Destined to succeed? Team identification and the attributional bias of NFL fans.
Dwyer, Brendan ; Eddy, Terry ; LeCrom, Carrie W. 等
Being a fan in today's media saturated sport marketplace can
be an emotional roller coaster, and often times, the conclusion of the
season can be most maddening. From front office firings and coaching
changes to ring ceremonies and White House visits, media commentators
and pundits overreact to any number of seasonal outcomes (Lewis &
Proffitt, 2012; Reese, 2001). From a fan's perspective, making
sense of a successful or unsuccessful season not only influences
one's relationship with the team, but also impacts one's self-
and social identity. Previous research in this area has recognized
internal and external attribution and team identification as important
factors within a sport fan's affective, cognitive, and behavioral
response to team success and failure (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann &
Schrader, 2000). However, these studies have been limited to single game
outcomes and have not examined the impact of attributable factors for an
entire season. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the
moderating impact of team identification on the attributional bias of
two groups of sport team fans that experienced opposite seasonal
outcomes (success/ failure). The following sections outline the
importance of this area of study and formulate the problem under
examination.
Team Identification
Team identification is an important psychological construct that
has been at the forefront of research in various sport-related fields.
Team identification has been defined as a fan's psychological
connection to a team and involves the degree to which the fan views the
team as an extension of themselves (Wann et al., 2011). The concept of
team identification is a common application of social identity theory,
which says that an individual's self-concept is partially derived
from knowledge of their membership in social groups (both formal and
informal), along with the emotional and value significance attached to
the membership (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Through these group
memberships, the individual adopts the values and beliefs of the social
group, which creates a social identity that is shared with other members
of the group. It should be noted that social identity impacts fan
behaviors regardless of the role an individual plays in the group, as
fans still perceive themselves to be part of the group even when they
are not active participants in an organized collective (Reysen &
Branscombe, 2010). Identification with a team has been found to be a
strong predictor of numerous spectator affective, cognitive, and
behavioral reactions, including social well-being (Wann, 2006; Wann,
Waddill, Polk, & Weaver, 2011), team-related purchasing history and
future purchasing intentions (Bodet & Bemache-Assollant, 2011; Fink,
Trail, & Anderson, 2002; Judson & Carpenter, 2005; Lock, Taylor,
Funk, & Darcy, 2012; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Sutton, McDonald,
Milne, & Cimperman, 1997; Trail, Anderson & Fink, 2005), and
sponsorship-related outcomes (Gwinner & Swanson, 2003).
For highly identified fans, who by definition have a strong
positive connection to their team of choice, being a follower is a
central component of their social identity - thus, the performance of
their favorite team is closely linked to their feelings of self-worth
(Tajfel, 1981; Wann & Schrader, 2000). In other words, highly
identified fans have greater positive biases towards players on their
favorite teams than low identified fans, and similarly have more
negative biases toward players on rival teams (Wann et al., 2006). One
such bias has been termed intergroup bias, which occurs when group
members maintain positive distinctiveness by making comparisons that
favor the in-group (such as the team of choice) over the out-group
(Dimmock, Grove, & Eklund, 2005). Intergroup bias also serves to
explain why highly identified fans will root against rival teams of
their preferred team, and why they will also root against teams that
defeated their favorite team (particularly in a playoff or tournament
format), as a coping exercise to recover lost self-esteem (Grieve, Wann,
& Zapalac, 2008). It should be noted that social identity predicts
that these biased perceptions will only be found in individuals with
high levels of identification with a team, and that less highly
identified fans will not exhibit these same biases (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel
& Turner, 1986). Because lowly identified fans will not feel the
same effects on self-worth and self-esteem (positive or negative), there
is no need for them to adopt these biases. Given the wealth of knowledge
in this area and the significance of team identification in explaining
fan behavior, the current study sought explore the moderating impact of
team identification on the relationship between team success or failure
and fan attribution.
Attribution Theory
There are several theoretical contexts that have been used to
explain biases and differences in perception associated with team
identification (i.e. Basking in Reflected Glory (BIRGing), negative
pessimism). In this study, the framework to be employed is that of
attribution theory, which is based on the seminal work of Heider (1958)
and Weiner (1985). Attribution theory is a concept from social
psychology that addresses the processes by which people explain the
causes of events (Rees, Ingledew, & Hardy, 2005; Wann, 1997; Weiner,
1985). Attribution theory focuses on a fundamental need that people have
to explain the underlying causes of important events or outcomes
(Weiner, 1985). The explanations that people assign to outcomes are
termed attributions, and these attributions can influence emotions,
decisions, expectations, and behaviors (Allen, Coffee, & Greenlees,
2012). Attribution theory is a common framework for investigation in
sport psychology, where the goal is to generally determine how
participants explain performances, or to discover the difference in an
athlete's attributions after winning and losing (Martin &
Carron, 2012; Rees et al., 2005).
Although little is known about the processes by which participant
and team attributions emerge, it seems that personality, experience, and
intergroup relationships act as precursors to athlete attributions
(Allen et al., 2012; Heider, 1958). Hence, participants'
attributions will vary based on how long they have played the sport and
how well they get along with their teammates, as well as their
individual personality traits. Although there are slight variations in
paradigms used to classify causal attributions, most are centered around
the following three general dimensions: locus of causality (the extent
to which the attribution is viewed as having been influenced by the
individual or other sources), stability (the extent to which the
attribution remains constant over time), and controllability (the extent
to which the individual can control the attribution) (Martin &
Carron, 2012; Weiner, 1985).
In general, athletes will tend to attribute wins to internal,
stable, and controllable factors (factors within the team), and losses
to external, unstable, and uncontrollable factors (factors outside of
the team's control) (cf. Allen et al., 2012; Martin & Carron,
2012). For example, during post-game interviews we often see players
attribute a win to a strong effort by their team, whereas losses are
often attributed to bad luck, an unstoppable performance by the other
team, poor calls from the officials, etc. This phenomenon is known as
the team-serving bias, which is similar to other coping techniques
(i.e., intergroup bias) in that it is an attempt to restore lost
self-esteem (Allen et al., 2012; Martin & Carron, 2012).
Investigation of the team-serving bias through attribution theory
has also been extended to include non-participants, namely sport fans.
It has been found that highly identified fans demonstrate a
success/failure attributional bias, similar to the team-serving bias, in
that they form internal attributions following success (Madrigal &
Chen, 2008; Wann & Dolan, 1994) and external attributions following
defeat (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Schrader, 2000). However,
similar to the intergroup bias in team identification, lowly identified
fans do not tend to exhibit the same self-serving attributional pattern,
and appear to be less bothered with explaining or justifying defeat
(Wann & Branscombe, 1990; Wann & Schrader, 2000). Highly
identified individuals will also tend to manipulate attributions after a
loss in an attempt to protect their self-esteem, and these fans will
show increases in negative emotions following a loss, compared to fans
with lower levels of identification (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann,
Dolan, McGeorge, & Allison, 1994). Similar to athletes, highly
identified fans will also tend to exhibit self-serving attribution
patterns by attributing their team's successes to controllable and
stable causes (Wann & Schrader, 2000).
Purpose
In all, attribution and team identification research among sport
fans has varied over the past two decades, but its impact in explaining
sport fan attitudes and behaviors is evident. This study looked to
contribute to the conversation. As mentioned above, much of the
literature in this area has been limited to single game applications and
has not examined seasonal outcomes. Hence, the authors believed it would
be beneficial to extend this research to an entire season of
professional football due to the raised stakes of a full season of
success or failure as opposed to a single game outcome. To examine an
entire professional league season within the context of attribution
theory, the team outcomes must closely resemble a win and a loss. As a
result, the 2011-12 New York Giants (NYG) and Jets (NYJ) were selected
as the seasons for this investigation.
These two teams have very different seasons from expectations to
outcomes. The NYJ had appeared in the AFC championship game the previous
two seasons, and were ranked 7th in ESPN's Power Rankings at the
beginning of the season. The NYG, on the other hand, did not reach the
playoffs in either of the previous two seasons and suffered several
injury losses in the 2011-12 preseason, which caused them to drop to
15th in the Power Rankings prior to Week 1 (ESPN.com, 2011). Despite the
high expectations (1) for the 2011-12 NFL season stemming from the
previous two years success, the NYJ finished 8-8 and did not qualify for
the playoffs. The NYG, however, were not being forecasted to make the
playoffs, yet went on to win the Super Bowl. Thus, based on the previous
attribution/ identification work, it was predicted NYG fans would score
higher on internal attributes, while NYJ fan would score higher on
external attributes. In addition, it was predicted that team
identification would moderate the attributional bias of these groups of
fans for both sets of attributes. The following hypotheses were
developed to guide the study:
H1: Fans of the NYG will score higher on the internal attributes of
their team's season than NYJ fans.
H2: A fan's level of team identification will significantly
moderate the relationship between team outcome and a fan's internal
attribution
H3: Fans of the NYJ will score higher on the external attributes of
their team's season than NYG fans.
H4: A fan's level of team identification will significantly
moderate the relationship between team outcome and a fan's external
attribution.
Method
Participants and Procedures
Undergraduate and graduate students from a large urban university
in the New York City area were surveyed at the conclusion of the 2011-12
NFL season. Potential respondents were solicited before class. No
incentive was provided, and willing volunteers were provided an informed
consent statement before starting the questionnaire. Paper surveys were
distributed, and of the 245 solicited, 225 began the survey with 194
fully completed the questionnaire (79.2% response rate). The raw data
were coded and preliminarily examined in Microsoft Excel. The
statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 20. Sample
demographics were assessed through the online survey software. The
sample was mostly male (84.8%) with an average age of 22
(5'Z)=11.761). Fifty six percent of the respondents identified the
NYG as their preferred team and 44% picked the NYJ; 59.7% identified
themselves as Caucasian followed by 15.7% Black, 11% Hispanic/Latino,
and 4.2% Asian. Participants who identified a preferred team other than
the NYJ or NYG were eliminated from the sample. Among the respondents,
41.8% indicated that they attended a game at MetLife stadium during the
2011-2012 season.
Instruments and Analyses
Before application, the instrument was piloted with a small sample
of graduate students at a large urban university in the mid-Atlantic.
Ultimately, seven different types of attributions were included based on
the work of Warm and Dolan (1994) and the pilot results: four internal
(players, fans, front office management, & coaches) and three
external (opponent performance, referees, & fate). See Table 1 for
the specific item information. The authors understand the reliability
concerns related to using single-item measures (Peter, 1979). However,
previous applications of attribution theory in sport spectatorship have
used similar methods (Warm & Dolan, 1994; Warm & Schrader,
2000). Each attribute was measured on a seven point Likert-type scale
from 1 (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree). Team
identification was measured using the three-item, team factor of
Robinson and Trail's (2005) Point of Attachment Index (PAI). This
variable was also measured on a seven point Likert-type scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to seven {strongly agree). Additionally, this
variable was dichotomized (high & low) by a respondent's mean
PAI score; a mean score greater than or equal to four was categorized as
high. Team identification, regardless of scale choice, is a construct
that has been dichotomized previously (Wann & Grieve, 2008). Four
was chosen as the dichotomous cutoff because it was the neutral midpoint
of the seven point Likert scale.
To test the four hypotheses, the two sets of dependent variables,
internal and external attributes, were tested via two separate 2X2
between-subjects multiple factorial analyses of variance (MANOVA). One
subject variable was the dichotomized team identification score, and the
other was the categorical classification of season success/failure of
the respondent's most preferred team (0=success; l=failure).
Results
With respect to team identification, the sample leaned toward being
more highly attached NFL team fans with 121 (62%) respondents
categorized in the high group. On a seven point scale, the sample mean
was 4.491 (SD=2.358). Table 2 provides all means and standard deviations
for this study's measures. The Cronbach's alpha for the
three-item scale .963 suggesting good internal consistency. The results
of the first MANOVA (internal attributions) suggest season
success/failure was an influential main effects factor as the omnibus
results were statistically significant F(4,185) = 6.136, p < .001.
The univariate results (Tables 3), in particular, indicated the
attributional factors of team performance, the coaching staff, and fans
were more influential internal attributes for NYG fans than NYJ fans.
The interaction effect between the two variables (moderating impact),
however, was not significant (F [4,185] = 1.018, p = .399). In other
words, a fan's level of team identification did not strengthen or
lessen the internal attributes of explaining a successful or
unsuccessful season.
The omnibus external attributions results also suggested season
success/failure was an influential main effect factor F (3,181) = 6.674,
p < .001 (Table 4). Interestingly, while the univariate results
related to opponent performance were higher for NYJ fans than NYG fans,
the attributable impacts of the referees and fate were higher for NYG
fans than NYJ fans. In addition, team identification was a statistically
significant moderator of team success/failure as it related to external
attributions (F [3,181] = 3.314, p = .021). The univariate results,
however, only suggest that the influence of the referees was moderated
by team identification, as low identified NYJ fans scored much lower
than low identified NYG fans (Figure 1).
While not hypothesized, it was noted that NYG fans scored higher on
nearly every attribute, so an additional ANOVA was conducted on the
total attribution score (see Table 2) and a statistically significant
difference was found between fans that experienced a successful season
(NYG; M = 33.468) and fans experiencing a failed season (NYJ; M= 30.106)
(F [1,190] = 20.005, p < .001).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to investigate the seasonal
attribution of two distinct groups of NFL fans and the moderating impact
of team identification on a fan's attributional bias. Four
hypotheses were devised and tested. The findings for HI mostly supported
the hypothesis that fans of successful teams see the favorable outcomes
determined by internal attributes. This partially confirmed the work of
Wann and Dolan (1994) and Wann et al. (1994) as three of the four
attributes were statistically significant. The team's front office
was the only attribute where the difference was minimal. It is possible
to think that based on the often contentious relationship between fans
and a team's management that NYG fans viewed the on-field success
as occurring despite the actions of the team's top administration.
Likewise, a jaded NYJ fan could see a direct relationship between the
team's struggles and the effort of the front office.
More research is needed to assess the relationship between fans and
the front office. Service quality literature has explored the topic, but
only minimally (Theodorakis, Kambitsis, & Laios, 2001). In addition,
researchers and journalists alike have thoroughly discussed the
relationship between fans and coaches (Phillips, 2013; Robinson &
Trail, 2005), but a distinct examination of the link between fans and
the front office is lacking. It is interesting to note, however, the
sizable gap between the groups for the Fans attribute. Paralleling
previous research, it appears fans highlight their impact when a team is
successful, but downplay their influence when the team does poorly
(Madrigal & Chen, 2008; Wann & Branscombe, 1990). In general,
the participants were somewhat more objective in their attributions than
expected, so this was perhaps the clearest example of self-esteem
recovery (or a coping technique) exhibited by the fans in this study
(Wann & Schrader, 2000). Although not directly tested in this study,
this result indirectly lends support to the notion that highly
identified fans see themselves as important members of a collective
(Reysen & Branscombe, 2012; Sutton et al., 1997)--a collective that
not only includes other fans, but perhaps also includes the team itself.
More research is needed to determine the influence that fans believe
they hold over team performance, and where exactly the boundaries of the
in-group of a team's fans begins and ends (Tajfel, 1981).
As a moderating variable, however, the impact of team
identification was not statistically significant. Therefore, H2 was
rejected. Given the importance of protecting one's self-identity
from failure especially for highly-identified sport fans, it was
surprising that a moderating relationship was not determined (Allen et
al., 2012; Martin & Carron, 2012). This may speak to the popularity
and durability of NFL team identification that in conjunction with
losing season one does attribute failure internally much different than
a successful sport team fan.
The third hypothesis predicted that NFL failure would result in
higher external attribution scores than success. This hypothesis was
rejected as well despite statistically significant differences between
the groups for all three attributes. The Opponents' Performance
mean scores followed the hypothesized relationship, but the impact of
Referees and Fate actually resulted in a statistically significant
difference in the opposite direction. In other words, NYG fans had
higher attribution scores than the NYJ fans. Previous work related to
attribution and the influence of success and failure is clear that
external sources are most often attributed to influencing negative
outcomes (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Schrader, 2000). Thus, the
current results are contradictory.
The Fate variable result may be due to the amount of perceived luck
it takes to win a Super Bowl. Winning four straight playoff games, three
of which were on the road, is not an easy task for any team, especially
a team that lost 5 of its road contests during the season, so the NYG
fans may perceive this accomplishment was due to uncontrollable forces.
This discrepancy could also be attributed to media influences. As
previously mentioned, it has been suggested that media can have a
positive effect on fan identification (Phua, 2010), but that media can
also influence fan perceptions (Kennedy & Hills, 2009). At the
beginning of the 2011 NFL season, the NYG were ranked #15 in ESPN's
Power Rankings, due in part to injuries sustained during the preseason
("2011 NFL Power Rankings," 2011).
Because media predictions were moderate at best, based on the
literature it seems reasonable to suggest that in today's world of
prediction-driven media content, it is possible that fans may begin to
exhibit self-esteem protection behaviors even before a season begins. If
this is the case, then opinions in the media could cause fans to lower
expectations, which would in turn alter attributions, and in this case
cause fans to believe that fate played a role in the NYG success, since
they were widely believed to be an average team. In a pair of studies,
researchers Wann and Grieve (2007; 2008) studied the phenomenon of
proactive pessimism as a coping mechanism within sport fandom. The
concept is defined as "the tendency to become more pessimistic as a
self-relevant event draws near" (Wann & Grieve, 2008, p. 84),
and the researchers found it was used by sport fans in advance of a
contest. The current study appears to support the concept from a
seasonal perspective. This appears to be in emerging area of research;
thus, additional inquiry related to seasonal expectations and outcomes
may be fruitful.
The Referee outcome, however, is not easily explained. Is it a case
that NYJ fans objectively assessed the failed season and viewed the
Referee attribution as an unreasonable excuse? Or, is it a case that NYG
fans felt the referee decisions over the course of the season broke
their way? In a secondary search of message boards and team websites,
notable referee calls in favor of NYG were not found. In fact, if
anything the discussion surrounding referees was mainly negative. More
research in this area is suggested as this finding is difficult to
interpret.
For the last hypothesis (H4), the model indicated a statistically
significant interaction effect between team identification level,
seasonal outcome, and external attributes. However, only Referee
attribute resulted in the interaction, and once again, it was contrary
to the hypothesized direction. Thus, the hypothesis was rejected. In
particular low identified NYG fans indicated a much higher attributional
score than the low identified NYJ fans for the Referee attribute. Once
again, this outcome is not easily explained accept for the possibility
that less attached NYJ fans viewed any cause for the failed season,
other than the internal, as an unacceptable excuse. Or, the possibility
that low identified NYG fans had to attribute the unexpected success to
something and the referees seemed like a plausible explanation.
The results of the additional ANOVA addressing the total
attribution scores were not anticipated, but worthy of discussion and
certainly future inquiry. It may be a function of preseason expectations
and the improbability of winning the Super Bowl. Regardless, attribution
scores in general were higher for NYG fans that experienced success than
NYJ fans that did not. Perhaps it should not be surprising that fans of
a team that experienced the pinnacle of success within a sport have
several attributes to possibly explain the unanticipated outcome.
Taken together, the current study's results suggest a
fan's self-serving bias with respect to an entire season of
outcomes is not as clear-cut as the previous attribution and team
identification research would imply. While the internal attribution
findings were consistent with past work, fan reactions to the external
attributes were quite contrary, and the influence of team identification
as a moderator was minimal. Obviously, the current study was designed to
examine the impact of seasonal success and failure while previous
studies assessed attribution directly following a single game. Perhaps
time was a mitigating factor. Emotions maybe more raw directly following
a win or loss; thus, a self-serving attributional bias may be more
evident. However, with additional time to process success or failure,
perhaps fans can separate a team's outcome from personal identity.
Regardless, the disconnect between success/failure and self- and social
identity discovered within this context is noteworthy for teams,
leagues, and media companies looking to better understand sport fan
behavior following a season.
Limitations and Future Research
Certainly limitations to the current study exist. First, a student
sample is less generalizable than a heterogeneous group of NFL fans. For
instance, it was not feasible to run demographic comparisons on this
sample. Also, the gender breakdown of this sample was heavily skewed
toward males (85%). While this is mostly due to the setting of data
collection, it is not representative of the general sport fan
population. Thus, an extension to more diverse samples is advised.
Second, the soaring popularity of the NFL may have actually influenced
the results. It is currently the strongest brand in North American
sports and that may have impacted both team identification and
attribution results. Lastly, the timing of data collection could have
impacted the findings. Surveys were distributed and collected over two
week period of February 2012. This was a month after the season for NYJ
fans, and two weeks for NYG fans. This inconsistency may have led to the
dissimilar attribution findings.
In terms of future research, there are a lot of possibilities given
the unanticipated results. For instance, more research related to the
impact of fate or destiny is needed. Do fans really believe an
uncontrollable force such as fate is truly that influential? If that is
the case, is it unique to the NFL or is it something that is commonplace
across all sporting contexts. In addition and as mentioned above, what
is the impact of time on self-serving attribution patterns and team
identification? A more direct examination of the self-perceived
influence of fans would also be a fruitful line of research. That is,
how integral do fans feel their attendance is? In general, as the sport
industry continues to grow and receive more and more media coverage, fan
behavior and the antecedents that drive behavior will continue to be
burgeoning areas of inquiry. The inputs and outputs related to
attribution, team identification, and team outcomes are among the
factors worthy of additional scrutiny.
References
2011 NFL Power Rankings: Week 1. (2011, September 7). ESPN.com.
Retrieved from http:// espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings/_/year/2011/week/l
Allen, M.S., Coffee, P., & Greenlees, I. (2012). A theoretical
framework and research agenda for studying team attributions in sport.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5, 121-144.
Bodet, G., & Bemache-Assollant, I. (2011). Consumer loyalty in
sport spectatorship services: The relationships with consumer
satisfaction and team identification. Psychology & Marketing, 28,
781-802.
Cialdini, R.B., Borden, R.J., Thome, A., Walker, M.R., Freeman, S.,
& Sloan, L.R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football)
field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366.
Dimmock, J.A., Grove, J.R., & Eklund, R.C. (2005).
Reconceptualizing team identification: New dimensions and their
relationship to intergroup bias. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 9, 75-86.
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.
Grieve, F.G., Warm, D.L., & Zapalac, R.K. (2008). Sport
fans' responses to the end of the season. International Journal of
Sport Management and Marketing, 4, 375-389.
Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S.R. (2003). A model of fan
identification: Antecedents and sponsorship outcomes. Journal of
Services Marketing, 17, 275-294.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Judson, K.M., & Carpenter, P. (2005). Assessing a university
community's identification to sport in a changing climate. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 14, 217-226.
Kemiedy, E., & Hills, L. (2009). Sport, media and society. New
York, NY: Berg Publishers.
Kwon, H.H., Trail, G.T., & Lee, D. (2008). The effects of
vicarious achievement and team identification on BIRGing and CORFing.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17, 209-217.
Lewis, J., & Proffitt, J.M. (2012). Bong hits and water
bottles: An analysis of news coverage of athletes and marijuana use.
Journal of Sports Media, 7, 1-21.
Lock, D., Taylor, T., & Darcy, S. (2011). In the absence of
achievement: The formation of new team identification. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 11, 171-192.
Lock, D., Taylor, T., Funk, D., & Darcy, S. (2012). Exploring
the development of team identification. Journal of Sport Management, 26,
283-294.
Madrigal, R., & Chen, J. (2008). Moderating and mediating
effects of team identification in regard to causal attributions and
summary judgments following a game outcome. Journal of Sport Management,
22, 717-733.
Martin, L.J., & Carron, A.V. (2012). Team attributions in
sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24,
157-174.
Peter, J.P. (1979). Reliability: A review of psychometric basics
and recent marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 6-17.
Phillips, B. (2013, February 18). Who moved my cheese?
Understanding a fan's relationship with coaches. Grantland.com.
Retrieved from http://www.grantland.com/story/_/
id/8957014/understanding-fan-relationship-management-sports
Phua, J.J. (2010). Sports fans and media use: Influence on sports
fan identification and collective self-esteem. International Journal of
Sport Communication, 3, 190-206.
Rees, T., Ingledew, D.K., & Hardy, L. (2005). Attribution in
sport psychology: Seeking congruence between theory, research and
practice. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 189-204.
Reese, S. D. (2001). Prologue--Framing public life: A bridging
model for media research.
In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing
public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social
world (pp. 7-31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reysen, S., & Branscombe, N R. (2010). Fanship and fandom:
Comparisons between sport and non-sport fans. Journal of Sport Behavior,
33, 176-193.
Robinson, M.J., & Trail, G.T. (2005). Relationships among
spectator gender, motives, points of attachment, and sport preference.
Journal of Sport Management, 19, 58-80.
Spinda, J.S. (2012). Perceptual biases and behavioral effects among
NFL fans: An investigation of first-person, second-person, and
third-person effects. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5,
327-347.
Sutton, W.A., McDonald, M.A., Milne, G.R., & Cimperman, J.
(1997). Creating and fostering fan identification in professional
sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6, 15-22.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human group and social categories. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory
of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology
of intergroup relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Theodorakis, N., Kambitsis, C., & Laios, A. (2001).
Relationship between measures of service quality and satisfaction of
spectators in professional sports. Managing Sendee Quality, 11, 431-438.
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, 98-111.
Wann, D.L. (1997). Sport psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
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, 103-117.
Wann, D.L., & Dolan, T.J. (1994). Attributions of highly
identified sports spectators. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134,
783-792.
Wann, D.L., Dolan, T.J., McGeorge, K.K., & Allison, J. A.
(1994). Relationships between spectator identification and
spectators' perceptions of influence, spectators' emotions,
and competition outcome. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16,
347-364.
Wann, D.L., & Grieve, F.G. (2007). Use of proactive pessimism
as a coping strategy for sport fans: The importance of team
identification. Journal of Contemporary Athletics, 2, 341-356.
Wann, D.L., & Grieve, F.G. (2008). The coping strategies of
highly identified fans: The importance of team success on tendencies to
utilize proactive pessimism. In L. W. Hugenberg, P. Haridakis, & A.
Eamheardt (Eds.) Sports mania: Essays on fandom and the media in the
2P' century (pp. 78-85). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Wann, D.L., Keenan, B.L., Burnett, S., Martin, J., Page, L., &
Smith, L. (2002). The impact of sport team identification and
attributions of ability and effort on spectators' impressions of
athletic performance. North American Journal of Psychology, 4, 347-354.
Wann, D.L., Koch, K., Knoth, T., Fox, D., Aljubaily, H, &
Lantz, C. (2006). The impact of team identification on biased
predictions of player performance. The Psychological Record, 56, 55-66.
Wann, D.L., & Schrader, M.P. (2000). Controllability and
stability in the self-serving attributions of sport spectators. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 160-168.
Wann, D.L., Waddill, P.J., Polk, J., & Weaver, S. (2011). The
team identification-social psychological health model: Sport fans
gaining connections to others via sport team identification. Group
Dynamics: Theoiy, Research, and Practice, 15, 75-89.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation
and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
Brendan Dwyer
Virginia Commonwealth University
Terry Eddy
University of Arkansas
Carrie W. LeCrom
Virginia Commonwealth University
Footnote
(1) Expectations entering the season were not measured with this
study's sample. Expectations were based solely on the combination
of the previous season's outcomes and ESPN's Power Rankings
entering the season.
Address correspondence to: Brendan Dwyer, Center for Sport
Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University, 1300 West Broad Street,
PO Box 842003, Richmond, VA, 23284-2003, bdwyer@vcu.edu
Table 1
Survey Items
Internal Attributions
To what extent did the performance of the [Fav Team] players
influence the outcome of the season?
To what extent did the fans of the [Fav Team] influence the outcome
of the season?
To what extent did the performance of the [Fav Team] coaches
influence the outcome of the season?
To what extent did the performance of the [Fav Team] front office
influence the outcome of the season?
External Attributions
To what extent did the performance of the [Fav Team]' opponents
influence the outcome of the season?
To what extent did the performance of the referees influence the
outcome of the [Fav Team]' season?
To what extent did fate influence the outcome of the [Fav Team]'
season?
Team Attachment
Being a fan of the [Fav Team] is very important to me.
I would experience a loss if I had to stop being a fan of the [Fav
Team],
I consider myself to be a "real" fan of the [Fav Team]
Table 2
Scale and item means and standard deviations
Overall NYG
n=194 n=109
M SD M SD
Team Identification * 4.491 2.358 4.535 2.369
Internal Attributions * 5.624 0.893 5.792 0.893
Team Performance 6.196 1.116 6.404 1.001
Coaches 5.777 1.039 5.972 0.922
Front Office 4.902 1.484 5.009 1.456
Fans 3.777 1.707 4.394 1.616
External Attributions * 3.744 0.948 3.924 0.952
Opponents' Performance 5.114 1.368 4.936 1.448
Referees 3.370 1.444 3.590 1.299
Fate 3.021 1.835 3.349 1.853
Attributions Total ** 31.995 5.176 33.468 4.879
NYJ
n=85
M SD
Team Identification * 4.435 2.356
Internal Attributions * 5.408 0.911
Team Performance 5.929 1.203
Coaches 5.529 1.130
Front Office 4.765 1.517
Fans 2.976 1.481
External Attributions * 3.513 0.896
Opponents' Performance 5.345 1.227
Referees 3.095 1.572
Fate 2.600 1.733
Attributions Total ** 30.106 4.952
Note. All measured on seven-point Likert scale.
* Represents scale means and standard deviations.
** Summed total therefore range from 7 to 49.
Table 3
Hypothesis 1: Internal attributions and season success/failure
Team Coaching
Performance (a) Staff (b)
Success/Failure Observations M SD M SD
Success (NYG) 108 6.309 1.004 5.934 .922
Failure (NYJ) 84 5.885 1.191 5.521 1.135
Front
Office (c) Fans (d)
Success/Failure M SD M SD
Success (NYG) 4.853 1.450 4.341 1.616
Failure (NYJ) 4.744 1.524 2.956 1.481
Note. (a) Main effects result, p = .008; (b) Main effects result,
p = .008; (c) Main effects result, p = .614; (d) Main effects
result, p < .001
Table 4
Hypothesis 3: External attributions and season success/failure
Opponents'
Performance (a) Referees (b)
Success/Failure Observations M SD M SD
Success (NYG) 108 4.935 1.426 3.639 1.299
Failure (NYJ) 84 5.395 1.219 3.062 1.582
Fate (c)
Success/Failure M SD
Success (NYG) 3.286 1.839
Failure (NYJ) 2.589 1.755
Note. (a) Main effects result, p = .024; (b) Main effects result,
p = .008; (c) Main effects result, p = .012
