Who's our rival? Investigating the influence of a new intercollegiate football program on rivalry perceptions.

Havard, Cody T. ; Shapiro, Stephen L. ; Ridinger, Lynn L. 等

The connections fans have with their favorite team can positively impact their social-psychological health (Branscombe & Wann, 1991; Wann, 2006), allow them to gamer vicarious achievement from a victory (Bandura 1977; Cialdini et al., 1976), and increase their consumption regarding the team (Funk, 2008). Further, intercollegiate sport teams can help students acclimate to the college setting (Wann & Robinson, 2002), and alleviate feelings of loneliness (Wann, Brame, Clarkson, Brooks, & Waddill, 2008). Because of the popularity of intercollegiate athletics, universities have long used high profile sports like football to engage stakeholders (Toma, 2003). In addition to identifying with a favorite team, fans also recognize, and often disidentify from the team(s) identified as rivals of their favorite teams (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001).

It is these competitive relationships that are the focus of the current study. First, the phenomenon can provide insight regarding how fans react to favorite and opposing teams (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Grieve, 2005; Wann et al., 2006; Wenger & Brown, 2014), and sponsors of those teams (Davies, Veloutsou, & Costa, 2003). Rivalry can also help explain how participants and fans will react in different situations (Kilduff, Elfenbein, & Staw, 2010; Lalonde, 1992; Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher, 2005), and can impact the ways fans will consume the sport product (Cikara, Botvinick, & Fiske, 2011; Cikara & Fiske, 2012; Leach & Spears, 2009; Leach, Spears, Branscombe, & Doosje, 2003; Mahony & Moorman, 1999). As a result, the rivalry phenomenon can act as a medium through which teams and administrators engage fan bases and promote the sport product to consumers (Havard, Wann & Ryan, 2013; Toma, 2003). Currently, programs and institutions regularly use opposing teams to market their team's on-field product, illustrated by the multitude of rivalry games that appear on competition schedules (e.g., The Game, The Iron Bowl, The Civil War). Further, when a new intercollegiate team is introduced (football in this case), the relationship that team shares with other teams in the conference can impact the athletic department and institution as a whole. Therefore, it is important for intercollegiate programs to understand how adding a new sport can impact the existing dynamics between current and potential rival teams. Using social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974), rivalry has been investigated at the intercollegiate level (Havard, 2014, Havard, Gray, Gould, Sharp, & Schaffer, 2013; Kilduff, Elfenbein, & Staw, 2010), and researchers have studied how teams with existing football programs identify rivals in a new conference (Havard & Eddy, 2013; Havard, Wann et al., 2013); however, the phenomenon as it relates to a new team has not been examined.

The purpose of the current study was twofold. First, the current study examined how fan perceptions of rivalry differed between a new football program and existing rivalries in other intercollegiate sports. In the current work, the new football program represents the team that was added to the athletic department offerings after other sports were established. Second, the study investigated how the development of a rivalry impacted fan consumption intentions toward the new football program. As previously mentioned, many athletics departments use the rivalries to market their product, and oftentimes these marketing campaigns feature the main football rival. Several rival schools have developed "rivalry series" where points are calculated for each school depending on the outcome of the contest(s) for the academic year. For example, the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University participate in the Bedlam Series, where points are awarded for each team victory in all sports throughout the academic year, with the school having the most points at the end of the year receiving the Bedlam Series trophy (Bedlam Series, 2014).

Findings from the current study will further the understanding of rivalry and offer initial evidence into how the introduction of a new football team can impact existing rivalries in other sports. Because schools often use the football rivalry to market other sports as well, it is important to examine the impact a new football rival can have on fan consumption of an institutions athletics department. Further, more than forty institutions have changed their athletic affiliation from 2010 to 2013 (Kerkhoff, 2013), and as numerous teams experience the effects of conference realignment, the current study can inform practitioners on the impact rival teams and newly formed relationships can have on fans of the favorite team. Finally, findings from the current study can help administrators understand how the introduction of a new rivalry in a high-profile sport such as football can impact rivalries in other sports. Even if a university's athletic program does not experience a change in conference affiliation or introduce a new sport, rivalries develop over time with various teams they compete with whether on an annual or sporadic basis. For this reason, the current study can help administrators understand how a new rivalry develops regardless of the introduction of a new program or team.

Team Identification and a New Football Program

Social identity theory states a person will affiliate with groups of others sharing similar interests that will positively reflect on him or her (Tajfel, 1974). Through association with a successful sport team, fans can enjoy the vicarious achievement of the team (Bandura, 1977), which can help their self-image (Madrigal, 1995). This explains why fans support a team that has experienced success in competition (Cialdini et al., 1976) and distance themselves from teams that have experienced failure (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980; Snyder, Lassagard, & Ford, 1986). Further, sport fans can experience different levels of identification with a team (Funk & James, 2001; 2006, Funk, 2008, Wann & Branscombe, 1993), and that identification can impact various ways in which they react to the perceived success and failure of the team (Wann & Branscombe, 1990). Sports fans typically choose to identify with other supporters of a liked team, thus fulfilling their need for belongingness (Festinger, 1954). When individuals affiliate with groups of similar others, they tend to adopt the collective identify of the group (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990). In the current study, fans of the new football team and other programs in an athletic department represent social groups in which they can share the excitement of following the institution's teams with other people that share similar characteristics.

People also tend to separate others into groups to make sense of their surroundings and compare to others (Turner, 1982). When groups sharing similar characteristics interact, intergroup relations occur (Sheriff, 1966), and they often display favoritism to members of their in-group and bias against members of the out-group (Tajfel, 1978). This is referred to as in-group bias, and tendencies of the phenomenon have been found in various ages and group dynamics (Ewing, Wagstaff, & Powell, 2013; Sheriff, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sheriff, 1961; Tajfel, 1981). Of particular interest to the current study is how introducing a new football team (in-group) will impact perceptions of both new and existing rivalry with opposing teams (out-groups).

Rivalry in Sport

Kilduf et al., (2010) identified proximity of teams, balanced competition, and history of direct competition between teams as some antecedents of rivalry and found that the presence of a rival impacts participant performance. This is similar to comparison and competition theory, which states the presence of a rival can impact the amount of effort individuals give in competitive situations (Turner, 1975). Regarding the comparison of oneself to another, two theories help explain how individuals react to those they dislike or see as rivals. Disposition of mirth states that people will rejoice when someone they like is successful and someone they dislike is unsuccessful (Zillman & Cantor, 1976), and schadenfreude explains the tendency of people to take pleasure in the demise of another (Heider, 1958).

In the sport setting, the sport disposition theory (Zillman, Bryant, & Sapolsky, 1989) asserts that fans will rejoice the successes of a favorite team and failures of a rival team in direct competition, and Glory Out of Reflected Failure (GORF) states that some fans can rejoice when their rival team loses to a team other than the favorite (Havard, 2014). Additionally, researchers found evidence of schandenfreude in fans of Major League Baseball (Cikara, et al., 2011) and the FIFA World Cup (Leach & Spears, 2009; Leach, et al., 2003). At the intercollegiate level, Havard, Gray et al. (2013) developed and validated the Sport Rivalry Fan Perception Scale (SRFPS) to measure fans' perceptions of rival teams on four distinct aspects of the phenomenon: out-group indirect competition (the support fans will give their rivals when they are not playing the favorite team), out-group academic prestige (the perceptions a fan has of the academic prestige or rigor at the rival school), out-group fan sportsmanship (how a fan believes rival fans behave during contests), and the sense of satisfaction one receives when the favorite team defeats the rival in direct competition. The SRFPS has been used to examine differences in rival perceptions among intercollegiate athletics fans regarding consumption habits (Havard, Reams, & Gray, 2013), team and conference affiliation (Havard, 2016; Havard & Reams, 2016), and those impacted by conference realignment (Havard, Wann et al., 2013).

The current study examined how a newly formed football team would develop competitive rivalries with other teams in the conference. Because the school has shared recurring rivalries with teams in their conference through competition in sports other than football, the current study examined how fan perceptions of the football rival team differed from existing rivalry perceptions with other athletic programs. Havard, Wann et al. (2013) and Havard and Eddy (2013) found that fans of intercollegiate football and men's basketball whose schools moved to a different conference held stronger negative perceptions of the traditional rival in the former conference than the anticipated rival in the new conference. Additionally, history of competition is an antecedent to rivalry (Kilduff et al., 2010), and the attachment a fan feels with their favorite team can impact their perceptions of a rival team (Havard, Reams et al., 2013; Havard, Wann et al., 2013). Along this line, because the school had competed with teams in sports other than football in the conference, it can be expected that fans would hold stronger negative perceptions of the general athletics rival (i.e., all sports, including football) than they will for the identified football rival team. Therefore, the first hypothesis is posed:

H1: Fans will hold stronger negative perceptions of the identified general athletics rival than the identified football rival.

Impact of Rivalry on Fan Behavior and Consumption

Rivalry in sport can impact fan behavior in a myriad of ways. For example, Levine et al. (2005) found that sport fans were less likely to help people in emergency situations if they were wearing apparel of an identified rival team than if wearing apparel of a favorite team. Research has also shown fans find supporters of the rival team to be less trustworthy than fans of a favorite team (Wann et al., 2012), reserve implicit negativity toward rival teams (Wenger & Brown, 2014), and can form a stronger bond with in-group members when facing a rival (Smith & Schwartz, 2003). Additionally, rivalry can impact the perceptions fans have of sponsors (Davies et al., 2006), player performance (Wann et al., 2006) actions of favorite and rival team fans (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Grieve, 2005), and the excitement experienced when the rival team loses (Mahony & Howard, 1998). Further, Lee (1985) asserts that rivalry can incite negative feelings toward out-group members that can result in deviant behavior and violence, and several studies have found that the phenomenon can cause some highly identified fans to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward participants and fans of rival teams (Wann, Haynes, McLean, & Pullen, 2003; Wann, Petersen, Cothran, & Dykes, 1999; Wann & Waddill, in press). Finally, rivalry can influence the likelihood that a person will watch contests involving a rival team playing someone other than the favorite team (Havard, 2014; Mahony & Moorman, 1999).

When two rival teams compete against each other, Hillman, Cuthbert, Bradley, and Lang (2004) found that fans' physiological reactions were impacted differently depending on how the favorite and rival team performed during the contest. Kimble and Cooper (1992) investigated fan reactions during a National Football League game between the Cleveland Browns and Cincinnati Bengals. The authors found that fans of the winning team were more likely to wear associative merchandise following the game, remain in a social situation for a longer period of time, and generally were in better moods than fans of the losing team. Further, qualitative evidence suggests that fans at the intercollegiate level react the same way following a contest between their favorite team and rival team (Havard, 2014). As an extension to these findings, a second hypothesis is offered to describe the impact playing a rival team can have on favorite team consumption:

H2: Fans will be more likely to consume the favorite football team (i.e., through attendance at live games, watching the team on television, purchasing team merchandise, or consuming the favorite team using online mediums) when playing a rival team than when playing a non-rival team.

Additionally, the following research question is posed to investigate what specific fan perceptions of a rival team impact consumption of their favorite team. In particular, the four rival perceptions measured by the SRFPS were used to investigate how consumption of a favorite team would be impacted by the presence of a rival team.

RQ1: What rival perceptions significantly impact fan consumption of the favorite team?

Method

Participants and Distribution

The participants for this study were 1,500 randomly selected football season-ticket holders at a mid-Atlantic university competing at the Football Championship Series (FCS) division. This population was chosen due to their identification with the newly-formed football team and their ability to provide opinions regarding rivalries for the new football program, existing rivalries, and behavioral intentions related to football and other athletics teams. An online survey was constructed using formsite.com and a link to the survey was sent to a random sample of email addresses provided by the athletics department. A reminder email with the survey link was sent approximately two weeks after the initial invitation in an attempt to increase participation. Data collection lasted a total of 30 days.

Of the 1,500 season-ticket holders that were sent the link to the survey, 631 people began the survey, and 452 participants provided usable surveys for a response rate of 30.1% and a completion rate of 71.6%. All analyses in the current study were conducted in SPSS 21. The demographic makeup of the participants was 91% Caucasian and 76% male. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 82, with 32.8% aged 51 to 60 years of age, followed by 23.3 % aged 41 to 50 years of age. Further, 91% resided in close proximity to the team (within the county where the team plays), and 53% were alumni of the targeted school. Aside from football, 45% of participants were season ticket holders for the men's basketball team and 11.2 held season tickets for the women's basketball team.

Instrumentation

The survey instrument contained a total of 81 questions. The first section of the survey asked participants to identify the first and second biggest rivals of the new football team. Additionally, participants were asked to identify the team they believed was the biggest rival of the targeted school's athletics programs in general (all sports, including football), and explain why they chose the identified rival team. In this portion of the survey, participants were instructed to think of the sport they follow the closest to provide context. For example, one participant could have focused on the Men's Basketball team while another chose to focus on the Women's Basketball team. Respondents were asked how many games involving the rival team they watched on television or the Internet during the previous season (for both football and athletics in general and the outcome of the most recent rivalry matchup (football and athletics in general).

Team identification index. The second section of the survey measured team identification using the Team Identification Index (Til; Trail, Robinson, Dick, & Gillentine,, 2003). The TII contains three items measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), and a sample question reads, "Being a fan of my favorite team is very important to me". Descriptive statistics for the TII items can be found in Table 1. The TII has been used in various setting to examine fan levels of team identification (Trail, Fin, & Anderson, 2003; Trail, Robinson, & Kim, 2008). The TII provided reliability, with a Cronbach's a score of .887 for identification with the football team and .895 for identification with ODU Athletics in general.

Sport rivalry fan perception scale. The third section of the survey included the SRFPS scale (Havard, Gray et al., 2013) measuring respondents' perceptions of the biggest rival to the football team. In particular, the 12-item SRFPS contains four sections that measure fan perceptions of rival teams regarding indirect competition, out-group academic prestige, out-group fan sportsmanship, and the sense of satisfaction fans receive when the new football team defeats the rival. Scores are reported using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and items are worded so that a higher score indicates stronger negative perceptions of the rival team. Descriptive statistics for the SRFPS items can be found in Table 2. The SRFPS has shown reliability in studies measuring fan rival perceptions (Havard, Reams et al., 2013; Havard, Wann et al., 2013; Havard, 2016; Havard & Reams, 2016; Wann et al., 2016).

In previous research using the SRFPS, Havard, Reams et al. (2013) noted that the outgroup indirect competition items are worded so that higher scores reflect a positive perception of the rival, and are not consistent with the negative wording of the three remaining sub scales. For this reason, two items were modified to reflect prior results that showed fans did not support their rival in indirect competition. For example, instead of wording the item "I would support the rival team in a championship game", the item was altered to read, "I would not support the rival team in a championship game." Additionally, one item in the sub-scale asks participants whether they want the rival team to win all games except for when they play the favorite team. To make the item more consistent with the other two items in the sub scale, an additional question was added to the SRFPS stating that fans wished the rival team would lose all games. During analysis, the updated item was used to better reflect consistency with the other out-group indirect competition items. This instrument was used twice within the survey (once to measure rivalry perceptions with football and once to measure identification with athletics in general). The SRFPS sub scales showed reliability, with Cronbach's [alpha] scores ranging from .748 to .970.

The fourth section of the survey included eight questions regarding the impact of the identified rival team on consumption of both the new football team and athletics in general. Specifically, participants were asked if they would 1) watch the new football team play on television or the Internet, 2) attend a game of the new football team, 3) consume web content related to the new football team, and 4) purchase merchandise of the new football team if the they were playing a rival team compared to a non-rival team. Participants were asked these same four questions related to athletics in general. Response options ranged from 1 (Not at all Likely) to 7 (Very Likely) for each item. Finally, participants completed demographic questions and were asked to indicate if they believed the rivalry phenomenon was sport specific or general in nature (i.e., rivalry occurs with one school through all athletic contests or schools maintain separate rivalries with schools depending on the sport being played).

Results

Season-ticket holders as a whole were highly identified with the new (i.e., recently added) football team (M = 6.31, SD = 0.99) and athletics in general (M = 6.08, SD = 0.97). Team identification was significantly higher for football than for athletics in general, F(1, 902) = 13.85, p < .001, showing that participants in the study were more identified with the football team. Further, this makes sense because football season-ticket holders were contacted to participate in the current study.

Data indicated participants generally held neutral to positive views of the identified rival for the new football and general athletics teams. Mean scores and standard deviations for each SRFPS sub-scale are reported in Table 3. In particular, participant SRFPS sub scale scores for out-group indirect competition, out-group academic prestige, and out-group sportsmanship fell below the neutral point of 4.0 on the scale for the football team and general athletics rival team. The only sub-scale that had a mean score above the neutral point of 4.0 was the sense of satisfaction measure for both the identified rival team for football and general athletics.

Hypothesis 1

HI stated that fans would report stronger negative perceptions for the general athletics rival than the football rival. This was measured by comparing participant mean scores for the four SRFPS sub scales for the football rival and general athletics rival. Because identification with a favorite team can impact rival perceptions (Havard, Gray et al., 2013; Havard, Reams et al., 2013), the researchers included team identity as a covariate.

Therefore, a one-way Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) with a significance level of .05 was used to investigate the main effects difference between perceptions of the football rival and general athletics rival using team identification as a covariate. Results revealed significant differences were present among the sub scale scores, F(4,898) = 43.88, p < .001; Wilk's [DELTA] = .836. Specifically, univariate results indicated that significant differences were present for out-group indirect competition, F(1, 902) = 21.16, p < .001, out-group academic prestige F(1, 902) = 142.87, p < .001, and out-group fan sportsmanship F(1, 902) = 119.21, p < .001. In each instance, participants reported stronger negative perceptions toward the general athletics rival than the football rival respectively, as presented is Table 4. The only sub scale where a significant difference was not found between the general athletics rival and football rival was the sense of satisfaction sub scale, thus H1 was partially supported.

Hypothesis 2

H2 stated that fans would be more likely to consume the new football team if it were playing a rival than a non-rival. To test this hypothesis, participant responses to four consumption intentions questions (attend a game, watch a televised game, consume online content, purchase merchandise) were used. Specifically, fan intentions when the football plays a rival team were compared to the consumption responses when the football team plays a non-rival. Descriptive statistics for the comparisons are reported in Table 5. A MANOVA was used to examine differences in consumption intentions because the four outcomes were correlated. It is important to note that participants indicated they were likely to consume the football team in both scenarios. A one-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) showed significant differences existed between the consumption intentions for the rival team compared to a non-rival team F(4, 899) = 5.80, p < .001; Wilk's [DELTA] = .975. Univariate data indicated that significant differences were present for consumption intentions through attending a live game F(1, 902) = 17.08, p < .001, and watching on television or the Internet F(1, 902) = 16.00, p < .001. Fans were more likely to consume the football team through both mediums when the team was playing a rival than a non-rival, thus partially supporting H2.

Research Question 1

Finally, RQ1 examined the influence that rival perceptions can have on favorite team consumption. To investigate this question, four regression models were developed using a significance level of .05. For each model, a separate question regarding fan consumption when the football team was playing a rival team represented the dependent variable, and the four SRFPS sub scale scores were treated as the independent variables (see Table 6). The first model, examining the influence of rivalry perceptions on game attendance was significant F(4,447) = 10.83, p = <.001, and explained 9 percent of the variance. Two rivalry perceptions had a significant influence on game attendance. Out-group academic prestige had a significantly negative impact and sense of satisfaction significantly positive impact (Table 6).

The second model, examining the influence of rivalry perceptions on merchandise purchase intentions was also significant F(4,447) = 20.98, p = <.001, and explained 16 percent of the variance. Sense of satisfaction was the only rivalry perception to significantly influence merchandise purchase intentions (Table 6).

The third model, examining the influence of rivalry perceptions on television/Internet viewership intentions was also significant F(4,447) = 12.86,p = <.001, and explained 10 percent of the variance. Two rivalry perceptions had a significant influence on television/ Internet viewership intentions. Out-group academic prestige had a significantly negative impact and sense of satisfaction significantly positive impact (Table 6).

The final model, examining the influence of rivalry perceptions on intentions to consume online was also significant F(4,447) = 14.68, p = <.001, and explained 12 percent of the variance. Sense of satisfaction was the only rivalry perception to significantly influence intentions to consume online (Table 6).

Discussion

The current study investigated the impact of a new football program on rivalry perceptions. Additionally, the current study examined the impact of rivalry perceptions on fan consumption intentions. Results showed fans reserved stronger negative perceptions for general athletics rivals than football rivals, were more likely to consume the football team when playing a rival compared to a non-rival team, and the sense of satisfaction a fan gets when the favorite team defeats the rival team played the biggest role in determining consumptions intentions. These findings extend the literature on rivalry and consumer behavior by providing exploratory insight into the role a new football program plays on rivalry perceptions, and how the attitudes towards football rivalries are integrated into the fabric of existing rivalries within a college athletic program as a whole. Additionally, these findings provide further evidence that team identification plays a critical role in the magnitude of rivalry perceptions, and rivalry perceptions can enhance fan consumption intentions. The following discussion will address the importance of the current findings, including the implications to theory and practice, and identify areas where future research is needed.

First, the participants surveyed were highly identified to both the new football and general athletics teams. Participants reported significantly higher mean scores for the football team than general athletics teams on the TII, which may come as no surprise since the sample used were football season-ticket holders. Additionally, the length of time that non-football teams have competed against other schools in the conference supports Kilduff et al.'s (2010) assertion that historical competition is an antecedent to rivalry. However, it is important to note that the school had only competed in football for three seasons at the time of data collection, so the comparison between new program identification and that of existing programs provides interesting context when examining perceptions of rivalry.

It was hypothesized that fans would reserve stronger negative perceptions for teams they identified as general athletics rivals than football rivals, and findings from the current study confirmed this. Respondents held stronger negative perceptions of the general athletics rival than the football rival in each SRFPS sub scale examined, with the exception of the sense of satisfaction sub scale. This supports previous research showing fans of teams that moved to a new conference held stronger negative perceptions for the team identified as the traditional rival than the anticipated rival in the new conference (Havard & Eddy, 2013; Havard, Wann et al., 2013). This is not to say that the fans surveyed do not value the football rivalry they share, and this could be a result of not having enough time to develop strong football rivalries within the conference. Because the targeted school had played conference teams in other sports dating to the 1990's, it can be expected that fans would hold stronger negative feelings toward teams they have played several times, as history of competition is a key factor contributing to rivalry (Kilduff et al., 2010). However, it is interesting that fans did not differ in their sense of satisfaction scores, which indicates that fans enjoy the thrill of beating a rival team no matter the team or sport.

Another reason fans reserved stronger negative perceptions for the general athletics rival in comparison to the football rival may be the opposing teams involved in the sport. For example, the general athletics rival most frequently identified by respondents (71%) is located in the same state as the target school, which supports a factor of rivalry (i.e., proximity) identified by Kilduff et al. (2010). Moreover, the target school and most frequently identified general athletics rival have played each other in sports other than football for many years, further supporting findings of Kilduff et al. Research suggests that the presence of a rival may cause fans to increase their intention to consume the favorite team (Havard, 2014; Kimble & Cooper, 1992). Findings from the current study supported these assertions. Even though fans were likely to consume the new football team, they were more likely to do so when the team was playing a rival than a non-rival. It makes sense that fan intentions (and behaviors) increase when their favorite team is playing a rival, as exhibited by attendance figures television ratings, and ticket prices for rivalry games (Goza, 2013). However, the current study provided evidence fans increase their consumption intentions of the favorite team when a rival is involved. Specifically, the intention to purchase favorite team merchandise and consume the favorite team via Internet mediums were also significantly impacted by the presence of a rival, which is a new addition to the sport management literature.

Finally, the current study found that rival perceptions had a small impact on future consumption intentions. In particular, the sense of satisfaction a fan receives when their favorite team defeats a rival in direct competition positively predicted the likelihood they would attend a live game of the favorite team, purchase favorite team merchandise, watch the favorite team on television or the Internet, and consume favorite team content online. This behavior supports the BIRGing tendency of fans to attach to a team following success (Cialdini, et al., 1976), and the suggestions that a victory over a rival can impact a person's mood and behavior (Havard, 2014). Additionally, the perception fans had of their rival institution's academic prestige negatively impacted their intention to attend a game or watch the favorite team play on television or the Internet when a rival team was involved. Participant mean scores for the out-group academic prestige sub scale were the lowest of the four measures in the SRFPS, indicating that fans felt the rival institution had good academic prestige. Because fans appear not to use the perceived academic prestige to derogate the rival team, they may want to use an athletic contest against the rival as an additional way to display their animosity toward the rival team.

Theoretical Implications

The current study carries a number of implications for existing theory and the future of research into sport rivalry. First, the current study adds to the literature regarding in-group bias (Tajfel, 1978, 1981) by investigating what happens to group members when a new relevant out-group is introduced. These findings, along with the perceptions fans have of traditional and anticipated rival teams in new conferences (Havard & Eddy, 2013; Havard, Warm et al., 2013) shed more light on how rivalries are formed. Further, findings from the current study support competitive history and proximity as key components responsible for developing a rivalry (Kilduff et al., 2010). The current study also adds to marketing literature by empirically asserting that the presence of a rival can impact a fan's consumption intentions toward the favorite team.

The most salient implication for the future study of sport rivalry from the current study is the manner in which the SRFPS was used during the investigation. Previous studies using the SRFPS found that the out-group indirect competition questions needed to be reworded or reverse coded for analysis because the items were worded to indicate that fans would support their rival team in indirect competitive situations (Havard, Reams et al., 2013; Havard, Warm et al., 2013). During the current study, the three items in this measure were worded to reflect the negative degree of responses exhibited by past respondents, as indicated in Figure 1. For example, instead of one item being worded, "I would support my rival in a championship game," it was changed to read "I would not support my rival in a championship game". Further, one item in the measure did not properly represent the responses from past participants because it indicated that fans wanted their rival to win all games except against their favorite team, and so a fourth item was added as a possible substitute to this item that read, "I want my rival to lose all of their games." During analysis, the original item was reverse coded to reflect the language in the other two original items, but this caused a decrease in the reliability score for the measure. Because of this, the third item was replaced with the substitute item. This item fit better within the measure, as evidenced by the reliability scores for the sub scale (see Table 2), and therefore was used for analysis in the current study. Considering the fact that participants indicated they possibly would support the rival in indirect competition, which is contrary to previous findings (Havard, Reams et al., 2013; Havard, Wann et al., 2013), more research should be conducted to test which way the sub scale items should be worded in future use to improve consistency of items and sub scales within the SRFPS.

Practical Implications

Findings from the current study also carry implications for the sport management practitioner. Perhaps the biggest implication for administrators is understanding how a new rivalry is formed and its impact on competitive relationships in other sports. For example, participants in the current study held stronger negative perceptions of the general athletics rival than the newly identified football rival. This illustrates fan perceptions and behavior toward a newly identified rival will not instantly trump the competitive relationships shared with teams in other sports in which the school has competed for an extended period of time. Additionally, even though the current study was conducted at the FCS level, findings can translate to other levels as well. For example, fans of two high school football teams can share the same feelings of mutual respect or derogation as fans of two high-profile collegiate teams.

The current study suggests that fans may perceive rival teams differently depending on which sport is being played. Additionally, participants in the current study were almost split when asked if they believed rivalry was a sport specific (53.6%) or a general (44%) phenomenon. Marketers can use this information when planning how favorite team contests will be promoted to fans. For example, the high quality of the Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team may lead some fans from other Big 12 schools to consider the Jayhawks a rival in basketball but not necessarily other sports. Therefore, promoting a contest in women's volleyball or football may not excite fans the same amount as if the team were playing Kansas in men's basketball. It is important to note that in the current study the general rival identified most frequently does not sponsor a team in every sport, whereas many institutions may not have this problem.

The current study can also help practitioners having to identify new rival teams for promotional purposes. With the recent activity regarding conference realignment, many institutions are forced to find new rivalries. For example, a result of the large number of schools that decided to switch athletic affiliation since 2010 has impacted rivalries for virtually every team competing at the NCAA Division I level. Either teams lost the conference competition with their primary or secondary rival, or had teams introduced into the conference that can develop into new competitive rivalries, which could impact existing relationships teams share with others in the league. This means that schools and administrators have had to focus on identifying new teams as primary or secondary rivals, and sometimes shifting focus from a team that has left the conference to another conference team that previously was thought of as a tertiary rival at best. For example, when the Texas A&M Aggies departed the Big 12 Conference for the Southeastern Conference in 2012, the Texas Longhorns lost one of their primary rival teams, and their annual Thanksgiving opponent. In reaction to this loss of rival, administrators at Texas have rotated playing the Thanksgiving game among home games against Texas Christian University and Texas Tech University. It will take several years to determine if the current strategy by the administration will work to identify a team to replace the rivalry with Texas A&M University, but insight from the current study illustrates how a new rivalry can impact, and be impacted by historical competition in other sports. In the current study, the primary rival identified by the majority of fans was a team located in the same state as the institution under investigation, and had competed against the school in other sports for over 40 years. This illustrates the importance of administrators to rely on proximity and relative competitive history in identifying a team to share a rivalry with.

Several schools also find themselves in conferences that do not sponsor all the sports offered by the athletics department. As a result, schools facing these issues are left with teams competing in several different athletic conferences. Findings from the current study can help practitioners in these departments and programs identify one or multiple teams to treat as rivals, and promote the competitive relationship accordingly.

Because football has been used to develop rivalries for the athletics department in the past, marketers should take care to break this mold and measure fans regarding the type of rivalry they prefer to foster between schools. For instance, fans of Nebraska Cornhuskers may desire to identify their main rival using football, whereas Western Kentucky University fans may identify the basketball rival as the main athletics rival. Further, practitioners should use the data on consumption intentions from the current study to devise methods to market their team's products to fans. For example, knowing that fans are more likely to purchase merchandise when their favorite team is playing a rival, athletics department staff may want to arrange for additional vendors during games verses rivals.

Limitations and Future Research

At this point, it is important to discuss possible imitations to the current study. First, the sample could have limited findings, as participants were reached using a list of football season ticket holders. Additionally, team identification was used a covariate in the current study. This occurred because respondents were overall highly identified with the football and general athletics teams, prohibiting the researchers from testing for differences among fans based on level of team identification. Further, since the vast majority of participants were male, the researchers were not able to compare the findings by sex.

Along with the ideas already discussed, the current study highlights several areas where future research is needed. First, more investigation on differences of general and sport specific rival teams should be conducted, in particular, how a football rivalry can impact the importance placed on rivalries in other sports. Future studies should perform longitudinal investigations to better understand changes in rivalry perceptions. With the target school moving to a new conference, further study into how fan perceptions toward rival teams may change after they have competed in the new conference for several years should be conducted. The current study investigated how fan rival perceptions differed between football and other teams at a university, and more investigation is needed in this area. Additional research on the reasons why the presence of a rival impacts fan consumption intentions is needed to assist practitioners trying to engage fans through rivalry competitions. Finally, regarding the use of a replacement item in the SRFPS, more analysis with a broader participant pool should be conducted to confirm the fit of the new item. Future studies using the SRFPS may benefit from both the rewording of the out-group indirect competition items, and replacing the third original item as discussed.

The current study investigated how a new football team can impact the rivalries a school shares with other institutions within its conference. Findings illustrated that fans had stronger negative perceptions of a general athletics rival team than the football rival team. It was determined that playing a rival team made fans want to consume their favorite team more, and that the sense of satisfaction a fan gets when his/her favorite team defeats the rival in direct competition positively influences the likelihood they will attend a favorite team's live game or watch the team on television or the Internet in the future. Finally, out-group academic prestige had a negative impact on a fan's likelihood of attending a favorite team's game or watching the team on television or the Internet. Findings from the current study carry important implications for researchers and practitioners, and highlight the need for more investigation into rivalry in sport.

References

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

Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1991). The positive social and self concept consequences of sports team identification. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 15(2), 115-127.

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thome, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.

Cikara, M., Botninick, M. M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Us versus them: Social identity shaped neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological Science, 22, 306-313. doi: 10.1177/0956797610397667

Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). Stereotypes and schadenfreude: Affective and physiological markers of pleasure at outgroup misfortunes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 63-71. doi: 10.1177/1948550611409245

Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 60-67.

Davies, F., Veloutsou, C., & Costa, A. (2006). Investigating the influence of a joint sponsorship of rival team on supporter attitudes and brand preferences. Journal of Marketing Communication, 72(1), 31-48.

Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you're not: Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organizational Science, 72(4), 393-413.

Ewing, M. T., Wagstaff, R E., & Powell, I. H. (2013). Brand rivalry and community conflict. Journal of Business Research, 66, 4-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jjbusres.2011.07.017

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202

Funk, D. C. (2008). Consumer behavior for sports and sporting events: Marketing action. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd.

Funk , D. C., & James, J. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understating an individual's psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4, 119-150. doi: 10.1016/S1441 -3223(01)70072-1

Funk, D. C., & James, J. (2006). Consumer loyalty: The meaning of attachment in the development of sport team allegiance. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 189-217.

Goza, C. (2013, November 19). Top 5 college football rivalries in 2013 based on ticket prices. Razorgator Sports & Concert News. Retrieved from http://www.razorgator.com/ blog/2013/11/19/top-5-college-football-rivalries-in-2013-based-on-ticket-prices/

Havard, C. T. (2014). Glory Out of Reflected Failure: The examination of how rivalry affects sport fans. Sport Management Review, 17, 243-253. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j. smr.2013.09.002

Havard, C. T. (2016). Rivalry among teams and conferences in intercollegiate athletics: Does a conference pride phenomenon exist? Journal of Contemporary Athletics, 10, 19-32.

Havard, C. T., & Eddy, T. (2013). Qualitative assessment of rivalry and conference realignment in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 6, 216-235.

Havard, C. T, Gray, D. R, Gould, J., Sharp, L. A., & Schaffer, J. J. (2013). Development and validation of the Sport Rivalry Fan Perception Scale (SRFPS). Journal of Sport Behavior, 36, 45-65.

Havard, C.T., Reams, L., & Gray, D. P. (2013). Perceptions of highly identified fans regarding rival teams in U.S. intercollegiate football and men's basketball. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 14, 116-132.

Havard, C. T., & Reams. L. (2016). Investigating differences in fan rival perceptions between conferences in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Behavior, 39, 126-146.

Havard, C. T., Wann, D. L., & Ryan, T. D. (2013). Investigating the impact of conference realignment on rivalry in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 22, 152-165.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

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

Kerkhoff, B. (2013, July 1). Moving day in college sports: 49 schools change conferences. Campus Corner, The Kansas City Star. Retrieved online at: http://www.kansascity.com/ sports/spt-columns-blogs/campus-comer/article322364/Moving-day-in-college-sports-49schools-change-conferences.html

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

Kimble, C. E., & Cooper, B. P. (1992). Association and dissociation by football fans. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 75, 303-309.

Lalonde, R. N. (1992). The dynamics of group differentiation in the face of defeat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 336-342.

Leach, C. W., & Spears, R. (2009). Dejection at in-group defeat and schadenfreude toward second-and third-party out-groups. Emotion, 9, 659-665.

Leach, C. W., Spears, R., Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B. (2003). Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. Journal of Personality and Social Pschology, 84, 932-943.

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

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

Madrigal, R. (1995). Cognitive and affective determinants of fan satisfaction with sporting event attendance. Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 205-227.

Mahony, D. F., & Howard, D. R. (1998). The impact of attitudes on the behavioral intentions of sport spectators. International Sports Journal, 2, 96-110.

Mahony, D. F., & Moorman, A. M. (1999). The impact of fan attitudes on intentions to watch professional basketball teams on television. Sport Management Review, 2, 43-66.

Mowen, J. C. (2004). Exploring the trait of competitiveness and its consumer behavior consequences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 52-63.

Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

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

Smith, R. A., & Schwartz, N. (2003). Language, social comparison, and college football: Is your school less similar to the rival school than the rival school is to your school? Communication Monographs, 70, 351-360.

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

Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5/(2), 382-388.

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65-93. doi: 10.1177/053901847401300204

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press Inc.

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

The Bedlum Series (2014). Oklahoma State Athletics web site. Retrieved from: http://www. okstate.com/ot/bedlam-series.html

Toma, J. D. (2003). Football U. Spectator sports in the life of the American University. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

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

Trail, G. T., Robinson, M. J., Dick, R. J., & Gillentine, A. J. (2003). Motive and points of attachment: Fans versus spectators in collegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, 217-227.

Trail, G. T., Robinson, M. J., & Kim, Y. K. (2008). Sport consumer behaviour: A test for group differences on structural constraints. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17, 190-200.

Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behvaior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5-34.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, G.B: Cambridge University Press.

Wann, D. L. (2006). Understanding the positive social psychological benefits of sport identification: The team identification-social psychological health model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 70,272-296. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.272

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

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

Wann, D. L., & Dolan, T. J. (1994). Spectators' evaluations of rival and fellow fans. The Psychological Record, 44(3), 351-358.

Wann, D. L., & Grieve, F. G. (2005). Biased evaluations of in-group and out-group spectator behavior at sporting events: The importance of team identification and threats to social identity. Journal of Social Psychology, 145(5), 531-545.

Wann, D. L., Haynes, G., McLean, B., & Pullen, P. (2003). Sport team identification and willingness to consider anonymous acts of hostile aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 406-413.

Wann, D. L., Havard, C. T., Grieve, F. G., Lanter, J. R., Partridge, J. A., & Zapalac, R. K. (2016). Investigating sport rivals: Number, evaluations, and relationship with team identification. Journal of Fandom Studies, 4, 71-88.

Wann, D. L., Grieve, F. G., Zapalac, R. K., Visek, A. J., Partridge, J. A., & Lanter, J. R. (2012). The importance of team identification in perceptions of trust of fellow and rival sport fans. Citation

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

Wann, D. L., Peterson, R. R., Cothran, C., & Dykes, M. (1999). Sport fan aggression and anonymity: The importance of team identification. Social Behavior and Personality, 27(6), 567-602.

Wann, D. L., & Robinson, T. N. (2002). The relationship between sport team identification and integration into and perceptions of a university. International Sports Journal, 6, 36-44.

Wann, D. L., & Waddill, P. J. (in press). Predicting sport fans' willingness to consider anonymous acts of aggression: Importance of team identification and fan dysfunction. In C. Mohiyeddini (Ed.), Psychology of sports. Hauppauge, NY: Nova.

Wenger, J. L., & Brown, R. O. (2014). Sport fans: Evaluating the consistency between implicit and explicit attitudes toward favorite and rival teams. Psychological Reports: Mental & Physical Health, 114, 572-584.

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

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

Cody T. Havard

The University of Memphis

Stephen L. Shapiro and Lynn L. Ridinger

Old Dominion University

Address correspondence to: Cody T. Havard, Ph.D., 304 Elma Roane Fieldhouse, Memphis, TN 38152, P (901) 678-5011, F (901) 678-3591, [email protected] Table 1 TII items with M and SD Item M SD 1.1 consider myself to be a "real" fan of my 6.59 0.86 favorite team. 2.1 would experience a loss if I had to stop 6.12 1.26 being a fans of my favorite team. 3. Being a fan of my favorite team is very 6.27 1.05 important to me. Table 2 Original SRFPS with Reworded Out-group Indirect Competition Sub Scale Item Added with M and SD Out-Group Indirect Competition OIC (Original Sub M SD Scale Items) 1. I would not support my rival in a championship 2.89 1.70 game 2.1 would not support my rival in out-of- 2.99 1.76 conference play 3. I want my rival to win all games except when 2.46 1.53 they play my favorite team. Out-Group Indirect Competition (Added Sub Scale Item to Replace #3) 3a. I want my rival to lose all of their games. 4.14 1.69 Out-Group Academic Prestige OAP M SD 1. The academic prestige of my favorite team's 1.68 0.96 rival is poor. 2.1 feel people who attended school where my 1.67 0.98 favorite team's rival plays missed out on a good education. 3.1 feel the academics where my favorite team's 1.84 1.18 rival plays is not very prestigious. Out-Group Sportsmanship OS M SD 1. Fans of my favorite team's rival demonstrate 2.63 1.40 poor sportsmanship at games. 2. Fans of my favorite team's rival are not well 2.60 1.38 behaved at games. 3. Fans of my favorite team's rival do not show 2.70 1.46 respect for others. Sense of Satisfaction SoS M SD 1. I feel a sense of belonging when my favorite 5.47 1.37 team beats my favorite team's rival. 2. I feel a sense of accomplishment when my 6.00 1.09 favorite teams beats my favorite team's rival. 3. I feel I have bragging rights when my favorite 5.89 1.22 team beats my favorite team's rival. Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability a for TII, and SRFPS sub scales Scale M SD [alpha] Football TII 6.31 0.99 .887 Football Rival SRFPS Football Rival Out-group Indirect Competition 2.78 1.36 .748 Football Rival Out-Group Academic Prestige 1.73 0.91 .846 Football Rival Out-Group Fan Sportsmanship 2.65 1.31 .916 Football Rival Sense of Satisfaction 5.79 1.05 .817 General Athletics TII 6.08 0.97 .895 General Athletics Rival SRFPS General Athletics Rival Out-group Indirect 3.25 1.64 .866 Competition General Athletics Rival Out-Group Academic 2.67 1.42 .934 Prestige General Athletics Rival Out-Group Fan 3.74 1.85 .970 Sportsmanship General Athletics Rival Sense of Satisfaction 5.80 1.21 .916 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Football and General Athletics Rivals on SRFPS OIC * OAP * OS * SOS Rival Team M SD M SD M SD M SD Football 2.78 1.36 1.73 0.91 2.65 1.31 5.79 1.05 General 3.25 1.64 2.67 1.42 3.74 1.85 5.80 1.21 Athletics Note: * Significant difference at the .025 level. Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Football Consumption Habits on Playing a Rival versus Non-Rival Attend a Purchase Game ** Merchandise * Football Opponent M SD M SD Playing Rival 6.73 0.60 5.47 1.50 Playing Non-Rival 6.53 0.84 5.26 1.63 Watch on Consume on TV/Int ** Web * Football Opponent M SD M SD Playing Rival 6.53 0.89 5.65 1.61 Playing Non-Rival 6.27 1.05 5.41 1.63 Note: * Significant difference at the .05 level; ** Significant difference at the .025 level. Table 6 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variable Predicting Football Consumption Attend a Game Variable B SEB [beta] Out-group -.008 .024 -.017 Indirect Competition Out-Group -.086 .035 -.130 * Academic Prestige Out-Group Fan .033 .025 .274 Sportsmanship Sense of .157 .027 .274 ** Satisfacion [R.sup.2] .08 F for change in 10.832 ** [R.sup.2] Purchase Merchandise Variable B SEB [beta] Out-group -.012 .057 -.011 Indirect Competition Out-Group .041 .084 .025 Academic Prestige Out-Group Fan -.081 .059 -.071 Sportsmanship Sense of .576 .064 .405 ** Satisfacion [R.sup.2] .15 F for change in 20.980 ** [R.sup.2] Watch on TV/Internet Variable B SEB [beta] Out-group .013 .035 .019 Indirect Competition Out-Group -.111 .051 -.113 * Academic Prestige Out-Group Fan -.018 .036 -.027 Sportsmanship Sense of .260 .039 .307 ** Satisfacion [R.sup.2] .09 F for change in 12.86 ** [R.sup.2] Consume on Web Variable B SEB [beta] Out-group -.033 .063 -.027 Indirect Competition Out-Group -.009 .092 -.005 Academic Prestige Out-Group Fan .021 .065 .017 Sportsmanship Sense of .529 .071 .344 ** Satisfacion [R.sup.2] .11 F for change in 14.677 ** [R.sup.2] Note: * Significant at the .05 level. Note: ** Significant at the .01 level