sports fandom: a study of basking in reflected glory

Cleveland State University Cleveland State University

EngagedScholarship@CSU EngagedScholarship@CSU

ETD Archive

2012

Sports Fandom: a Study of Basking in Reflected Glory, Spiral of Sports Fandom: a Study of Basking in Reflected Glory, Spiral of

Silence, and Language Use via Online Social Networks Silence, and Language Use via Online Social Networks

Shawna L L. Jackson Cleveland State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive

Part of the Communication Commons

How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know! How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Jackson, Shawna L L., "Sports Fandom: a Study of Basking in Reflected Glory, Spiral of Silence, and Language Use via Online Social Networks" (2012). ETD Archive. 639. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive/639

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in ETD Archive by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive?utm_source=engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu%2Fetdarchive%2F639&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/325?utm_source=engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu%2Fetdarchive%2F639&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://library.csuohio.edu/engaged/

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive/639?utm_source=engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu%2Fetdarchive%2F639&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

SPORTS FANDOM: A STUDY OF BASKING IN REFLECTED GLORY, SPIRAL OF

SILENCE, AND LANGUAGE USE VIA ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

SHAWNA L. JACKSON

Bachelor of Arts in Communication

Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH

May, 2010

submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree

MASTER OF APPLIED COMMUNICATION THEORY AND METHODOLOGY

at the

CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY

May, 2012

THESIS APPROVAL

SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

This thesis has been approved for the

School of Communication and the College of Graduate Studies by:

______________________________________________________________ Thesis Committee Chairman – print name

______________________________________________________________ Signature

School of Communication

_____________________________________________________________

(Date)

_____________________________________________________________

Committee Member – print name

______________________________________________________________ Signature


_____________________________________________________________ (Date)

______________________________________________________________ Committee Member – print name

______________________________________________________________ Signature


_____________________________________________________________

(Date)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“Be sure you put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.” – Abraham Lincoln

I never thought I would make it through these 2 years in Graduate School. It was the

ultimate test of my patience, strength, health, and knowledge in the field of Communication. I

surely would not have made it through without the people around me, and for that, I would like

to say thank you.

Thank you to my committee: co-advisors, Dr. George Ray and Dr. Kim Neuendorf.

Without their assistance, patience, and understanding I would not have come out of this with

such a polished piece of work that I am truly proud of. My third committee member, Dr. Anup

Kumar, took on this thesis as a member of a committee for the very first time and I truly valued

his insight and excitement about my topic.

Thank you to the professors who have listened along the way and offered kind words or

advice: James Denny, Dr. Elizabeth Babin, Dr. Leo Jeffres, and Dr. Francis Dalisay. To Dr.

Patricia Burant, you are the reason why I became a Communication major. If it weren’t for your

enthusiasm, stories, and strong bond with your students, I would never have found an area that I

love this much.

A special shout-out to Cleveland Browns wide receiver, Joshua Cribbs, for assisting in

the circulation of my survey by sharing it on Twitter. It was a great help to my research.

Thank you to my fellow graduate students: Rachel Campbell, Brittani Wolanin, and Matt

Egizii. Rachel was my office mate and was there through all of the laughs, complaints, cookies,

and towards the end, tears. Brittani was always there to listen to my troubles or take my mind off

of them with conversations about our love for penguins. Matt was my go-to guy for

encouragement, SPSS, hugs, and chocolate-covered sweets. The three of you always made sure

that I knew I was never alone in this, and I appreciate that. To the rest of our class, I will never

forget going through this journey with any of you.

Thank you to my parents, John and Denise, for always listening and showing pride in my

successes. A special thank you goes out to my grandparents, Joseph and Athalia, who, even in

death, have continued to inspire me as an adult. I must give a very special thank you to the littlest

love of my life: my “nephew,” Clayton, who, although unaware of his impact, is the most special

person in my life.

Finally, thank you to my fiancé, Sal, for always telling me to keep pushing on and finding

a way to bring back my strength when I felt I had none. His most famous words to me had to

have been, “You’re almost done.”

…I DID IT!

v

SPORTS FANDOM: A STUDY OF BASKING IN REFLECTED GLORY, SPIRAL OF

SILENCE, AND LANGUAGE USE VIA ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS

SHAWNA L. JACKSON

ABSTRACT

Emerging technologies and the ever-changing climate of the Internet has helped

social networking sites to foster relationships between sports fans and professional sports

teams. This study focused on identification a Cleveland Browns fan feels with the team

as a predicting factor of emotions, actions, self and group identity, and pronominal usage.

An online survey was given to Cleveland Browns fans to determine their level of fandom,

Cleveland Browns knowledge, overall media habits, feelings toward the city of

Cleveland, personality traits, and demographic information. A content analysis was

conducted to determine the pronominal usage, used to indicate a specific distance from

the team based on its successes or failures, and whether the fan was more likely to

distance themselves when speaking of the team’s future. The survey found that Cleveland

Browns fans were proud of the city of Cleveland based on its sports teams, will wear

apparel regardless of a win or loss, and bigger fans with more knowledge and time spent

on the Internet were more likely to speak out when in the minority opinion in response to

topics related to the team. The content analysis found that bigger Cleveland Browns fans

were more likely to use pronouns when speaking about the team, expressed positive

feelings towards the future of the team, and reported negative feelings toward Art

Modell, former owner of the team.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT……….………………….….………………………………..…...……….....v

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………...viii

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………....xi

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW………………………....…..1

1.1 Cleveland Browns History…………..……………....…………….3

1.2 History of Sports and Fandom……..………….………….……….4

1.3 Basking in reflected glory………..…….…...…….……...…..……9

1.4 Social Media and Sports Fans………..…………………...……...14

1.5 Spiral of silence theory……………………….....……..………...17

1.6 Language Use and Social and Group Identity……...………..…..20

1.7 Rationale……………………......……………………..…………24

1.8 Pilot Study………………………...……….….….………………24

1.9 Hypothesis/Research Questions……...…………………….….…25

II. METHODS…………………………………………………...……..……..…..27

2.1 Sports Fan Motivation Scale.........……….....……….…….……..28

2.2 Willingness to Self-Censor Scale………………….....…..……...29

2.3 Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count…….……….....….….……...29

III. RESULTS……………………………………………………………………..32

3.1 Survey Sample Description…………....……………….…...……32

3.2 Scale Construction………………..………..…..……….….…….33

vii

3.3 Results Summary for H1………..…..…..…..…..………..………35

3.4 Results Summary for H2………..………...…….......……………37

3.5 Results Summary for H3………..…………………....…..………37

3.6 Results Summary for RQ1……………….…..…………....…..…40

3.7 Results Summary for RQ2…………..………………………...…43

3.8 Results Summary for RQ3…….…………………………...…….43

IV. DISCUSSION…………………………………...………………………………….48

4.1 Limitations……….…………..………..……………….……..….51

4.2 Suggestions for Future Research…...………………….......…….52

REFERENCES.………………………………………………….………………………54

APPENDICES……………………………………..…………………………………….77

A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT……………………………...………………..78

B. PILOT STUDY…………………………………………………..……....95

C. DEMOGRAPHICS…..…………………………...……………………...99

D. CLEVELAND BROWNS FANDOM………….…......………………..100

E. SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE….…………….……..….…………………..104

F. SPORTS FAN MOTIVATION SCALE…..………...………………….108

G. WILLINGNESS TO SELF-CENSOR SCALE...….…………..……….111

H. OPINION ITEMS…………………………....…………………...…….114

viii

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

I. Pronominal Representation in LIWC…………...………...…………...…...30

II. Affective and Cognitive Process Representation in LIWC….…...…….…31

III. Relativity of Time Representation in LIWC……………...…………..……31

IV. Analysis for H1………...……………………..………...….………………36

V. Analysis for H2………..………….…………………..……………………37

VI. Analysis for H3…………………..……………..……………….…………39

VII. Analysis for RQ1……………......……...………………………………….41

VIII. Analysis for RQ2…………..………………...…..………..…………….…43

IX. Analysis for RQ3……………………….…..….........……………...……...45

X. Analysis for RQ3 cont’d………………………………………….………..47

XI. Victory/Loss and Positive/Negative Emotions……………….……………96

XII. Victory, Pronominal Usage and Positive/Negative Emotions…………..…98

XIII. Biological Sex………………………………………………………….…..99

XIV. Age…………………………………………………………………………99

XV. Cleveland-area Residents……………………………………………..……99

XVI. Cleveland Browns Fandom – Years………………………………..…….100

XVII. Cleveland Browns Fan Rate…………………………….……..……….…100

XVIII. Browns Backers Fan Club Members…………………………..…………100

XIX. Cleveland Browns Games Attended during the 2011-12

Preseason and Regular Season…………………………...….….101

XX. Season Ticket Holders……………………………………..……...……..101

ix

XXI. Cleveland Browns Knowledge……………………………………….….102

XXII. 2011-12 Preseason and Regular Season – Wins………………...………102

XXIII. 2011-12 Preseason and Regular Season – Losses…...………..…………103

XXIV. Cleveland Browns Official Facebook Page Likes……………….………104

XXV. Cleveland Browns Twitter Followers…………………………...……….104

XXVI. How often do you use Facebook? ………………………………………104

XXVII. How often do you visit the Cleveland Browns Official Page

on Facebook?...............................................................................105

XXVIII. How often do you start a new Wall post on the Cleveland

Browns Official Page on Facebook?............................................105

XXIX. How often do you comment on a post made by the administrator

on the Cleveland Browns Official Page on Facebook?...............105

XXX. How often do you comment on a post made by another user

on the Cleveland Browns Official Page on Facebook?...............106

XXXI. Principle Component Analysis…………………………………….…….108

XXXII. Willingness to Self-Censor Scale Item 1………………………..……….111

XXXIII. Willingness to Self-Censor Scale Item 2……………….………………..111

XXXIV. Willingness to Self-Censor Scale Item 3…………………...……………112

XXXV. Willingness to Self-Censor Scale Item 4……………………...…………112

XXXVI. Willingness to Self-Censor Scale Item 5………………………...………112

XXXVII. Willingness to Self-Censor Scale Item 6………………………...………113

XXXVIII. Willingness to Self-Censor Scale Item 7………………………...………113

XXXIX. Willingness to Self-Censor Scale Item 8…………………………...……113

x

XL. Opinion Item 1…………………………………………………...………114

XLI. Opinion Item 2…………………………………………………...………114

XLII. Opinion Item 3…………………………………………...………………115

XLIII. Opinion Item 4………………………………………...…………………115

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

E1. Cleveland Browns Facebook Page – April 2012……………....……….…..106

E2. Cleveland Browns Twitter Page – April 2012.….…………...…....……..…106

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Over the last four decades, the growth in research dedicated to understanding the

relationship between a sports fan and a professional sports team has been substantial.

Sports psychologists have given some insight regarding this relationship, but the intensity

of the identification one feels with a sports team and the likelihood to act out in various

ways based on the emotions related to it has still yet to be fully explained. Sports fans

show dedication to their respective teams; however, the strength of the relationship

between a fan and his or her favorite sports team can cause mixed results in the way a fan

chooses to act out following a team’s victory or loss. The motivation of a sports fan

increases with stronger emotions leading to a higher identification with the respective

team. These motivations can be used as an explanation for a fan’s ability to act in a way

in which he or she may not normally act.

As a fan of a sports team, an individual may feel an obligation to identify with the

team’s successes. Although the individual has nothing to do with the success of the team,

it is a mere connection to the team that the individual is striving for in order to feel

included (Cialdini et al., 1976). In relation to this connection, Cialdini et al. state that

people will capitalize on the successes of others, especially if areas in their own lives are

2

lacking (1976). People will look for any means of contentment within themselves, even

if it means living vicariously through others (Cialdini et al., 1976). Cognitively,

somewhat of a fantasy world is created to feel as though one has an integral part in

another person’s or in this case, team’s, life. Daniel Wann and Nyla R. Branscombe

expanded the research by stating that the tendencies to act out in response to a team’s

successes or losses is only applicable when the individual makes the assessment that the

team is an integral part of his or her self-identity (1990). However, the individuals who

identify highly with the team as a part of his or her self-identity are less likely to indicate

a clear distance after a team’s failure (Wann & Branscombe, 1990).

In this study, the research aims to explain why and how fans try to live vicariously

through the successes of their favorite sports team via online social networks. Online

social networks are a form of computer-mediated communication (CMC). Computer-

mediated communication has become popular in academic research, specifically the way

in which individuals interact on online social networking websites such as Facebook.

Online social networking sites have become a major source of news for Internet users

(Yun & Park, 2011). The online social networking sites offer an outlet where sports fans

are invited to engage in discussion, express their ideas and opinions, and learn from

others (Yun & Park, 2011).

The research in CMC is confounded by the spiral of silence theory, in which the

individual chooses to speak out based on the opinion climate and where his or her

opinion stands in comparison to others (Noelle-Neumann, 1974). Adding online social

networks as a factor in the likelihood of an individual choosing to speak out on a

particular subject sparks a new twist in the literature. The evolution of human

3

communication has evolved greatly due to new technologies that allow us to

communicate without being face-to-face, thus eliminating any non-verbal cues which

would exist otherwise (Bjerregaard, 2010). In particular, these new technologies have

evolved to, “allow people to generate their true feelings on emotionally charged topics

and increase necessary participation in the expression of opinions” (Ho & McLeod,

2008). This research focuses on fandom in the professional sports realm and in particular,

the interaction between sports fans of the NFL team, the Cleveland Browns, via online

social networks and the factors which influence fans to bask in reflected glory in an

opinion climate existing online.

1.1 Cleveland Browns History

For the purpose of this research, fans of the professional U.S. football team, the

Cleveland Browns, will be the main focus. According to the Cleveland Browns Official

History Database, the franchise was founded in 1944 (their first season, however, began

in 1946) in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S. The city of Cleveland already had a football team at the

time, the Cleveland Rams, who eventually relocated to Los Angeles. Much to the dismay

of Cleveland, the Cleveland Browns relocated to Baltimore in 1995, led by then-owner,

Art Modell. Browns fans were appalled at the decision to move the team and the

relocation cast a negative light over the organization.

A newly-constructed Cleveland Browns returned to the National Football League

four years later, but has had only two winning seasons since. The team has gone through

six head coaches since 1999 but has only made the NFL Playoffs once since the

reconstruction of the team (Cleveland Browns History, 2010).

4

Cleveland Browns fans are known to be some of the most dedicated in the NFL.

In 2008, ESPN ranked Cleveland Browns fans at the #3 most dedicated fans in the league

(NFL’s best fans?, 2008) and have been consistently in the Top 10 most dedicated fans

lists of many websites since then (NFL power rankings, 2011). In 2011, The Bleacher

Report made a list of the 10 Worst Sports Cities with Cleveland ranking at #1 and in a

study conducted by Avvo, Cleveland ranked at #8 for Most Unhappy NFL City (Study:

Eagles fans most depressed, 2011).

Cleveland is a city heavily involved in professional sports and inevitably, the

Cleveland Browns are the heart of the city of Cleveland; however, consistent let downs

have warranted fans to go as far as staging boycotts (Browns’ fan plans MNF boycott,

2009) and creating comedy-driven hate videos (Polk, 2011). While the Cleveland Browns

continue to go through various coaches, players, and losing seasons, fans still stick

around for the action and maintain their devotion. Generally, the relationship between

sports teams and fans can be traced back to centuries ago.

1.2 History of Sports and Fandom

The history of spectator sports dates back to the ancient Greeks and the Olympic

games (Miller, 2006), Egyptians and wrestling (Poliakoff, 1995), and Romans and

“games in honour of the gods” (Gardiner, 2002, p. 118) when the public would gather to

witness competition. However, the history of modern team sports goes back to the 19th

century when the only sporting competitions were “field and stream sports, blood sports,

and contests of strength and skill” (Reiss, 1989, p. 13). Field and stream sports consist of

hunting, fishing, and outdoor activities and blood sports involve violence towards

animals, such as cockfights. However, at this time, sports amongst teams were

5

nonexistent. When the population in cities began to grow during the urban revolution

(1820-1870), sports grew as well (Reiss, 1989). Team sports in the United States, such as

baseball, became popular during this period of time.

During this time, sporting fraternities were known as an “informal brotherhood of

pleasure seekers who sponsored, participated in, and attending traditional sporting

contests” (Reiss, 1989). The sporting fraternities were the beginning of sports fandom

today, as the population of the fraternities was made up of people from all economic and

political standpoints, professions, and nationalities. Women, children, and the elderly

were excluded from participating and attending sporting events due to the irresponsibility

of men during bloody, rage-filled sporting events (Gorn, 2004). Members of sporting

fraternities found a strong camaraderie and freedom in taking part in the fraternity (Reiss,

1989). Fraternities met in different places to attend events from illegal boxing matches to

cockfights. Membership in the sporting fraternities helped members to feel a sense of

identification with fellow members and the sporting teams or events, respectively.

Members also took part in easily accessible sports, such as billiards, for the pure

enjoyment of placing illegal bets on matches and being a part of this subculture of men

(Reiss, 1989).

Growth in participation in sports was accompanied by the development of ethnic

sports organizations by English immigrants. The English immigrants began playing the

sport of cricket in order to maintain their culture in a new country (Reiss, 1989). The

Scottish immigrants followed, developing over 100 clubs dedicated to sports, including

track and field games (Reiss, 1989). German immigrants developed gymnastics in the

U.S., which thrived in German communities (Reiss, 1989). In England, Dutch, Scotch-

6

Irish, and African immigrants continued on the tradition of sports games their ancestors

passed down (Gorn, 2004).

Sports also assisted individuals in maintaining good health. During this time,

many white-collar workers did not exercise as often as necessary to maintain healthy

living. Sports fostered their “physical and mental well-being” (Reiss, 1989, p. 27) and it

also promoted social interaction between men with similar lives and occupations (Reiss,

1989). Prior to today’s rules and regulations regarding drafts, trades, and contracts, sports

players were chosen based on occupation, political affiliation, and communities (Reiss,

1989). Today, participating in sports often does not cost a substantial amount of money,

helps to create new interests for individuals, and anyone can participate regardless of skill

level, age, or health (Jacobson, 2003).

The individuals who would pay to see the larger sporting events during this period

of time were often wealthy individuals in search of amusement. However, blood sports

would draw in more lower class crowds (Reiss, 1989). It was not until the 1820s that

spectator sports such as racetracks began to draw in crowds in the thousands. These

sports were responsible for inciting more interest from investors and the opportunity to

expand or build larger venues (Reiss, 1989).

The first professional sports club was the Knickerbockers (1845), a club for the

upper-middle class who developed “bat and ball” games, which we now know as baseball

(Reiss, 1989). The first professional baseball team was the Cincinnati Red Stockings

(1869), who, subsequently, became the first paid professional sports team a few years

later (Reiss, 1989). Several professional sports organizations followed, including the

National Basketball Association (originally named the American Basketball League,

7

1937), and the National Football League (originally named the American Professional

Football Association, 1920), just to name two (Pankey, n.d.).

While immigrants introduced new sports and sporting ideas to the country and

professional sports organizations have formed over the last century, two themes have

remained constant. Professional sports have helped to maintain a sense of community

(Jacobson, 2003) and the level of identification one feels with a sports team and its

players is incredible.

A few notable definitions of sports fandom exist. Hunt, Bristol, and Bashaw

(1999, p. 440) define a sports fan as “enthusiastic devotee of some particular sports

consumptive object.” Hirt, Zillman, Erickson, and Kennedy define it as “an affiliation in

which a great deal of emotional significance and value are derived from group

membership” (1992, p. 725). Spinrad defines a fan as “the person who thinks, talks about

and is oriented towards sports even when [the fan] is not actually observing, or reading,

or listening to an account of a specific sports event” (1981, p. 354). Sports fandom

includes an active involvement with the sports team through a psychological connection

(Dietz-Uhler & Lanter, n.d.; Wann, 1995) and greatly affects personal development

(Jacobson, 2003). Elliot J. Gorn notes, “…the entanglements of sports and life, and of

how confused the real accomplishments of players on the field become with American

culture’s giddy dreams” (2004, p. xii). Today, sports figures are more recognizable than

many higher status individuals in our country (Quinn, 2009).

Hunt et al. identify five different types of fans: Temporary, local, devoted,

fanatical, and dysfunctional (1999). Each type of fan possesses a different level of

attachment to a sports team. A temporary fan possesses less of an identification with a

8

component of a sports team (such as a player or broadcaster) or the sports team as a

whole. Usually, this type of fan is around for a notable event, such as a Super Bowl win

or player who broke a new record. The most important aspect of this type of fan is that

his or her fandom is on a time constraint (Hunt et al., 1999). A local fan has a connection

to a sports team based on geographical location, whether it be where the fan was

originally born or currently resides; however, the fan’s level of identification is easily

changed by a relocation as he or she finds it difficult for the connection to remain

constant while far away (Hunt et al., 1999). A devoted fan does not feel the pressures of

certain instances (temporary fan) or geographical location (local fan) and his or her

devotion remains constant. The devoted fan feels that his or her self-concept depends on

the identification with a sports team and will exert more effort in to maintaining this

relationship. Hunt et al. state that during this level of fandom is when the fan will begin

to buy apparel attend the team’s sporting events or watch them on television (1999). A

fanatical fan has all of the characteristics of a devoted fan but he or she acts out more

strongly and continues to do so based on an acceptance from his or her family and

friends. This fan may go above and beyond when attending sporting events, such as using

body paint or custom costumes. For the Cleveland Browns, this is notably the most

famous group of fans, the Dawg Pound (Hunt et al., 1999). A dysfunctional fan bases his

or her entire self-identification on the sports team; this is how he or she defines him or

herself. He or she feels that his or her only existence is based upon the sports team. The

dysfunction causes the fan to be “anti-social, disruptive, or deviant” (Hunt et al., 1999, p.

447) and casts a negative light on the team. The dysfunctional fan may disregard his or

her family, friends, and job, and become physically violent (Hunt et al., 1999).

9

Researchers such as Wann, Shrader, and Wilson (1999) aimed to identify the

reasons why individuals like sports, and if there is a deeper connection between sports

enjoyment and what motivates individuals to watch sports. The link between the

motivations behind an individual’s sports fandom and sports viewing has been researched

as an indicator of various outcomes, such as sports consumption (Summers, 2010) and

basking in reflected glory, which is the reaction a fan has to the successes of his or her

favorite sports team (Cialdini et al., 1976; Wann and Branscombe, 1990).

Although different levels of fandom exist, there are a few constants which remain

throughout the duration of an individual's time as a fan or member of a sports team: a

feeling of kinship, competition, and amusement (Reiss, 1989), the opportunity to

participate, to some extent, regardless of skill level, age, or health (Jacobson, 2003), and

the feeling of being a part of a group (Hirt, Zillman, Erickson, and Kennedy, 1992).

These factors contribute to the identification with the sports team and, although each

sports fan interprets them differently, influences the reaction a sports fan has to his or her

team’s successes or failures (Cialdini et al., 1976).

1.3 Basking in Reflected Glory

The concept of basking in reflected glory (BIRG) was established by Robert

Cialdini et al. (1976). The concept states that it is commonplace for an individual to show

off the successes of others in which they are connected or are “moderately important to

their self-identities” (Wann & Branscombe, 1980, p. 106), through various methods such

as publicly announcing the connection (Cialdini et al., 1976). Individuals who have a

higher association with another individual (or team) are likely to feel as though they have

an opportunity to live vicariously through these successes (Cialdini et al., 1976).

10

According to Wann and Branscombe, the higher the identification, however, the less

likely the fans will be to distance themselves from the sports team after a failure (1990).

Cialdini et al. found that the fans of college sports teams were more likely to sport

apparel after a victory and use “we” verbiage when describing a victory (e.g., “we won”)

(1976). In terms of sports teams, Bernache-Assollant, Lacassagne, and Braddock (2007)

have identified the concept as accentuating one’s connection with a team. Additionally,

Hunt et al. stated that BIRG begins with the classification of a temporary fan, but stops at

the devoted fan. A devoted fan will support his or her team consistently, whereas a

temporary or local fan would have reason(s) to BIRG (1999).

BIRG leads to the enhancement of the self-esteem and self-identification of an

individual (Cialdini et al., 1976). The purpose of BIRG is to maintain a positive

relationship with the individuals with whom one associates and thereby enhances one’s

self esteem (Cialdini et al., 1976). The main result is that an individual feels superior to

another person when BIRG because it makes him or her feel as though he or she had an

exclusive part in the success of the person, or team, in question. The individual will work

to find any detail with which he or she can identify a common ground. In the case of a

sporting event, a fan would work to create explanations to establish a common ground:

their attendance at the game, if they are from the same hometown as a player, the player’s

gender (e.g., if a woman excels in a predominantly male sport, other women will bask in

this), and may even include a religious or ethnic affiliation and sexual identity (Cialdini

et al. , 1976).

The research in the area of BIRG relating to sports fans and their level of

identification with a sports team began with Robert Cialdini et al. in 1976, but few

11

attempts have been made to replicate it. Wann and Branscombe (1990) conducted a

similar study following Cialdini, which examined a fan’s enjoyment of a successful team.

The results were a significant follow-up to BIRG, showing that individuals with a low

identification with a team were less likely to BIRG and more likely to cut off reflected

failure (‘CORF’) because the attachment to the team was not as strong as more highly-

identified individuals who did the opposite. When a fan ‘CORFs’, he or she disassociates

his or herself with an unsuccessful team, fearing it will associate him or her with the

failure. It is important to note that ‘CORF’ is not permanent and depends mostly on the

level of identification an individual feels with the team (Wann & Branscombe, 1990).

Sigelman studied political campaigns and the likelihood that supporters of

politicians would either take down or leave up their yard signs following a win or loss as

inspired by BIRG (1976). Sigelman found no significant difference in a win or loss,

contradicting Cialdini et al.’s concept of BIRG. However, other researchers such as

Grove, Hanrahan, and McInman (1991) found that people tend to positively attribute a

victory in a verbal sense, but seek any explanation to make up for a loss.

While the concept of BIRG was developed nearly four decades ago, few

researchers have followed up with this idea in relation to fans and professional sports

teams. Cialdini et al. began the literature with a study regarding college students and

identification with sports teams at their own respective colleges. A three-part study was

conducted to assess the likelihood of college students wearing their respective college

team’s apparel the week after a victory and use the term “we” while describing a victory

(Cialdini et al., 1976). Cialdini et al.’s hypotheses were supported in each of the three

parts of the study. College students were more likely to show off their team’s apparel

12

following a victory, describe the victory using the pronoun, “we,” versus “they,” and

were more likely to recall a victory in greater detail over a defeat (1976). A defeat,

however, yielded a ‘CORF’ response (1976).

In addition to a high identification with the team, Madrigal uses a model to

explain this concept that includes expectancy disconfirmation and the quality of the

component which, if combined, would lead to BIRG (1995). However, Madrigal felt that

BIRG led to more satisfaction amongst sports fans. Specifically, Madrigal takes Cialdini

et al.’s research a step further by associating attendance at the sporting event with BIRG

(1995). Thus, Madrigal states that BIRG led to satisfaction, creating a higher likelihood

that the fans would bask in reflected glory because they physically attended the game

(1995).

Furthermore, Grove et al. (1991) expanded on the research by conducting a study

amongst players, coaches, and spectators alike. The researchers aimed to seek multiple

answers for the situational factors that influence the reaction an individual has to the

victory of defeat of a sports team. The researchers added to Cialdini et al.’s previous

research by studying internal factors, which could influence the reaction a fan has to a

game. For instance, the research showed that fans found themselves more in control of

their reactions when the game resulted in a victory; however, when the game resulted in a

defeat, the reactions were less controlled (Grove et al., 1991).

Bernache-Assollant, Lacassagne, and Braddock (2007) added that a high

identification with the team helps to make the decision of what reaction to display.

Bernache-Assollant et al. aimed to replicate Cialdini et al. by comparing two groups of

highly identified soccer fans who rooted for the same team were compared (2007). The

13

authors wanted to show that both groups would bask in reflected glory, but would blast,

or put down, fans with a low identification with the team. The findings were consistent

with Cialdini et al., indicating once again that fans were more likely to use the pronoun,

“we” following a victory (Bernache-Assollant et al., 2007). Also, the fans were impartial

on blasting, or putting down, the outsiders. One of the soccer fan groups tended to blast

more often than the other but the reason was unknown (Bernache-Assollant et al., 2007).

When added to Cialdini et al.’s research, the studies by Wann and Branscombe

(1990) and Bernache-Assollant (2007) could evoke the explanation that a sports fan

would be less likely to wear apparel or use the pronoun, “we,” after a defeat because the

emotions would be disconnected. On the contrary, when the game resulted in a victory,

the emotions are controllable through wearing team apparel (Cialdini et al., 1976). When

combining both findings, the fan would feel satisfied through showing off the apparel and

it would be constituted as BIRG, but in a more controlled setting.

Winegard and Deaner offered an explanation for levels of emotion involved in

BIRG through factors such as gender, harm, purity, fairness or loyalty, which is in

relation to identification with the team (2010). Specifically, the authors felt that the

identification in the team positively correlated with loyalty and the results supported their

hypothesis (Winegard & Deaner, 2010). Also, men were more likely to feel authoritative

and pure over other fans which correlated with a high level of fandom and loyalty. The

authors stated that this result traces back to sports warfare (tackling, running, etc.) and the

natural ability of men to feel more connected to competition. The authors felt that the

reasons for the natural connection men have to the warfare in sports are evolutionary in

14

human history (Winegard & Deaner, 2010). The results in this study offer a more

intricate explanation to the previous literature, as it is the most updated research.

While BIRG has not been as widely researched as other aspects of sports fandom,

it has come full circle due in part to its most dedicated researchers. The relationship

between the identification a fan demonstrates with a sports team and the reactions based

on this have been the focus of research by Cialdini (1976), Wann and Branscombe

(1990), and Madrigal (1995). Further, the pronominal usage based on the distance

between the fan and sports team, factoring in success or failure, has been the focus of

research by Bernache-Assollant et al. (2007). Finally, Winegard and Deaner (2010) focus

on the levels of emotion associated with sports fandom based on factors at a more

intricate level, such as gender. There are many factors that attribute to BIRG; however,

the updated research has not focused solely on individuals engaging in interaction via

online social networks.

1.4 Social Media and Sports Fans

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has shown that “the passage of

information from one person to another is becoming obsolete” (Riva and Galimberti,

1998, p. 435) and is often the predictor of interpersonal relationships (Walther, 2011).

The most important aspect of CMC in relation to sports fandom research is that the

individuals interacting via computer-mediated communication share a common goal or

characteristic (Clark & Schaefer, 1989; Riva and Galimberti, 1998). However, nonverbal

interaction is removed from CMC and a “lack of nonverbal cues led [them] to become

self-focused” (Walther, 2010, p. 446), and users are more apt to become “resistant to

influence, disinhibited, belligerent, and affectively negative” (Walther, 2010, p. 446).

15

Social media, a form of computer-mediated communication, has been a growing

phenomenon since its discovery in the mid-1990s with networking websites such as

Classmates.com (1995), SixDegrees.com (1997), and TheGlobe.com (1998). The 21st

century brought about the more widely known and researched social networking websites

such as MySpace (2003), Facebook (2004), and Twitter (2006) (Edwards, 2011). The

evolution of websites such as these has amplified the research in the area of computer-

mediated communication because of the increase in the amount of ways users are able to

communicate on social networking sites.

The definition of social media has evolved just as much as the websites that make

up the world of Social Networking Sites (SNS). Blog entries and web articles are

dedicated to dissecting the definition of this term. Based on the 30 definitions of social

media formulated by popular websites and collected by blogger Heidi Cohen, the most

common theme amongst the definitions is communication between users: the purpose of

SNS is to encourage users to communicate freely. Users are able to communicate in real-

time through various online tools. The content being shared on SNS via online tools are

limitless, from photographs to videos, statements to essays, and experiences to opinions

(30 social media definitions, 2011).

SNS, as defined by Boyd and Ellison (2008), are “web-based services that allow

individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2)

articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, (3) view and traverse

their list of connections and those made by others within the system. (p. 2)’’ Facebook,

the most popular SNS in history with over 500 million users or 1 out of every 13 people

16

in the world utilizing it (One in 13 people on the planet…, 2011), has been the most

researched SNS in academia but still holds many gaps.

Facebook is also a popular outlet for sports fans and offers a new, simpler way for

them to communicate. Research by GMR Marketing has shown that 41% of people turn

to Facebook or Twitter for sports news versus other forms of mass media such as sports

radio (4%) or television (13%). Of this number, 86% of sports fans log on to retrieve

sports news while at their desk at work. While sitting inside of a sports stadium

witnessing a live game, 63% of spectators will turn to social media for sports updates

(How much do sports fans love social media?, 2011).

As of 2011, the most popular NFL team on Facebook is the Dallas Cowboys with

over 2,300,000 Likes on their official Facebook Fan Page. The Cleveland Browns were

the 23rd most popular team on Facebook with over 500,000 Likes on their official

Facebook Fan Page (The most popular NFL teams according to Facebook, 2011). As of

2011, the Cleveland Browns were the 16th Most Popular NFL Team on Twitter (Cowboys

lead all NFL teams…, 2011).

The research bridging the gap between sports fans and online SNS has continued

to evolve, considering the ever-changing technologies and new interactive features

becoming available on online SNS. The Internet allows individuals to communicate in an

incredible way through various means, and dissecting the behaviors exhibited on the SNS

is an integral part of understanding why users of these websites act out accordingly in

situations, such as ones involving their favorite sports team (Faloutsous, Karagiannis, and

Moon, 2010).

17

1.5 Spiral of Silence

Spiral of silence theory was developed by Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1974).

Noelle-Neumann developed the spiral of silence theory in relation to public opinion and

its dependency on an individual’s observation of a mass media environment before

expressing his or her opinions (Pan & McLeod, 1991). The basic principles of the spiral

of silence theory include an individual’s perception of the opinions of the majority based

on the media and personal experience, and the willingness of individuals to express their

opinions openly when it is included in the majority (Jeffres, Neuendorf, & Atkin, 1999;

Jeffres, Neuendorf, Bracken, & Atkin, 2009). If he or she is in the majority, the

individual feels higher self-esteem and finds it easier to speak out while shutting out the

opposing opinion (Noelle-Neumann, 1974). If the individual is in the minority, he or she

feels less certain, which introduces the possibility of a dangerous situation (Noelle-

Neumann, 1974), induces a fear of isolation from the majority (Jeffres, Neuendorf, &

Atkin, 1999) and feels less power (Noelle-Neumann, 1974).

Wheeless (1975) offers a possible explanation to the fear of putting one’s self in a

dangerous situation with the concept of receiver apprehension. The possibility of

disagreeing with the majority opinion causes anxiety for the sender, thus creating a fear

that the individual may not be correctly processing the information he or she is reading,

misinterpreting current information, or may not be at the same psychological level as the

sender(s).

Jeffres, Neuendorf, and Atkin state that the “heart of the spiral of silence” is

conformity and the pressure to be in the majority before speaking out (1999, p. 116).

However, isolation is not the only factor in the decision made by the minority to refrain

18

from speaking out; the opinion climate has been shown to be the largest motivating factor

(Noelle-Newmann, 1974).

Noelle-Neumann identified a relationship between individuals with a strong

opinion and their willingness to speak out regardless of whether they are in the minority.

The key to the spiral of silence theory is the focus on individuals who do not exhibit

strong-willed opinions and their willingness to speak out (1974), which depends largely

on the strength of one’s opinion and the opinion climate. An individual with strong, or

hardcore, opinions will not be dependent on the climate, as he or she will express this

opinion regardless. For the individual feeling less certain about his or her opinion, the

climate and attitude certainty are deciding factors (Matthes, Rios Morrison, & Schemer,

2010). The individual will seek out information on what is considered the majority

opinion to determine if his or her opinion aligns with the majority (Jeffres, Neuendorf &

Atkin, 1999). However, other factors can easily influence a person’s willingness to speak

out: level of knowledge on the topic, interest in the topic, importance of the topic to the

individual, and confidence (Hayes, 2007). It is also important to note that cultural factors,

such as race or ethnicity, play a large role in the willingness to speak out (Jeffres,

Neuendorf & Atkin, 1999).

The spiral of silence theory is becoming increasingly popular in relation to online

discussions and research regarding the individuals engaging in discussion through online

social networks is on the rise. One of the first studies of computer-mediated discussions

was by McDevitt, Kiousis, and Wahl-Jorgensen, conducted in 2003. McDevitt et al.

hypothesized that individuals in the minority would be less likely to express their

opinions in both face-to-face communication and computer-mediated discussion and

19

individuals, regardless of opinion, are perceived as more moderate in a computer-

mediated setting over face-to-face communication (2003). The results showed limited

support for the spiral of silence theory, as individuals in the minority were more moderate

than the majority, but the findings were not significant (McDevitt, Kiousis & Wahl-

Jorgensen, 2003).

Additionally, computer-mediated communication was found to take a longer

amount of time, produce longer and more thought-out ideas, and allow for an equal

amount of participation between the individuals in discussion (Bordia, 1997). In a more

recent study, Yun and Park found that selective posting played a rule in online

discussions through computer-mediated communication, which showed that individuals

strengthened their original opinion and did not take the opposing opinion into account

(2011).

Research in computer-mediated communication has been most frequently

conducted on political discussion most frequently. However, in the 2011 Catalyst Fan

Engagement Study, 2,000 sports fans were surveyed regarding their online engagement

with their favorite sports team. The results showed that 80% of sports fans were

connected to their favorite sports team through Facebook. Additionally, 55% of fans

found themselves motivated to purchase brands supported by the athletes they follow on

Facebook (Catalyst Public Relations, 2011). Facebook is a prime example of the power

computer-mediated communication has over sports fans.

Although the Internet and SNS serve as a method of communication between

sports fans and a connection with their favorite sports team, it has also been used as

surveillance for the police to detect violence prior to sporting events in the United

20

Kingdom, specifically for dysfunctional fans, or ‘hooligans,’ as they are referred in the

U.K. Most importantly, SNS have offered a new way for fans to connect, communicate,

organize meet ups, and stay up-to-date on sports news and scores to satisfy a personal

interest or for fantasy football leagues (Hunt et al., 1999; McLean & Wainwright, n.d.).

Overall, it has aided in the process of sports fans’ overall interaction with their favorite

sports team(s).

1.6 Language Use and Social or Group Identity

At the forefront of BIRG is the language used when discussing topics related to an

individual’s sports team. Language, in this instance, will be defined as a “mapping

between form and meaning” (Asudeh, 2011, p. 2). Cialdini et al. focuses on pronominal

usage and the ways sports fans express emotion through language use (1976).

As defined by the Merriam-Webster, a pronoun is “any of a small set of words in

a language that are used as substitutes for nouns or noun phrases and whose referents are

named or understood in the context” (Merriam-Webster dictionary, 2012). For the

purpose of this research, personal pronouns will be the main focus of language usage. A

personal pronoun “expresses a distinction of person” (Merriam-Webster dictionary,

2012). Based on the usage of personal pronouns, the degree of involvement an individual

has with the subject and level of attempted rapport he or she is attempting to make with

the subject can be estimated (Fortanet, 2004).

Previous research by Brown and Levinson focused on pronominal usage and its

connection to politeness. Including the pronoun “we” indicated politeness between the

individual speaking and the person(s) to which he or she was speaking of or to,

respectively (2004). Pronominal usage is intended to indicate a degree of distance

21

between the speaker and subject (Brown & Levinson, 2004), in which the distance

showcases a level of closeness (Kamio, 2001) and group membership (Scheibman, 2004).

Kamio states the highest level of closeness is the use of the pronoun, “we,” whereas third

person pronouns such as “they,” refer to a “psychologically very distant” level of

closeness (2001). It is important to note that the relationship between the speaker, subject,

and pronominal usage is not always fixed and can sometimes only be determined by the

context used and remainder of information given (Kamio, 2001).

In a study of teaching assistants in higher education, academic lectures were

analyzed for pronominal usage. The lectures that used the pronoun, “we,” more often

were considered to be more successful (Rounds, 1987), as they referred to the class and

teaching assistant collectively. However, this expression of inclusive versus exclusive

language has social and interpersonal consequences (Duszak, 2002). Research on

inclusive and exclusive language usage is believed to have originated in the mid-1800s

and varied by cultural language, but the ideas surrounding inclusion and exclusion date

back to the 1600s (Haas, 1969). There has been some controversy with the use of

pronouns, one in particular dealing with the reference of a group of people as “we.”

Research has shown that the first person plural pronoun, “we” often denotes an

authoritative claim by the individual and thus, he or she is speaking on behalf of a group

of people (Pennycook, 1994). However, the usage of first person plural pronouns such as

“we” or “us” denoting a relationship between groups of people promotes group

cohesiveness, belonging, and shows an overall positive evaluation of the ingroup being

referred to (Ruscher, 2001). The characteristics of a cohesive group include “intragroup

conformity, intergroup differentiation, stereotypic perception, ethnocentrism, and positive

22

intermember attitude” (Hogg & Hains, 2001, p. 110). In other words, there is a specific

perceived prototype (Hogg & Hains, 2001) for groups such as fans of a particular sports

team which explains why, from an outsider’s perspective, they are referred to

collectively.

Cohn, Mehl, and Pennebaker (2004) found that in relation to events and tragedies

that range from a small to large scale, such as September 11th, these events lead to more

first person plural pronominal usage in order to feel group cohesiveness. On the contrary,

third person pronouns such as “they” or “them” show a distance between the ingroup and

outgroup, in which the outgroup receives a negative evaluation (Ruscher, 2001). Thus,

individuals belonging to the same group tend to mimic each other through language

(Gonzales, Hancock & Pennebaker, 2010) in order to achieve consistent group

cohesiveness and belonging.

The feeling of being a part of a group’s identity raises an individual’s self-esteem

(Cialdini, 1976) and causes the individual to make an “effort to increase or decrease

association with a group” (Ruscher, 2001, p. 36). Inclusion in a group plays a role in

constructing an individual’s self-identity (Hogg & Hains, 2001). Research has also shown

that members of outgroups are more likely to elicit negative behaviors than ingroups

(Howard & Rothbart, 1980), as the outgroup’s self-esteem is lowered and, therefore, must

make up for the negative evaluation in other ways. Although a negative evaluation is

made of an outgroup, others tend to justify the factors which formed the outgroup in

order to be less judgmental (Ruscher, 2001), such as an explanation of why a sports team

lost a game. However, the blame is still placed on the team because the game resulted in

a loss regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. According to Haridakis (2010),

23

members of ingroups form strategies in order to keep a consistent social identity. For

example, members of the ingroup display similar behaviors, feel biased towards others,

and treat outgroup members negatively.

Sports fans, like many other groups, have needs in order to maintain their social

identities (Haridakis, 2010) which are filled by sports teams and the feeling of holding a

unique group membership. The group membership can also be traced back to a specific

community such as a “university, city, or other geographic locale represented by a team”

or a national identity, such as the Olympic Games (Haridakis, 2010, p. 250).

Being a part of a sports team is an aspect of one’s life that has the ability to shape

the way he or she lives his or her life. From an early age, individuals begin to form their

own self-identities, most often fueled by others. For reasons that some research has

already answered, sports fans act out toward instances related to their favorite teams in a

way much different from those of an ordinary person would to an event in their everyday

life. It is a powerful phenomenon and further explains why sports fan behavior is so

widely studied and will continue to be as competition becomes more intense between

sports teams and players. Usage of personal pronouns, particularly “us” and “we,”

indicates the highest level of closeness and this closeness is often felt the most when the

individual is a part of an ingroup (Brown & Levinson, 2004; Kamio, 2011; Rounds,

1987; Scheibman, 2004). Thus, members SNS can identify as a member of an ingroup

and pronominal usage via SNS can help to form the social identity of a sports fan (Hunt

et al., 1999; McLean & Wainwright, n.d.).

24

1.7 Rationale

This study aims to build on previous research by Cialdini et al. (1976) in relation

to a professional sports team and its fan base. In a city where sports are highly valued

such as in Cleveland, it is interesting to note the continuous disappointment of the team in

terms of the inability to reach the playoffs, let alone the Super Bowl. The disappointment

fans feel could have the ability to affect their emotions associated with a victory or

defeat. In continuous seasons without a winning record, the results aim to show that the

identification with the team will still remain high.

Cialdini et al. (1976) aimed to study face-to-face communication between college

sports fans and their motivations to bask in reflected glory. The purpose of the study is to

examine whether Cialdini et al.’s concept of BIRG would apply to computer-mediated

communication involving professional sports fans and Noelle-Neumann’s spiral of

silence theory via online social networks.

1.8 Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted as a part of COM 633, Content Analysis Research

Methods (Dr. K. Neuendorf, instructor) at Cleveland State University during fall term,

2011. This pilot study informed the subsequent research conducted for this thesis. The

purpose of the pilot study was to determine whether fans of the Official Cleveland

Browns Facebook Page were more likely to speak out in a positive or negative way

following a victory or defeat. One status update made by the Administrator immediately

following a victory and one immediately following a defeat were analyzed. Further,

whether the fans made references to the future of the team was analyzed. All analysis was

conducted in Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count.

25

The results showed that positive emotions were correlated with a victory. Anger

was also correlated with a victory. Self words were negatively correlated with a victory

and sadness. Finally, fans were more likely to refer to the Cleveland Browns using third

person pronouns, categorized as Other, such as “them” and “they” and were more likely

to use words referencing the future when doing so. Refer to Appendix B for additional

details on the Pilot Study.

1.9 Hypotheses/Research Questions

So far, the literature has shown that the concept of BIRG includes the usage of pronouns

indicating an implied distance from the sports team and the likelihood that the fan will

wear apparel after the team’s victory. The following hypotheses and research question

were guided by Cialdini et al.’s concept of BIRG:

H1: Fans who score lower on the Sports Fan Motivation Scale are more likely to

indicate less pride in the city of Cleveland than fans that score higher on the

Sports Fan Motivation Scale.

H2: The higher a fan rates his or her level of fandom, the more likely he or she is

to use first personal singular and plural pronouns when describing the Cleveland

Browns.

RQ1: Is there a significant correlation between referencing the future and the type

of emotional language used when speaking about the Cleveland Browns?

RQ2: Is there a significant correlation between how high a fan rates his or herself

and the negative emotions toward Art Modell?

The spiral of silence theory predicts the likelihood that a fan will speak out when in the

majority or minority opinion, depending on the opinion climate. The following

26

hypotheses and research question were guided by Noelle-Neumann’s spiral of silence

theory:

H3: Fans who are more likely to speak out when they are in the minority opinion

are more likely to wear Cleveland Browns apparel after a loss than fans who are

more likely to speak out when they are in the majority opinion.

RQ3: What factors predict willingness to speak out when in the minority opinion

with regard to the Cleveland Browns?

27

CHAPTER II

METHODS

The participants (n=499) were collected via Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and

various Cleveland Browns and professional football blogs. Purposive sampling was used.

The sample was limited such only those Cleveland Browns fans that rated their personal

fandom as a six or above on a scale of 0 to 10 (hereby known as Fan Rate) were included

in the final data set. Of the 499 completed surveys, 69.94% (n=349) of the participants fit

in to this set.

A cross-sectional survey was administered to participants on Survey Monkey, a

web-based survey company. The survey was made up of several open-ended questions

regarding the 2011-2012 Cleveland Browns football season. As shown in Appendix A,

the survey included two scales: the Sports Fan Motivation Scale (Appendix F) and the

Willingness to Self-Censor Scale (Appendix G). As shown in the survey, located in

Appendix A, various Cleveland Browns fandom-related questions were asked, ranging

from how long the participant has been a fan to who they watch Cleveland Browns games

with and where. The participant was asked about his or her media habits, including how

many hours he or she spends watching television, on the Internet, and reading the

newspaper. Personality traits, such as how willing the participant is to speak out when he

28

or she has an opinion, were asked next. The uses and gratifications of being a Cleveland

Browns fan, which detailed the reasons why the participant is a fan, followed personality

traits. Next, a social media use section asked if the participant connected with the

Cleveland Browns via social networking websites. Then, the participants’ feelings and

pride toward various elements pertaining to the city of Cleveland were measured. Finally,

demographic information was collected. At the conclusion of the survey, participants

were given the opportunity to opt-in to a drawing for a $25 Cleveland Browns Team

Shop Gift Card.

2.1 Sports Fan Motivation Scale

The Sports Fan Motivation scale was developed in 1995 by Daniel L. Wann.

Wann developed the scale to measure the motivations of sports fans based on eight

factors: Eustress, self-esteem, escape, entertainment, economic, aesthetic, group

affiliation, and family, and included 23 total measures in the scale. Eustress encompasses

the stimulation one feels from watching sports, including physiological arousal. Self-

esteem encompasses all of the good feelings one experiences while watching sports.

Escape allows the individual to feel that his or her problems are non-existent while

watching sports. Entertainment serves as a form of recreation for individuals. The

economic value in sports maintains that individuals are able to bet on sporting events.

Sports can be a form of beauty for individuals, which is measured by aesthetic.

Individuals who enjoy watching sports with other people feel a sense of group affiliation

from spectating. Finally, watching sports allows and individual to bond with his or her

spouse or family, and is measured by the family factor.

29

2.2 Willingness to Self-Censor Scale

Hayes et al. (1997) developed the Willingness to Self-Censor scale, using eight

items to measure how willing an individual is to censor his or herself in response to

another individual’s opinion. For the purpose of this research, the scale was edited to

reflect the Cleveland Browns. The scale measured the likelihood that the individual

would express his or her opinion based on what others think. Furthermore, it addresses

what the individual would do when a disagreement arises. The way an individual feels

when he or she disagrees with another individual’s opinion, by way of this scale, is

determined by two things: whether the individual agrees or disagrees with the other

individual, and the way he or she feels when the other individual does not have consistent

feelings with his or her opinion toward the Cleveland Browns. Please refer to Appendix

G.

2.3 Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count

Additionally, three open-ended questions were included, with a plan to content

analyze the responses using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. These questions asked

participants to (1) explain how and when the Cleveland Browns will make it to the Super

Bowl, (2) to recall a specific professional football game from the Cleveland Browns

2011-2012 season and explain any details the participant can recall, and (3) to describe

who Art Modell is and their feelings toward him.

Computerized Text Analysis is a way to study the language an individual uses for

instances such as ‘BIRG’ via computer-mediated communication. The history of text

analysis dates back to the beginning of the 20th century when psychologists discovered

that the way an individual speaks can provide clues to their intentions. Computerized text

30

analysis began in the 1960s. Researchers later discovered that content analysis of text

could highlight patterns in an individual’s thoughts to aid in psychiatric diagnosis

(Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010).

Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count was developed by James W. Pennebaker,

Roger J. Booth, and Martha E. Francis (LIWC: Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count,

2007). LIWC harbors its own dictionaries and processes text for analysis. Dictionaries

are the “collection of words that define a particular category” (Pennebaker, Francis, &

Booth, 2001). There are 80 categories included in LIWC, with the option to add custom

dictionaries for analysis. LIWC can analyze any amount of text, from a short email to a

speech, in seconds. More specifically, LIWC can recognize the pronominal usage in the

computer-mediated messages being analyzed in this research study and give more insight

to a sports fan’s emotions and motivations, respectively. The pronominal output variables

are known as function words, and are categorized in Table I:

Table I Pronominal Representation in LIWC

Examples Words in Category Total Pronouns I, Them, Itself 116

Personal Pronouns I, Them, Her 70

1st Person Singular I, Me, Mine 12

1st Person Plural We, Us, Our 12

2nd Person You, Your, Thou 20

3rd Person Singular She, Her, Him 17

3rd Person Plural They, Their, They’d 10

Impersonal Pronouns It, It’s, Those 46 Source: Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count

The research also focused on the emotions felt by participants, whether positive or

negative. The emotion output variables are categorized in Table II:

31

Table II Affective and Cognitive Processes in LIWC

Examples Words in Category Affective Processes Happy, ugly, bitter 915

Positive Emotions Happy, pretty, good 405

Negative Emotions Hate, worthless, enemy 499

Anxiety Nervous, afraid, intense 91

Anger Hate, kill, pissed 184

Sadness Grief, cry, sad 101

Cognitive Processes Cause, know, outright 730

Insight Think, know, consider 195

Causation Because, effect, hence 108

Discrepancy Should, would, could 76

Tentative Maybe, perhaps, guess 155

Certainty Certain, always, never 83

Inhibition Block, constrain 111

Inclusive With, and, include 18

Exclusive But, except, without 17 Source: Provalis Research

Finally, the research focused on indications of relativity of time. In specific, references to

the future. The relativity of time output variables are categorized in Table III:

Table III Relativity of Time Representation in LIWC

Examples Words in Category Relativity

Time Past, present, future 239 Source: Provalis Research

32

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

3.1 Survey Sample Description

As shown in Appendix C, the sample was made up of 89.3% males (n=308) and

10.7% females (n=37). The average age of the participants was 33.03 years old and the

participants ranged in age from 18 to 74 years old. The average amount of time a

participant has lived in Cleveland was 17.51 years and 29% (n=101) indicated that they

were not Cleveland-area residents, and participants were located as far away as the

United Kingdom.

As shown in Appendix C, the participants indicated an average time of 24.24

years as a fan of the Cleveland Browns. On a scale of 0 to 10, 60.5% (n=211) of the

participants indicated that they were diehard fans of the Cleveland Browns, with a mean

of 9.04. Season ticket holders made up 8.3% (n=29) of the sample and indicated that they

have held season tickets for one to 44 years, with an average of 11.07 years. Members of

the Browns Backers Fan Club made up 35.4% (n=122) of the participants. Participants

indicated they have been to an average of 18.15 games in their lifetime, with a range of

zero to 200 games.

33

On a scale of 0 to 10 regarding how knowledgeable a participant considers

himself or herself on the Cleveland Browns, 22.9% (n=80) considered himself or herself

a Cleveland Browns expert and the mean was 8.79. When asked what the Cleveland

Browns 2011-2012 season record (four wins, 12 losses) was, 91.1% (n=316) answered

with the correct amount of wins, while 89.6% (n=311) answered with the correct amount

of losses. An average of 1.29 games were attended by participants during the 2011-2012

preseason and regular season.

As shown in Appendix E, as of April 2012, the Cleveland Browns Official

Facebook Page had 552,008 “Likes” (Figure E1) and the Official Twitter Page had

85,767 followers (Figure E2). A total of 50.4% (n=176) of the participants surveyed

indicated they “Like” the Cleveland Browns Official Facebook Page and 43.8% (n=153)

indicated they follow the Official Twitter Page. On a scale of one to six (1=Never and

6=Very Frequently), 1.4% (n=5) indicated they visit the Official Cleveland Browns

Facebook Fan Page every day, while 50.4% (n=176) never visit the page. Participants

indicated the following interactions with the Official Facebook Page: 81.5% (n=297)

never start new Wall posts, 74.8% (n=261) never post a comment in response to the

Administrator (the Cleveland Browns), and 76.5% (n=267) never comment in response to

another user’s post. On the contrary, 1.4% (n=5) very frequently start a new Wall post,

.9% (n=3) very frequently comment in response to the Administrator, and .3% (n=1) very

frequently comment in response to another user’s post.

3.2 Scale Construction

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to conduct a principal

components factor analysis on the Sports Fan Motivation Scale. An attempt was made to

34

confirm Wann’s (1995) SFMS scale by using an Oblimin oblique rotation. The original

scale by Wann (1995) was found to result in eight factors: Group affiliation, economic,

escape, aesthetic, self-esteem, eustress, entertainment, and family. The first, group

affiliation, included the enjoyment of sports when one is watching with a group of people

and feeling as though he or she is a member of the ingroup. The second factor, economic,

included watching sports for the sake of betting on the games. The third factor, escape,

included the enjoyment of sports as a means of escaping personal problems. The fourth

factor, aesthetic, included the artistic value, or beauty, in sports. The fifth factor, self-

esteem, included heightened self-esteem when his or her team is successful. The sixth

factor, eustress, included a physiological stimulation felt by sports viewing. The seventh

factor, entertainment, included positive feelings felt during sports viewing. The final

factor, family, included the benefits of bonding over sports with family and/or one’s

spouse.

However, this study’s attempt resulted in only seven factors when the default

latent root criterion was used for factor extraction. When a second analysis, forcing an

eight-factor solution was conducted, the factor structure resembled but did not precisely

confirm the Wann (1995) structure. The eight-factor solution is displayed in Appendix F.

When the default latent root criterion was used and resulted in seven factors, eustress and

self-esteem had overlapping items, as did group affiliation and self-esteem; therefore, the

self-esteem factor was completely eliminated from the first analysis. Thus, the factor

analysis was not used in this research to construct the eight Sports Fan Motivation Scale

subscales. Each participant’s score was computed for each of the eight subscales as

defined by Wann (1995) via a simple summation.

35

The Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency reliabilities for the eight Sports Fan

Motivation Scale subscales for this study were: Escape (.873), economic (.722), eustress

(.575), aesthetic (.807), self-esteem (.515), group affiliation (.622), entertainment (.522),

and family (.674). The overall Cronbach’s alpha for the 23-item SFMS was .777.

3.3 Results Summary for H1

H1 predicted that fans who scored lower on the Sports Fan Motivation Scale were

more likely to indicate less pride in the city of Cleveland than fans that score higher on

the Sports Fan Motivation Scale. Again, only participants who rated themselves as a 5 or

higher on a scale of 1 to 10 regarding their level of Cleveland Browns fandom (known as

Fan Rate) were used in this analysis. The participants were asked to complete the Sports

Fan Motivation Scale, which included 23 items. The scale was a 5-point Likert scale,

with 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree. The participants were also asked to

indicate the level of pride in the city of Cleveland based on its sports teams, economy,

tourism value, health care, and overall. The response scale ranged from 0 to 10 with

0=Not at all Proud and 10=Very Proud. The SFMS scores were correlated with the five

questions referencing pride in the city of Cleveland and the hypothesis was supported.

Participants who scored higher on the Sports Fan Motivation scale showed a significant

correlation with each measurement of pride, including overall pride in the city of

Cleveland, thus supporting H1. The correlations were all significant at p < .01. The

results are shown in Table IV:

36

Table IV Sports Fan Motivation Scale, Fan Rate, and Pride in the city of Cleveland

SFMS_Total Fan Rate Sports Teams Economy Tourism Value Health Care Overall SFMS_Total Pearson Correlation 1 .155(**) .242(**) .148(**) .165(**) .221(**) .195(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .004 <.001 .006 .002 <.001 <.001

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Fan Rate Pearson Correlation .155(**) 1 .312(**) .121(**) .164(**) .206(**) .352(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .004 <.001 .024 .002 <.001 <.001

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Sports Teams Pearson Correlation .242(**) .312(**) 1 .536(**) .513(**) .369(**) .657(**)

Sig. (2-talked) <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Economy Pearson Correlation .148(**) .121(**) .536(**) 1 .640(**) .369(**) .499(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .006 .024 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Tourism Value Pearson Correlation .165(**) .164(**) .513(**) .640(**) 1 .403(**) .562(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .002 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Health Care Pearson Correlation .221(**) .206(**) .369(**) .369(**) .403(**) 1 .519(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Overall Pearson Correlation .195(**) .352(**) .657(**) .499(**) .562(**) .519(**) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

37


H2 predicted that the higher a fan rates his or her level of fandom, the more likely

he or she would use first personal singular and plural pronouns when describing the

Cleveland Browns. An open-ended question asked participants to predict when and how

the Cleveland Browns will make it to, and win, the Super Bowl. A content analysis was

conducted using LIWC and accounted for the first person singular and plural pronouns

used by participants. The correlation between how high of a fan he or she rates his or

herself (as mentioned previously, participants that rated their personal fandom higher

than a 5 on a scale of 0 to 10 were included in this analysis). Pronouns referencing We

and Self were significantly correlated with Fan Rate at p < .01, thus partially supporting

H2. The results are shown in Table V below:

Table V Fan Rate and Pronominal Usage

Fan Rate I We Self

Fan Rate Pearson Correlation 1 .091 .132(**) .159(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .091 .014 .003

N 349 349 349 349

I Pearson Correlation .091 1 -.024 .699(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .091 .651 <.001

N 349 349 349 349

We Pearson Correlation .132(**) -.024 1 .698(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .014 .651 <.001

N 349 349 349 349

Self Pearson Correlation .159(**) .699(**) .698(**) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .003 <.001 <.001

N 349 349 349 349

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


H3 predicted that fans who were more likely to speak out about the Browns when

they are in the minority opinion were more likely to wear Cleveland Browns apparel after

a loss than fans who are more likely to speak out when they are in the majority opinion.

38

As mentioned previously, measures were included to determine whether the fan would

speak out if he or she is in the minority opinion and had positive things to say, the

minority opinion and had negative things to say, the majority opinion and had positive

things to say, or in the majority opinion and had negative things to say. Additionally,

participants were asked to indicate how often they wear Cleveland Browns apparel

(1=Never and 5=Very Often), and how likely they were to wear Cleveland Browns

apparel after a win and after a loss (1=Not Likely at all and 5=Very Likely). The

findings for fans in the minority opinion regardless of their feelings and fans in the

majority opinion regardless of their feelings were nearly identical and, therefore, the

hypothesis was unsupported. All of the correlations were significant at p < .01 when fans

were in the minority opinion had positive things to say and wore apparel after a loss.

However, there were significant correlations between how likely a fan was to wear

apparel regardless of a win or loss, and regardless of whether the fan was in the majority

or minority, and also regardless of whether the fan had positive or negative things to say..

The results are shown in Table VI:

39

Table VI Likelihood to Wear Apparel and Opinion Response

Apparel – Wear

Apparel – Win Apparel – Loss Majority/Positive

Majority/Negative

Minority/Positive

Minority/Negative

Apparel – Wear Pearson Correlation 1 .705(**) .729(**) .186(**) .111(*) .242(**) .157(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001 <.001 .038 <.001 .003

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Apparel – Win Pearson Correlation .705(**) 1 .706(**) .259(**) .172(**) .275(**) .147(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001 <.001 .001 .001 .006

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Apparel - Loss Pearson Correlation .729(**) .259(**) 1 .198(**) .078 .254(**) .129(*)

Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001 <.001 .148 <.001 .016

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Majority/Positive Pearson Correlation .186(**) .259(**) .198(**) 1 .467(**) .476(**) .361(**)

Sig. (2-talked) <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Majority/Negative Pearson Correlation .111(*) .172(**) .078 .467(**) 1 .298(**) .568(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .038 .001 .148 <.001 <.001 <.001

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Minority/Positive Pearson Correlation .242(**) .275(**) .254(**) .476(**) .298(**) 1 .510(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Minority/Negative Pearson Correlation .157(**) .147(**) .129(*) .361(**) .568(**) .510(**) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .006 .016 .003 <.001 <.001

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

40

3.6 Results Summary for RQ1

RQ1 asked if there was a significant correlation present between referencing the

future and the type of language used when expressing positive or negative emotions

about the Browns. A content analysis was conducted in LIWC on the open-ended

question which asked participants to predict when and how the Cleveland Browns will

make it to, and win, the Super Bowl. Specifically, a correlation was run between

references to the future and positive and negative emotions, such as sadness, anger,

positive emotions, and negative emotions. There were significant correlations at p < .01

between the future and positive emotions, positive feelings, and optimism. The results are

shown in Table VII:

41

Table VII Relativity of Time and Affective and Cognitive Processes

Future Anxiety Anger Sadness Cognitive Mechanis

m

Pos. Emotions

Pos. Feelings

Optimism Neg.

Emotions

Future Pearson

Correlation 1 -.065 -.080 .053 -.075 .116(*) .253(**) .117(*) -.019

Sig. (2-tailed) .227 .138 .322 .163 .031 <.001 .030 .726

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Anxiety Pearson

Correlation -.065 1 -.023 .181(**) .017 -.030 .004 -.012 .139(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .227 .670 .001 .756 .576 .942 .818 .009

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Anger Pearson Correlation

-.080 -.023 1 -.016 .128(*) -.038 .003 -.091 .541(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .138` .670 .764 .017 .480 .956 .089 <.001

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Sadness Pearson

Correlation .053 .181(**) -.016 1 -.015 -.036 .055 -.019 .645(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .322 .001 .764 .777 .508 .306 .725 <.001

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Cognitive Mechanism

Pearson Correlation

-.075 .017 .128(*) -.015 1 .253(**) -.013 .198(**) .065

Sig. (2-tailed) .163 .756 .017 .777 <.001 .803 <.001 .225

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Positive Emotions

Pearson Correlation

.116(*) -.030 -.038 -.036 .253(**) 1 .112(*) .839(**) -.056

Sig. (2-tailed) .031 .576 .480 .508 <.001 .037 <.001 .296

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Positive Feelings Pearson

Correlation .253(**) .004 .003 .055 -.013 .112(*) 1 -.060 .031

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .942 .956 .306 .803 .037 .263 .565

42

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Optimism Pearson

Correlation .117(*) -.012 -.091 -.019 .198(**) .839(**) -.060 1 -.088

Sig. (2-tailed) .030 .818 .089 .725 <.001 <.001 .263 .102

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

Negative Emotions

Pearson Correlation

-.019 .139(**) .541(**) .645(**) .065 -.056 .031 -.088 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .726 .009 <.001 <.001 .225 .296 .565 .102

N 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349 349

43


RQ2 asked if there was a significant correlation between how high a fan rates his

or her fandom and the negative emotions toward Art Modell. A content analysis was

conducted in LIWC on the open-ended question which asked participants who Art

Modell is and to indicate their feelings towards him. No significant findings were made.

The results are shown in Table VIII below:

Table VIII Fan Rate and Negative Emotions

Negative Emotion

s

Anxiety

Anger Sadnes

s Death

Fan Rate Pearson

Correlation .096 .035 .103 .057 .077

Sig. (2-tailed)

.072 .520 .054 .291 .149

N 349 349 349 349 349


RQ3 asked what factors predict willingness to speak out when in the minority

opinion with regard to the Cleveland Browns. A multiple regression was conducted,

using the items that were constructed to measure opinions to determine what type of

individuals are more likely to speak out about the Cleveland Browns. There were two

dependent variables being tested: a willingness to speak out when in the minority opinion

with positive things to say about the Browns, and in the minority opinion with negative

things to say about the Browns.

The first dependent variable was participants’ willingness to speak out while in

the minority opinion, with positive things to say. Four blocks of predictors were included:

(1) Demographics – Age, political affiliation, length of time living in Cleveland, and

biological sex (male = 1, female = 0), (2) Web use – hours spent on the web, hours spent

44

on the web devoted to sports, and how often the participants use Facebook, (3) The

Willingness to Self-Censor scale, and (4) Fandom Metrics – Fan Rate, years as a fan,

Cleveland Browns knowledge, and how often participants start a new Wall post,

comment on a post made by the Administrator, and comment on a post made by another

user on the Official Cleveland Browns Facebook Page.

First, in examining the bivariate relationships between these potential predictors

and willingness to speak out with positive things while in the minority, the largest

correlation was with the Willingness to Self-Censor scale, with a negative relationship at

r = -.412 (p < .001). None of the demographic variables were significantly correlated

with the dependent variable, and only one web use variable—hours spent per day devoted

to sports online—was significantly correlated (r = .146, p < .01). All of the fandom

measures were significantly correlated: How big of a fan the participant rated himself or

herself, also known as Fan Rate (r = .321), which was significant at p < .001. The length

of time the participant has been a fan (r = .124) was significant at p < .05, and the amount

of Cleveland Browns knowledge the participant indicated (r = .294) was significant at p <

.001. Regarding the social media-related questions, how often the participant starts a new

wall post on the Official Cleveland Browns Facebook Page (r = .124) was correlated and

was significant at p < .05, how often the participant comments on a post made by the

administrator (r = .168) was correlated and was significant at p < .05, and the amount of

time a participant comments on another user’s post on the Official Cleveland Browns

Facebook Page (r = .167) was correlated and was significant at p < .01. Finally, “liking”

the official Cleveland Browns Facebook page was also significantly correlated (r = .188,

p < .001. The results of the multiple regression indicate that the first block did not

45

contribute a significant amount of variance (0.1%, n.s.). The second block did contribute

a significant amount of variance (3.4%, p < .05). The third block also contributed a

significant amount of variance (19.3%, p < .001). The fourth block contributed a

significant amount of variance as well (10.0%, p < .001).

There were four unique predictors in the regression, although one of these,

Political Affiliation, was in a non-significant block and should therefore not be

interpreted. The other significant beta values were for the Willingness to Self-Censor

scale (final beta = -.388, p < .001), self-reported Cleveland Browns knowledge (final beta

= .149, p < .05), and if the participant ‘Likes’ the Official Cleveland Browns Facebook

Page (final beta = -.152, p < .05). The total equation for this regression was significant,

with a total R² of .328 and F (15, 283) of 9.211 (p < .001).

The results are shown in Table IX below:

Table IX Multiple Regression Predicting Willingness to Speak Out – Minority/Positive

Block Name and Number Variables r Final Beta

R ² Change

1. Demographics Age .000 .000 .001 Political Affiliation -.010 .106* Male .005 -.003 Live in Cleveland -.007 -.100 2. Web Use Hours per day -.001 .023 .034*

Hours per day – sports .146** .065 Facebook – General Usage .030 .012 3. Willingness to Self-Censor Willingness to Self-Censor scale -.412*** -.388*** .193*** 4. Cleveland Browns Fandom and Related Facebook Usage

Fan Rate .321*** .139 .100***

Years as a fan .124* .043 Cleveland Browns knowledge .294*** .149*

Cleveland Browns Facebook Page – Start new posts

.124* -.016

Cleveland Browns Facebook Page – Comment to Administrator

.168** .016

Cleveland Browns Facebook Page – Comment to other users

.167** -.030

Cleveland Browns Facebook Page – Like

.188*** .152*

46

(Table IX cont’d.) Total equation: R ² = .328, F = 9.211, df = (15, 283), p < .001 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 The second dependent variable was participants’ willingness to speak out while in

the minority opinion, but with negative things to say about the Browns. None of the

demographic or web use variables were significantly correlated with the dependent

variable. The Willingness to Self-Censor scale was correlated at r = -.268 (p < .001) and

Fan Rate was also correlated (r = .272) and was significant at p < .001. Self-declared

Cleveland Browns knowledge was also correlated at r = .223 (p < .001).

The results of the multiple regression indicate that the first block did not

contribute a significant amount of variance (1.6%, n.s.). The second block did not

contribute a significant amount of variance (1.4%, n.s.). The third block contributed a

significant amount of variance (6.6%, at p < .001). The fourth block contributed a

significant amount of variance (9.2% at p < .001).

There were three predictors that were significant unique contributors to the

regression. The beta value of political affiliation (liberalism) was a positive predictor

(final beta = .115) and was significant at p < .05. The beta for Willingness to Self-Censor

was negative and significant (final beta = -.253, p < .001). And, the beta value for Fan

Rate was positive (final beta = .278) and was significant at p < .001. The total equation

for this regression was significant at p < .001, with a total R² of .187 and F (15, 283) =

4.346. The results are shown in Table X:

47

Table X Multiple Regression Predicting Willingness to Speak Out – Minority/Negative

Block Name and Number Variables r Final Beta

R ² Change

1. Demographics Age -.014 .064 .016 Political Affiliation .043 .115* Male .025 .109 Live in Cleveland .085 -.050 2. Web Use Hours per day .021 .024 .014 Hours per day – sports .091 .060 Facebook – General Usage -.002 .044 3. Willingness to Self-Censor Willingness to Self-Censor scale -.268*** -.253*** .066*** 4. Cleveland Browns Fandom and Related Facebook Usage

Fan Rate .272*** .278** .092***

Years as a fan .053 -.129 Cleveland Browns knowledge .223*** .039

Cleveland Browns Facebook Page – Start new posts

-.038 -.129

Cleveland Browns Facebook Page – Comment to Administrator

.048 .088

Cleveland Browns Facebook Page – Comment to other users

.013 -.155

Cleveland Browns Facebook Page – Like

.077 -.004

Total equation: R ² = .187, F = 4.346, df = (15, 283), p < .001 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

48

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

This research aimed to test that Cialidini et al.’s (1976) idea of ‘BIRG’ still holds

predictive value when applied to fans of a professional sports team. Some of the results

stood consistent with Cialdini et al.’s (1976) findings, showing that the bigger of a fan an

individual is of the Cleveland Browns, the more likely to use first person singular and

plural pronouns. The results showed that in relation to I, We, or Self words, the fan was

more likely to refer to his or herself and the Cleveland Browns as a collective “we,”

indicating a feeling of closeness with the team. It is important to reiterate that the average

participant, who rated his or herself as a five or higher on a fandom scale, was a fan of

the Cleveland Browns for 24.24 years. In addition, 60.5% of the participants indicated

that they were diehard fans of the Cleveland Browns, with a mean of 8.04 on a scale of 0

to 10. By showing these two figures side-by-side, it is a clear connection between these

factors: A diehard fan for an average of 24.24 years simply feels a stronger connection

with the team and it is inevitably a part of his or her social or group identity. In

comparison to Cialdini et al.’s (1976) study which included only college students, the

average college student spends four years completing a degree, which is much less

invested time in the college’s team than a lifetime professional sports fan and conflicted

49

with the findings in this study. Professional sports fandom does not go away with a

diploma; the research proves that it is a lifetime commitment.

While a fan for a longer amount of time tends to have a stronger identification

with the Cleveland Browns, references to the future of this relationship is essential to take

a look at when researching pronominal usage. Analyzing the future can serve as a clear

indication of how much a part of a sports team a fan feels he or she is, and the average

Cleveland Browns fan showed a pattern of feeling nothing but positive feelings,

emotions, and optimism towards the future. This finding can also relate back to the

average amount of time the participants have been fans of the Cleveland Browns and how

high they rate their level of fandom. A bigger fan, although sometimes disheartened by a

losing season or failed entry in to the NFL Playoffs, still feels a sense of pride and hope

for the future of his or her team. The identification with the Cleveland Browns was

strong, leading to believe that the participants in this study felt that the Cleveland Browns

were a part of his or her self-identity. This is the essence of being a sports fan: always

looking forward to the future, which sheds light in to the popular sports-related phrase,

“There’s always next year.”

It is also important to note that fans of the Cleveland Browns were likely to wear

team apparel regardless of a win or loss, which is not consistent with Cialdini et al.’s

(1976) findings that college students were more likely to wear apparel on the Monday

after a weekend win. Additionally, this study predicted that fans that were more likely to

speak out when they are in the minority are more likely to wear Cleveland Browns

apparel after a loss. This prediction assumed that even when an individual may tend to

50

feel ostracized by other fans because of his or her opinion, he or she is the type of fan that

does not feel that his or her self-esteem has been lowered by his or her team’s failure(s).

The research relied heavily on recruiting participants who use social networking

sites often. The participants in this study were not influenced by factors such as

computer-mediated communication and were likely to speak out regardless of their stance

or opinion. The participants of this study were more apt to speak out when in the minority

opinion and had positive things to say when they were bigger fans and felt more

knowledgeable about the Cleveland Browns. The findings were consistent with the

research by Bordia (1997), stating that an individual who is more likely to speak out will

spend more time during the thought process, prior to posting a message via computer-

mediated communication, in order to elicit a better response from others.

Although previous literature showed that Cleveland was ranked #8 for Most

Unhappy NFL City (Study: Eagles Fans Most Depressed, 2011), the results tell a much

different story. It seems that the higher a fan of the Cleveland Browns an individual rates

his or herself, the more proud he or she is of the city of Cleveland in all of the areas

measured. While the previous literature describing unhappiness may have been solely

related to the team’s overall losing seasons and failure to enter the Playoffs or Super

Bowl, it surely did not account for the passion that Cleveland Browns fans feel toward

their team as a representation of the city of Cleveland. With that high sense of pride

comes the reminder of the fateful night when Art Modell left the city of Cleveland behind

with the entire Cleveland Browns team in tow. The negative emotions felt toward Art

Modell are still present, understandably, 17 years after the team moved to Baltimore.

51

Although the results were not highly correlated, the emotions were felt as LIWC combed

through the 349 responses to the simple question, “Who is Art Modell?”

4.1 Limitations

The data for this research were collected less than two months after the

conclusion of the 2011-2012 NFL season, prompting Cleveland Browns fans to recall a

season in which the team did not make it to the NFL Playoffs. Time was of the essence

when collecting the data for this research, and while this may be a difficult time for some,

it may be a time of reflection for others. However, this study relied on participants to be

subjective. Recall was difficult for some respondents because the season had been

months behind at the time of data collection. Given the time between the end of the

season and data collection, it would be beneficial to circulate a survey at the beginning of

a season when hopes are high and Cleveland Browns fans feel more emotionally-charged

with new draft picks and a rested team.

Originally, the main goal of data collection was to circulate the survey on the

social networking site, Facebook. This task proved to be a difficult one, as the participant

was less likely to notice the post soliciting participants by the researcher as a user versus

the administrator. The administrator’s post would have shown up on the participant’s

personal Facebook feed; however, the researcher’s post as a user of the SNS only shows

up on the wall of the page. Additionally, it was difficult to reach the administrators of

Cleveland Browns Facebook pages and groups. One of the reasons this outcome was

reached could be due to the recent conclusion to the football season and the Facebook

pages may go silent until training camp begins over the summer.

52

The decision was made to expand the data collection to other SNS such as

Twitter, blogs, and Reddit, a social news website, which caused a slight change in the

research to a more general approach to SNS versus a focus solely on Facebook. The other

SNS continued to collect Cleveland Browns fans; however, the social news website

began to collect non-Cleveland Browns fans who offered conflicting results, such as the

indication that he or she was a fan of another NFL team but still indicated a five on a

scale of 0 to 10 when asked to identify how big of a Cleveland Browns fan he or she was.

Due to the influx of non-fans, the sample had to be purposive in order to get the most

accurate results including only Cleveland Browns fans. Thus, the sample was not quite as

representative as it was originally set out to be, and the majority of fans were collected

via Reddit and Twitter versus Facebook.

Finally, the lack of female participants was surprising for the research, as 42% of

NFL fans are female (Women proving to be dedicated NFL fans, 2011) but only made up

10.7% of the participants in this study.

4.2 Implications for Future Research

For the Cleveland Browns in particular, research findings would become much

more intriguing when conducted after a winning season, spot in the NFL Playoffs, or

during the draft, in comparison to a losing season such as 2011-2012. Additionally, many

gaps still exist in the literature regarding sports fan identity and computer-mediated

communication such as SNS. The future research in this area has the opportunity to

capitalize on the relationship between social networking users that are sports fans and the

way in which they related to each compared to the way fans interact in person or at

games. The opportunity to conduct field research at a sporting event on the behavior of

53

sports fans with the inclusion of factors such as alcohol intake, weather conditions, and

the presence of children versus solely interacting via computer-mediated interaction

would be beneficial to the research in the area of sports fandom.

54

REFERENCES

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2001). Collective identity: Group membership and self-

conception. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social

psychology: Group processes (pp. 425-460). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Anderson, D. F., & Stone, G. P. (1981). Sport: A search for community. In S. L.

Greendorfer & A. Yiannakis (Eds.), Sociology of sport: Diverse perspectives (pp.

164-172). West Point, NY: Leisure.

Asudeh, A. (2011). The syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns: Implications for

compositionality. Presented at The University of Utrecht, Netherlands. 2-14.

Bernache-Assollant, I., Lacassagne, M. F., & Braddock II, 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.

Bernhardt, P. C., Dabbs, J. M., Fielden, J. A., & Lutter, C. D. (1998). Testosterone

changes during vicarious experiences of winning and losing among fans at

sporting events. Physiology and Behavior, 65, 59-62.

Bizman, A., Yinon, Y., & Krotman, S. (2001). Group-based emotional distress: An

extension of self-discrepancy theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

27, 1291–1300.

Bjerregaard, M. (2010). Facebook’s effects on subtle emotion decoding, academic

performance, and identity protection (Unpublished master’s thesis). Southern

Utah University, Cedar City, Utah.

55

Bloxsome, E. L., Voges, K. E., & Pope., N. K. L. (2011). Sport sponsorship: Appeal and

risks. Research Journal of Science and Management, 1(8), 133-145.

Boen, F., Vanbeselaere, N., Pandelaere, M., Dewitte, S., Duriez, B., Snauwaert, B., Feys,

J., Dierckz, V., & Van Avermaet, E. (2002). Politics and basking in reflected

glory: A field study in Flanders. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 205–

214.

Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communlgation: A synthesis

of the experimental literature. The Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 99-

120.

Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.

Indiana University. Retrieved from

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

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,

115-127.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this "we"? Levels of collective identity

and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1994). Politeness (1st ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Browns history database. (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory.

Bryant, J., & Oliver, M. B. (Eds.). (2009). Media effects: Advances in theory and

research. New York: Routledge.

56

Büring, D. (2007). Pronouns. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language

meaning. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn & P. Portner (Eds), Handbücher zur

Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and

Communication Science (pp. 1-34). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Campbell R. S., & Pennebaker J. W. (2003). The secret life of pronouns: Flexibility in

writing style and physical health. Psychological Science, 14, 60–65.

Capella, M. E. (2002). Measuring sports fans' involvement: The fan behavior

questionnaire. Southern Business Review, 27(2), 30-36.

Castano, E., Leidner, B., & Slawuta, P. (2008). Social identification processes, group

dynamics and the behavior of combatants. International review of the Red Cross,

90(20), 1-13.

Catalyst Public Relations. (2011). New 2011 catalyst fan engagement study. Retrieved

from http://www.catalystpublicrelations.com/new-2011-catalyst-fan-engagement-

study.

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(3), 366-375.

Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of image management:

Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 406-415.

Clark, H.H. & Schaefer, E.F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13,

259-294.

Cleveland browns history. (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/team/history.html.

57

Cohen, A., & Avrahami, A. (2005). Soccer fans’ motivation as a predictor of

participation in soccer-related activities: An empirical examination in Israel.

Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 419-434.

Cohen, H. (2011, May 09). 30 social media definitions. Retrieved from

http://heidicohen.com/social-media-definition/

Cohn, M. A., Mehl, M. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2004). Linguistic markers of

psychological change surrounding September 11, 2001. Psychological Science,

15, 687-693.

Cowboys lead all NFL teams on Facebook; Jets tops for Twitter followers . (2011,

September 9). Retrieved from

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2011/09/09/NFL-

Season-Preview/Facebook-Twitter.aspx

Crisp, R. J., Heuston, S., Farr, M. J., & Turner, R. N. (2007). Seeing red or feeling blue:

Differentiated intergroup emotions and ingroup identification in soccer fans.

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10(9), 9–26.

Dechesne, M., Greenberg, J., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2000). Terror management and the

vicissitudes of sports fan affiliation: The effects of mortality salience on optimism

and fan identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 813–835.

Dietz-Uhler, B., Harrick, E.A., End, C., & Jacquemontte, L. (2000). Sex differences in

sport fan behavior and reasons for being a sport fan. Journal of Sport Behavior,

23, 219-231.

58

Dietz-Uhler, B., Harrick, E. A. End, C., & Jacquemotte, L. (2000). “Sex Differences in

Sport Fan Behavior and Reasons for Being a Sport Fan.” Journal of Sport

Behavior 23 (3): 219-231.

Dietz-Uhler, B., & Lanter, J. R. (2008). The consequences of sports fan identification. In

Hugenberg, L. W. Kardidakis, P. M. & Earnheardt, A. C. (Eds.), Sports mania:

Essays on fandom and the media in the 21st century (pp. 103-112). Jefferson,

North Carolina.

Duszak, A. (Ed.). (2002). Us and others: Social identities across languages, discourses

and cultures. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Edensor, T., & Millington, S. (2008). “This is Our City”’: Branding football and local

embeddedness. Global Networks, 8(2). 172–93.

Edge, J. (2002). Continuing cooperative development: A discourse framework for

individuals as colleagues. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Edwards, J. (2011). The 10 key turning points in the history of social media. CBS News.

Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42750171/the-10-

key-turning-points-in-the-history-of-social-media.

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of

Psychology, 53, 161–186.

End, C. E., Dietz-Uhler, B., Harrick, E. A., & Jacquemotte, L. (2001). Identifying with

winners: A reexamination of sport fans’ tendency to BIRG. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 32(5), 1017-1030.

End, C. M. (2001). An examination of NFL fans’ computer mediated BIRGing. Journal

of Sport Behavior, 24(2), 162-181.

59

Faloutsos, M., Karagiannis, T. & Moon, S. (2010). Online social networks. Network,

IEEE. 24(5), 4-5.

Feather, N. T. (2006). Deservingness and emotion: Applying the structural model of

deservingness to the analysis of affective reactions to outcomes. European Review

of Social Psychology, 17, 38–73.

Filak , V. F., Reinardy, S., & Maksl, A. (2009). Expanding and validating applications of

the willingness to self-censor scale: Self-censorship and media advisers’ comfort

level with controversial topics. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,

86, 368-382.

Fink, J. S., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. F. (2002). An examination of team identification:

Which motives are most salient to its existence? International Sports Journal, 6,

195-207.

Fisher, R. J., & Wakefield, K. (1998), Factors leading to group identification: A field

study of winners and losers. Psychology and Marketing, 15(1), 23-40.

Fiske, J. (1992). The cultural economy of fandom. In L. Lewis (Ed.), The adoring

audience: Fan culture and popular media (pp. 30-49). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of “we” in university lectures: Reference and function.

English for Specific Purposes, 23, 45–66.

Funk, D. C., Mahony, D. F., Nakazawa, M., & Hirakawa, S. (2000). Spectator motives:

Differentiating among objects of attraction in professional football. European

Journal for Sport Management, 7(Special Issue), 51-67.

60

Funk, D. C., Mahony, D. F., Nakazawa, M., & Hirakawa, S. (2001). Development of the

sport interest inventory (SII): Implications for measuring unique consumer

motives at team sporting events. International Journal of Sports Marketing &

Sponsorship, 3, 291-316.

Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E., &Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things

go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of sharing positive events.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228-245.

Gardiner, E. N. (2002). Athletics in the ancient world. London: Dover Publications.

Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are "we," you are

not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 239-251.

Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Milton

Keynes, England: Open University Press.

Glynn, C. J., Hayes, A. F., & Shanahan, J. (1997). Perceived support for one's opinions

and willingness to speak out: A meta-analysis of survey studies of the spiral of

silence." Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 452-463.

Glynn, C., & McLeod, J. (1985). Implications of the spiral of silence theory for

communication and public opinion research. In K. Sanders, L. Kaid, & D. Nimmo

(Eds.), Political Communication Yearbook 1984 (pp. 43–65). Carbondale:

Southern Illinois University Press.

Gollwitzer, P. M., Wicklund, R. A., & Hilton, J. L. (1982). Admission of failure and

symbolic self-completion: Extending Lewinian theory. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 43, 358–371.

61

Gonzales, A. L., Hancock, J. T., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language style matching as

a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communications Research, 37, 3–

19.

Gorn, E. J. (2004) A brief history of American sports. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois

Press.

Grove, J. R., Hanrahan, S. J., & McInman, A. (1991). Success/failure bias in attributions

across involvement categories in sport. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 17, 93-97.

Haas, M. (1969). “Exclusive” and “inclusive”: A look at early usage. International

Journal of American Linguistics, 35(1), 1-6.Haridakis, P. M. (2010). Rival sports

fans and intergroup communication. In H. Giles, S. Reid, & J. Harwood (Eds.),

The dynamics of intergroup communication. New York: Peter Lang.

Haridakis, P. M. (2010). Rival sports fans and intergroup communication. In H. Giles, S.

Reid, & J. Harwood (Eds.), The dynamics of intergroup communication. New

York: Peter Lang.

Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J. & Shanahan, J. (2005a). Validating the Willingness to Self-

Censor Scale: Individual Differences in the Effect of the Climate of Opinion on

Opinion Expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 443-

455.

Hayes, A. F.., Glynn, C. J. & Shanahan, J. (2005b). Willingness to Self-Censor: A

Construct and Measurement Tool for Public Opinion Research. International

Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17. 298-323.

62

Hayes, A. (2007). Exploring the forms of self-censorship: On the spiral of silence and the

use of opinion expression avoidance strategies. Journal of Communication, 57,

785-802.

Hillman, C. H., Cuthbert, B. H., Cauraugh, J., Schupp, H. T., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P.

J. (2000). Psychophysiological responses of sport fans. Motivation and Emotion,

24, 13–28.

Hirt, E. R., Zillmann, D., Erickson, G. A., & Kennedy, C. (1992). Costs and benefits of

allegiance: Changes in fans' self-ascribed competencies after team victory versus

defeat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 724-738.

Ho, S. S., & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion

expression in face-to-face and computer mediated communication.

Communication Research, 3(2), 190-207.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (2001). Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of

group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction. In M. Hogg &

S. C. Hains (Eds.), Intergroup relations (pp. 110-128). Philadelphia: Psychology

Press.

How much do sports fans love social media? [INFOGRAPHIC]. (2012, February 16).

Social media news and web tips – Mashable – The Social Media Guide. Retrieved

from http://mashable.com/2012/02/15/social-sports-infographic/

Howard, J., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization and memory for ingroup and

outgroup behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 165-188.

63

Hunt, K. A., Bristol, T., & Bashaw, R. E. (1999). A conceptual approach to classifying

sports fans. Journal of Services Marketing, 13, 439-452.

Hutchinson, M., & Bouchet, A. (2010). Sponsoring firms assess perceptions of sport

property engagement and execution. Journal of Sponsorship, 4(1), 59-71.

Ireland M. E., & Pennebaker J.W. (2010). Language style matching in writing:

Synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 99, 549–571.

Izzo, G. M., Munteanu, C., Langford, B. E., Ceobanu, C., Dumitru, I., & Nichifor, F.

(n.d.). Sport fans’ motivations: An investigation of Romanian soccer spectators.

Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, 5, 1-13.

Jacobson, B. (2003). The social psychology of the creation of a sports fan identity: A

theoretical review of the literature. Athletic Insight, 5 (2), 1-12.

James, J. D., & Ridinger, L. L. (2002). Female and male sport fans: A comparison of

sport consumption motives. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 260-278.

Jeffres, L. W. (1997). Mass media effects. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Jeffres, L. W., Neuendorf, K. A., & Atkin, D. (1999). Spirals of silence: Expressing

opinions when the climate of opinion is unambiguous. Political Communication,

16, 115–131.

Jeffres, L. W., Neuendorf, K., Bracken, C. C., & Atkin, D. J. (2009). Untangling spirals

of silence in a presidential election. Journal of Media Sociology, 1(1/2), 81-115.

Jensen, J. (1992). Fandom as pathology; The consequences of characterization. In L.

Lewis (Ed.), The adoring audience: Fan culture and popular media (pp. 9-29).

New York, NY: Routledge.

64

Johnson, M., Summers, J., & Sassenberg, A-M. (2008, July 17-19). The impact of

negative publicity on: An individual sporting celebrity’s brand DNA; the brand

DNA of their associated team and/or sport; and attitudes of their sponsors and

partners. Paper presented at Sport Marketing Association 6th Annual

Conference: Bridging the Gap: Bringing the World Down Under, Gold Coast,

Australia.

Jones, I. (1997). A further examination of the factors influencing current identification

with a sports team, a response to Wann et al. (1996). Perceptual and Motor Skills,

85, 257-258.

Jones, J. (2001). More Americans are fans of pro football than any other sport. The

Gallup Organization. Retrieved from the Gallup Organization. Web site:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010420b.asp.

Kamio, A. (2001). English generic we, you, and they: An analysis in terms of territory of

information. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1111–1124.

Kemmelmeier, M., & Oyserman, D. (2001). The ups and downs of thinking about a

successful other: Self-construals and the consequences of social comparisons.

European Journal of Social Psychology: Special Issue, 31, 311–320.

Khanafiah, D., & Situngkir, H. (2004). Social balance theory revisiting Heider’s balance

theory for many agents. Bandung Fe Institute, Indonesia. 1-11.

King, A. (1997). The lads: Masculinity and the new consumption of football. Sociology,

31(2), 329-346.

65

Kwon, H., Trail, G., & Anderson, D. (2005). Are multiple points of attachment necessary

to predict cognitive, affective, conative, or behavioral loyalty? Sport Management

Review, 8(3), 255-270.

Lalonde, R. N. (2002). Testing the social identity differentiation hypothesis: “We’re not

American eh!” British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 611–630.

Lee, M. (1985). Self-esteem and social identity in basketball fans: A closer look at

basking-in-related-glory, Journal of Sport Behavior, 8, 210-223.

Lewis, M. (2001). Franchise relocation and fan allegiance. Journal of Sport and Social

Issues, 25, 6-19.

Lindsay, A. (2000). Our team, our name, our colors: The trademark rights of cities in

team name ownership. Whittier Law Review, 21, 915-961.

LIWC: Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.liwc.net.

Madrigal, R. (1995). Cognitive and affective determinants of fan satisfaction with

sporting event attendance. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(3), 205-207.

Mahony, D. F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. (2000). Using the Psychological

Commitment to Team (PCT) Scale to segment sport consumers based on loyalty.

Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9(1), 15-25.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-

396.

Matsuoka, H., & Fujimoto, J. (2002, May). Foci of fan’s psychological commitment.

Paper presented at the meeting of the North American Society of Sport

Management, Canmore, AB, Canada.

66

Matthes, J., Morrison, K., & Schemer, C. (2010). A Spiral of Silence for some: Attitude

certainty and the expression of political minority opinions. Communication

Research, 37(6), 774-800.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2000). Applying reciprocity and accommodation

theories to supervisor/subordinate communication. Journal of Applied

Communication Research, 28, 278 –289.

McDevitt, M., Kiousis, S., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2003). Spiral of moderation: Opinion

expression in computer-mediated discussion. International Journal of Public

Opinion Research, 15, 454-470.

McFarland. Dimmock, J., Grove, J., & Eklund, R. (2005). Reconceptualizing team

identification: New dimensions and their relationship to intergroup bias. Group

Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(2), 75-86.

McLean, R., & Wainwright, D. D. (2012). Social networks, football fans, fantasy, and

reality. How corporate and media interests are invading our lifeworld. Merriam-

Webster dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/pronoun

Merriman, S. (2011). NFL power rankings: 10 most die-hard fan bases in the NFL.

Bleacher Report. Retrieved from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/644265-nfl-

power-rankings-10-most-die-hard-fan-bases-in-the-nfl

Miller, S. (1976). Personality correlates of football fandom. Journal of Human Behavior,

13, 7-13.

67

Miller, S. G. (2006). Ancient Greek athletics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Mosley, M. (2008). NFL's best fans? We gotta hand it to Steelers (barely). Retrieved

from http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview08/columns/story?id=3530077

Mowen, J. C. & Minor, M. (1998). Consumer behaviour, 5th edn, Prentive-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs.

Murrell, A. J., & Dietz, B. (1992). Fan support of sports teams: The effect of a common

group identity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 28-39.

Nash, R. (2000). Globalised football fandom: Scandinavian Liverpool FC supporters.

Football Studies, 3(2), 5–23.

Neale, L., & Funk, D. (2005). Fan motivation and loyalty: Extending the sport interest

inventory SII to the Australian Football League. Paper presented to the ANZMAC

Conference: Sports, Arts and Heritage Marketing.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Niederhoffer, K. G., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2002). Linguistic style matching in social

interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 337–360.

Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words:

Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 29, 665-675.

Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender

differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse

Processes, 45, 211–236.

68

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of

Communication, 24(2), 43-51.Noelle-Neumann, E. & Petersen, T. (2004). The

Spiral of Silence and the social nature of man. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of

political communication research (pp. 339-356). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

One in 13 people on the planet now use Facebook. (2011, July 21). BBC News. Retrieved

from http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-10720270

Oppenhuisen, J., & van Zoonen, L. (2006). Supporters or customers? Fandom, marketing

and the political economy of Dutch football. Soccer and Society, 71, 62–75.

Pan, Z., & McLeod, J. M. (1991). Multilevel analysis in mass communication research.

Communication Research, 18, 140-173.

Pankey, J. (n.d.). Beginning of organized sports in America. Retrieved from

http://www.hhp.txstate.edu/hper/faculty/pankey/1310/ch17Bread.htm

Parker, H. M. & Fink, J. S. (2007). The effect of negative sponsor information and team

response on identification levels and consumer attitudes. Unpublished Doctoral

thesis. Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.

Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word

Count (LIWC) (Version LIWC2001) [Computer software]. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of

natural language use: Our words, ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54,

547–577.

69

Pennycook, A. (1994). The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal, 48(2), 173–178.

Platow, M. J., Durante, M., Williams, N., Garrett, M., Walshe, J., Cincotta, S., Lianos,

G., & Barutchu, A. (1999). The contribution of sport fan social identity to the

production of prosocial behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and

Practice, 3, 161–169.

Poliakoff, M. B. (1995). Combat sports in the ancient world: Competition, violence, and

culture (Sports and History series). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Polk, M. (2011). A Browns fan's reaction to today's game against Houston [Video file].

Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tRBDMMVctu8

Pritchard, M., & Funk, D. C. (2005). Spectator responses to perceptions of the sport

product. Canadian Association for Leisure Studies, Papers Presented at the

Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, Nanaimo, B.C. 100-107.

Przybys, J. (2011, February 6). Women proving to be dedicated NFL fans. Las Vegas

Review-Journal. Retrieved from http://www.lvrj.com/living/women-proving-to-

be-as-dedicated-to-the-nfl-as-men-115414389.html

Quinn, K. G. (2009). Sports and their fans: The history, economics, and culture of the

relationship between spectator and sport. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Revshawn. (2011). The most popular NFL teams according to Facebook. Where do your

Panthers rank?. Cat Scratch Reader. Retrieved from

http://www.catscratchreader.com/2011/2/21/2006613/the-most-popular-nfl-teams-

according-to-facebook

70

Riess, S. (1989). City games: The evolution of American urban society and the rise of

sports. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Richardson, B., & Turley, D. (2006). Support your local team: Resistance, subculture,

and the desire for distinction. In C. Pechmann & L. L. Price (Eds.), Advances in

consumer research (pp. 175-180). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer

Research.

Richardson, K. D., & Cialdini, R. B. (1981). Basking in reflected glory. In Tedeschi

(Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research (pp.

41-53). Academic Press.

Riggs, M. L., & Knight, P. A. (1994). The impact of perceived group success-failure on

motivational beliefs and attitudes: A causal model. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 79, 755-766.

Riva, G. and Galimberti, C. (1998) Computer mediated communication: Identity and

social interaction in an electronic environment. Genetic, Social, and Psychology

Monographs. 124(4), 434-464.

Robinson, M., Trail, G., & Kwon, H. (2004). Motives and points of attachment of

professional golf spectators. Sport Management Review, 7(2), 167-192.

Robinson, M., & Trail, G. T. (2005). Relationships among spectator gender, motives and

points of attachment in selected intercollegiate sports. Journal of Sport

Management, 19(1), 58-80.

Rounds, P. (1987). Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teaching

assistant training. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 643–671.

Ruscher, J. B. (2001). Prejudiced communication. New York: The Guilford Press.

71

Sarstedt, M., Schwaiger, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. (2009). Satisfaction with

services: An impact-performance analysis for soccer-fan satisfaction judgements.

Paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy

Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

Scherer, H. (1991, May). Personal opinions and the perception of public opinion:

Conformity or projection? A test of two alternative models. Paper presented at the

meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Seçkin, A. (2006). Home advantage in association football: Evidence from Turkish Super

League. Trabajo presentado en la Ecomod Conference, Hong Kong.

Shank, M., & Beasley, F. (1998). Fan or fanatic: Refining a measure of sports

involvement. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 435-450.

Sherman, D. K., Kinias, Z., Major, B., Kim, H. S., & Prenovost, M. (2007), The group as

a resource: Reducing biased attributions for group success and failure via group

affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1100-1112.

Sigelman, L. (1986). Basking in reflected glory revisited: an attempt at replication. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 49(1), 90-92.

Sloan, L. R. (1989). The motives of sports fans. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports games

and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (2nd ed., pp. 175-240). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Slatcher, R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (in press). How do I love thee? Let me count the

words: The social effects of expressive writing. Psychological Science.

Smith, A., Graetz, B., & Westerbeek, H. (2008). Sport sponsorship, team support and

purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14, 387-404.

72

Smith, G. J., Patterson, B., Williams, T., Hogg, J. (1981). A profile of the deeply

committed sports fan. Arena Review, 5(2), 26-44.

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, 382–388.

Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to

group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification, Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538-553.

Spiegelberg, H. (1973). On the right to say “we”: A linguistic and phenomenological

analysis. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Phenomenological sociology (pp. 129–156). New

York: Wiley.

Spinrad, W. (1981). The function of spectator sports. In Lüschen, G. R. F. & Sage, G. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of social science of sport: With an international classified

bibliography. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company. 354-365

Study: Eagles fans most depressed In NFL. (2012). My Fox Philly. Retrieved from

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/sports/nfl/eagles/1251-study-eagles-fans-most-

depressed-in-nfl

Summers, J. (2010) Assessing the applicability of the Sport Fan Motivation Scale for

Australian teenage sport consumers. Paper presented at the Sport Marketing

Association Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Sutton, W. A., McDonald, M. A., Milne, G. R., & Cimperman, J. (1997). Creating and

fostering fan identification in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly,

6(1), 15-22.

73

Tausczik, Y., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC

and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social

Psychology, 29, 24–54.

Taylor, I. (1972). Football mad: A speculative sociology of football hooliganism. In E.

Dunning (Ed.), Sport: Readings from a sociological perspective (pp. 352-77).

Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Tesser, A., & Collins, J. E. (1988). Emotion in social reflection and comparison

situations: Intuitive, systematic, and exploratory approaches. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 695–709.

Tichenor, P. (1988). Public opinion and the construction of social reality. In J. Anderson

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 11 (pp. 547–554). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Thoits, P., & Virshup, L. (1997). Me’s and we’s: Forms and functions of social identities.

In R. Ashmore & L. Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity: Fundamental issues (pp.

106-133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2001). The motivation scale for sport consumption:

Assessment of the scale’s psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior,

24, 108-127.

Trail, G. T., Anderson, D. F., & Fink, J. S. (2005). Consumer satisfaction and identity

theory: A model of sport spectator conative loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly,

14(2). 98-111.

Wallendorf, M., & Arnould, E. J. (1988). My favorite things: A cross-cultural inquiry

into object attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage. Journal of Consumer

Research, 14, 531-46.

74

Wann, D. L. (1993). Aggression among highly identified spectators as a function of their

need to maintain positive social identity. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 17,

134-143.

Wann, D. L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the Sport Fan Motivation Scale. Journal of

Sport & Social Issues, 19, 377-396.

Wann, D. L. (2006). Understanding the positive social psychological benefits of sport

team identification: The team identification--social psychological health model.

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 272-296.

Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-weather fans: Effects of

identification on BIRGing and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport and Social

Issues, 14(2), 103-117.

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., Ensor, C. L., & Bilyeu, J. K. (2001). Intrinsic and extrinsic motives for

originally following a sport team and team identification. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 93, 451-454.

Wann, D. L., Hamlet, M. A., Wilson, T. M., & Hodges, J. A. (1995), Basking in reflected

glory, cutting off reflected failure, and cutting off future failure: The importance

of group identification. Social Behaviour and Personality, 23, 377-388.

Wann, D. L., Koch, K., Knoth, T., Fox, D., Aljubaily, H., & Lantz, C. D. (2006). The

impact of team identification on biased predictions of player performance. The

Psychological Record, 56, 55-66.

75

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.

Wann, D. L., Royalty, J., & Rochelle, A. R. (2002). Using motivation and team

identification to predict sport fans’ emotional responses to team performance.

Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 207-215.

Wann, D. L., Schrader, M. P., & Wilson, A. M. (1999). Sport fan motivation:

Questionnaire validation, comparisons by sport, and relationship to athletic

motivation. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(1), 1-15.

Wann, D. L., Tucker, K. B., & Schrader, M. P. (1996). An exploratory examination of the

factors influencing the origination, continuation, and cessation of identification

with sports teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 995-1001.

Wann, D. L., & Wilson, A. M. (2001). The relationship between the sport team

identification of basketball spectators and the number of attributions they generate

to explain their team’s performance. International Sports Journal, 5, 43-50.

Walther, J. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal

relations. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal

communication (4th ed., pp. 443-479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Waters, R. D., Burke, K. A., Jackson, Z. J., & Buning, J. D. (2010). Using stewardship to

cultivate fandom online: Comparing how National Football League teams use

their web sites and Facebook to engage their fans. International Journal of Sport

Communication, 3,163-177.

Wheeless, L. R. (1975) An investigation of receiver apprehension and social context

dimensions of communication apprehension. The Speech Teacher, 24. 261-268.

76

Williams, J. (2006). “Protect me from what I want”: Football fandom, celebrity cultures

and “new” football in England. Soccer and Society, 71, 96–114.

Winegard, B., & Deaner, R. O. (2010). The evolutionary significance of Red Sox nation:

Sport fandom as a byproduct of coalitional psychology. Evolutionary Psychology,

8(3), 432-446.

Provalis Research. (n.d.). LIWC 2007 DICTIONARY (Linguistic Inquiry and Word

Count). Retrieved from http://www.provalisresearch.com/wordstat/LIWC.html.

Yun, G. W., & Park, S. Y. (2011). Selective posting: Willingness to post a message

online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 201-227.

77

APPENDICES

95

APPENDIX B

PILOT STUDY

NOTE: The following is extracted from work completed for COM 633, Content Analysis

Research Methods (Dr. K. Neuendorf, instructor) during fall term, 2011. This pilot study

informed the subsequent research conducted for this thesis.

Pilot Study 2011

H1: Fans in the minority opinion regarding a victory or defeat will be less likely

to speak out than fans in the majority opinion on the Official Cleveland Browns

Facebook Page.

H2: Fans in the majority opinion regarding a victory or defeat are more likely to

use first person singular and plural pronouns when describing the Cleveland

Browns’ victory than fans in the minority opinion.

RQ1: Will there be a significant correlation between a defeat and user comments

indicating relativity of time to refer to a future season?

The population of the pilot was Cleveland Browns fans. The sampling frame was

Cleveland Browns fans that are Facebook users and indicated that they “Like” the

Official Cleveland Browns Facebook Page; at the time of data collection, there were

517,018 fans that fit in to this sampling frame.

A systematic sample was used to collect user comments and every nth user

comment was chosen for analysis. The first unit of sampling was the article examining

the loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers. There were a total of 922 comments and every 34th

user comment was selected. The second unit of sampling was the article examining the

96

victory against the Seattle Seahawks. There were a total of 516 comments and every 19th

user comment was selected.

The CATA program LIWC (Pennebaker, Francis, & Booth, 2001) was used to

analyze the posts with regard to their use of various parts of speech, and emotional tone

as assessed by the LIWC built-in dictionaries.

Pilot Study Results

H1 was supported. Positive emotions are positively correlated with a victory at

r=.271 but was not significant at p=.043. Also, anger is also positively correlated with a

victory at r=.354 and is significant at p=.007. See Table B1 for the results.

As shown in Table B2, positive emotions showed a mean at 4.7053 for a loss and

11.5254 for a win. Anger showed a mean at .3783 for a loss and 2.1204 for a win. See

Table XI below:

Table XI Victory/Loss and Positive/Negative Emotions

Positive Emotion Anger

Loss Mean 4.7053 .3783

N 30 30

SD 6.57291 .97527

Win Mean 11.5254 2.1204

N 26 26

SD 20.62990 3.26940

Total Mean 7.8718 1.1871

N 56 56

SD 15.10001 2.47562

H2 was not supported. Self words are negatively correlated with a victory at p=-

.089 and are not significant at r=.513. However, a high correlation was present between

self words and negative emotions at p=.523 and was significant. A high correlation was

present between self words and anger at p=.279 and are not significant at r=.037. A high

97

correlation was present between self words and sadness at p=.359 and was significant.

See Table XI for the results.

RQ1 found a high correlation between pronouns identified as Other (e.g. them,

they) and words dealing with the future (e.g. next season) at r=.645 and was significant at

p=.007. See Table XII for the results.

98

Table XII Victory, Pronominal Usage, and Positive/Negative Emotions

Win Self Other Pos Emo Pos Feel Neg Emo Anger Sad Future

Win Pearson Correlation

1 -.089 -.118 .227 .271(*) .016 .354(*) -.113 -.156

Sig. (2-tailed) .513 .384 .092 .043 .905 .007 .408 .250

N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

Self Pearson

Correlation -.089 1 .027 -.236 -.116 .532(**) .279(*) .359(**) .159

Sig. (2-tailed) .513 .846 .080 .395 .000 .037 .007 .241

N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

Other Pearson

Correlation -.118 .027 1 .051 .071 -.045 .161 -.092 .645(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .384 .846 .708 .602 .739 .237 .502 .000

N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

Pos Emo Pearson Correlation

.227 -.236 .051 1 .154 -.048 -.022 .033 -.060

Sig. (2-tailed) .092 .080 .708 .256 .725 .873 .811 .659

N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

Pos Feel Pearson

Correlation .271(*) -.116 .071 .154 1 .096 .315(*) -.038 -.082

Sig. (2-tailed) .043 .395 .602 .256 .482 .018 .783 .546

N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

Neg Emo Pearson

Correlation .016 .532(**) -.045 -.048 .096 1 .176 .878(**) -.046

Sig. (2-tailed) .905 .000 .739 .725 .482 .195 .000 .736

N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

Anger Pearson

Correlation .354(**) .279(*) .161 -.022 .315(*) .176 1 -.081 .164

Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .037 .237 .873 .018 .195 .552 .228

N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

Sadness Pearson Correlation

-.113 .359(**) -.092 .033 .-.038 .878(**) -.081 1 -.111

99

Sig. (2-tailed) .408 .007 .502 .811 .783 .000 .552 .416

N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

Future Pearson

Correlation -.156 .159 .645(**) -.060 -.082 -.046 .164 -.111 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .250 .241 .000 .659 .546 .736 .228 .416

N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

99

APPENDIX C

DEMOGRAPHICS

Table XIII Biological Sex

Table XIV Age

N

Valid N

Missing Mean Minimum Maximum

Age 338 11 33.03 18 74

Table XV Cleveland-area Residents

N

Valid N


Live in CLE 348 1 17.51 0 74

100

APPENDIX D

CLEVELAND BROWNS FANDOM

Table XVI Cleveland Browns Fan - Years

N

Valid N


Live in CLE 348 1 17.51 0 74

Table XVII Cleveland Browns Fan Rate

Table XVIII Browns Backers Fan Club Members

101

Table XIX Games Attended during the 2011-2012 Preseason and Regular Season

Table XX Season Ticket Holders

102

Table XXI Cleveland Browns Knowledge

Table XXII Cleveland Browns 2011-2012 Preseason and Season – Wins

103

Table XXIII Cleveland Browns 2011-2012 Preseason and Season – Losses

104

APPENDIX E

SOCIAL MEDIA

Table XXIV Cleveland Browns Facebook Page Likes

Table XXV Cleveland Browns Twitter Followers

Table XXVI How often do you use Facebook?

105

Table XXVII How often do you visit the Cleveland Browns Official Page on Facebook?

Table XXVIII How often do you start a new wall post on the Cleveland Browns Official Fan Page on Facebook?

Table XXIX How often do you comment on a post made by the administrator of the Cleveland Browns Official Fan Page on Facebook?

106

Table XXX How often do you comment on a post made by another user on the Cleveland Browns Official Fan Page?

Figure E1 Cleveland Browns Facebook Page – April 2012

Figure E2 Cleveland Browns Twitter Page – April 2012

108

APPENDIX F

SPORTS FAN MOTIVATION SCALE

Table XXXI Principal Component Analysis

Loadings Communality Group

Affiliation 1

Economic 2

Escape 3

Aesthetic 4

Self-Esteem

5

Eustress 6

Entertainment 7

Family 8

SFMS14 – Be with other people

.817 .068 -.140 .204 .171 .035 .291 -.091 .701

SFMS16 – Be with large group of people

.749 .064 -.122 .035 .011 .206 .062 -.086 .607

SFMS11 – Friends are sports fans

.638 .024 -.140 -.009 .109 .076 .371 -.106 .461

SFMS17 – Increases my self-esteem

.556 .115 -.398 .154 .234 .058 .304 -.354 .488

SFMS10 – Making wages

.151 .862 -.069 -.109 .004 .025 .068 -.048 .767

SFMS2 – Bet on sporting events

.050 .793 -.082 .052 .181 -.036 .090 -.016 .679

SFMS7 – Bet on the outcome

-.002 .771 -.104 -.032 -.190 -.094 .117 -.076 .646

SFMS9 – Forget my problems

.152 .055 -.899 .105 .163 -.034 .040 -.124 .817

SFMS13 – Takes away from life’s

.257 .122 -.870 .237 .101 .044 .060 -.257 .812

109

hassles SFMS1 – Temporarily escape life’s problems

.143 .080 -.869 -.037 .150 -.018 .040 -.069 .770

SFMS12 – Form of art

.131 -.006 -.116 .872 .064 .127 .125 -.203 .772

SFMS4 – Artistic value

.042 .037 -.126 .851 .013 -.031 .100 -.137 .742

SFMS5 – Beauty and grace of sports

.149 -.160 -.008 .795 .157 .075 .188 -.317 .969

SFMS3 – Get pumped up

.136 .062 -.090 .201 .792 .184 -.001 -.267 .672

SFMS8 – Feel good when team wins

.145 -.028 -.194 .002 .704 .090 .202 -.198 .534

SFMS21 – Team’s successes and losses are mine

.102 -.012 -.227 -.031 .598 .094 .052 -.521 .534

SFMS20 – Form of recreation

.055 -.005 -.097 .009 -.109 .781 .134 -.063 .693

SFMS15 – Entertainment value

.189 -.037 .034 .064 .298 .749 -.021 -.147 .620

SFMS19 – Good time

.184 -.098 .167 .130 .309 .586 .204 -.266 .484

SFMS22 – Be with spouse

.196 .117 -.030 .145 .023 .121 .856 -.091 .745

SFMS23 – Be with family

.342 .085 -.037 .142 .155 .081 .816 -.055 .694

SFMS18 – .178 .012 -.149 .167 .291 .203 .031 -.824 .697

110

Stimulation from watching SFMS6 – Physiological arousal

.071 .078 -.065 .283 .149 .079 .094 -.818 .700

Eigenvalue 2.435 2.083 2.749 2.479 2.061 1.724 1.925 2.246 [17.702]

Percent of Total Variance

10.586% 9.056% 11.952% 10.778% 8.960% 7.495% 8.369% 9.765 [76.965%]

Percent of Common Variance

13.755% 11.767% 15.529% 14.004% 11.642% 9.739% 10.874% 12.687% 100%

KMO measurement of sampling adequacy = .737

Bartlett’s test of sphericity: approx. chi-square = 2316. 537, df = 253, p < .001

111

APPENDIX G

WILLINGNESS TO SELF-CENSOR SCALE

Table XXXII It is difficult for me to express my opinion about the Cleveland Browns if I think others won’t agree with what I say.

Table XXXIII There have been many times when I have thought others around me were wrong about the Cleveland Browns but I didn’t let them know.

112

Table XXXIV When I disagree with others about the Cleveland Browns, I’d rather go along with them than argue about it.

Table XXXV It is easy for me to express my opinion about the Cleveland Browns around others who I think will disagree with me.

Table XXXVI I’d feel uncomfortable if someone asked my opinion about the Cleveland Browns and I knew that he or she wouldn’t agree with me.

113

Table XXXVII I tend speak my opinion about the Cleveland Browns only around friends or other people I trust.

Table XXXVIII It is safer to keep quiet than publicly speak an opinion about the Cleveland Browns that you know most others don’t share.

Table XXXIX If I disagree with others about the Cleveland Browns, I have no problem letting them know it.

114

APPENDIX H

OPINION ITEMS

Table XL When I have positive things to say about the Cleveland Browns, and I have been in the majority opinion, I have expressed my opinion.

Table XLI When I have negative things to say about the Cleveland Browns, and I have been in the majority opinion, I have expressed my opinion.

115

Table XLII When I have positive things to say about the Cleveland Browns, but others do not and I have been in the minority opinion, I have expressed my opinion.

Table XLIII When I have negative things to say about the Cleveland Browns, but others do not and I have been in the minority opinion, I have expressed my opinion.

sports fandom: a study of basking in reflected glory

Documents