Investigating differences in fan rival perceptions between conferences in intercollegiate athletics.

Havard, Cody T. ; Reams, Lamar

Sport fans tend to associate with fellow supporters of a favorite team in an attempt to enhance their self-esteem (Madrigal, 2001; Gwinner & Swanson, 2003; Tajfel, 1981; Wann & Grieve, 2005). Because most fans typically view and attend sporting events with other people (Dietz-Uhler, Harrick, End, & Jacquemotte, 2000), associating with fellow favorite team supporters fulfills the human need of group membership (Madrigal, 2000; Festinger, 1954; Wann & Grieve, 2005). A group of similar others that an individual joins is known as an in-group (Turner, 1982; Wann & Grieve, 2005), and in-groups can occur on many levels, whether locally, regionally, nationally, or globally. For example, in intercollegiate sports, fans can belong to an in-group of supporters for their favorite team (Gibson, Willming, & Holdnack, 2002), but can also identify with the larger in-group of the affiliated conference (Gartner & Dividio, 2000; Havard, Wann et al., 2013).

By identifying with an affiliated conference, fans are able to garner vicarious achievement (Bandura, 1977; Cialdini et al., 1976) of multiple successful teams, in addition to their favorite team. For instance, a fan may choose to identify with the success of another team within the affiliated conference to: 1) further feelings of joy or excitement when their favorite team is successful, or to 2) diminish the disappointment they feel when their favorite team experiences perceived failure. Recent displays of this type of behavior were Southeastern Conference (SEC) fans chanting "SEC, SEC" following the Vanderbilt Commodores 2014 baseball championship, and claims that Ohio State winning the 2015 College Football National Championship is good for the overall reputation of the BigTen Conference (BigTen).

In-group bias (Tajfel, 1969; Turner, 1982; Wann & Grieve, 2005) posits that a fan of intercollegiate football may identify supporters of their favorite team as an in-group, and supporters of all other fans within their affiliated conference as various out-groups. However, the same fan may view all fans of the affiliated conference as a separate, larger in-group when the conference is being compared to a different conference. This happens because members of two in-groups can choose to join together, or re-categorize, into one larger in-group (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). After reorganization, members may begin to attribute more positive characteristics toward members of the previously identified out-group. In intercollegiate athletics, this is observed when fans support their favorite team and the success of other teams within the conference, because it may in turn reflect on the strength of the favorite team (Havard, 2014). It is the perceptions of fans within affiliated conferences that is the focus of the current study.

Havard (2016) conducted exploratory research into differences in rival perceptions by conferences, and found significant differences between fans in different conferences. However, the small sample size made it difficult to generalize findings across the five major conferences based on two limitations: 1) only three conferences were represented in the sample, with minimal schools representing each conference, and 2) only main effects differences between conferences were investigated. To improve upon the previous work, the current study seeks to validate and extend Havard's initial findings using a more robust sample of fans from the five power conferences in the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS).

If significant differences exist between fan perceptions of their biggest rivals by conference affiliation, it would indicate that fans show preference to not only their favorite team, but also the conference that the favorite team belongs to. For purposes of the current study, the conferences that were included are those that previously received an automatic bid to BCS Bowl Games (i.e., ACC, BigTen, Big 12, Pac 12, SEC), minus the now basketball-only Big East Conference. The current study is important because it can provide insight in to the conference pride phenomenon, which can carry implications to both academics investigating fan and group behavior, school administrators, and practitioners at the conference and league levels.

Social Identity and Sport

Social Identity Theory (SIT) states that individuals will compare themselves to others in an attempt to enhance their self-esteem and the perceptions others have of them (Dees, Bennett & Ferreira, 2010; Tajfel, 1974; Wann & Grieve, 2005). This is caused by the inherent human desire to maintain balance in one's life (Heider, 1958). In sport, individuals will affiliate with others who support their favorite team (Tajfel, 1974; Turner, 1975) to fulfill a need to feel part of a group (Festinger, 1954; Madrigal, 2000; Wann & Grieve, 2005), and help them positively compare to others (Bandura, 1977; Dees et al., 2010). A fan of college sport will often identify with a favorite team for a variety of reasons, whether because they are an alumni of the school (Toma, 2003), see the team as a way to garner vicarious achievement (Bandura, 1977), or to help acclimate them to a new area or setting (Branscombe & Wann, 1991).

Social Categorization Theory (SCT) explains the tendency of people to separate others into groups depending on characteristics shared by individuals within and outside the group (Turner, 1982). Therefore, identification with a successful team can improve an individual's self-esteem (Crocker & Park, 2004) and social comparisons to fans who support different, perhaps less successful teams (Bandura, 1977). When combined with fellow supporters of a favorite team, the created in-group is commonly accompanied by a group of people who support an opposing team (i.e., out-group) (Turner, 1982). The out-group, provides a basis for the in-group to disidentify from, helping them further display stronger identification to their in-group (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001). Disidentification from the out-group is often displayed by derogation in some manner, typically occurring in the form of in-group members describing the actions and behaviors of the out-group more negatively than similar actions of the in-group (Maass, Salvi, Arcuri & Semin, 1989). This may help to explain why fans of teams and conferences describe the actions of out-groups more negatively in comparison to their in-groups. Specific on field (and off field) occurrences can also heighten tension between rival groups, leading in-group members to display malice toward out-group members (Ewing, Wagstaff & Powell, 2013).

Re-categorization states that when two separate groups of people perceive they are similar, they may choose to form a larger in-group, and evaluate the actions of previously thought out-group members more favorably (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Specific to intercollegiate athletics, re-categorization can occur when fans of rival teams within a conference choose to identify as fans of the conference (a larger in-group), in an attempt to favorably compare to schools and fan bases in a different conference (a larger out-group). Therefore, fans may display derogation toward the rival during head-to-head competition (Tajfel, 1969; Turner, 1982), but support the same opposing team when playing against another conference. Support for conference teams in indirect competition happens because the success or failure of teams within a fan's affiliated conference can reflect on the relative performance of their favorite team (Havard, 2014).

Conference Affiliation in Intercollegiate Athletics

Because a conference can represent a larger in-group for a fan (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Havard, Wann et al., 2013), it follows that fans of a specific conference will cheer for the success of teams within that conference. Fans within a conference may identify with certain aspects or characteristics of member schools they believe favorably compare to other conferences. For example, fans of schools in the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big Ten Conference (BigTen), and Pac 12 Conference (Pac 12) can brag about the academic qualities of member schools, while SEC and Big 12 Conference (Big 12) fans recognize the success of their affiliated football teams over the last decade.

A visit to online chat rooms and fan pages dedicated to college teams illustrates the presence of conference comparisons. For example, fans use the conference blog pages of ESPN.com to display their affiliation to their favorite teams, and in instances where conferences may compete, derogate the larger out-group (conference). Late in the 2014 college football season, media outlets started to project a possible bowl game rematch between the Texas Longhorns and Texas A&M Aggies, followed by contradictory stories claiming Texas A&M and the SEC may not allow the game to take place (Bromberg, 2014; Eberts, 2014). When ESPN published bowl projections on their web site, viewers discussed their desire to see the game, illustrated by the following comment, "Let's hope the SEC and Texas A&M stop being scared and don't stop the Texas vs. Texas A&m(sic) bowl game!" (2014 Bowl Projections, 2014). This type of comment could represent derogation of the Texas A&M Aggies and SEC.

Conference officials also attempt to display superiority through development of television commercials highlighting their member teams, along with the successes and characteristics of the larger in-group. For example, the BigTen Network airs a commercial meant to highlight all affiliated members by showing unique characteristics of each school and coverage areas. The Pad 2 uses a commercial to highlight the athletic successes of their affiliated schools, and the Big 12 uses the tagline, "One True Champion,'" to highlight the fact that all member schools play each other in football, annually. Additionally, with the increased exposure teams receive due to conference television contracts, conferences tactfully schedule game times to compete against each other for a greater claim of revenues and viewership. For example, when the Texas A&M Aggies left the Big 12 for the SEC, the annual Thanksgiving game against the Texas Longhorns was lost. Texas chose to play their annual Thanksgiving game at home each year, alternating between the Texas Christian University Horned Frogs and the Texas Tech Red Raiders. To compete for viewers with the Big 12, beginning in the 2014 season, the Texas A&M Aggies and Louisiana State University Tigers will also play their annual football game on Thanksgiving night. Anecdotally, this may represent proof of conference popularity to SEC and Big 12 fans, possibly resulting in further driving the argument that one conference is superior to others.

Support for teams within a conference is nothing new; however, little empirical evidence exists to suggest that fans significantly differ in their support of the overall success of the conference their favorite team belongs to. Fans of teams impacted by conference realignment have indicated they felt their team was joining a conference more representative of their school for several reasons (e.g., academics, athletics, culture similarity, sportsmanship) (Havard & Eddy, 2013); however, more research is needed to understand the pride fans perceive toward their current affiliated conference.

Rivalry in Sport

Just as fans choose a team or in-group to identify with, they also frequently choose an opponent or out-group to disidentify from (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001). When a group of supporters are presented with supporters of an opposing team (out-group), they tend to display bias toward members of the in-group and against members of the out-group (Tajfel, 1969; Turner, 1982). This action can occur between in-groups and out-groups when two teams compete within a conference, but can also occur when two conferences are in competition. Competition and comparison (Festinger, 1954) states that the presence of an opponent will cause a person to compare their actions, either actual or vicarious, to the actions of the out-group.

Rivalry in sport has been defined as, "a fluctuating adversarial relationship existing between two teams, players, or groups of fans, gaining significance through on-field competition. on-field or off-field incidences, proximity, demographic makeup, and/or historical occurrence(s)" (Havard et al, 2013, p. 51). Kilduff, Elfenbein, and Staw (2010) also identified an extensive history of close competition as an antecedent to rivalry. Because rivalries are a significant aspect of sport fandom, they elicit similar euphoric feelings among fans during favorite team victories (Mahonev & Howard, 1998) and after a rival team loses (Hillman, Cuthbert. Bradley, & Lang, 2004). The rivalry phenomenon has also been found to impact fan evaluations of player performances (Wann et al., 2006) and sportsmanship (Lalonde, 1992; Lalonde, Moghaddani & Taylor, 1987), consumption of sponsored products (Dalakas & Levin, 2005: Dalakas & Melancon. 2012; Davies, Veloutsou, & Costa. 2006), and willingness to help others in emergency situations (Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher, 2005).

In college sport, fans will form stronger bonds preceding contests against a rival opponent (Smith & Schwartz, 2003), and hold consistent, implicit (subconscious) and explicit (conscious) attitudes toward a rival team (Wenger & Brown, 2014). Because most college programs consider multiple opposing teams to be rivals, many athletics' departments have developed rivalry games to help promote these contests, which has resulted in college football teams playing for multiple rivalry trophies throughout any given season.

The Sport Rivalry Fan Perception Scale (Havard, Gray, Gould, Sharp & Schaffer, 2013) measures four aspects of an intercollegiate rivalry: support of the out-group in indirect competition (when the rival is playing someone other than the favorite team), academic prestige of the out-group, fan sportsmanship of the out-group, and the sense of satisfaction a fan gets when their favorite team defeats the rival team in direct competition. To date, the SRFPS has been used to investigate comparisons of season and non-season ticket holders, football and basketball fans (Havard, Reams et al., 2013), the impact of conference realignment on perceptions of new rival teams (Havard, Wann et al., 2013), and has been used in conjunction with measures of fan identification (Wann et al., in press).

Current Study

The SRFPS was used in the current study, and represents an ideal instrument to begin investigating differences in fan rival perceptions based on conference affiliation because it measures aspects of rivalry beyond just direct competition between the favorite and rival team. Further, the scale measures intensity of derogation toward a rival; therefore, as it indicates how a fan perceives their biggest rival team, it can also provide insight into how a fan perceives other teams within their affiliated conference that are not the biggest rival. For example, a fan can be expected to reserve stronger negative perceptions for their favorite team's biggest rival than other teams in the affiliated conference. In turn, if differences in rival perceptions toward the biggest rival exist among fans in various conferences, support would be provided for the potential existence of a conference, pride phenomenon. This information can lend support for the need to conduct further investigation into what causes fans to experience pride in belonging to specific conferences, which can answer the question whether fans in a particular conference are more proud of their affiliation than fans in a different conference. Furthermore, gaining a multi-faceted view of fans perceptions of their biggest rival team within a conference allows for differences between teams in various conferences to be investigated.

Out-Group Indirect Competition (OIC)

Out-group indirect competition refers to the support fans would provide to a rival team in a championship game, a game against someone outside of the shared conference, and whether they want their rival to win all games except for when they play their favorite team. Research shows that fans will experience joy when a rival team loses, consume a contest in hopes of seeing a rival lose, and even garner similar amounts of euphoria when a rival team loses as when a favorite team wins a contest (Cikara, Botvinick, & Fiske. 2011; Cikara & Fiske, 2012; Havard, 2014; Heider, 1958: Leach, Spears, Branscombe, & Doojse, 2003; Leach & Spears, 2009; Mahony & Howard, 1998; Mohoney & Moorman, 1999; Zillmann & Cantor, 1976). However, no evidence suggests that fan willingness to support the rival team in indirect competition will differ by conference affiliation.

H1: Fans will not significantly differ in their support of their biggest rival in indirect competition based on conference affiliation.

Out-Group Academic Prestige (OAP)

Out-group academic prestige refers to the way fans rate their perceptions of academic rigor at an identified rival institution. Cialdini and Richardson (1980) found that people will make biased evaluations of favorite and rival school characteristics. Further, in recent work, Havard (2014) found that fans perceived the academic prestige at their favorite team's institution as better than the academics at a rival team's institution. Based on these findings, the following hypothesis is offered:

H2: Fans will significantly differ in their perceptions of rival academic prestige based on conference affiliation.

Out-Group Sportsmanship (OS)

Out-group sportsmanship measures whether fans perceive rival fans as displaying good sportsmanship, positive behavior, and respect towards others at games. Sport and non-sport fans tend to describe the behavior of in-group members more positively than out-group members (Maass et al., 1989; Wan & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Grieve, 2005). Based on existing research, the following hypothesis is offered:

H3: Fans will significantly differ in their assessment of rival fan behavior based on conference affiliation.

Sense of Satisfaction (SoS)

Finally, sense of satisfaction refers to the sense of belonging, accomplishment, and bragging rights fans perceive when their favorite team defeats the rival team in direct competition. Sport Disposition Theory (Zillman, Bryant. & Sapolsky, 1989) states that fans will rejoice the successes of their favorite team, and failures of their rival team when playing each other. Additionally, Havard (2014) found that fans indicated the outcome of the game against their biggest rival carried significance in determining the perceived success of a season.). Based on these works, the following hypothesis is offered:

H4: Fans will not significantly differ in the sense of satisfaction they perceive when their favorite team defeats the rival team based on conference affiliation.

Method

Participants

A total of 1,558 participants started the survey, and 1,103 completed the instrument for a completion rate of 70.8%. Because the current study was focused on schools in the five major conferences, the researchers first removed participants that identified a favorite team outside of the five major conferences. Second, since the purpose of the current study was to measure differences in fan SRFPS mean scores between the major conferences, it was important that fans evaluated the biggest in-conference rival (as this may support the presence of conference pride). Therefore, the researchers removed participants who indicated a rival outside of the favorite team's conference. A total of 264 participant responses were removed because they identified teams outside of their current conference as their favorite team's biggest rival. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of responses removed in this stage came from fans of teams impacted by conference realignment (e.g., all but one fan of the West Virginia Mountaineers identified teams outside of the Big 12 Conference).

Therefore, a total of 839 participants provided usable data for the current study for a useable completion rate of 53.9%. Caucasian (90.9%) males (94.8%) made up the vast majority of participants in the current study. Additionally, 84.5% of participants indicated football was their favorite sport to follow their team, followed by men's basketball (14.4%). Forty five percent of the sample were aged 26 to 45, followed by 46 to 55 (18.3%), and 55 to 64(15.4%). Only 11.8% of participants were age 18 to 25.

Instrumentation

The survey instrument used in the current study consisted of three sections. The first section asked participants to identify their favorite intercollegiate team, and complete identification and consumption questions regarding the favorite team.

Sport Spectator Identification Scale.

Team identification was measured using the seven-item Sport Spectator Identification Scale (SSIS; Wann & Branscombe, 1993) because it has been found to influence fan perceptions of rival teams (Havard, Reams et al., 2013). Participant responses are measured on an 8-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree/Low Identification to 8 = Strongly Agree/ High Identification), and sample questions read, "How important is it to you that the favorite team wins?", "How strongly do you see yourself as a fan of the favorite team?", and "How important is being a fan of the favorite team to you?"

Favorite team consumption.

Next, participants responded to consumption questions regarding their favorite team. Questions asked the participants to indicate the sport in which they followed the favorite team, how long they had been a fan of the team, whether they were season ticket holders of the team, and how many games they attended and watched on television or the Internet in the last season. Finally, participants were asked how much money they had spent the previous season purchasing merchandise of the favorite team, and how many hours they spent reading about the team on the Internet.

Rival team perceptions.

The next sections asked participants to identify the team they believed was the biggest rival of the favorite team and briefly explain their choice. It is important to note that participants were given the freedom to identify the team they believed was the biggest rival of their favorite team rather than being provided with one a priori. Following a method used by Sierra, Taute, and Hauser (2010), participants were instructed to use the identified rival team to complete the SRFPS (Havard, Gray et al., 2013).

The SRFPS is comprised of four subscales, three items each, for a total of twelve items. Again, the four subscales are: out-group indirect competition (OIC), out-group academic prestige (OAP), out-groups sportsmanship (OS) and sense of satisfaction (SoS). Responses to the SRFPS items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree), and a higher score indicates a stronger negative perception of the rival team on all sub scales except the OIC items (a higher score indicates stronger willingness to support the rival team in indirect competition). Sample questions from the SRFPS read, "I would support the rival in out-of-conference play," "Fans of the rival are not well behaved at games," and, "I feel a sense of accomplishment when my favorite team beats the rival team."

Fan demographic questions.

The final section of the survey contained five demographic questions. Specifically, respondents were asked to indicate their sex, age, ethnicity, annual household income, and zip code. Participants were thanked for their time and given a chance to enter for a chance to win one of four $25 VISA gift cards.

Distribution

The survey was built using Qualtrics software. To help with rival salience (Luellen & Wann, 2010), the name of the rival team was piped throughout the SRFPS items. A link to the survey was posted on non-subscription based fan pages specific to football and men's basketball teams in the five major NCAA Division I FBS conferences. Examples of such fan pages include KillerFrogs.com (TCU), HuskerBoard.com (Nebraska), and SyracuseFan.com (Syracuse). Efforts were made to reach the most teams possible within each of the five major conferences. Using non-subscription based web sites allows participants to complete the survey instrument who may not have access to subscription based fan pages.

Results

Average mean scores were calculated for the SSIS, and the SRFPS. The five scales used in the current study were deemed reliable with a ranging from .792 to .943. Reliability scores and overall mean scores for the SSIS and SRFPS subscales can be found in Table 1. Overall, participants were highly identified with their favorite teams (7.15 out of 8 on the SSIS). Also, it should be noted that because the vast majority of participants were male (94.8%), the researchers were not able to test for differences by gender.

Preliminary Results

In total, 37 teams from the five major conferences were represented in the current study. Data for the most identified favorite teams and rival teams can be found in Table 2. The most frequently identified favorite team was the Auburn Tigers (n = 168, 20%), followed by the Kansas State Wildcats (n = 102, 12.2%). In turn, the two most frequently identified rival teams were the Alabama Crimson Tide (n = 196, 23.4%) and the Kansas Jayhawks (n = 94, 11.2%). The SEC was the most represented conference (n = 272, 32.4%), followed by the Big 12 (n = 240, 28.6%), the Big Ten (n = 151, 18%), the Pac 12 (n = 116, 13.8%), and the ACC (n = 60, 7.2%). In general, fans indicated they would not support their biggest rival in indirect competition (M = 3.49, SD = 1.07), believed the academic prestige of their biggest rival school was somewhat positive (M = 3.27, SD = 1.84), somewhat believed rival fans displayed poor sportsmanship at games (M = 5.17, SD = 1.62), and experienced high levels of satisfaction when their favorite team beat their biggest rival in direct competition (M = 5.87, SD = 1.25). Testing the Hypotheses

Research has indicated that fan identification can impact how fans perceive rival teams (Havard, Reams et al., 2013); therefore, the SSIS scores were used as a covariate to test the hypotheses. The specific team a fan follows can also impact rival perceptions (Havard, Wann et al., 2013); however, due to the large number of teams represented in the sample, the researchers chose not to include a favorite team control variable. Instead, the researchers first conducted a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) in SPSS 22 to examine whether significant differences existed between teams. A significant Wilk's [DELTA] .471, F(144, 3184) = 4.60, p < .001 illustrated that the team a fan followed did impact how they perceived their biggest rival team. Univariate results indicated that significant differences exist for each SRFPS subscale based upon favorite team: (OIC, F(36, 802) = 3.09, p < .001; OAP, F(36, 802) = 8.67, p < .001; OS, F (36, 802) = 6.08, p < .001; SoS, F (36, 802) = 1.97, p = .001).

However, it stands to be noted that two teams represented a large portion of the sample (i.e., Auburn = 20%, Kansas State = 12.2%), indicating that samples of this size may significantly impact the data. Therefore, because of participant disparity between teams in the sample, rather than include all 37 teams as covariates, the researchers decided to increase the robustness of the data by testing for significance between the Auburn and Kansas State fans and the rest of the sample. These two teams were chosen because: 1) they were the most represented in the sample, and 2) there was a significant drop off in number of participants between the second and third most represented favorite teams (see Table 2). To accomplish this, the researchers created a dummy variable for each of the two schools. For the first dummy variable, Auburn fans were identified with the number one, and all other participants in the sample with the number two. This step was repeated for Kansas State fans as well. Next, a MANOVA was run using the four SRFPS subscales as dependent variables and the Auburn variable as the factor, and found significant differences existed between Auburn fans and the rest of the sample, Wilk's [DELTA] .850, F (4, 834) = 36.83, p < .001. The MANOVA using the Kansas State variable as the factor did not reach significance, Wilk's [DELTA] .995, F (4, 834) = 1.07,p = .370. To account for the impact that Auburn fans may have on rival perceptions of the sample, the researchers ran a Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) with a significance level of .01, while controlling for the presence of Auburn fans and team identification.

The MANCOVA revealed a significant Wilk's [DELTA], .903, F (16, 2533) = 535, p < .001, and inspection of the univariate statistics again found significant differences between conferences for OIC (F(4, 832) = 3.47,p = .008), OAP sub scale (F(4, 832) = 14.43, p < .001) and OS (F (4, 832) = 6.01, p < .001) after controlling for team identification and the presence of Auburn fans in the sample. No significant differences existed between conferences for SoS, indicating that fans in all conferences enjoy beating their rival in direct competition equally. Pairwise comparisons with Bonferoni adjustment (Table 3) found differences between conferences on several measures. In particular, fans in the SEC were less supportive of their biggest rival teams in indirect competition than fans in the BigTen and Big 12, and significantly more negative towards their rivals' academics and perceptions of rival fans' behavior than any other conference. Fans in the ACC had significantly more positive perceptions of the academic prestige at rival schools than any other conference. In summary, significant differences in rival perceptions existed between fans for three of the four subscales tested; therefore, HI was rejected and H2, H3, and H4 were supported.

Discussion

The current study investigated fans' perceptions of rival teams by conference affiliation. Conference pride, or the excitement a fan experiences or expresses when a team within the conference (other than the favorite team) is successful, merits further empirical investigation. The current study provides empirical evidence to the existence of this dynamic phenomenon.

Some limitations of the present work include: the lack of female respondents did not allow the researchers to test for differences by sex and teams outside of the five major conferences were not represented in the current study. Also, the use of online message boards to collect data may limit the generalizability to all intercollegiate athletics fans.

Findings displayed that significant differences exist between conferences after controlling for team identification and the presence of Auburn fans in the sample. In particular, fans in the SEC were less supportive of their biggest rival in indirect competition than fans in the BigTen and Big 12. Fans in the ACC held stronger positive perceptions of their rival's academic prestige than any other conference, while SEC fans held stronger negative perceptions of rival academic prestige than any other conference. Fans in the SEC also rated the behavior of rival fans more negatively than fans in any other conference.

The indirect competition finding is somewhat contrary to the common belief among fans of SEC teams that conference members are supportive of other teams in the conference to a greater extent than in other major DI conferences (Curtis, 2011). A potential explanation may come from a consequence of re-categorization (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), where the authors state that a dual identity (with a favorite team and the affiliated conference in this instance) may "trigger greater intergroup conflict" (p. 50) under intense competition. For example, it is possible that fans in the SEC view competition within their conference to be so intense, that they become more impassioned toward their biggest rival, precluding them from being able to experience joy when their greatest rival team is successful (even when that success may reflect positively on their affiliated conference and favorite team). Hence, impassioned fans want fellow conference teams who they do not consider to be their biggest rival to be successful, so they can garner the vicarious achievement from those teams and favorably compare to fans in other conferences. Another possible explanation for the differences in support during indirect competition between the BigTen/Big 12 and the SEC may be that fans in the BigTen and Big 12 feel their leagues have been overlooked (e.g., criticism of BigTen teams performance in bowl games prior to the 2014 season, and the common belief that the Big 12 would fold due to conference realignment), causing fans of both conferences to wish for their affiliated teams to compete favorably against the commonly believed superior SEC. Further, fans in the SEC may see their conference as far superior to others that they may focus more on competition within rather than outside of the conference.

Another interesting observation is that fans in the ACC rated the academic prestige of their biggest rival as more prestigious than other conferences, the opposite held true for the SEC. This finding supports popular perceptions that the ACC is a conference known for their academic rigor (Teel, 2011) while the SEC is known for athletic performance (Boudway, 2013). It is also interesting to note that the BigTen and Pac 12, both known for their academic prestige as well, did not differ from the Big 12. The finding may suggest that national popular opinions about the BigTen and Pac 12 conferences may not represent the perceptions of internal group members, or that fans of the Big 12 do not know much information about the academic prestige at their rival school.

The only conference to significantly differ from other conferences regarding rival fan sportsmanship was the SEC, which suggests that four of the five major DI conferences do not perceive rival fans as behaving differently. These perceptions may be caused by the intense feelings of competition fans of SEC teams feel toward each other during conference season. Significant differences were not present regarding sense of satisfaction when the favorite team defeated the rival team. The non-significant finding is important because it illustrates that fans revel in defeating their rival to the same degree across conferences, which may indicate that direct rivalry contests are consistent across the five major conferences.

Implications

Findings from the current study add to the literature in several ways. First, this research adds to the existing literature regarding intercollegiate rivalries and differences in perceptions of rival teams between conferences. Perhaps most important, the current findings support and extend Havard (2016), suggesting that a conference pride phenomenon exists. Also, the present work extends SIT and in-group bias, suggesting that people can differ in their perceptions at larger in-group levels (i.e., conference) (Tajfel, 1969; Tajfel, 1974; Turner, 1982). The findings displayed in the current work also detail how the five major conferences differ in each aspect of rivalry measured. Furthermore, an impetus for additional research into varying perceptions of teams and conferences to determine what causes such differences has been provided.

Future assessments of conference pride beyond sport can also be important. For example, the conferences in the current study are representative of different regions of the United States (ACC--east coast; BigTen--Midwest, Big 12--south and Midwest, Pac 12--west coast; SEC--south east, Big 12--south and Midwest); therefore, these findings may begin to shed light onto social perceptions of out-groups within these regions. It is very important that more research into this finding is explored, as group behavior can vary across different cultures and regions.

The current study also contains important implications for practitioners working for intercollegiate athletics' teams and conferences. Because fan perceptions of rival teams significantly differ regarding three characteristics measured in the current investigation, practitioners working for teams within these conferences can use this information to highlight characteristics that will benefit their teams. For example, teams in the ACC can highlight the academics of their biggest rival team more positively than fans in any other conference. Engaging in this practice may further validate the public perception of the conference, and should be used by team practitioners when communicating with fans and consumers about the product.

Conference offices can also utilize findings from the current study. Again, the ACC can highlight the fact that their fans are more supportive of rival academic prestige and fan behavior. Conversely, the SEC may want to use the current findings in an attempt to find ways to improve the perceptions of biggest rival teams within the conference to better reflect the desired image the conference wishes to promote. Having insight into fan perceptions of rival teams within a conference can also help administrators identify potential schools to join their conference if conference expansion is desired and/or necessary.

Future Study

The first direction for future study is for researchers to expand the investigation into the conference pride phenomenon beyond primary rival teams. As such, research into secondary rivals could prove to be beneficial due to the perpetually changing landscape of intercollegiate conferences and rivalry games. By measuring the characteristics of additional schools within the conference, research could lend further support to the current findings regarding varying fan perceptions of affiliated teams. Additionally, this research is important because it can lend insight to the consequence of re-categorization (perception of intense competition) discussed earlier.

Specific to a conference pride phenomenon, the next step to increasing understanding of the conference pride phenomenon is to conduct qualitative and quantitative research in this area, as this will identify additional characteristics fans use to form their beliefs and voice their support (or displeasure) of their affiliated conference. Qualitative research will allow investigators to determine the motivations fans have for supporting other teams within their affiliated conference. Additionally, modifying a fan identification scale to measure a person's affiliation with a particular conference will help researchers to investigate differences among various conferences. Recently, Spinda, Wann, and Hardin (2015) added items to measure conference affiliation to the points of attachment index (PAI) and could be utilized in future study.

Finally, understanding how fans perceive the teams within their conference is important to sport researchers and administrators interested in increasing their understanding of fan behavior. The current study provides additional evidence that fans will show in-group bias regarding the conference in which their favorite team competes, and presents areas for future research into the conference pride phenomenon that exists within intercollegiate athletics.

References

2014 Bowl Projections--Week 14 (2014). ESPN.com. Retrieved from: http://espn.go.com/ college-football/bowls/projections

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychology Review, 8(2), 80-114.

Boudway, I. (2013, Dec. 27). Why the SEC dominates college football in six charts. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-27/why-the-sec-dominates-college- football-in-six-charts

Bromberg, N. (2014, Nov. 21). Texas A&M athletic director says bowl destination out of school's control. Yahoo Sports. Retrieved from: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ ncaaf-dr-saturday/texas-a-m-athletic-director-says-bowl-destination-out-of-school-s-control-220338758.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(2), 115-127.

Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of impression management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406-415. Cikara, M., Botvinick, M. M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Us versus them: Social identity shaped neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological Science, 22, 306-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610397667

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

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

Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 392-414.

Curtis, B. (2011, Sep. 15). S-E-C! S-E-C! S-E-C! That inescapable chant and the new southern pride. Grantland. Retrieved from http://grantland.com/features/s-e-c-s-e-c-s-e-c/

Dalakas, V., & Levin, A. M. (2005). The balance theory domino: How sponsorships may elicit negative consumer attitudes. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 91-97.

Dalakas, V., & Melancon, J. R (2012). Fan identification, schadenfreude toward hated rivals, and the mediating effects of Importance of Winning Index (IWIN). Journal of Services Marketing, 26, 51-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041211199724

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

Dees, W., Bennett, G., & Ferreira, M. (2010). Personality fit in NASCAR: An evaluation of driver-sponsor congruence and its impact on sponsorship effectiveness outcomes. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 79(1), 25-35.

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, 219-231.

Eberts, W. (2014, Nov. 18). Report: SEC/Texas A&M want to avoid Horns-Aggies Texas Bowl. Burnt Orange Nation. Retrieved from: http://www.burntorangenation.com/football/ 2014/11 /18/7242311 /texas-longhorns-texas-am-aggies-texas-bowl-sec

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

Ewing, M. T., Wagstaff, P. E., & Powell, I. H. (2013). Brand rivalry and community conflict. Journal of Business Research, 66, 4-12. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2001.07.017

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.

Gaertner S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identify model. Ann Arbor, MI: Taylor & Francis.

Gibson, H., Willming, C., & Holdnak, A. (2002). "We're Gators ... Not just Gator fans": Serious leisure and University of Florida Football. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 397-425.

Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S. R. (2003). A model of fan identification: antecedents and sponsorship outcomes. The Journal of Services Marketing, 77(2/3), 275-294.

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

Havard, C. T. (2014). Glory Out of Reflected Failure: The examination of how rivalry affects sport fans. Sport Management Review, 17, 243-253. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.smr.2013 /09.002

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

Havard, C. T., Gray, D. P., Gould, J., Sharp, L. A., & Schaffer, J. J. (2013). Development and validation of the Sport Rivalry Fan Perception Scale (SRFPS). Journal of Sport Behavior, 35, 45-65.

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

Havard, C. T., Wann, D. L., & Ryan, T. D. (2013). Investigating the impact of conference realignment on rivalry in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 22, 224-234.

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

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

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

Lalonde, R. N. (1992). The dynamics of group differentiation in the face of defeat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 336-342. doi: 10.1177/0146167292183010

Lalonde, R. N., Moghaddam, F. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1987). The process of group differentiation in a dynamic intergroup setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 273-287.

Leach, C. W., Spears, R., Branscombe, N. R., & Doojse, B. (2003). Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 932-943. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.932

Leach, C. W. & Spears, R. (2009). Dejection at in-group defeat and schadenfreude toward second-and third-party out-groups. Emotion, 9, 659-665. doi: 10.1037/a0016815

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

Luellen, T. B., & Wann, D. L. (2010). Rival salience and sport team identification. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, 96-106.

Maas, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981-993. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.981

Madrigal, R. (2000). The influence of social alliances with sports teams on intentions to purchase corporate sponsors' products. Journal of Advertising, 29(4), 13-24.

Madrigal, R. (2001). Social identity effects in a belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy: Implications for corporate sponsorship, Psychology & Marketing, 18(2), 145-165.

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

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

Sierra, J. J., Taute, H. A., & Heiser, R. S. (2010). Personal opinions and beliefs as determinants of collegiate football consumption for revered and hated teams. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, 143-153.

Smith, R. A., & Schwartz, N. (2003). Language, social comparison, and college football: Is your school less similar to the rival school than the rival school is to your school? Communication Monographs, 74, 351-360.

Spinda, J. S. W., Wann, D. L., & Hardin, R. (2015). Attachment to sports conferences: An expanded model of points of attachment among professional, collegiate, and high school football fans. Communication & Sport, 1, 1-16. doi: 10.1177/2167479515578262

Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 2.5(4), 79-97.

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

Teel, D. (2011, Sep. 14). Teel time: Texas, 45,h in U.S. News rankings, fits ACC's academic profile. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/ dp-teel-time-academics-matter-to-acc-and-that-favors-public-ivy-texas-no-45-in-us-newsrankings-20110914-story.html

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

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

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

Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with the team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1-17.

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

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

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

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

Wann, D. L., & Waddill, P. J. (2013). Predicting sport fans' willingness to consider anonymous acts of aggression: Importance of team identification and fan dysfunction. In C. Mohiyeddini (ed.) Contemporary topics and trends in the psychology of sports. Hauppauge, NY: Nova.

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.

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

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

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

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

Cody T. Havard

The University of Memphis

Lamar Reams

Old Dominion University

Address Correspondence to: Cody T. Havard, 3700 Central Avenue, Suite 140M. Memphis, TN 38152-3370. Email: chavard@memphis.edu

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Scale Reliability for TII, OIC, OAP,
OS, and SoS scales

Scale     M        SD     Cronbach's [alpha]

SSIS     7.15     0.74           .792
OIC      3.49     1.07           .885
OAP      3.27     1.84           .943
OS       5.17     1.62           .940
SoS      5.87     1.25           .822

Table 2
Frequency Data for Most Represented Favorite and Rival Team

Favorite Team                n        %

Auburn Tigers               168      20
Kansas State Wildcats       102      12.2
Oregon Ducks                 56       6.7
Texas Tech Red Raiders       54       6.4
Illinois Fighting Illini     44       5.2
Tennessee Volunteers         38       4.5
Texas Longhorns              33       3.9
Wisconsin Badgers            32       3.8

Rival Team

Alabama Crimson Tide        196      23.4
Kansas Jayhawks              94      11.2
Texas Longhorns              58       6.8
Oklahoma Sooners             50       6
Washington Huskies           44       5.2
Indiana Hoosiers             39       4.6
Duke Blue Devils             31       3.7

* At least 30 participants or responses

* Favorite and Rival Teams do not necessarily correspond

Table 3
Mean Scores by Conference Affiliation for OIC, OAP, OS, and SoS sub
scales. (Robustness Check)

                              Scale

                     OIC                  OAP

Conference        M         SD          M          SD

ACC              3.39      1.11    1.82 (bcde)    1.13
Big 12         3.63 (e)    1.02     3.09 (ac)     1.70
Big Ten        3.82 (e)    1.03     3.05 (ae)     1.79
Pac 12           3.41      1.09     2.82 (ae)     1.78
SEC           3.22 (bc)    1.04    4.07 (abcd)    1.81

                              Scale

                       OS                SoS

Conference         M          SD      M      SD

ACC             4.46 (e)     1.57    6.08   0.89
Big 12          4.82 (e)     1.61    6.00   1.12
Big Ten         4.79 (c)     1.59    5.85   1.19
Pac 12          5.13 (e)     1.79    5.85   1.36
SEC           5.86 (abcd)    1.32    5.72   1.38

* a significance difference with ACC at .05 level

* b significance difference with Big 12 at .05 level

* c significance difference with Big Ten at .05 level

* d significant difference with Pac 12 at .05 level

* e significant difference with SEC at .05 level