glory out of reflected failure: the examination of how rivalry affects sport fans

Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

G Model

SMR-238; No. of Pages 11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sport Management Review

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /smr

Glory Out of Reflected Failure: The examination of how rivalryaffects sport fans

Cody T. Havard *

The University of Memphis, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 21 November 2011

Received in revised form 9 September 2013

Accepted 10 September 2013

Keywords:

Rivalry

Fan psychology

Fan behaviour

Consumer behaviour

A B S T R A C T

Most studies on participant or fan rivalry have employed quantitative methods to

investigate the phenomenon (Kilduff, Elfenbein, & Staw, 2010; Kimble & Cooper, 1992;

Smith & Schwartz, 2003). The current study adds to the existing literature by using

qualitative analysis to investigate the way fans make meaning of the rivalry.

Intercollegiate football and men’s basketball fans in the United States were interviewed

about their perceptions of their favourite and rival teams, and the enjoyment they

experienced when someone other than their favourite team defeated the identified rival.

Social identity theory guided the investigation (Tajfel, 1974), and four themes were

identified regarding fan reactions to rivalry: (1) socialisation, (2) in-group bias, (3) sense of

satisfaction and (4) out-group indirect competition. Further, Glory Out of Reflected Failure

(GORFing) extends research on disidentification (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001), in-group

bias (Tajfel, 1969; Turner, 1982), and schadenfreude (Heider, 1958) and asserts that fans

will rejoice when their rival team has been defeated in indirect competition. Findings from

the current study provide academics and administrators many avenues to further the

understanding of fan social psychology and sport rivalry. Theoretical and practical

implications of the current study along with areas for future research are presented.

� 2013 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by

Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

A sport fan can follow a favourite team for various reasons (Campbell, Aiken, & Kent, 2004; Cialdini et al., 1976; Snyderand Fromkin, 1980; Snyder, Lassegard, Ford, 1986; Wann, 1995; Wann and Branscombe, 1990, 1992) and research hasinvestigated what influences him/her to consume at different levels (Beaton, Funk, Ridinger, & Jordan, 2011; Funk & James,2001, 2006). In the United States (US), identifying with a favourite intercollegiate team can help decrease student’ sense ofalienation (Branscombe & Wann, 1991), improve mental health (Wann, 2006) and assist in the integration to the collegelifestyle and help retention measures (Wann & Robinson, 2002). Further, US institutions of higher education use sport toengage alumni and other important stakeholders (Toma, 2003) and fans spend large amounts of resources to displayaffiliation with their favourite collegiate teams (Gibson, Willming, & Holdnak, 2002).

One area that is receiving more attention in the sport literature is how a fan may react to an opponent or rival of his/herfavourite team. For example, rivals can add a level of excitement and suspense to consuming a favourite team (Kimble &Cooper, 1992), give the casual or avid fan a team to follow when their favourite team is not playing (Mahony & Moorman,1999) and provide an outlet for self-esteem enhancement and bragging rights (Smith & Schwartz, 2003). Kilduff et al. (2010)

* Correspondence to: The University of Memphis, 304 Elma Roane Fieldhouse, Memphis, TN 38152-3480, United States. Tel.: +1 901 678 5011;

fax: +1 901 678 3591.

E-mail address: [email protected]

Please cite this article in press as: Havard, C.T., Glory Out of Reflected Failure: The examination of how rivalry affectssport fans. Sport Management Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.09.002

1441-3523/$ – see front matter � 2013 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.09.002


mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14413523

http://dx.doi.org/www.elsevier.com/locate/smr


C.T. Havard / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx2

G Model


identified antecedents to the rivalry phenomenon, and social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974) along with in-group bias (Tajfel,1969; Turner, 1982) help explain why fans treat supporters of a rival team differently that those of a favourite team. Further,schadenfreude (Heider, 1958), or the pleasure one gets from the failure of another, provides a glimpse into the emotions fansexperience when a rival is defeated by someone other than the favourite team.

Mahony and Moorman (1999) found that fans of professional basketball were more likely to watch their favourite team’srival play another team if the rival was a threat to their favourite team or if they were likely to lose. Further, fans’ reactions tofavourite and rival teams on-field production can have physiological (Hillman, Cuthbert, Bradley, & Lang, 2004), neurological(Cikara, Botninick, & Fiske, 2011), identity (Kimble & Cooper, 1992; Smith & Schwartz, 2003) and sponsor consumptionimplications (Dalakas & Levin, 2005; Dalakas & Melancon, 2012; Davies, Veloutsou, & Costa, 2006). However, the majority ofexisting research has either focused primarily on direct competitive situations or investigated indirect competition usingquantitative methods. The current study adds to the literature on rivalry by offering a qualitative investigation of fanreactions to the phenomenon in both direct and indirect competition, using the context of US intercollegiate football andmen’s basketball. For the purposes of the current study, indirect competition refers to the situation where an identified rivalteam is playing a team other than the favourite team. Specifically, the following research question was formulated for thestudy:

Pleaspor

RQ: How do people make meaning of the success and failure of their rival team in US intercollegiate athletics in directand indirect competitive situations?

The current study assists academics and administrators in further understanding the ways rivalry can affect sport fans. Suchunderstanding is vitally important for sport administrators as fan loyalty is desired by all sport organizations, and rivalry canimpact the ways fans interact with those in the in-group and out-group. A theoretical review focusing on social identity theoryand in-group bias, along with relevant work on rivalry in sport is followed by a description of the methods used in the currentstudy. The findings of the current study will be discussed and conclusions and future research will be offered.

2. Review of literature

2.1. Rivalry and social identity

Kilduff et al. (2010) investigated rivalry among participants in US intercollegiate basketball and described thephenomenon as subjective and relational in nature, and identified several antecedents to the phenomenon, includingproximity, prior interaction and level of historical competitiveness. Additionally, the authors acknowledged thatparticipants could experience rivalry with multiple teams, asserted that rivalry does not have to be reciprocated to exist andsuggested that low-performing teams may consider a more successful team a rival as a way to gain status by association,even as the latter does not register the former in the same category. Social identity theory states that people will affiliate withgroups of similar others in an attempt to enhance their self-esteem and comparative identity (Tajfel, 1974; Turner, 1975).Ewing, Wagstaff, and Powell (2013) utilized social identity theory to describe brand and community rivalry among twocompeting Australian automotive companies, and described rivalry as a continuous phenomenon that can be heightened byspecific events, which prompts people to choose sides regardless of their vested interest in the competing groups. Further,Lalonde (1992) also relied on social identity theory to investigate participant evaluations of team and opponent performancefollowing head-to-head contests. In the study, following seven losses, participants on a last place hockey team tended toevaluate the opponent in a negative light. In particular, the hockey participants evaluated the opposing team as more skilledand aggressive several times, but always identified the opponent as dirtier than their team.

Social identity theory builds from balance theory (Heider, 1958), which explains the need for individuals to maintainbalance in relationships with others in either dyadic or triadic formations. For example, in order for balance to be maintainedin a dyadic relationship, both people must either like (positive relationship) or dislike (negative relationship) one another.This helps to explain how a fan relates to his/her favourite team, but can also describe how two rival groups interact, sincerivalry is described as a phenomenon existing on a dyadic level (Kilduff et al., 2010). This supports Tajfel’s (1974) assertionthat two groups must be present in order for rivalry to activate and Turner’s (1975) claim that competition will exist whengroups interact. In the case of a rivalry, teams represent a negative relationship, and because of the affiliation a fan has withhis/her favourite team (Heider, 1958), he/she will tend to share the negative relationship of dislike for the opponent or rivalof his/her favourite team (Dalakas & Levin, 2005).

Likewise, rivalry can impact the ways fans consume their favourite sports and teams. The inherent needs people have topositively compare to others (Festinger, 1954), and be favourably perceived by others (Heider, 1958) drive people to form in-groups with people similar to themselves (Tajfel, 1969). When fans of rival teams interact, they are categorized into separategroups (Turner, 1982), so that each can associate with others that support their common goal, thus forming separate in-groups (Tajfel, 1974). Through this action, an individual can positively compare himself/herself to others in society (Turner,1975). Once people associate with a group of similar others, they can begin to adopt the identity of the collective (Crocker &Luhtanen, 1990), fulfilling their desire to feel belonging to a group (Festinger, 1954). This helps explain how sport fans growto experience and display such strong ties with their favourite teams and supporters of said team. Further, through theassociation with a favourite team, fans are able to garner the vicarious experience and achievements of the team (Bandura,1977), which adds to their positive self-esteem as previously discussed.

se cite this article in press as: Havard, C.T., Glory Out of Reflected Failure: The examination of how rivalry affectst fans. Sport Management Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.09.002


C.T. Havard / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3

G Model


When rival groups meet, intergroup relations occurs (Sherif, 1966), and group members are afforded the opportunity tofeel distinct from the opposing group (Turner, 1975). For example, when faced with a rival, college students tended to bandtogether and described each other as more similar to one another in order to show solidarity (Smith & Schwartz, 2003).Further, when two rival groups interact, people tend to display favouritism toward members of the in-group (Brewer, 1979),and prejudice toward members of the out-group based on knowledge or assumptions that set the latter apart from theformer (Tajfel, 1969; Turner, 1982). This is known as in-group bias, and an early examination was conducted on a group ofschool-age boys attending a summer camp that competed on two opposing teams in identified tasks (Sherif, Harvey, White,Hood, & Sherif, 1961). The authors found that when the groups were placed in an adversarial relationship, the boys displayedin-group favouritism, so drastic in some cases that the study participants had to be separated to avoid violent confrontation.

2.2. Sport rivalry and fan behaviour

In addition to rivalry impacting participants, the phenomenon can also affect the way fans consume the sport product.For example, rivalry in sport has been found to negatively impact fan evaluation of team sponsors (Dalakas & Levin, 2005;Davies et al., 2006) and willingness to help others in emergency situations (Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher, 2005). On anindividual level, people will rejoice when someone they like is successful and someone they dislike fails (Zillman & Cantor,1976), and sport fans will cheer for the failure of rival teams when playing the favourite team (Zillman, Bryant, & Sapolsky,1989). Additionally, Mahony and Howard (1998) assert that sport fans can experience eustress from both the success of afavourite team and the failure of a rival team. A reason for this may be that fans can display disidentification from a rivalteam by derogating said team. Elsbach and Bhattacharya (2001) investigated disidentification on a group of opponents tothe National Rifle Association (NRA), and found that participants chose to disidentfy from the NRA because they did notagree with the organization’s stance on gun control. The authors also asserted that rivalry is one attribute ofdisidentification and disidentifiers often enjoy seeing the organization they are opposing fail, a behaviour also seen in sportfans. In order to properly illustrate the link between rivalry and fan behaviour, a brief description of team identification willbe provided.

As previously noted, people strive for a high self-esteem (Crocker & Park, 2004), and one way individuals can accomplishthis is through the affiliation or identification with a successful sport team (Cialdini et al., 1976), as this type of relationshipallows the individual to garner the vicarious experience and achievement of the team (Bandura, 1977). When a favouriteteam is not successful, some people may attempt to distance from the team so that they do not feel the perceived failure(Snyder & Fromkin, 1980; Snyder et al., 1986). Whereas the casual fan may use these tactics to enhance or protect their selfand public image (Madrigal, 1995; Vohs & Heatherton, 2001), fans with high levels of identification find it more difficult todistance from a team following perceived failure (Wann & Branscombe, 1990), or if they do initially distance following a loss,return to their level of identification once the negative feelings have dissipated (Bizman & Yinon, 2002). Highly identifiedsport fans are the most loyal portion of a fan base (Funk & James, 2001, 2006), and tend to elaborate the accomplishments oftheir favourite team more than lowly identified fans, even at the expense of accuracy (Wann, Morris-Shirkey, Peters, & Suggs,2002). They may also choose to handle a favourite team’s loss by blasting the victorious opponent (Cialdini & Richardson,1980) as a way to cope with the perceived failure.

Some fans may also choose to display strong support for a favourite team despite reflective failure (Campbell et al., 2004).For example, US college students tended to give more favourable descriptions of the institution’s football team as the seasonprogressed, regardless of the team’s on-field performance (Dietz-Uhler & Murrell, 1999). Because of the various links aperson has with an institution of higher education in the US (Toma, 2003), he/she may be more likely to support theinstitution’s teams during prolonged periods of failure. In the same vein, some fans of intercollegiate athletics may choose toblast an opponent rather than distance from a favourite team following a loss (Cialdini & Richardson, 1980).

The literature discussed to this point addresses fan reactions to rival success and failure in direct competition, however,the current study is interested in investigating how fans react when a rival is defeated in indirect competition as well (i.e.,when the favourite team is not involved in the contest). Cikara et al. (2011) investigated this question with Major LeagueBaseball fans, and found that they reacted positively not only when their rival was unsuccessful against the favourite teambut a third neutral team as well. Additionally, Mahony and Moorman (1999) found that fans of professional basketball werelikely to watch a rival play if the team were likely to lose. Schadenfreude refers to the pleasure one can get from the demise ofanother (Heider, 1958), and is caused by the relative inferiority of the in-group to a rival out-group (Leach & Spears, 2009;Leach, Spears, Branscombe, & Doosje, 2003). In two studies of Dutch soccer, Leach and colleagues found that fans displayedthis tendency toward both a team that had defeated the favourite team, and toward a third team that had not played thefavourite team. Additionally, Leach et al. (2003) found that people with higher levels of interest in soccer experiencedschadenfreude no matter the level or type of threat present to the in-group, and Cikara and Fiske (2012) assert thatstereotyping and perceived status can impact the malicious pleasure a person experiences. Therefore, because of theaffiliation or identification a fan has with his/her favourite team, it is reasonable that he/she will experience and displayschadenfreude when the rival team loses in indirect competition.

The literature on social identity theory and fan identification is vast, however the meaning of a sport rivalry to fans hasreceived little attention. In fact, Kilduff et al. (2010) called for future research to investigate what rivalry means to observersas well as participants. The lack of much empirical research addressing the meaning of rivalry in intercollegiate athletics tofans is problematic to managers and marketers trying to understand fan behaviour and social psychology, and better engage




G Model


fan bases. Therefore, the current qualitative study investigates the meanings and feelings fans experience surroundingrivalry in both direct and indirect competitive situations.

3. Method

Constructionism was used as the epistemology for the current study because it suggests rather than discovering meaning;a person constructs it depending on experiences and surroundings (Crotty, 1998). While there is existing literatureaddressing why a person associates or distances from a favourite team (Campbell et al., 2004; Cialdini et al., 1976; Madrigal,1995; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980; Snyder et al., 1986; Toma, 2003; Wann & Branscombe, 1990), and how rivalry can manifestitself (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001; Tajfel, 1969, 1982; Turner, 1982) there has been little qualitative study into how arival’s competitive outcome can impact opposing fans. For this reason, the constructivist theoretical perspective was used toinvestigate the effects of rivalry and illustrate how people reacted to the phenomenon.

This study took a similar methodological approach as Denis, Lamothe, and Langley (2001), as it was inductive (inspired byinterviews) and deductive (inspired by theory) in nature. This approach allows the researcher to gather unique individualperspectives about the phenomenon of rivalry from the interviews. Since intercollegiate athletics is held with such highregard in the US (Toma, 2003), interviews were conducted with fans of institutions with prestigious athletic programsregarding the rivalry phenomenon. The aim of the current study was to give participants a platform to describe their feelingsabout teams identified as rivals, and their reactions to defeats of those teams in both direct and indirect competitivesituations.

3.1. Participants and data analysis

Fifteen fans (10 men, 5 women) of US intercollegiate football and men’s basketball teams competing at the NationalCollegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I level were interviewed over a period of one calendar year. A snowballsample was used during recruitment to allow individuals to recommend others that may be interested in giving theiropinions of favourite and rival teams (Faugier & Sargeant, 1997). Twelve of the fifteen participants graduated from theinstitution where their favourite team played.

An exploratory method was used, and 30–40 min semi-structured interviews were conducted with each participant (Hill,Thompson, & Williams, 1997). Before each interview, the participants where given an explanation of the purpose of the studyas well as provided with a list of possible questions. Participation was strictly voluntary, and each participant signed aconsent form before taking part in the interview process. To protect the confidentiality of participant responses, eachinterviewee was given the option to pick a pseudonym or was provided with one to be used when transcribing and codinginterview content. Participants were asked to identify their favourite team, and the team they felt was the biggest rival ofthat team, a method used by Sierra, Taute, and Heiser (2010). It was important that fans identified the team they believed tobe the biggest rival, because several opponents can represent rivals for an individual team (Kilduff et al., 2010). Further, thecurrent study was interested in investigating the rival team individual fans identified as salient, therefore, a rival team wasnot provided a priori. Participants were then asked how they felt when their favourite team won and lost contests; rival teamwon and lost contests, their reactions to direct competition between their favourite and rival teams, and indirect competitioninvolving the rival. Specifically, participants were asked to provide their reactions to a rival being defeated by someone otherthan the favourite team, and how status of the victor or competition impacted their emotions.

The interviews were transcribed using a digital recording device or instant messaging format. The first option was tointerview participants face-to-face (7 participants), however, in situations where this interaction was not possible;participants were interviewed using the Skype instant messaging tool (8 participants). During the analysis process,transcripts were examined for open codes that could be used to identify common threads and categories. Axial codes thenprovided more in-depth views of the data and helped to describe the specific reactions individuals had concerning thephenomenon of rivalry through direct and indirect competition (Merriam, 1998).

Gruber, Szmigin, Reppel, and Voss (2008) successfully used the online environment to conduct qualitative research, andfound that the process allowed the researchers to reach participants that may have been difficult through other means.Additionally, the instant messaging format was used to allow the interviewee to participate at their convenience (Bjerke,2010), allow greater accessibility of fans living close to their favourite teams or to the researcher (Stieger & Gortiz, 2006) andallowed the researcher to instantly download and begin analysing the interview transcript (Bjerke, 2010), which assisted informing themes along with identifying any additional questions needing to be investigated during data collection. Further,instant messaging interviews were conducted without the face time function activated to allow the researcher andparticipant to member check the interview in real time (Merriam, 1998). In other words, by using the instant messagingformat, participants were able to spend time contemplating the response they wanted to provide before doing so. Further,they could revisit their responses at any time during the interview to ensure their responses properly reflected theirperceptions without feeling visual pressure from the researcher to continue the interview.

It is understandable that the combined use of the two interview methods could possibly impact the collection process invarious ways, causing different results, and for this reason, selections of transcripts using both methods were compared todetermine if discrepancies causing concern existed between participants. Bjerke (2010) conducted similar analysis usingonline and face-to-face interviews. For each comparison examined in the current study, sentiments did not differ beyond the




G Model


expected variability of participant reactions, even as the length of responses may have varied. For example, when askedabout their rival getting beaten in a post-season or national championship game, Mark (Skype instant messaging) and Eric(face-to-face) provided similar responses. Even though Eric provided a longer response, both him and Mark indicated theyenjoyed seeing the rival lose on the national stage. Further, follow-up questions were asked in both collection methods toprobe insightful responses. In the case of an instant messaging participant providing a brief response to the initial prompt,the individual was asked to provide more in-depth description of their perception. For these reasons, using both face-to-faceand instant messaging interview methods was deemed appropriate to reach participants living close to the favourite teamand/or the researcher.

4. Analysis and discussion

The following section presents and discusses themes from 15 interview participants gathered over a one-year period.Socialisation, in-group bias, sense of satisfaction, and out-group indirect competition were identified as themes.Socialisation represents the various ways participants were introduced to their favourite and rival teams, and further taughthow to react to rival teams. In-group bias reflects the ways individuals describe their rival teams, and sense of satisfactionaddresses participant reactions when their favourite team defeated the rival in direct competition. Finally, out-groupindirect competition details the reactions and emotions participants experienced when someone other than the favouriteteam defeated their rival team. Each will be discussed in more detail below.

4.1. Socialisation

People generally supported their favourite team because of family or friend connections with the favourite team. Philstated, ‘‘Parent’s both were [fans of favourite team], grew up in Bryan, went back to go to college, so they have always beenmy favourite team.’’ This is consistent with national and international research asserting that family, peers, and social groupsplay an important role in introducing people to sport, choosing a favourite team, and consuming sport (Coakley, 2009; deGroot & Robinson, 2008; Melnick & Wann, 2004; Melnick & Wann, 2011; Theodorakis & Wann, 2008; Wann, Lane, Duncan, &Goodson, 1998; Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001). Also, some participants identified with the favourite team because ofproximity (Funk, 2008) or attending college (Toma, 2003) at the respective institution. Ray stated, ‘‘My favourite team is the(University) and they’re my favourite team because I grew up in St. Louis and they were the only university that had major DIbasketball and football, my two main sports of interest.’’

Regarding identifying rivals of the favourite team, participants also indicated being taught which team to root against, ordisidentify from, by family members. When asked to identify his/her favourite team’s biggest rival and explain why, Philresponded, ‘‘I mean that’s the way I was brought up to hate the [rival mascot].’’ Fans were further taught who their favouriteteam’s rival was while they attended college, which supports assertions about collegiate identification and fandom (Gibsonet al., 2002; Toma, 2003), as well as school being an important socialisation factor in the US (Wann et al., 2001). For example,when discussing her biggest rival, Ruth responded, ‘‘You can’t go to [favourite institution] and not think of them [rivalinstitution] as your rival, it is pretty much taught to you.’’ Because of the relationship a fan shares with their favourite andrival team and supporters of those teams (Heider, 1958), and the dyadic nature of rivalry (Kilduff et al., 2010; Tajfel, 1974),displaying disidentification from a rival team and its fan base can help a fan display affiliation toward their favourite team(Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001).

Participants indicated that their negative feelings toward a rival team diminished the longer they were out of school orthe further they moved away from the favourite team. This makes sense because current students may maintain strongernegative perceptions than more mature fans that have already graduated from the institution where the favourite teamplays. While a person is attending an institution, they are embedded in the culture of the school, which can impact theiridentification with the favourite team, and relationships with rival teams and fans. This is consistent with research on highlyidentified soccer fan groups which found that younger fans described rival groups more negatively than older, moreestablished fans of the favourite team (Bernache-Assollant, Lacassagne, & Braddock, 2007). Further, family events such aschildren and added maturity affected feelings toward the rival team. This is consistent with the life cycle events (Funk, 2008)that may change a person’s affiliation or identification with a favourite team or activity. For example, Phil stated, ‘‘I mean,definitely when I was in school I [did not] have any intention of associating with anyone from [rival school], but I think thatwas just a silly, immature kind of thing. I’ve always respected people that go to [rival school]; obviously very intelligentpeople, I think I’ve probably gotten over most of that.’’

4.2. In-group bias

Participants generally viewed the rival team negatively, although with a level of respect. A level of respect was oneantecedent leading to rivalry among participants identified by Kilduff et al. (2010), and this finding indicates that fans sharethis sentiment with those engaged in the competitive rivalry. Further, most participants felt their favourite team wasdifferent and often better than the rival, which is consistent with assertions that members of an in-group need to feel distinctfrom those in an out-group (Turner, 1975). In particular, participants described the rival team and university as ‘‘shady’’ or‘‘cheaters.’’ Additionally, many participants felt that the rival team and university did not show sportsmanship, which




G Model


supports existing research on in-group bias in sport (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Grieve, 2005). In response to the mistrusttoward the rival team, Wesley stated, ‘‘They’re greasy, cheating, dirt thieves. They’re one of the dirtiest teams in the NCAA.’’Negative fan assertions about the rival team supports the descriptions given to rival teams in Lalonde, Moghaddam, andTaylor (1987).

The negative feelings and perceptions of the rival team also extended to the academic prestige of the university, althoughsome participants spoke favourably of the rival institution’s academics. When asked about the academic prestige of the rivalinstitution, participants generally admitted they knew little about the institution’s academics but asserted that theyprobably weren’t as good as at their favourite university, which is consistent with in-group bias (Tajfel, 1969; Turner, 1982)and the descriptions college students provided regarding rival institution attributes (Cialdini & Richardson, 1980). Sandrastated, ‘‘I’m sure they have a good school but I can say I would never go there for a Master’s degree even if they offered me afull scholarship.’’ Another participant believed people didn’t attend the rival university because of their academic prestige.Stan responded, ‘‘I [do not] think anyone goes to [rival institution] for academic purposes, not sure I have really heard ofanything about [rival institution]’s academics to tell you the truth.’’ Further, some participants stated that people who choseto attend the rival university made the ‘‘wrong decision.’’

The in-group bias was also extended to supporters of the rival team, similar to the negative impressions supporters ofAustralian automobile companies provided about out-group members (Ewing et al., 2013). Participants generally acceptedfans of rival universities if they attended the school. Craig stated, ‘‘[I am] not a big fan of anyone who cheers for [rival team],but if you get your education there then I cut a little bit of slack.’’ This was more believable to participants because of thepossible ties to the college the rival fan enjoyed from memories gained while attending the school (Toma, 2003). However,when asked to give their views of people who supported their rival but did not attend the university, participants were lessforgiving. Many indicated they would welcome such fans to their favourite team, however, felt people who supported therival university that did not attend the institution were mistaken or ‘‘bandwagon jumpers.’’ For example, Ralph responded,‘‘If their [rival fan] not from the state of Ohio or don’t have a relationship, like their father didn’t go there, I feel like they’refront runners because [rival]’s good right now.’’

The degree of derogative language used to describe fans of the rival team was alarming in some instances. For example,Eric stated, ‘‘. . .when you see someone walking down the street with a [rival school] shirt on or cap or sticker on your (sic)truck you just kind of forget about that and just kind of let that pent up anger come out and see them in a whole different lightthan just another human being trying to make it through life.’’ This level of negative association toward rival fans isconsistent with the type of derogation displayed toward out-group members in social or experimental contexts (Smith,2011; Zimbardo, 2008). Within sport, the level of derogation supports previous research into international soccer hooligans(Spaaij, 2008), fan willingness to help others in emergency situations (Levine et al., 2005), and willingness to commitanonymous acts of aggression against players and coaches of a rival team (Havard, Wann, & Ryan, in press; Wann, Haynes,McLean, & Pullen, 2003; Wann, Peterson, Cothran, & Dykes, 1999; Wann & Waddill, 2013). Further, the derogative languagein the current study supports the assertion made by Lee (1985) that rivalry in sport has the ability to cause fan devianceagainst members of the out-group if not properly monitored, and has led Dalakas and Melancon (2012) to call on sportorganisations to promote rivalries in a responsible way.

4.3. Sense of satisfaction

Sense of satisfaction refers to the pleasure or excitement fans experience when their favourite team beats the rival indirect competition. Participants indicated that defeating a rival meant more than beating a non-rival. This is illustrated byEli’s response, ‘‘[I am] extremely proud of our players, the team, and school whenever we defeat one of our rivals.’’ Thisfinding is consistent with the amount of importance placed on a contest and level of satisfaction competitors (Kilduff et al.,2010) and fans (Kimble & Cooper, 1992) received from defeating a rival. Many participants indicated that they felt theirfavourite team should win nearly all of their games, especially early-season ones. In fact, most participants stated that theywatched their favourite team in early-season games more to evaluate the team’s performance rather than just forentertainment. Further, if the favourite team did not perform well, participants tended to view the contest almost in thesame manner as if the team had lost. Reflecting this point, when asked what emotions he/she experienced when his/herfavourite team won, Phil responded, ‘‘Probably feel relieved would be the first thought that comes to mind.’’ Further, Adamresponded to a close victory with the sentiment, ‘‘I am happy and in a good mood if they play well and looked good. If they didnot play well, I can feel apprehensive that we will not live up to our national title expectations.’’ This is similar to fans of amoderately successful team displaying apprehension following a win because they expect the team will experience futurefailure (Bernache-Assollant & Chantel, 2011). In other words, if participants in the current study believe the favourite teamshould have performed better, they may replace feelings of celebration with anxiety about future contests of the favouriteteam. However, because of the aforementioned ties a fan of US intercollegiate athletics may share with an institution, thisdistancing tactic may be more difficult to activate, leaving fans to critically analyse the teams successes and failures, or toblast the rival to cope with the marginal performance by the favourite team (Cialdini & Richardson, 1980).

Participants also stated that they felt a sense of belonging when their favourite team beat its rival. This is consistent withthe assertions of Zillman et al. (1989) that fans cheer the successes of their favourite team and failures of the rival team indirect competitive situations, and that people will affiliate with groups that will allow them to positively compare to others(Turner, 1975). Some participants said they felt like celebrating with others when their favourite team beat the rival, and




G Model


being alone when the favourite team lost to the rival. The desire of participants to spend time with others following a win bytheir favourite team supports previous research that affiliating oneself with a team can fulfil social needs (Festinger, 1954;Kimble & Cooper, 1992) and diminish the feelings of depression (Branscombe & Wann, 1991).

4.4. Out-group indirect competition

Participants were then asked to identify how they felt when their rival teams were defeated in indirect competition.Indirect competition in this instance meant when a rival team was playing a team other than the favourite. When asked toexamine feelings experienced when their rival team was successful or unsuccessful in indirect competition, data indicatedthat participants generally expected their rivals to win games, supporting findings from McGinnis and Gentry (2009)regarding teams favoured to win a contest. However, the degree of impact the rival team’s outcome had on their favouriteteam affected the amount of satisfaction they experienced. In other words, if a rival needed to win to make the favourite teamlook better in conference or national rankings, most participants generally wanted the rival to be victorious. Additionally,some participants wanted their rival to win all games with the exception of when they played the favourite team to make thecontest appear more prestigious. However, some participants indicated that they did not want their favourite team’s rival towin even if it helped the favourite team. Further, a consensus among participants, contradictory in some instances, was thatonce their favourite team played the rival team, they no longer wanted the rival to win future games. One participant went sofar as to say he wished the rival team would lose every game the following year.

The conference theme appeared numerous times, meaning that participants liked to cheer for the teams within theirconference. Dave stated, ‘‘I want them to represent the [conference] well if they make it instead of us.’’ Supporting teams inthe same conference as the favourite team is consistent with self-categorization theory (Turner, 1975), asserting that aperson will categorise himself/herself into a group with similar others. Additionally, fans may feel loyalty to the conferencetheir favourite team competes in, thus forming a larger in-group of similar others. When competing within the conference, afan’s in-group will be supporters of their favourite team because they are most similar to himself/herself, and other teamswithin the conference represent different out-groups. However, when conference teams are competing against teams outside

of the conference, a fan may also support that team in hopes they will positively reflect on the conference, and therefore theirfavourite team. In this manner, the conference a team competes in represents a larger in-group. For example, a fan of theTennessee Volunteers can belong to the Volunteers in-group as well as the Southeastern Conference in-group. However,some participants found it difficult to cheer for the identified rival, especially during conference play. In fact, they wouldcheer for any conference team when they were not playing the favourite team except for the identified rival team. Thissentiment is often displayed on t-shirts that read My favourite team is (favourite team) and whoever plays (rival team).

When participants were asked about the quality of opponents rival teams played through indirect competition, theconsensus indicated they felt more pride and excitement when the rival lost to an ‘‘underdog.’’ McGinnis and Gentry (2009)describe an underdog as a group with fewer resources and a smaller chance to win a contest against a favoured team, but alsopossessing redeeming qualities such as persistence. Further, an underdog team is one that casual and avid fans may cheer for,whether they actually want to see the underdog win or the favoured team lose. Participants felt that if their rival could notbeat an underdog team, they held a mental edge over the rival for future contests. For example, Helen responded, ‘‘I wouldsay if the victor was an underdog there was more enjoyment in watching the game than if it was someone comparable to[rival].’’ This supports Cikara and Fiske’s (2012) assertion that perceived rival status can positively impact the maliciouspleasure a fan experiences when the rival fails. Contrary to the sentiment expressed by some participants who wanted therival to win all games leading up the contest against their favourite team to give the game more prestige, the majority ofparticipants expressed they often rooted against the rival when playing an underdog team.

Finally, participants were asked if they experienced more enjoyment or excitement if the rival team was defeated in apost-season or championship game rather than a regular season game. The data provided interesting findings, as someparticipants indicated that the prestige of the contest did impact their level of interest and satisfaction felt when a team otherthan the favourite defeated a rival. In support of this, most participants felt that when their rival team lost on the nationalstage it indicated that they were unable to show up for big games or could not perform on the national stage. When askedabout seeing his rival lose on a national stage, Dave responded, ‘‘. . .I kind of like it when they [rival] get creamed in the bowlgames.’’

Some participants however did indicate that they were not happy to see their rival lose on the national stage because itreflected poorly on the conference, supporting the conference phenomenon previously discussed. A small number ofparticipants indicated that they would cheer for the rival in post-season or championship games because it reflectedpositively on their favourite team. There were another group of participants that indicated they could not even stand towatch their favourite team’s rival in post-season or championship games because they could not stand the fact that the rivalteam was playing in the game. To these participants, the rival team playing in the championship game reflected that the teamwas one of the best in the nation, making it hard to watch the contest. When asked to give his impressions of his rival losing ina championship game, Ralph responded, ‘‘I like seeing them lose in national championship games, I think it’s a little better,but the fact (sic) that they’re in the national championship (sic) still bothers me a little bit. . .’’ The participants’ enjoymentderived from a rival’s failure at the hands of a team other than the favourite described throughout this section supportsprevious research into schadenfreude (Cikara & Fiske, 2012; Cikara et al., 2011; Heider, 1958; Leach & Spears, 2009; Leachet al., 2003).




G Model


5. Conclusion

The purpose of the current study was to investigate how fans of US intercollegiate football and men’s basketball makemeaning of the rivalry phenomenon in direct and indirect competitive situations. With virtually no qualitative research onthe phenomenon regarding fans, this study provided a glimpse into what a sport rivalry means to this group. Fifteeninterviews were conducted over the course of a calendar year, and findings carry implications for researchers andpractitioners. Participants reported being introduced to their favourite and rival teams by family members and friends, andfurther taught the strength of the rivalry while attending college. Participants expected their favourite teams to win most ifnot all games, tended to watch in order to compare the team against the rival, and experienced joy and excitement whentheir favourite team defeated the rival in direct competition. Regarding the rival in games against teams other than thefavourite, participants expected the rival to win most games but enjoyed seeing them lost to those labelled ‘‘underdogs’’. If arival team played in a post-season or championship game, some participants wanted the rival to be successful because itwould ultimately reflect positively on the favourite team, while others wanted to see the rival lose, and still someparticipants could not even watch the game because they did not want the rival to be competing in a post-season orchampionship game in the first place.

One focus of the current study was to investigate fan’ reactions when their favourite team’s rival was defeated inindirect competition. Social identity theory was utilised in the investigation, and participants displayed tendencies toroot against their favourite team’s rival in indirect competition, which is consistent with research on disidentification(Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001), schadenfreude (Heider, 1958), and supports actions commonly found in in-group bias(Tajfel, 1969; Turner, 1982). Therefore, Glory Out of Reflected Failure (GORFing) acts as an extension of these phenomena,and can be described as the enjoyment one gets from the defeat of their favourite team’s rival by a team other than thefavourite. On an individual level, GORFing is also consistent with disposition theory (Zillman & Cantor, 1976), whichasserts that people will rejoice when someone they like is successful and someone they dislike is unsuccessful. Thisdiscussion will address the implications of the findings, along with areas for future study into the sport fan rivalryphenomenon. Prior to discussing implications and future research, it is important to note limitations to the current study.The current study employed a modest sample size (n = 15), and used new interview methods (i.e., Skype instantmessaging), both of which could be considered limitations of the current study. Because of the modest sample sizeemployed, future research should be conducted on different participant groups (e.g., different sports, levels, largersample size).

5.1. Implications

The current study carries implications for academics investigating sport fan behaviour. First, the current study supportsresearchers utilising social identity theory to investigate rivalry in US intercollegiate football and men’s basketball. Thecurrent study was the first to use qualitative methods to chronicle fan experiences regarding a rival’s defeat in indirectcompetition in intercollegiate sport, and supported research on in-group bias (Tajfel, 1969; Turner, 1982), disidentification(Elsbach and Bhattacharya, 2001), and schadenfreude (Heider, 1958). Additionally, GORFing extends the blasting techniquethat suggests fans will derogate opponents or fans of the rival team (Cialdini & Richardson, 1980), however can be presentregardless of the level of personal or reflected success or failure an individual experiences. Further, a person engaged in in-group bias (Tajfel, 1969; Turner, 1982) typically does so in an attempt to protect the status of the in-group. However,GORFing can occur whether a fan has experienced a level of perceived failure or not and can allow individuals to illustratetheir affiliation with a favourite team or group (Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995).

Understanding the meanings fans give to rivalry is important for academics in the area of sport management because itcan help to explain why and how fans interact with those supporting a rival team. Previous research asserts that fans willdisplay in-group bias in their descriptions of rival fans and players (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Grieve, 2005), and someare willing to commit anonymous acts of aggression toward members of a rival team (Wann et al., 1999, 2003; Wann &Waddill, 2013). Kilduff et al. (2010) described the heightened tension participants experience when interaction with a rivaloccurs, and the competitive consequences of that interaction. Similarly, the current study indicates that fans experienceincreased anxiety when the favourite team faces a rival as well. However, since fans have little actual control over theoutcome of the game, it is important researchers continue to investigate the vicarious experiences of fans surrounding rivalteams. Additionally, as the current study indicates, it is important to further the understanding of fan reactions to rival teamsin indirect competition as well.

The current study also carries practical implications that can help current sport administrators better understand fanbehaviour. GORFing, consistent with schadenfreude (Heider, 1958), asserts that fans experience some level of enjoymentwhen a team other than the favourite defeats a rival. This knowledge will allow practitioners to better market their favouriteteam by utilizing the on-field successes and failures of a rival team in direct or indirect competition. Further, the currentinvestigation found that fans experienced heightened joy when their favourite team beat their rival, which lends supportthat organisations continue to offer merchandise advertising a recent victory over a rival. Considering the findings from thecurrent investigation, teams and organisations may want to consider marketing and offering merchandise regarding the rivalteam in indirect competition. For example, much like the participants in Mahony and Moorman (1999), fans may gather towatch their rival play a team other than the favourite in the hopes the rival will lose. In this vein, fans may also extend their




G Model


consumption of rival teams in indirect competition to further support their favourite team through the purchase of rivalrymerchandise, contest tickets, and participating in discussions regarding the rivalry.

Using the same logic, conferences and leagues could use the current information in marketing rival teams playing inregular or post-season play. For example, when the Texas Longhorns played in the 2006 Football National ChampionshipGame, many fans of the Texas A&M Aggies watched the game, not supporting but rather rooting against the Longhorns,which supports findings from the current study that fans will cheer for conference teams in indirect competition except forthe identified rival. From a conference or league perspective, it does not matter if people watching a post-season game notinvolving a respective favourite team are rooting for or against the rival. Instead, it matters that the conference or league isgaining exposure from those viewers and getting higher earnings from television ratings. Further investigation is needed todetermine if and to what extent GORFing affects fan identification with, and consumption of a favourite team, but the currentstudy provides justification for practitioners to market the on-field efforts of the rival as well as the favourite team.

Administrators should also practice caution when using a rivalry to engage stakeholders. In other words, marketers wantfans to be excited about rival contests as they can add excitement to consuming a favourite team, however, practitioners donot want fans to cross over the line of excitement into an area where they may become deviant. In-group bias providesinsight to the negative feelings fans have toward supporters of a rival team (Tajfel, 1982; Turner, 1982), and Lee (1985)asserts that these negative feelings when uninhibited, can lead to fan deviance and violence in severe situations. Examples offan violence or deviance in the US involve the attack on a man in San Francisco Giants apparel by Dodgers fans following agame (Winton, 2011), the fight between supporters of the Oakland Raiders and San Francisco 49ers (Killion, 2011), and thepoisoning of a beloved tree on the Auburn University campus by an Alabama fan following the Tigers’ 2010 footballchampionship (Schlabach, 2011). Further, studies on anonymous aggression among fans have found that highly identifiedfans were more likely to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression than fans with medium or low levels ofidentification (Wann et al., 1999, 2003; Wann and Waddill, 2013), and Dalakas and Melancon (2012) have called onorganisations to promote rivalries in a more responsible manner.

This is not to say that rivalry in sport is a negative thing, in fact for the reasons provided throughout this discussion, rivalryis a very positive phenomenon when handled appropriately. It is important that practitioners pay attention to the types ofpromotions used surrounding a rivalry, whether in direct or indirect competition, to ensure they are not fostering negativesentiments that may cause concern regarding in-group bias and fan dysfunction, even if only among a small minority of fans.Planning philanthropic events involving the cooperation of rival teams and fans is one way to responsibly market a rivalry.With the recent phenomenon of conference realignment in intercollegiate athletics, administrators and marketers have thechance to foster new rivalries in engaging and responsible ways (Havard et al., 2013; Havard & Eddy, 2013). For example,administrators at the University of Nebraska and University of Iowa used their newly minted football rivalry to spotlight thegoodwill of residents in their states (Shatel, 2011). Efforts such as these help illustrate the human side of sport, and fosterpositive relationships among fans of rival teams.

5.2. Future study

Many participants indicated a sense of loyalty to teams with their conference, representing that fans can belong tomultiple in-groups. Future study should investigate this phenomenon, including perceived rivalries between conferences,leagues or divisions. On this note, the impact of conference realignment on rivalry in US intercollegiate athletics providesadditional avenues for future investigation. It would also be of interest to qualitatively investigate fan reactions to a contestbetween two teams perceived as rivals. Further, investigating how fan feelings fluctuate when their favourite team is playinga number of rivals would be of interest. This information could assist practitioners in beginning to rank rival teams in order ofimportance to the favourite team. Because one team can identify another team as a rival without reciprocation necessary,investigating numerous rival teams to measure importance to fans is necessary. Additionally, some participants reportedthey felt the rival team fans were not well-behaved or displayed poor sportsmanship, and additional information on fanperceptions of favourite team supporters’ sportsmanship practices is needed.

Future study should investigate rivalry in other US intercollegiate and professional sports using qualitative andquantitative methods to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon and generalizability of the findings in the currentstudy. Further, investigating rivalry at the international level (e.g., football, cricket, rugby, etc.) could provide valuableinformation. Future study should also investigate fan perceptions and reactions to a star player or coach on the rival teambeing involved in legal action, or experiencing failure at future competition levels or organizations. Additionally,investigating the phenomenon in women’s sports could provide valuable information and identify potential differencesbased on participant gender.

As investigation into sport fan rivalry continues, it is the responsibility of researchers and practitioners to focus oncontrolling the negative feelings surrounding a rivalry, and more research is needed in this area. Additionally, future researchshould investigate the type and degree of negative feelings fans have toward rival teams. Further, qualitative investigationamong groups of opposing fans is warranted to address the level of derogation that can be displayed between rival team fanbases.

The purpose of the current study was to qualitatively investigate how fans felt toward their favourite team’s rival. Fifteenfans of US intercollegiate football and men’s basketball teams competing at the NCAA Division I level were interviewed andthemes compiled to analyse fan perceptions and behaviours. GORFing extends the disidentification, in-group bias, and




G Model


schadenfreude phenomena, and helps explain the tendency of fans to gain pleasure from the defeat of a rival by someoneother than the favourite team. Further, GORFing carries implications for both academics and practitioners to further theunderstanding of fan behaviour. The study of rivalry in sport fans is an area beginning to receive attention in the sportliterature, and further investigation into the phenomenon is needed to help practitioners appropriately reach sportconsumers and fans. The current study provides researchers and practitioners some explanation of the phenomenon, andsupports the need to conduct further investigation in the area.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 8(2), 80–114.Bernache-Assollant, I., & Chantel, Y. (2011). Fans’ reactions to their team victories: An exploratory look at the COFFING process in elite sport fandom. Sport Science

Review, 20, 161–173.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, 381–388.Beaton, A. A., Funk, D. C., Ridinger, L., & Jordan, J. (2011). Sport involvement: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Sport Management Review, 14, 126–140.Bizman, A., & Yinon, Y. (2002). Engaging in distancing tactics among sport fans: Effects on self-esteem and emotional responses. The Journal of Social Psychology,

142(3), 381–392.Bjerke, T. N. (2010). When my eyes bring pain to my soul, and vice versa: Facing preconceptions in email and face-to-face interviews. Qualitative Health Research,

20, 1717–1724.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.Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 36, 301–324.Campbell, R. M., Aiken, D., & Kent, A. (2004). Beyond BIRGing and CORFing: Continuing the exploration of fan behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13, 151–157.Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, 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.Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of impression management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,

406–415.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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610397667Cikara, 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550611409245Coakley, J. J. (2009). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Higher Education.Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 60–67.Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 392–414.Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.de Groot, M., & Robinson, T. (2008). Sport fan attachment and the psychological continuum model: A case study of an Australian Football League fan. Leisure, 32(1),

117–138.Dalakas, V., & Levin, A. M. (2005). The balance theory domino: How sponsorships may elicit negative consumer attitudes. Advances in Consumer Research, 32,

91–97.Dalakas, V., & Melancon, J. P. (2012). Fan identification, Schadenfreude toward hated rivals, and the mediating effects of Importance of Winning Index (IWIN).

Journal of Services Marketing, 26, 51–59 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041211199724Davies, 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, 12(1), 31–48.Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective relationship and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management

Journal, 44(4), 809–837.Dietz-Uhler, B., & Murrell, A. (1999). Examining fan reactions to game outcomes: A longitudinal study of social identity. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 15–27.Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you’re not: Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association.

Organization Science, 12(4), 393–413.Ewing, M. T., Wagstaff, P. E., & Powell, I. H. (2013). Brand rivalry and community conflict. Journal of Business Research, 66, 4–12 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.jbusres.2011.07.017Faugier, J., & Sargeant, M. (1997). Sampling hard to reach populations. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 79–97.Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.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 understanding an individual’s psychological connection to sport.

Sport Management Review, 4(2), 119–150.Funk, D. C., & James, J. (2006). Consumer loyalty: The meaning of attachment in the development of sport team allegiance. Journal of Sport Management, 20(2),

189–217.Gibson, H., Willming, C., & Holdnak, A. (2002). ‘‘We’re Gators. . .Not just Gator fans’’: Serious leisure and University of Florida Football. Journal of Leisure Research,

34(4), 397–425.Gruber, T., Szmigin, I., Reppel, A. E., & Voss, R. (2008). Designing and conducting online interviews to investigate interesting consumer phenomenon. Qualitative

Market Research: An International Journal, 11, 256–274.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., Wann, D. L., & Ryan, T. D. (2013). Investigating the impact of conference realignment on rivalry in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly.

(in press).Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counselling Psychologist, 25(4), 517–572.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.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.Killion, A. (2011, August). Increased security is logical step after more Bay Area fan violence. SportsIllustrated.com. Retrieved from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/

2011/writers/ann_killion/08/22/49ers.Raiders.fans/index.html.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(3), 336–342.Lalonde, R. N., Moghaddam, F. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1987). The process of group differentiation in a dynamic intergroup setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 127,

273–287.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1441-3523(13)00066-1/sbref0005


















http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610397667

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550611409245









http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041211199724








http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.017
























http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/ann_killion/08/22/49ers.Raiders.fans/index.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/ann_killion/08/22/49ers.Raiders.fans/index.html







G Model


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

Psychology, 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(3), 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.McGinnis, L. P., & Gentry, J. W. (2009). Underdog consumption: An exploration into meanings and motives. Journal of Business Research, 62, 191–199 http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.026Melnick, M. J., & Wann, D. L. (2004). Sport fandom influences, interests, and behaviors among Norwegian university students. International Sports Journal, 8(1),

1–13.Melnick, M. J., & Wann, D. L. (2011). An examination of sport fandom in Australia: Socialization, team identification, and fan behaviour. International Review for the

Sociology of Sport, 46, 456–470.Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.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, 127–137 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514. 68.1.127Schlabach, M. (2011). Toomer’s Corner poisoning a new low. ESPN.com. Downloaded from http://sports.epsn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_-

mark&id=6132246.Shatel, T. (2011 July). ‘Heros’ game about more than football. Omaha World Herald.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.Sierra, J. J., Taute, H. A., & Heiser, R. S. (2010). Personal opinions and beliefs as determinants of collegiate football consumption for revered and hated teams. Sport

Marketing Quarterly, 19, 143–153.Smith, D. L. (2011). Less than human. New York: St Marten’s.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(4), 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, 51(2), 382–388.Spaaij, R. (2008). Men like us, boys like them: Violence, masculinity, and collective identity in football hooliganism. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 32(4), 369–392.Stieger, S., & Gortiz, A. S. (2006). Using instant messaging for Internet-based interviews. CyberPscyhology & Behavior, 9(5), 552–559.Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25(4), 79–97.Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204Theodorakis, N. D., & Wann, D. L. (2008). An examination of sport fandom in Greece: Influences, interests, and behaviors. International Journal of Sport Management

and Marketing, 4, 356–374.Toma, J. D. (2003). Football U. Spectator sports in the life of the American University. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behvaiour. 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.Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2001). Self-esteem and threats to self: Implications of self-construals and interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 81(6), 1103–1118.Wann, D. L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the sport fan motivation scale. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19, 377–396 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

019372395019004004Wann, 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, 10, 272–296 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.272Wann, 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.Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1992). Emotional responses to the sports page. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 16(1), 49–64.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., Lane, T. M., Duncan, L. E., & Goodson, S. L. (1998). Family status, preference for sport aggressiveness, and sport fan motivation. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 86, 1419–1422.Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Pease, D. G. (2001). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators. New York, NY: Routledge Press.Wann, D. L., Morris-Shirkey, P. A., Peters, E. J., & Suggs, W. L. (2002). Highly identified sport fans and their conflict between expression of sport knowledge and

biased assessments of team performance. International Sports Journal, 6, 153–159.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. (2013). 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.. (in press).Winton, R. (2011 April). Giants fan critically beaten after Dodgers home opener. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/04/

giants-.Zillman, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976). A disposition theory of humor and mirth. In T. Chapman & H. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter; Theory, research, and application (pp.

93–115). London: Wiley.Zillman, D., Bryant, J., & Sapolsky, (1989). Enjoyment from sports spectatorship. In J. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints

(2nd ed., pp. 241–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn bad. New York: Random House.



















http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514. 68.1.127

http://sports.epsn.go.com/ncf/columns/story%3Fcolumnist=schlabach_mark%26id=6132246

http://sports.epsn.go.com/ncf/columns/story%3Fcolumnist=schlabach_mark%26id=6132246

















http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204









http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019372395019004004

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019372395019004004

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.272




















http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/04/giants-

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/04/giants-







glory out of reflected failure: the examination of how rivalry affects sport fans

Documents