Transcript
Fanship and F£ ndom:Comparisons Between Sport and Non Sport Fans Stephen Reysen and Nyla R. iranscombeUniversity of Kans is The present studies assess similarities and differences between sport fans and othertypes of fans in terms of identification with the faninterest fanship), identification withother fans fandom), entitativity, and collective happiness. In Study 1, a unidimensional 11-item scale to measure degree of identification with a an interest was constructed. In Study 2,convergent and divergent validity or the measure was examined. In Study 3, criterion valid ity was examined. In Study 4, fanship positively con elated with entitativity, identificationwith other ans, and collective happiness. Sportfans ere found to be similar to fans of otherinterests. Fans perceived themselves to be in a group even when they are not actively part ofan organized group. Fanship and andom were found to be positively correlated yet distinctconstructs.Address Correspondence to: Stephen Reysen, Department of Psychology, 1415 JayhawkBlvd., Lawrence, Kansas, 66045-7556. E-mail: sreysen(g jasnh.coni176 Fanship and Fandom /177 Psychological research on fans has been ahnost entirely focused on sport fans, with afew studies on celebrity worship being the exception (Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Houran, &Ashe, 2006). Yet, any individual who is an enthusiastic, ardent, and loyal admirer of an interestcan be reasonably considered a 'fan.' Accordingly, the term/an can be used to describeindividuals who are devoted to a myriad of interests, not only sport teams and celebrities. Theheavy emphasis on sport fans in the psychological literature led us to ask whether sport fansare similar to or different from fans of other interests?A recent trend in the sport fan literature has been to view fans as a group. However,researchers have at times blurred the meaning of team identification—using the term to signifytwo theoretically different concepts. A distinction can be made between a fan's personalconnection with a sport team, and a fan's connection with other fans as a group. We term theindividual's sense of connection to a sport team fanship, and the individual's connection toother fans of the team fandom. Stated differently, fanship is identification with the object its lf while fandom is identification with others who share a connection with the object. Ourterm fanship is comparable to that of team identification as defined by Wann (1997) as theextent that a fan feels psychologically connected to a team (p. 331). Fandom is similar to socialidentity, defined by Tajfel (1978) as That part of an individual's self-concept which derivesfrom his knowledge of his membership of a social group together with the value and emotionalsignificance attached to that membership (p. 63). Thus, we are making a distinction betweena personal identity and a social identity (Simon, 2004; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell 1987). Both social identity (Tajfel, 1978) and self-categorization (Turner et al., 1987) theoriessuggest that different psychological and social behavior results when people define them-selves as a member of a group (social identity) compared to when the self is defined as anindividual (personal identity), and both theories can be applied to fan cognition and behavior.A number of researchers have reported fan behavior consistent with those exhibited by othergroups. Sport fans have been shown to categorize themselves and others as ingroups andoutgroups (Voci, 2006). Sport fans strive for a positive social identity (Boen, Vanbeselaere, & Feys, 2002), and attempt to avoid a negative identity (Bizman & Yinon, 2002). When theingroup is threatened, sport fans derogate outgroups to protect their self-esteem (Branscombe& Wann, 1994; End, 2001 ), and show elevated ingroup favoritism (Dietz-Uhler Murrell, 1999;Levine et al., 2005; Markman Hirt, 2002; Wann & Dolan, 1994). This research suggests thatsport fans view themselves and other fans of the same sport team as sharing an importantgroup identity.As most fans do not meet in face-to-face groups, Sandvoss (2005) suggested that fansperceive themselves as members of groups, even when they are not clearly part of an orga- 8 / Journal of Sport Behavior Vol 33 No 2 nized fan club. A similar notion has been coined an imagined community (Wertsch, 2002) oran imagined collective (Kashima, Klein, & Clark, 20'07). Kashima et al. (2007) defined animagined collective as a collection of individuals who do not interact synchronously witheach other, and who presuppose the existence of the collection of individuals who share thecommon ground (p. 35). Although the notion of an imagined collective has not been studiedwith sport fans, supportive evidence has been reported jwith science fiction fans. In a study ofperceived sense of community, Obst, Zinkiewicz, and Smith (2002a; 2002b) found that sciencefiction fans rated their fan community higher on dimensions of belongingness, emotionalconnection, identification, shared values, influence, and overall sense of a community com-pared to when their neighborhood was the referent. The findings suggest that although fansmay not know each other personally, they still view fellow fans as a community or group.In the present paper we examine the similarities and differences between sport fans andfans of other interests, as well as the relationship betJveen fanship and fandom. Due to thespecific wording of past sport fan identity measures (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Heere, 2005;Wann, 2002; Wann & Branscombe, 1993), a new measure of fanship that is broad enough tomeasure identification with any interest was construcned (Study 1). In Studies 2 and 3 weprovide convergent, divergent, and criterion validity for the measure. In Study 4, we examinethe relationship between fanship and group-relevant measures (e.g., entitativity, group identi-fication) adapted to tap fandom. Entitativity is a const uct thought to tap the perception thata group is a distinct entity. Overall, we predict that fanship and fandom will be related butdistinguishable constructs, and that sport fans will shov/ similarities to fans of other interests. Study The goal of Study 1 was to reduce a large numberjf initial items assessing fanship in anyinterest (e.g., sport teams, television shows, musical grc ups) to a final scale. Participants wereasked to explain in writing their fan interest so that we could ( 1 ) later separate fans into interestcategories, and (2) locate infonnation about each of tie listed fan interests if any were un-known to the researchers. Participants Participants A^= 150,78.67% women) volunteered for partial course credit toward theirintroductory psychology requirement. Their mean age was 19.9 years {SD = 3.24). Fanship ánd Fandom /179 Procedure Participants signed up as a separate activity by appointment to complete the study ingroups of 5-20 people. Upon entering the research room, participants read and signed aninformed consent form and completed our measure. After completing the paper-and-pencilmeasure administered, participants were debriefed and thanked. MaterialsFanship Scale The initial 72 fanship item pool was constructed to tap individuals'degree of fanship, or the extent they identified with a fan interest. Items tapped connectedness(emotional and psychological) with the interest, time spent with the interest, the amount ofenergy and money invested in the interest, and ingroup versus outgroup perceptions. Giventhe large number of multidimentional collective identity measures (EUemers, Korekaas, &Ouwerkerk, 1999; Silver, 2001) we attempted to cover as many dimensions of fan identity aspossible. Items were rated on 9 point Likert-type scales, from strongly disagree to stronglyagree. The instructions asked participants to write what their favorite fan interest was at thestart, and then to focus on that interest when responding to each item. Additionally, partici-pants were asked to describe their fan interest in order to help the researchers categorize thetypes of fan interests. sults For each of the 72 items initially rated, those that differed by participant gender wereomitted from ñirther analyses 22 items). In addition, items with extreme skew were deleted ( 14 items). A number of principal component analyses were then conducted on the remaining 36 items. Beginning with a five-factor solution, a process of eliminating singleton and doubletonitems was conducted. The 11 items that loaded above |.50| on the first factor were retained. Thefinal 11-item Fanship Scale is unidimensional with a coefficient alpha of .87, and accounts for 43.49% of the variance in the items. See Table 1 for the items and factor loadings.The participant-generated fan interests were coded into four categories: Sports (n = 41 )Music (n = 44), Media (n = 37), and Hobbies (n = 28). Participants were asked to explain iiiwriting their favorite fan interest in order to distinguish between active or passive consump-tion of the fan interest, and identify interests unknown to the researchers. Participants whoindicated that they play a particular sport were coded as hobbyists rather than as passive sport fans. Because participants could only report on their favorite fan interest, we coulddistinguish whether their fan interest was primarily playing a sport or watching a sport. Sportfans typically indicated a specific sport team as their fan interest, although some chose watch- 180 Journal of Sport Behavior Vol. 33 No. 2 tí •5 a Í 1 s s I l I 1. « 2. 5 I 5 I S M i o â: S- .e I 5 n ET3 à i : 3 g g » I: I: I ë- 2S E I I o E 5 a -5 ? I 2 o •l o S.
