Fanship and fandom: comparisons between sport and non-sport fans.

Reysen, Stephen ; Branscombe, Nyla R.

The present studies assess similarities and differences between sport fans and other types of fans in terms of identification with the fan interest (fanship), identification with other fans (fandom), entitativity, and collective happiness. In Study 1, a unidimensional 11-item scale to measure degree of identification with a fan interest was constructed In Study 2, convergent and divergent validity for the measure was examined. In Study 3, criterion validity was examined. In Study 4, fanship positively correlated with entitativity, identification with other fans, and collective happiness. Sport fans were found to be similar to fans of other interests. Fans perceived themselves to be in a group even when they are not actively part of an organized group. Fanship and fandom were found to be positively correlated yet distinct constructs.

Psychological research on fans has been almost entirely focused on sport fans, with a few studies on celebrity worship being the exception (Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Houran, & Ashe, 2006). Yet, any individual who is an enthusiastic, ardent, and loyal admirer of an interest can be reasonably considered a 'fan.' Accordingly, the term fan can be used to describe individuals who are devoted to a myriad of interests, not only sport teams and celebrities. The heavy emphasis on sport fans in the psychological literature led us to ask whether sport fans are similar to or different from fans of other interests?

A recent trend in the sport fan literature has been to view fans as a group. However, researchers have at times blurred the meaning of team identification---using the term to signify two theoretically different concepts. A distinction can be made between a fan's personal connection with a sport team, and a fan's connection with other fans as a group. We term the individual's sense of connection to a sport team "fanship," and the individual's connection to other fans of the team "fandom." Stated differently, fanship is identification with the object itself, while fandom is identification with others who share a connection with the object. Our term "fanship" is comparable to that of "team identification" as defined by Wann (1997) as "the extent that a fan feels psychologically connected to a team" (p. 331). Fandom is similar to social identity, defined by Tajfel (1978) as "That part of an individual's self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership" (p. 63). Thus, we are making a distinction between a personal identity and a social identity (Simon, 2004; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987).

Both social identity (Tajfel, 1978) and self-categorization (Turner et al., 1987) theories suggest that different psychological and social behavior results when people define themselves as a member of a group (social identity) compared to when the self is defined as an individual (personal identity), and both theories can be applied to fan cognition and behavior. A number of researchers have reported fan behavior consistent with those exhibited by other groups. Sport fans have been shown to categorize themselves and others as ingroups and outgroups (Voci, 2006). Sport fans strive for a positive social identity (Boen, Vanbeselaere, & Feys, 2002), and attempt to avoid a negative identity (Bizman & Yinon, 2002). When the ingroup is threatened, sport fans derogate outgroups to protect their self-esteem (Branscombe &Wann, 1994; End, 2001), and show elevated ingroup favoritism (Dietz-Uhler & Murrell, 1999; Levine et al., 2005; Markman & Hirt, 2002; Wann & Dolan, 1994). This research suggests that sport fans view themselves and other fans of the same sport team as sharing an important group identity.

As most fans do not meet in face-to-face groups, Sandvoss (2005) suggested that fans perceive themselves as members of groups, even when they are not clearly part of an organized fan club. A similar notion has been coined an "imagined community" (Wertsch, 2002) or an "imagined collective" (Kashima, Klein, & Clark, 2007). Kashima et al. (2007) defined an imagined collective as "a collection of individuals who do not interact synchronously with each other, and who presuppose the existence of the collection of individuals who share the common ground" (p. 35). Although the notion of an imagined collective has not been studied with sport fans, supportive evidence has been reported with science fiction fans. In a study of perceived sense of community, Obst, Zinkiewicz, and Smith (2002a; 2002b) found that science fiction fans rated their fan community higher on dimensions of belongingness, emotional connection, identification, shared values, influence, and overall sense of a community compared to when their neighborhood was the referent. The findings suggest that although fans may not know each other personally, they still view fellow fans as a community or group.

In the present paper we examine the similarities and differences between sport fans and fans of other interests, as well as the relationship between fanship and fandom. Due to the specific wording of past sport fan identity measures (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Heere, 2005; Wann, 2002; Wann & Branscombe, 1993), a new measure of fanship that is broad enough to measure identification with any interest was constructed (Study 1). In Studies 2 and 3 we provide convergent, divergent, and criterion validity for the measure. In Study 4, we examine the relationship between fanship and group-relevant measures (e.g., entitativity, group identification) adapted to tap fandom. Entitativity is a construct thought to tap the perception that a group is a distinct entity. Overall, we predict that fanship and fandom will be related but distinguishable constructs, and that sport fans will show similarities to fans of other interests.

Study I

The goal of Study I was to reduce a large number of initial items assessing fanship in any interest (e.g., sport teams, television shows, musical groups) to a final scale. Participants were asked to explain in writing their fan interest so that we could (1) later separate fans into interest categories, and (2) locate information about each of the listed fan interests if any were unknown to the researchers.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 150, 78.67% women) volunteered for partial course credit toward their introductory psychology requirement. Their mean age was 19.9 years (SD = 3.24).

Procedure

Participants signed up as a separate activity by appointment to complete the study in groups of 5-20 people. Upon entering the research room, participants read and signed an informed consent form and completed our measure. After completing the paper-and-pencil measure administered, participants were debriefed and thanked.

Materials

Fanship Scale. The initial 72 fanship item pool was constructed to tap individuals' degree of fanship, or the extent they identified with a fan interest. Items tapped connectedness (emotional and psychological) with the interest, time spent with the interest, the amount of energy and money invested in the interest, and ingroup versus outgroup perceptions. Given the large number of multidimentional collective identity measures (Ellemers, Korekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999; Silver, 2001) we attempted to cover as many dimensions of fan identity as possible. Items were rated on 9-point Likert-type scales, from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The instructions asked participants to write what their favorite fan interest was at the start, and then to focus on that interest when responding to each item. Additionally, participants were asked to describe their fan interest in order to help the researchers categorize the types of fan interests.

Results

For each of the 72 items initially rated, those that differed by participant gender were omitted from further analyses (22 items). In addition, items with extreme skew were deleted (14 items). A number of principal component analyses were then conducted on the remaining 36 items. Beginning with a five-factor solution, a process of eliminating singleton and doubleton items was conducted. The 11 items that loaded above [absolute value of .50] on the first factor were retained. The final 11-item Fanship Scale is unidimensional with a coefficient alpha of .87, and accounts for 43.49% of the variance in the items. See Table 1 for the items and factor loadings.

The participant-generated fan interests were coded into four categories: Sports (n = 41), Music (n = 44), Media (n = 37), and Hobbies (n = 28). Participants were asked to explain in writing their favorite fan interest in order to distinguish between active or passive consumption of the fan interest, and identify interests unknown to the researchers. Participants who indicated that they play a particular sport were coded as hobbyists rather than as passive "sport fans." Because participants could only report on their favorite fan interest, we could distinguish whether their fan interest was primarily playing a sport or watching a sport. Sport fans typically indicated a specific sport team as their fan interest, although some chose watching a sport as a whole (e.g., football, basketball). Music fans typically chose either a favorite band or a music genre (e.g., rock, jazz). Media fans named a specific media source (e.g., books, movies, TV). The hobby category included a diverse range of interests, but participants typically chose an activity they do frequently (e.g., scrapbooks, cars, dancing).

To examine differences between fan types, mean levels of fanship were subjected to an ANOVA with the four types of interest as an independent variable and the Fanship Scale as the dependent variable. Type of fan interest differed significantly in degree of fanship, F(3, 146) = 9.19,p < .001, rip2 =. 159. Post hoc analyses using Tukey's HSD revealed that hobby fans (M= 5.79, SD = 1.47) rated fanship significantly higher than either music (M= 4.52, SD = 1.64) or media fans (M= 3.96, SD = 1.58). Sports fans (M= 5.41, SD = 1.70) scored higher on fanship than media fans, but they did not differ from the other fan interests.

Discussion

The final Fanship Scale captures involvement via degree of emotional connection, affiliation with other fans, and investment in the interest (e.g., money, time, energy). Together the items assess psychological identification and behavioral involvement with the fan interest. Although our final scale is unidimensional it does include items from a variety of previously suggested dimensions of identity (Ashmore, Deaux, McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Silver, 2001). The degree of fanship differed by fan interest category. Sport and hobby fans may have grown up with this interest, while media fans may have recently been introduced to the interest. Indeed, many media fans listed a currently popular television program as their favorite fan interest. Another possible reason that media fans rated their degree of fanship to a lesser extent than sport and hobby fans is that sport and hobby fans may have more exposure to people with shared interests in the college community than media fans.

Study 2

With a viable scale of fanship in hand, we then sought to provide initial convergent and divergent validity. To show convergent validity we administered both the Fanship Scale and the Sport Spectator Identification Scale (SSIS) to participants who indicated a sports team as their chosen fan interest. We predicted a positive correlation between identification with the sports team as measured by the SSIS and the Fanship Scale. Divergent validity will be shown via a non-significant correlation with a measure of social desirability. The need to appear socially desirable should be unrelated to the degree of fanship.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 180, 76.11% women) received partial course credit toward their introductory psychology requirement. Their mean age was 20.96 years (SD = 4.60).

Procedure

Participants signed up as a separate activity by appointment to complete the study in groups of 5-20 people. Upon entering the research laboratory, participants read and signed an informed consent form and then completed the measures below in the order listed. After completing the paper-and-pencil measures described below, participants were debriefed and thanked.

Materials

Fanship Scale. The Fanship Scale accounted for 46.59% of the variance in the items ([alpha] = .88). The instructions for the Fanship Scale were identical to those of Study 1 (see Table 1 for factor loadings).

Sport Spectator Identification Scale (SSIS). Wann and Branscombe (1993) developed the SSIS to measure degree of identification with a particular sports team. The scale contains 7 items rated on an 8-point Likert-type scale. An example item is, "How important is being a fan of the team listed above to you?" Higher scores indicate more identification as a fan of a particular sports team. A total of 52 participants who reported a sport team as their interest were administered the SSIS ([alpha] = .75).

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability (MCSD). Crowne and Marlowe (1960) developed the MCSD scale to measure individuals' degree of social desirability and need for approval (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). The measure contains 33 items that are rated on a true or false response scale ([alpha] = .81). Higher scores represent a higher need for approval or social desirability.

Results and Discussion

Type of fan interest was again coded into four categories, including sports (n = 52), music (n = 36), media (n = 46), and hobby (n = 46). The Fanship Scale did not significantly correlate with the MCSD (r = .07, p = .35). The Fanship Scale was significantly positively correlated with the SSIS (r = .36, p = .01).

The Fanship Scale was once again internally consistent and, as expected, moderately correlated with the SSIS. This lends convergent validity--as both assess degree of identification with a sport team. Divergent validity was shown with a nonsignificant correlation with the MCSD scale. A third study was devised to provide criterion validity for the Fanship Scale.

Study3

Study 3 was undertaken to provide initial criterion validity for the Fanship Scale. Participants completed measures of fan behavior, social distance, and fanship in that order. We predicted that fanship would be positively correlated with both fan behavior and social distance from those who do not share the same interest.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 81, 66.7% women) received partial course credit toward their introductory psychology requirement. Their mean age was 18.63 years (SD = 0.96). Participants signed up to complete the study in groups of 5-20 people in a classroom at a prearranged time and location. Participants completed the measures below on paper in the order listed.

Procedure

Participants signed up by appointment to complete the study as an activity separate from their class. Upon entering the research laboratory, participants read and signed an informed consent form and completed the measures below in the order listed. After completing the paper-and-pencil measures described below, participants were debriefed and thanked.

Materials

Fan Behaviors. Five open-ended items were constructed to assess fan behavior. The items were: "How many times a month do you participate in your fan interest," "How often in a month (in hours) do you participate in your fan interest," "How many friends do you have that also like your fan interest," "How far would you drive (in miles) to participate in your fan interest," and "How long have you been a fan of this interest." Numerical responses to each of these items were first standardized because some are on different scales (hours versus years) and then were correlated with scores on the fanship scale. Higher scores indicate greater fan behavioral commitment.

Close Personal Distance. A 4-item scale was adapted from Biernat and Crandall's (1999) social distance measure to tap participants' desire to distance non-fans from themselves. The instructions for the measure read "I would be happy to have someone who did NOT like my interest..." The responses included, "... as a roommate," "... to marry into my family," "... as someone I would personally date," and "...as a close personal friend." These items were combined to form a measure of distance from non-fans ([alpha] = .90). Higher scores indicate a desire to welcome non-fans into the participant's personal life.

Fanship Scale. In the present study, the Fanship Scale accounted for 41.49% of the variance in the items ([alpha] = .90). The instructions for the Fanship Scale were identical to those used in Study 1 (see Table 1 for factor loadings).

Results and Discussion

Type of fan interest was again coded into four categories, including sports (n = 22), music (n = 14), media (n = 29), and hobby (n = 16). The Fanship Scale significantly positively correlated with the number of times a month fans participated in their interest (r = .26, p = .018), their willingness to drive to participate (r = .25,p = .026), and the length of time they have been a fan (r = .48, p < .001). Marginally significant positive correlations were found for how many hours a month they participated in their fan interest (r = .21, p = .066), and the number of friends they have that also like their fan interest (r =. 19,p = .088). Additionally, the Fanship Scale was significantly negatively related to the close personal distance measure (r = -.24, p = .035). In effect, greater fanship was related to more fan behavior, and a greater desire to keep non-fans at a distance from one's life. The results provide initial criterion validity for the Fanship Scale evidenced by the correlations with real life behaviors.

Study 4

In Study 4, we asked participants if they were in an organized fan club and if there was an outgroup for their ingroup. In addition, we administered measures of fanship, perceived entitativity, identification with other fans as a group, and collective happiness. If fans view other fans of the same interest as a group, then we would expect to fred a positive correlation between fanship and group entitativity. If fans view themselves as group members, then we would expect a positive correlation between fanship and identification with the ingroup. These hypotheses presuppose that the group is currently providing members with a positive social identity (Boen et al., 2002); if that is not the case, fans might dis-identify, which would result in lower fanship scores (Bizmon & Yinon, 2002). If fans have a positive social identity, we would expect a positive correlation between fanship and collective happiness. Consequently, we predicted positive correlations between fanship, entitativity, group identification (fandom), and collective happiness. Lastly, we expected that fanship and group identification (fandom) would be separate constructs.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 350, 58.3% men) received partial course credit toward their introductory psychology requirement Their mean age was 19.81 years (SD = 2.60). Participants signed up to completed the study in groups of 5-20 people in a classroom at a prearranged time and location. Participants completed the measures below in the order listed.

Procedure Participants signed up as a separate activity to complete the study by appointment.

Upon entering the research laboratory, participants read and signed an informed consent form and then completed the measures below. After completing the paper-and-pencil measures described below, participants were debriefed and thanked.

Materials

Fanship Scale. In the present study, the unidimensional fan scale had an alpha of .84, and accounted for 40.69% of the variance in the items (see Table 1 for factor loadings). The instructions for the Fanship Scale were identical to those used in Study 1.

Entitativity. The entitativity scale assesses the degree to which participants view a particular group as a distinct entity (Castano, Yzerbyt, Paladino, & Sacchi, 2002). The 20-item measure is rated on a 9-point Likert-type scale, from strongly disagree to strongly agree ([alpha] = .93). Participants were instructed to consider other fans of their same interest when rating the items. Higher scores indicate more perceived group entitativity.

Identification with the Group (Fandom). Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) developed a 4-item subscale of the collective self-esteem scale to assess participants' degree of identification with a group. Items were rated on an 8-point Likert-type scale, from strongly disagree to strongly agree ([alpha] = .80). Participants were asked to consider other fans of the same interest as their "fan group" when rating each item. Higher scores indicate greater identification with the group.

Group Membership. Two open-ended questions asked participants whether they are a member of an organized fan club for their interest, and if there is an outgroup to their fan ingroup. An organized fan club was defined as a collection of fans that interact (face-to-face or online). If participants listed a fan club or an ougroup the response was coded as a "yes," and if no fan group or outgroup was listed the response was coded as a "no."

Collective Happiness Scale. Reysen and Branscombe (2007) constructed the collective happiness scale to assess the degree of happiness felt due to membership in a specific group. The measure contains five items using an 8-point Likert-type format, from strongly disagree to strongly agree ([alpha] = .89). Example items include "I am happy about my fan group's outlook," and "I feel happy because my group has direction." Higher scores indicate greater happiness due to membership in the group.

Results

Type of fan interest was again coded into four categories, including sports (n = 122), music (n = 59), media (n = 107), and hobby (n = 62). A majority of participants were members of an organized fan group (n = 213, 60.9%), and indicated that there was an outgroup to their ingroup of fans (n = 327, 93.4%). To examine differences between types of fans, a 2 (Gender of Participant) X 4 (Type of Interest) MANOVA was conducted using fanship, entitativity, identification with the group, and collective happiness as dependent variables. The omnibus results show a main effect of type of interest (Wilks' [lambda] = .730, F(12, 897) = 8.96, p < .001, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = .100), a main effect of participant gender (Wilks' [lambda] = .960, F(4, 339) = 3.50, p = .008, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = .040), and an interaction between gender and type of interest (Wilks' [lambda] = .929, F(12, 897) = 1.85,p = .015, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = .024).

A main effect for type of fan interest was found for the fanship (F(3,342) = 23.08, p < .001, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = .168), entitativity (F(3,342) = 27.32, p < .001, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] =. 193), identification with the group (F(3, 342) = 6.80,p < .001, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = .056), and collective happiness measures (F(3,342) = 10.91, p < .001, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = .087). See Table 2 for Tukey's post hoc comparisons on each of these measures.

Men (M= 6.17, SD = 1.27) rated their group's entitativity higher than women (M =5.64, SD = 1.52), F(l, 342) = 8.33,p = .004, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = .024. Gender and type of interest interactively affected entitativity, F(3,342) = 3.97,p = .008, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = .034. Simple effects analysis revealed that men (M= 5.49, SD = 1.01) rated entitativity higher than women (M= 4.3 6, SD = 1.38) only among media fans, F(1,345) = 17.32,p < .001, [R.sup.2] = .060.

A correlational analysis of the measures administered in Study 4 was then performed for each type of fan interest. As shown in Table 3, the Fanship Scale positively correlated with entitativity, identification with the group, and collective happiness for each type of interest, with the exception of media fans' correlation between fanship and collective happiness. The correlations remained significant when controlling for membership in an organized fan club.

To empirically differentiate fanship and fandom, items from the fanship and group identification measures were simultaneously entered in a principal components analysis. The first factor comprised items from the Fanship Scale, and accounted for 35.15% of the variance. Theompassed items from the group identification scale (fandom), and accounted for 14.57% of the variance. As shown in Table 4, the items for each measure loaded on the appropriate factors.

Discussion

In Study 4 we examined membership in an organized fan group, presence of an outgroup, and the associations between fanship and entitativity, identification with other fans as a group, and collective happiness. As predicted, positive correlations were found between fanship and entitativity, group identification, and collective happiness. The results clearly establish fandom to be a group relevant phenomenon. Fans were shown to categorize themselves into ingroup and outgroups supporting previous research on sport fans (Voci, 2006). Similar to past research (Boen et al., 2002), fanship was related to reporting a positive social identity, evidenced by the positive correlation with collective happiness. The results support previous assertions (Kashima et al., 2007; Sandvoss, 2005; Wertsch, 2002) with fans perceiving themselves to be in a group even when they are not actively participating in one.

Highly identified fans viewed other fans of the same interest as ingroup members, they were identified with that group, and they felt happy about the group's prospects. These results, and the fact that most participants could name an outgroup for their ingroup, suggests that social identity theory is an appropriate lens through which to view fandom. Fanship and fandom were found to be moderately related, yet empirically distinct constructs. Treating a personal connection with a fan interest as distinct from a social identity connection is appropriate based on the present findings. Similar patterns of associations between fanship and group related measures were obtained regardless of interest type. This suggests that sport fans are similar to fans of other types of interests.

The obtained results can also be viewed through the Team Identification--Social Psychological Health Model (Warm, 2006). This model suggests that identification (fanship) with a sport team will lead to higher identification with other fans (fandom), via social connections with other group members, which results in greater well-being. Wann (2006) notes that individuals can feel a connection with a group without necessarily being a member of that group, but also claims that immediate face-to-face social connections are necessary for fans to reap the benefits of fandom. We agree that ingroup identification is important for a sense of belongingness with other fans of a similar interest, however we suggest that fans can perceive themselves to be in a group without making actual interpersonal connections. Additionally, fans can seek out fans of the same interest in a non-face-to-face context--that of online fan communities (Dino, Reysen, & Branscombe, 2009). The present data suggest that merely thinking that one is part of an entitative fan group is associated with a positive emotional state --collective happiness.

General Discussion

The purpose of the present studies was to examine the similarities and differences between sport fans and non-sport fans, and to assess the relationship between fanship and fandom. A new measure of fanship was constructed and found to be reliable, although future research will be needed to assess its predictive validity for fan behavior. In general, sport fans were similar to non-sport fans.

The present studies suggest that a broader conception of fans may be appropriate. Indeed, any individual who is an enthusiastic, ardent, and loyal admirer of an interest can be reasonably considered a 'fan.' If fans are similar, regardless of object of interest, then past research concerning sport fans may generalize to fans of other interests. The difference between fanship and fandom revolves around whether the fan defines the self in terms of personal attributes (e.g., I like the Green Bay Packers) or in terms of membership in a social category or group (e.g., I am a Cheesehead). However, both are related to identification and the formation of one's self-concept. Thus, all fans, regardless of interest, are participating in a process of identity formation--and whether that is personal or social depends on the perception of the fan and treatment received by others (Simon, 2004).

The distinction between personal (fanship) and social (fandom) identity will help researchers to categorize past research and clearly conceptualize future research regarding sport fans. Personal characteristics of sport fans that have been reported (Warm, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001) reflect a personal identity conception of fans. More recent research has shown that fans exhibit behavior that is consistent with a social identity perspective on groups (Boen et al., 2002; Bizman & Yinon, 2002; End, 2001; Levine et al., 2005; Voci, 2006). Supporting past assertions (Kashima et al., 2007; Sandvoss, 2005; Wertsch, 2002), we found that fans perceived themselves to be in a group. This finding is consistent with past research on science fiction fans (Obst et al., 2002a, 2002b) and the proposition that fans can create social categories that revolve around their objects of fan interest.

The present studies were limited in the number and type of participants examined. In Study 1, the sample was small, given the number of initial items employed. However, in Studies 2 and 4, a much larger sample was employed and the Fanship Scale again emerged as internally consistent with adequate factor loadings. The final measure included items stemming from previously proposed dimensions of social identity (Ashmore et al., 2004; Silver, 2001). Future research might profitably examine the relationship between fanship and fandom using a multidimensional measure of in group identification. A limitation of our studies is that all participants were undergraduate college students, which means that we may not have adequately sampled highly identified fans from each type of fan category. Future research could be conducted at conventions or other gatherings of relevant fans from each category.

The present studies were unique in that they are the first to compare fans of many types of interests. A new measure of fanship was constructed for this purpose. Sport fans were found to be similar to fans of other interests, lending support to the possible generalization of past findings concerning sport fans to include fans with other interests. Fans perceive themselves to be in a group even when they are not actively part of an organized group. Additionally, fanship and fandom were found to be distinct constructs. Overall, our results suggest that fans of different types of interests may have more in common than previously thought. Given the ubiquitous nature of fanship and fandom in our society and the amount of time, money, and energy spent on fan related interests, the field will benefit greatly from more research assessing how fan groups develop and are maintained.

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.

Biernat, M., & Crandall, C. S. (1999). Racial attitudes. In J. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of social psychology: Volume 2. Measures of political attitudes (pp. 297-411). San Diego: Academic Press.

Bizman, A., & Yinon, Y. (2002). Engaging in distancing tactics among sport fans: Effects on self-esteem and emotional responses. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 381-392.

Boen, E, Vanbeselaere, N., & Feys, J. (2002). Behavior consequences of fluctuation group success: An internet study of soccer-team fans. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 796-781.

Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 641-657.

Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M. P., & Sacchi, S. (2002). I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 135-143.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: Wiley.

Dietz-Uhler, B., & Murrell, A. (1999). Examining fan reactions to game outcomes: A longitudinal study of social identity. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 15-27.

Dino, A., Reysen, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (2009). Online interactions between group members who differ in status. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28, 85-93.

Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389.

End, C. M. (2001). An examination of NFL fans' computer mediated BIRGing. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 162-181.

Fisher, R. J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading to group identification: A field study of winners and losers. Psychology & Marketing, 15, 23-40.

Heere, B. (2005). Internal and external group identities of a sport team: The development of a multi-dimensional team identity scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Kashima, Y., Klein, O., Clark, A. E. (2007). Grounding: Sharing information in social interaction. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 27-77). New York: Psychology Press.

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, 443-453.

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302-318.

Maltby, J., Day, L., McCutcheon, L. E., Houran, J., & Ashe, D. (2006). Extreme celebrity worship, fantasy proneness and dissociation: Developing the measurement and understanding of celebrity worship within a clinical personality context. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 273-283.

Markman, K. D., & Hirt, E. R. (2002). Social prediction and the "allegiance bias." Social Cognition, 20, 58-87.

Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. G. (2002a). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, part 1: Understanding sense of community in an international community of interest. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 87-103.

Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. G. (2002b). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, part 2: Comparing neighborhood and interest group sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 105-117.

Reysen, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (January, 2007). Validation of collective emotion scales for happiness, fear, jealousy, disgust, contempt, and hope. Poster presented at the 2nd annual Emotion Pre-Conference to the Society of Personality and Social Psychology Annual Meeting, Memphis, TN.

Sandvoss, C. (2005). Fans: The mirror of consumption. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Silver, M. D. (200 I). The multidimensional nature of ingroup identification: Correlational and experimental evidence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Simon, B. (2004). Identity in modern society: A social psychological perspective. Malden, A: Blackwell.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel Ed.), Differentiation between socialgroups (pp. 61-76). London: Academic Press.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Voci, A. (2006). Relevance of social categories, depersonalization and group processes: Two field studies of self-categorization theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 73-90.

Wann, D. L. (1997). Sport Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wann, D. L. (2002). Preliminary validation of a measure for assessing identification as a sport fan: The Sport Fandom Questionnaire. International Journal of Sport Management, 3; 103-115.

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

Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1-17.

Wann, D. L., & Dolan, T. J. (1994). Attributions of highly identified sports spectators. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 783-792.

Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Pease, D. G. (2001). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators. New York: Routledge.

Wertsch, J. V. (2002). Voices of collective remembering. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Stephen Reysen and Nyla R. Branscombe

University of Kansas

Address Correspondence to." Stephen Reysen, Department of Psychology, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, Kansas, 66045-7556. E-mail: [email protected]

Table 1. Fanship Scale Factor Loadings and Items.

           Factor Loadings

Study 1   Study 2   Study 3   Study 4

.64       .53       .66       .50
.62       .75       .69       .72
.61       .53       .63       .66
.58       .52       .65       .47
.70       .76       .64       .64
.64       .76       .35       .65
.72       .70       .61       .54
.78       .77       .78       .70
.61       .57       .66       .56
.74       .83       .77       .30
.59       .66       .54       .70

             Fanship Scale Items

I have rescheduled my work to accommodate my interest.
I au emotionally connected to my interest.
I spend a considerable amount of money on my interest.
I do not devote much energy to my interest.
I want everyone to know I am connected to my interest.
I would devote all my time to my interest if I could.
I would be devastated if I were told I could not pursue my interest.
I strongly identify with my interest.
When my interest is population feel Feat,
My interest is part of me.
I want to be friends with people who like my interest.

NOTE: asterisk indicates reverse-scored item.

Table 2. Study 4, Mean Scores By Type of Fan Interests

                              Music                 Sports
       Scale                Mean (SD)              Mean (SD)

Fanship                6.31 [(1.33).sub.a]   6.81 [(1.18).sub.a,c]
Entitativity           5.39 [(1.36).sub.a]   6.41 [(1.21).sub.b]
Identification         4.25 [(1.87).sub.a]   4.26 [(1.65).sub.a]
Collective Happiness   5.47 [(1.32).sub.a]   6.49 [(1.35).sub.b]

                               Media                   Hobby
       Scale                 Mean (SD)               Mean (SD)

Fanship                5.57 [(1.51).sub.b]     7.21 [(1.22).sub.c]
Entitativity           4.84 [(1.35).sub.c]     6.37 [(1.23).sub.b]
Identification         3.22 [(1.69).sub.b]     4.40 [(1.69).sub.a]
Collective Happiness   5.62 [(1.31).sub.a,c]   6.13 [(1.25).sub.b,c]

NOTE: Tukey analyses performed on each measure. Means not sharing
subscripts within a row are significantly different.

Table 3. Study 4, Correlations between Fanship and Dependent Measures
by Type of Interest

       Scale             Music Fans        Sports Fans

Entitativity           .66 ** (.63 **)   .54 ** (.47 **)
Identification         .42 ** (.32 **)   .35 ** (.32 **)
Collective Happiness   .41 ** (.34 **)   .55 ** (.27 **)

       Scale             Media Fans        Hobby Fans

Entitativity           .46 ** (.43 **)   .60 ** (.56 **)
Identification         .41 ** (.38 **)   .34 ** (.28 **)
Collective Happiness   .14 (.13)         .32 ** (.50 **)

NOTE. Partial correlations controlling for membership in an organized
fan club are shown in parentheses. * p <.05, * * p < .01.

Table 4. Factor Loadings for Principle Components Analysis
Using Varimax Rotation

                                    Fanship Items

Factor      1      2      3      4      5      6      7      8      9

Factor 1    .45    .70    .68    .51    .55    .62    .58    .68    .48
Factor 2    .22    .17    .04   -.02    .35    .20   -.05    .17    .31

                  Group Identification Items

Factor      10     11     1      2      3      4

Factor 1    .81    .65    .13    .10    .13    .15
Factor 2    .09    .23    .77    .85    .85    .84