As the college football season nears an end each year in the United States, millions of fans look forward to long-anticipated rivalry games. Passion runs so deep among college football fans that some observers refer to the final week of the regular season as "Hate Week" (Fornelli, 2014)--the week in which many traditional rivalry games take place. As an indicator of how strongly people care about rivalries, many fans are willing to pay large sums of money to attend the most highly-publicized rivalry games. For example, tickets to the 2015 "Iron Bowl,"--the annual contest between the Alabama Crimson Tide and the Auburn Tigers--were reported to sell for an average of $474 per seat (Killimayer, 2015). Of course, great rivalries do not develop simply on their own accord alone; sport managers and marketers put forth substantial effort to maximize the hype that surrounds rivalry games.

Unsurprisingly, many people derive enjoyment from insulting or disparaging a rival team and its fans--a type of behavior referred to as "blasting" in the current study--and the existence of such negativity between rivals is well documented (Havard, 2014; Leach & Spears, 2009; Cikara, Botvinick, & Fiske, 2011). In extreme cases, people may even engage in violence toward fans of a rival team. For example, Mississippi State University and the Southeastern Conference faced a lawsuit from a man who suffered a four-inch laceration after being hit in the head by a rival fan during the "Egg Bowl" game between the Mississippi State Bulldogs and Ole Miss Rebels (Marcello, 2011). While university administrators may benefit from the publicity that surrounds a heated rivalry, they certainly have an interest in preventing this type of extreme behavior from occurring at athletic events.

In contrast, people may actually root for a rival team in certain instances. For example, fans may support a rival team in games prior to a rivalry matchup in order to give the rival game more excitement and prestige (Havard, 2014) or because of loyalty to the athletic conference in which the rival team competes (Havard, Wann, & Ryan, 2013). In fact, Havard (2014) suggested that future research on rivalry should expand to examine fans' support (or lack thereof) toward rivals in indirect competition. Sport managers and marketers at the conference level have an interest in promoting this type of support between rivals, particularly when a team plays against a non-conference opponent. Given the importance of rivalries in college football, combined with the likelihood that fans may support a rival team in certain instances, the purpose of the current study was to investigate factors that influence people's intentions to either blast or support a rival team.

Conceptual Background

Sport Team Identification

The concepts of social identity theory and self-categorization theory provide an important foundation for understanding sport team identification. In the framework of social identity theory, social identity is conceptualized as an individual's self-concept that derives from knowledge of membership to a social group together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Social identification includes three primary components. The first component is cognitive awareness that one is a member of a group. The second is the evaluation that the group relates to the values one holds. The third is the extent to which emotions govern the cognitive awareness and evaluations (Tajfel, 1982). Self-categorization theory, which is part of the same theoretical foundation as social identity theory, adds detail to the ways in which the categorization process operates as a cognitive basis of group behavior (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). Both theories state that individuals define themselves in terms of their social group membership and seek to foster and maintain positive social identity. This positive identity is generally achieved by comparing one's own group to other groups in order to establish a positively valued psychological distinctiveness (Turner, 1975).

The concept of team identification stems from the realm of social identity theory. Specifically, team identification refers to the psychological connection of an individual toward a particular sport team or athlete (Wann & Branscombe, 1993), that is, the degree to which the fan views the team as an extension of him or herself (Wann, Hunter, Ryan, & Wright, 2001). This connection is forged for the purposes of self-representation (Cialdini & De Nicholas, 1989) and definition of personal identity (Lock, Taylor, Funk, & Darcy, 2012), reflected by the sport team portraying strength, success, teamwork, and other desirable qualities (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998).

Havard (2014) discovered that team identification is initially established through social connections with friends and family, which leads to fulfilling social needs. Geographic location, affiliation, presence of a star player, and family or friends supporting the team are other important factors that influence the formation of such identity (Havard, 2014; Branscombe & Wann, 1991). As general social identity theory suggests, once an identity is formed, individuals attempt to maintain the positive social identity by constantly comparing in groups to out groups.

For sport fans, one of the most pertinent dimensions for social comparison is the team's performance (Bernache-Assollant, Lacassagne, & Braddock, 2007). Branscombe and Wann (1991) denote that team success is one of the primary factors affecting the establishment of the identification process. Fans generally identify with a successful team whose fan base promotes a positive self-image. Identification for fans of an unsuccessful team becomes more about being identified with others in the fan base instead of solely identifying with the team. A highly identified fan, however, will remain loyal to the team regardless of the team's success (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998).

Havard, Gray, Gould, Sharp, and Schaffer (2013) further argue that sport fans are motivated to identify a rival to set themselves apart as special and different from people in rival groups. Fans then engage in behaviors such as negative rival support in indirect competition and blasting either directly or indirectly depending on the perception of rivalry (Havard, 2014).

Rival Perception and Negative Support

Kilduff, Elfenbein, and Staw. (2010) explain rivalry as "a subjective competitive relationship that an actor has with another actor that entails increased psychological involvement and perceived stakes of competition for the focal actor, independent of the objective characteristics of the situation" (p. 945). Kilduff et al. further illustrate four factors that contribute to the creation of rivalry--geographic proximity, recent record, history of competition, and opponent with higher athletic status. Tyler and Cobbs (2015) report three additional categories of rivalry antecedents from a qualitative study of 76 sport rivalries--conflict, peer comparison, and bias. The factors presented by Kilduff et al. and Tyler and Cobbs generally help determine and recognize a rival.

Perception of rivalry further takes form based on feelings of hatred and malicious joy at the misfortune of another (Dakalas & Melancon, 2012). The higher one's level of team identification, the more joy is expressed toward a rival team defeat (Leach, Spears, Branscombe, & Doosje, 2003). Havard (2014) adds to this explanation by describing rivalry as maintaining feelings of mutual hatred. The author denotes that fans gain a sense of satisfaction after defeating a rival in direct competition and that winning against a rival is more important for the fans than defeating a non-rival. Previous studies further suggest a link between negative rival support during indirect competition in which a rival team competes against a non-rival team (i.e., a team other than the favorite).

Leach and Spears (2009) suggest that fans of international soccer experience feelings similar to sense of satisfaction when a rival team loses to a third party. Smith, Powell, Combs, and Schurtz (2009) argue that sense of satisfaction occurs when fans benefit from the failure of a rival team in indirect competition. Fans are just as likely to feel pleasure or excitement toward their rival's failure in indirect competition as in direct competition and that the rival team deserves misfortune against a non-rival (Feather & Sherman, 2002; Smith et al., 2009). Havard (2014) provides evidence that fans feel more satisfaction when their rivals lose to an underdog team or lose in games with national significance, such as a championship game. Findings from the previous studies support the notion that the perception of rival status significantly impacts the experience and behaviors of fans toward a rival team (Cikara & Fiske, 2012).

Fans have also expressed displeasure in cases where a rival team would qualify for post-season competition (Havard, 2014). However, it is important to note that several fans from Havard's study desired to see the rival team win every game prior to the match against their favorite team in order to provide the game with more prestige. Similarly, U.S. college sport fans have indicated concerns that when their rival loses on the national stage to a non-rival team from a different conference it would reflect poorly on the conference of the favorite team (Havard, 2014).

Another factor that plays an important role in perceptions of rivalry is sportsmanship. Havard (2014) discovered that fans often perceive their rival team as shady or as cheaters who lack sportsmanship. This is an indication of an in-group bias (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Grieve, 2005) and suggests negative support for a rival is related to mistrust or prejudice toward athletic performance (Havard, 2014).

According to Cialdini and Richardson (1980), the negative feelings and perception of the rival team also extends to the academic prestige of the university. College sport fans perceive the academic reputation of a rival institution as being lower in quality than their favorite team's university even though the respondents reported having little actual knowledge of the institution (Havard, 2014). This finding is a specific example of in-group bias toward rival institution attributes (Cialdini & Richardson; 1980).

Blasting

Funk and James (2001) claim that attitudinal loyalty is demonstrated through biased cognition. In this sense, social groups and fan groups alike may exhibit bias through in-group favoritism and out-group derogation (Brewer, 1999: Voci, 2006; Brown, Collins, Schmidt, 1988; Schaller, Boyd, Yohannes, & O' Brien, 1995). This type of behavior is related to blasting, which is the tendency to derogate others with whom one has a negative relationship in the interest of self-enhancement (Cialdini & Richardson, 1980). The nature of blasting is inherently negative and is often built upon social pressure. According to Bernache-Assollant et al. (2007), blasting behavior is normally derived by social pressure. This suggests that blasting can be triggered by social pressure situations, such as team identification built upon in-group favoritism.

Indeed, Branscombe and Wann (1994) claim that in-group members tend to derogate members of an out-group associated with rival teams in order to restore or maintain positive social identity. This is especially true when fans are highly identified, and they are also more likely to derogate out-group members when they pose a threat to maintaining positive social identity. On certain occasions, derogation toward a rival team is used as a tool for acceptance in a fan group of the favorite team. Noel, Wann, & Branscombe (1995) denote that members who identify themselves with a successful team may derogate members of the rival team to gain further acceptance into their desired fan group.

Rival Perception and Blasting (Out-Group Derogation)

Individuals subject to collective self-esteem respond more drastically to identity threats, as their personal self-esteem depends on the success of the in-group or failure of the out-group (Amiot & Hornsey, 2010). Amiot and Aubin (2013) further note that social identity built on group self-esteem leads to in-group bias, social comparison, and out-group derogation. In other words, the self-esteem of fans essentially depends on the success of their favorite team or the failure of their rival team. For this reason, fans engage in social comparison and out-group derogation to eliminate threats to their identity.

While in-group bias and out-group prejudice typically operate independently of each other, out-group hostility occurs when two or more groups compete with each other due to lack of mutual trust and threat to group identity (Brewer, 1999). This phenomenon is common in sport competition as fans engage in blasting behavior when a rival team's sportsmanship is perceived to be untrustworthy. This is an indication of both in-group bias (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Grieve, 2005) and prejudice toward athletic performance (Havard, 2014).

Additionally, a study by Jackson (2002) indicates that out-groups are evaluated more negatively when conflict is recognized by the in-group. Specifically, conflict is perceived based on what Tajfel and Turner (1979) refer to as the evaluation that the group relates to the values that one holds, which is similar to the values assessed to create rival perception in sport. For instance, social comparison among sport fans in the context of college sport often involves evaluating a rival institution's academics more negatively to gain distinctiveness for group self-esteem (Havard, 2014). Scholars argue that this type of behavior is grounded in prejudice toward institution attributes created by in-group bias (Cialdini & Richardson; 1980; Havard, 2014).

Perception of rival status as being a failure also impacts in-group bias and outgroup derogation (Cikara & Fiske, 2012). Such failure of the out-group represents meaning and distinctiveness for the in-group (Vignoles, Regalia, Manzi, Golledge, & Scabini, 2006). It additionally provides a sense of satisfaction (i.e., the malicious pleasure a fan experiences) to the members of the in-group when the favorite team beats its rival team (Cikara & Fiske, 2012; Havard, 2014). Certain fans tend to derogate members of the out-group even after winning the competition in order to restore positive social identity from a previous defeat or maintain current identity from ongoing success (Branscombe & Wann, 1994). Social identity theory states that blasting behavior takes place within various domains and leads to group cohesion and sense of belonging (Amiot & Hornsey, 2010; Amiot, Sansfacon, & Louis, 2013). Therefore, the need for sense of satisfaction by rival failure may induce fans to blast a rival team on all accounts and phases, perhaps in an effort to maintain the feeling of satisfaction and sense of belonging to a winning group. Overall, given the conceptual background discussed in this review of literature, the current study investigated the following research questions:

1. How is team identification related to people's perceptions of rival teams and their intentions of blasting or supporting a rival in indirect competition?

2. How do people's perceptions of rival teams affect the relationship between team identification and their intentions of blasting or supporting a rival in indirect competition?

Method

Participants

In the current study, 258 participants (132 female, 120 male, 6 not reporting) completed an online questionnaire measuring team identification, negative rival perception, blasting, and rival support. Participants completed the questionnaire following the end of the 2015 college football season in order to minimize fluctuation of fan attitudes that may take place throughout the season (i.e., depending on which opponent one's favorite team is playing in a given week). Participants were recruited through announcements sent via social media and posted on Internet college football message boards; the announcements invited anyone who was a fan of college football to complete an online questionnaire assessing their perceptions of rival teams. Participant ages ranged from 18 to 73 (M = 24.15); 68.7 percent of participants were alumni or current students of the university associated with their favorite team, while 73.4 percent were current or former residents of the state in which their favorite team was located.

Instrumentation

A 26-item questionnaire measuring team identification, negative rival perception, blasting, and rival support was used in the current study. In addition, the questionnaire included items asking the participant's age, gender, whether the participant was a graduate of the school of their favorite team, and whether the participant was a current/former resident of the state in which their favorite team was located.

Team identification. Team identification was measured using a scale developed by Dimmock, Grove, and Eklund, (2005), which included three dimensions of participants' identification with their favorite college football team: cognitive/affective, personal evaluative, and perceived-other evaluative. The scale had a total of nine items; however, three of the items were removed during confirmatory factor analysis, as described in the results section ([alpha] = .744). Sample items include, "Attributes that define fans of my favorite team apply to me also" (cognitive/affective); "My favorite team has a lot to be proud of' (personal evaluative); and "Others have a positive view of my favorite team" (perceived-other evaluative). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement on a seven-point Likert-type scale, anchored by 1 as "strongly disagree" and 7 as "strongly agree."

Negative rival perception. Negative rival perception was measured using the Sport Rivalry Fan Perception Scale (SRFPS), developed by Havard, Gray, Gould, Sharp, and Schafer (2013) with minor modifications in wording to enhance clarity in the context of the current study. The scale includes three items each measuring participants' attitudes concerning the rival institution's academic prestige ([alpha] = .898), fan sportsmanship ([alpha] = .919), and sense of satisfaction in the event of victory over the rival ([alpha] = .893). Sample items include, "The academic prestige of my favorite team's rival is poor" (academic prestige); "Fans of my favorite team's rival demonstrate poor sportsmanship at games" (sportsmanship); and "I feel a sense of belonging when my favorite team beats their rival" (satisfaction). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement on a seven-point Likert-type scale, anchored by 1 as "strongly disagree" and 7 as "strongly agree."

Blasting. The blasting scale consisted of four items ([alpha] = .921) developed by Amiot, Sansfacon, and Louis (2013) with modifications in wording to fit the context of the current study. Sample items include, "I am willing to insult players and fans of the rival team in their absence" and "I am willing to affirm the superiority of my favorite team by putting the rival team down." Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement on a seven-point Likert-type scale, anchored by 1 as "strongly disagree" and 7 as "strongly agree."

Rival support. The scale for rival support, developed for the current study, was grounded in the work of Delia (2014) concerning the importance of sport fans' overlapping social identities. The scale included a total of four items ([alpha] = .911). Sample items include, "I feel comfortable supporting my rival team in indirect competition" and "Supporting my rival team in indirect competition is the right thing to do." Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement on a seven-point Likert-type scale, anchored by 1 as "strongly disagree" and 7 as "strongly agree."

Data Analysis

Data analysis was performed using SPSS and AMOS (version 22.0). Descriptive statistics were used to better understand the demographic characteristics of the sample (described above), and factor means (plus standard deviations) were produced to get a general sense of the responses to the survey items (see Table 1). Once the sample and factors had been assessed, a standard two-step modeling procedure was employed (Kline, 2016). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the fit of the measurement model to the data as well as the construct reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the sub-scales. Once the measurement model was considered acceptable, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the relationships between the variables (with both direct and indirect effects) as well as the goodness of fit of the structural model.

Results

The initial measurement model included a third first-order factor, called Perceived-other Evaluative (POE) within the second-order team identification factor. This initial model fit the data poorly (i.e. RMSEA > 0.15)--the primary issues appeared to be that the three observed variables within POE were loading poorly, POE was loading poorly on its parent factor (team identification), and the observed variables within POE were covarying with several items from the three rival perception factors. Several minor modifications that preserved all measured items within POE were attempted, but the model still fit too poorly to proceed. Thus, according to the procedure of Kline (2016), the authors modified the model by removing the three items corresponding to POE, leaving two first-order latent factors within team identification. The error terms of SU3 and SU4 were also permitted to covary to improve model fit, per the modification indices. The final set of items in the measurement model can be found in Table 1.

CFA was performed to test the final measurement model. The model exhibited good fit, despite a significant chi-square test, on the standard goodness of fit indices ([chi square] = 333.66, df = 212, p < .001, CFI = .970, TLI = .964, SRMR = .047, RMSEA = .047; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Composite reliability of the final measurement model was acceptable, as all factor loadings were greater than .5 and all latent factors had Cronbach's alpha values greater than .7 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Convergent validity was acceptable (AVE > 0.5) for all latent variables, as was discriminant validity (maximum shared variance (MSV) < AVE and average shared variance (ASV) < AVE in all cases; Hair et al., 2010). Cronbach's alpha, AVE, MSV, and ASV values can be found in Table 1.

SEM was used to test the structural model (see Figure 1), which exhibited adequate to good fit despite the chi-square test again being significant ([chi square] = 386.94, df = 216, p < .001, CFI = .958, TLI = .951, SRMR = .075, RMSEA = .055). Although the data did not appear to grossly violate the assumption of multivariate normality, bootstrapping was performed (with 1,000 resamples) due to the number of mediation effects that were being examined in the model versus the sample size. All paths in the structural model were statistically significant at [alpha] < .05, except for those from sense of satisfaction to rival support, sense of satisfaction to blasting, and sportsmanship to blasting (see Figure 1). Team identification had significant positive direct effects on the three mediating rival perception variables, the strongest of which was on sense of satisfaction--a one standard deviation increase in team identification lead to a .831 standard deviation increase in sense of satisfaction, holding all else constant, explaining 69 percent of the variance. Direct effects and explained variance for sportsmanship and academic prestige can be found in Figure 1.

Team identification also had a significant positive direct effect on blasting (.826) and a significant negative direct effect on rival support (-.487), but neither of the indirect effects were significant (see Table 2). The three mediating rival perception variables had smaller direct effects on the two outcomes; the largest direct effects provided by these variables were sense of satisfaction on blasting (-.388) and academic prestige on rival support (.242). It should be noted that despite the moderately large magnitude of the effect of sense of satisfaction on blasting, this path was not statistically significant (p = .111). Similarly, team identification had a moderately large negative indirect effect on blasting (-.232) that was not significant (p = .386). These two moderately strong effects appeared to be non-significant due to relatively large standard errors on the paths leading from team identification and sense of satisfaction to blasting (approximately .68 in both cases). This is a relatively common occurrence in SEM, as the power of significance tests can be low enough to return statistically insignificant findings that should still be interpreted based on the size of the effect (Kline, 2016). Finally, [r.sup.2] values for the outcome variables can be found in Table 2. In SEM, [r.sup.2] values for endogenous outcome variables (in this case blasting and rival support) indicate the variance explained cumulatively by the predictor variables that share paths with each outcome; said differently, the [r.sup.2] value is the proportion of variance overlap between the endogenous variables and its associated predictors. Approximately 28 percent of the variance in rival support and 44 percent of the variance in blasting was explained by the direct and indirect effects in the model.

Discussion

The results of the current study yield several theoretical insights with respect to fans' behavioral intentions toward rival teams in indirect competition. First, team identification appeared to drive most of the prediction of blasting and rival support. Specifically, fans with higher levels of identification were more likely to blast rivals and less likely to support a rival team in indirect competition, regardless of their specific perceptions about the rival team. People with higher levels of team identification were also more likely to receive a sense of satisfaction when their favorite team defeats its rival, think the rival team's fans demonstrate poor sportsmanship, and feel that the rival team's university has poor academic prestige. Taken as a whole, these results align with previous research on rivalry (Havard, 2014; Havard et al., 2013) and are consistent with the tenets of social identity theory, namely that members of the in-group find favorable comparisons between themselves and relevant outgroups for the purpose of self-esteem maintenance (Cikara, Botvinick, & Fiske, 2011; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Second, people who felt that fans of a rival team exhibited poor sportsmanship were less likely to support the rival in indirect competition. This finding is in line with previous studies that mistrust or prejudice toward athletic performance caused by in-group bias (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Grieve, 2005) leads to negative rival support (Havard, 2014). Important to note is that sportsmanship did not significantly predict blasting behavior. This result is inconsistent with previous literature that suggests fans engage in blasting behavior when a rival team's sportsmanship is perceived to be untrustworthy (Havard, 2014). The inconsistency may have been caused by lack of social pressure situations to blast the rival team (Bernache-Assollant et al., 2007), which could result in fans not being able to identify clearly the threat to maintain positive social identity or the need to gain further acceptance into their desired fan group (Noel et al., 1995).

Third, while the moderately large effect size of sense of satisfaction on both rival support and blasting may warrant interpreting the paths, the statistical insignificance seemingly caused by large standard errors of the paths requires further testing in future research. Nonetheless, this particular result still posits meaningful insight related to conflicting arguments about how fans engage in negative rival support behavior based on different perspectives of sense of satisfaction. The current research finding indicates that fans' sense of satisfaction with defeating a rival was not a significant predictor of their likelihood to support a rival in indirect competition. This may be due to the fact that certain fans desire to see a rival team win every game prior to the match against their favorite team in order to provide the game with more prestige (Havard, 2014). This is a competing argument to the notion that fans feel malicious pleasure at the expense of the rival team's failure (Cikara & Fiske, 2012). Malicious pleasure resulting from a rival's failure may be more likely in direct competition involving blasting behavior, while indirect competition may provide different behavioral responses.

Fourth, the current results indicated that fans who had a lower assessment of the rival school's academic prestige were more likely to support the rival in indirect competition; however, they were also more likely to blast the rival team. These behaviors represent forms of self-esteem maintenance based on in-group bias toward rival institution attributes (Cialdini & Richardson, 1980). Specifically, a rival team losing in indirect competition could cause damage to its overall reputation, including the institution's academic prestige. In turn, fans of a particular team may support a rival in indirect competition out of fear that the public may view their favorite team's academic prestige as inferior by association with the rival. Similarly, fans may hope that a win by the rival team in indirect competition would provide a "boost" to perceptions of the school's academic prestige. In contrast, fans may engage in blasting behavior in direct competition in order to enhance group self-esteem and gain distinctiveness by evaluating a rival institution's academics more negatively (Havard, 2014: Vignoles et al., 2006). In other words, when fans view a rival school as having poor academic prestige, they may blast the rival to differentiate the academic standing of their favorite team from that of the rival.

Fifth, the mean scores for both rival support (M=3.02) and blasting (M=3.24) were relatively low on a seven-point scale. In other words, participants didn't seem particularly interested in supporting a rival in indirect competition, but they also didn't indicate a high level of enthusiasm about blasting the rival either. On the other hand, the mean score for sense of satisfaction (M=5.61) was considerably higher than the previously mentioned two rival perception subscales. This result is especially interesting given that mean scores for other subscales were relatively low. This might indicate that the self-esteem maintenance and positive feelings derived from a win over a rival (i.e., items directly experienced by fans) are stronger than those derived from feelings about sportsmanship and academics (i.e., items more anecdotal and less observable for most fans).

With respect to practical implications, sport managers and marketers focus much of their efforts on increasing fans' levels of identification and moving them up the frequency escalator (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2014). Based on the results of the current study, sport marketers should realize that as they strengthen fans' identification with a team, the fans will simultaneously tend to be less likely to support and more likely to blast rival teams. This finding creates some interesting implications for practitioners working at the conference level in college sports. While sport managers and marketers may desire to build strong rivalries within an athletic conference, they would also benefit from an environment of strong intra-conference pride in which fans support rival teams involved in non-conference competition (Havard & Reams, 2016). However, as indicated by the results of the current study, the most highly-identified fans are also the least likely to support rival teams. Future research should continue to investigate factors that can facilitate fans' desire to support rival teams within a conference.

A key limitation of the current study was that data were restricted to the context of college football fans. Future research that investigates factors affecting fans' intentions of supporting and blasting rival teams in other sporting contexts will help provide a fuller understanding of this topic. Future research should also incorporate various mediating and moderating variables that may improve the statistical significance of the proposed research model in the current study. Possible variables may include social interaction amongst fans, magnitude of the competition, and fan personality traits. In this sense, a qualitative study complementing the quantitative measures could enhance the depth of knowledge pertaining to sport rivalry studies.

Conclusion

The current study investigated the relationship between team identification, perceptions of rival teams, and intent to blast and/or support rival teams in indirect competition. Team identification was positively related to likelihood of blasting a rival team and negatively related to intent to support a rival in indirect competition. Fans with higher levels of identification were also more likely to express a sense of satisfaction in defeating a rival, perceive a rival school's academic prestige as being poor, and assess rival fans' as demonstrating bad sportsmanship.

While it appears that participants who indicated a greater sense of satisfaction in defeating a rival and those who assessed a rival institution's academic prestige as being poor were more likely to support the rival in indirect competition, these implications may have been overstated (or oversimplified) with respect to the statistical insignificance outlined in the discussion. Thus, proceed with caution with this particular result and explore further in future research.

Participants who perceived rival fans as demonstrating bad sportsmanship, meanwhile, were less likely to support the rival team in indirect competition. Overall, the current study helps provide sport managers and marketers a better understanding of how fans with different levels of identification may behave toward rival teams.

Younghan Lee

Mississippi State University

Adam Love

University of Tennessee

Terry Eddy

University of Windsor

Morgan Young

Mississippi State University

Address Correspondence to: Younghan Lee, Ph. D., Mississippi State University, 118 McCarthy Gym, Dept. of Kinesiology, P. O. Box 6186, Starkville, MS 39762. Email: [email protected]

References

Amiot, C. E., & Aubin, R. M. (2013). Why and how are you attached to your Social Group? Investigating different forms of social identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), 563-586.

Amiot, C. E., & Hornsey, M. J. (2010). Collective self-esteem contingency and its role in predicting intergroup bias. Self and Identity, 9(1), 62-86.

Amiot, C. E., Sansfacon, S., & Louis, W. R. (2013). Uncovering hockey fans' motivations behind their derogatory behaviors and how these motives predict psychological well-being and quality of social identity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(3), 379-388. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.12.004

Bernache-Assollant, I., Lacassagne, M. F., & Braddock, J. H. (2007). Basking in reflected glory and blasting differences in identity-management strategies between two groups of highly identified soccer fans. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(4), 381-388.

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.

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

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429-444.

Brown, J. D., Collins, R. L., & Schmidt, G. W. (1988). Self-esteem and direct versus indirect forms of self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55(3) 445-453.

Dalakas, V., & Melancon, J. P. (2012). Team identification, Schadenfreude toward hated rivals, and the mediating effects of Importance of Winning Index (IWIN). Journal of Services Marketing, 26(1), 51-59.

Cialdini, R. B., & De Nicholas, M. E. (1989). Self-presentation by association. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(4), 626.

Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of image management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 406-415.

Cikara, M., Botvinick, M. M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Us versus them: Social identity shapes neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological Science, 22(3) 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(1), 63-71.

Delia, E. B. (2014). The exclusiveness of group identity in celebrations of team success. Sport Management Review, 18(3), 396-406. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2014.10.006

Dimmock, J. A., & Grove, J. R. (2005). Relationship of team identification to determinants of aggression. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 77(1), 37-47. doi: 10.1080/10413200590907559

Dimmock, J. A., Grove, J. R., & Eklund, R. C. (2005). Reconceptualizing Team Identification: New Dimensions and Their Relationship to Intergroup Bias. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(2), 75.

Feather, N. T., & Sherman, R. (2002). Envy, resentment, schadenfreude, and sympathy: Reactions to deserved and undeserved achievement and subsequent failure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 953-961.

Fisher, R. J., & Wakefield, K. L. (1998). Factors leading to group identification: A field study of winners and losers. Psychology & Marketing, 75(January 1998), 23-40.

Fornelli, T. (2014, November 24). Line study: Hate week takes over the nation. CBS Sports. Retrieved from http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/line-study-hate-week-takes-over-the-nation/

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Havard, C. T. (2014). Glory out of reflected failure: The examination of how rivalry affects sport fans. Sport Management Review, 17(3), 243-253. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2013.09.002

Havard, C. T., Gray, D. P., 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(1), 45-65.

Havard, C. T., & Reams, L. (2016). Investigating differences in fan rival perceptions between conferences in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Behavior, 39(2), 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(4), 224-234.

Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social psychology quarterly, 255-269.

Jackson, J. W. (2002). Intergroup attitudes as a function of different dimensions of group identification and perceived intergroup conflict. Self and Identity, 7(1), 11-33.

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(5) 943-969.

Killimayer, C. (2015, November 27). Iron Bowl tickets continue to be most expensive in college football. WHNT News. Retrieved from http://whnt.com/2015/ll/27/iron-bowltickets-continue-to-be-most-expensive-in-college-football/

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Leach, C. W., & Spears, R. (2009). Dejection at in-group defeat and schadenfreude toward second- and third-party out-groups. Emotion, 9(5), 659. doi:10.1037/a0016815

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 Psychology, 84(5), 932-943.

Lock, D., Taylor, T., Funk, D. C., & Darcy, S. (2012). Exploring the development of team identification. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 283-294.

Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 127-137.

Marcello, B. (2011, April 4). Man in alleged cowbell assault looks to add MSU to lawsuit. The Clarion-Ledger. Retrieved from http://blogs.clarionledger.com/msu/2011/04/04/manin-alleged-cowbell-assault-looks-to-add-msu-to-lawsuit/

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schaller, M., Boyd, C., Yohannes, J., & O'Brien, M. (1995). The prejudiced personality revisited: Personal need for structure and formation of erroneous group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 544-555

Smith, R. H., Powell, C. A. J., Combs, D. J. Y., & Schurtz, D. R. (2009). Exploring the when and why of Schadenfreude. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 530-546.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psycholosv 33, 1-19.

Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European journal of social psychology, 5(1), 1-34.

Tyler, B. D., & Cobbs, J. B. (2015). Rival conceptions of rivalry: Why some competitions mean more than others. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(2), 227-248.

Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., Manzi, C., Golledge, J., & Scabini, E. (2006). Beyond self-esteem: Influence of multiple motives on identity construction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 308-333.

Voci, A. (2006). The link between identification and in-group favouritism: Effects of threat to social identity and trust-related emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 265-284.

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. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(6), 783-792.

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. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(5), 531-545.

Wann, D. L., Hunter, J. L., Ryan, J. A., & Wright, L. A. (2001). The relationship between team identification and willingness of sport fans to consider illegally assisting their team. Social behavior and personality: an international journal, 29(6), 531-536.

Caption: Figure 1. Structural Model

Table 1
Confirmatory Factor Analysis

                                     Std.
               Variable             loading    Mean    SD

      Team identification                      5.35   .98

      Cognitive/Affective          .847        4.62   1.33

FI1   Attributes that define       .524
      fans of my favorite team
      apply to me also.

FI2   My favorite team's           .734
      successes are my
      successes.

FI3   I think of my favorite       .795        6.08   .94
      team as part of who I am.

      Personal Evaluative          .688

FI4   My favorite team has         .736
      a lot to be proud of.

FI5   I am proud to be a fan       .914
      of my favorite team.

FI6   My favorite team             .859
      is worth supporting.

      Academic Prestige                        3.04   1.42

RPl   The academic prestige of     .838
      my favorite team's rival
      is poor.

RP2   I feel people who            .856
      attended school at my
      favorite team's rival
      missed out on a good
      education.

RP3   I feel the academics of      .896
      my favorite team's rival
      are not very prestigious.

      Sportsmanship                            4.56   1.48

RP4   Fans of my favorite          .886
      team's rival demonstrate
      poor sportsmanship at
      games.

RP5   Fans of my favorite          .925
      team's rival are not
      well behaved at games.

RP6   Fans of my favorite          .855
      team's rival do not
      show respect for others.

      Sense of Satisfaction                    5.61   1.41

RP7   I feel a sense of            .867
      belonging when my
      favorite team beats
      their rival.

RP8   I feel a sense of            .913
      accomplishments when
      my favorite team beats
      their rival.

RP9   I feel I have bragging       .788
      rights when my favorite
      team beats their rival.

      Rival Support                            3.02   1.54

SU1   I would be willing to        .911
      support the rival team
      in indirect competition.

SU2   I feel comfortable           .942
      supporting my rival
      team in indirect
      competition.

SU3   Supporting my rival team     .803
      in indirect competition
      is important for me.

SU4   Supporting my rival team     .721
      in indirect competition
      is the right thing to do.

      Blasting                                 3.24   1.68

BL1   I am willing to insult       .866
      players and fans of the
      rival team in their
      absence.

BL2   I am willing to insult       .869
      players and fans of the
      rival team in their
      presence.

BL3   I am willing to affirm       .872
      the superiority of my
      favorite team by putting
      the rival team down.

BL4   I am willing to make fun     .843
      of the rival team's
      players and fans.

               Variable            [alpha]   AVE    MSV    ASV

      Team identification          .744      .595   .531   .205

      Cognitive/Affective

FI1   Attributes that define
      fans of my favorite team
      apply to me also.

FI2   My favorite team's
      successes are my
      successes.

FI3   I think of my favorite
      team as part of who I am.

      Personal Evaluative

FI4   My favorite team has
      a lot to be proud of.

FI5   I am proud to be a fan
      of my favorite team.

FI6   My favorite team
      is worth supporting.

      Academic Prestige            .898      .746   .191   .191

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

RP2   I feel people who
      attended school at my
      favorite team's rival
      missed out on a good
      education.

RP3   I feel the academics of
      my favorite team's rival
      are not very prestigious.

      Sportsmanship                .919      .791   .209   .158

RP4   Fans of my favorite
      team's rival demonstrate
      poor sportsmanship at
      games.

RP5   Fans of my favorite
      team's rival are not
      well behaved at games.

RP6   Fans of my favorite
      team's rival do not
      show respect for others.

      Sense of Satisfaction        .893      .735   .532   .198

RP7   I feel a sense of
      belonging when my
      favorite team beats
      their rival.

RP8   I feel a sense of
      accomplishments when
      my favorite team beats
      their rival.

RP9   I feel I have bragging
      rights when my favorite
      team beats their rival.

      Rival Support                .911      .720   .112   .080

SU1   I would be willing to
      support the rival team
      in indirect competition.

SU2   I feel comfortable
      supporting my rival
      team in indirect
      competition.

SU3   Supporting my rival team
      in indirect competition
      is important for me.

SU4   Supporting my rival team
      in indirect competition
      is the right thing to do.

      Blasting                     .921      .744   .251   .151

BL1   I am willing to insult
      players and fans of the
      rival team in their
      absence.

BL2   I am willing to insult
      players and fans of the
      rival team in their
      presence.

BL3   I am willing to affirm
      the superiority of my
      favorite team by putting
      the rival team down.

BL4   I am willing to make fun
      of the rival team's
      players and fans.

Note. CFA goodness of fit: [chi square] = 333.66,
df = 212, p < .001, CFI = .970, TLI = .964,
SRMR = .047, RMSEA = .047

Table 2
Decomposition of Effects

                                           Standardized
                                             Effects

Outcome           Predictor                   Direct

Blasting          Team identification          .826
[r.sup.2] = .44   Sense of Satisfaction   -.388 (p=.111)
                  Sportsmanship           .120 (p=.210)
                  Academic Prestige            .163
Rival Support     Team identification         -.487
[r.sup.2] = .28   Sense of Satisfaction   .167 (p=.388)
                  Sportsmanship               -.226
                  Academic Prestige            .242

                                            Standardized Effects

Outcome           Predictor                  Indirect      Total

Blasting          Team identification     -.232 (p=.386)   .594
[r.sup.2] = .44   Sense of Satisfaction                    -.388
                  Sportsmanship                            .120
                  Academic Prestige                        .163
Rival Support     Team identification     .072 (p=.681)    -.415
[r.sup.2] = .28   Sense of Satisfaction                    .167
                  Sportsmanship                            -.023
                  Academic Prestige                        .242

Note. p values are only included for effects that
were not significant at [alpha] = .05