 1.000
Empa .156 * .409 ** -.047 .257 ** .130
Para .239 ** .099 -.126 .148 * .145 *
Team .037 .061 .039 -.017 .078
Approach .161 * .121 -.004 .-91 .038
Avoid .171 * -.060 .108 .117 -.023
N 199 199 199 199 199
Alpha .86 .77 .79 .74 .74
SD 1.69 1.46 1.73 1.51 1.41
Empa Para Team Approach Avoid
Neuro
Agree
Extro
Open
Consc
Empa 1.000
Para .156 * 1.000
Team -013 .507 ** 1.000
Approach .126 .561 ** .508 ** 1.000
Avoid -.012 .312 ** .245 ** .282 ** 1.000
N 199 199 199 199 199
Alpha .79 .87 .93 .68 .79
SD 0.41 0.69 1.66 1.53 1.72
Note Neuro = neuroticism; Agree = agreeableness; Open = aggreableness;
Extro extrovertedness; Open = openness to experience;
Consc = conscientiousness; Empa = empathy; Para = parasocial
relationship with favorite athletes; Team = sports fan team
identification. Approach = Approach coping strategies.
Avoid = avoidance coping strategies; N = number of cases,
Alpha = Cronbach's alpha. SD = standard deviation. ** Correlation is
significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed}; * Correlation is significant
at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
