An exploratory investigation of sportsmanship attitudes among college student basketball fans.

Rudd, Andy ; Gordon, Brian S.

Some studies have shown that being a sports fan and more specifically one's level of team identification (i.e., a person's psychological connection to a team--Wann, Carlson, & Schrader, 1999) can have a positive influence on an individual's psychological and social well being (Wakefield & Wann, 2006; Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001). For example, Branscombe and Wann (1991) found that team identification was positively correlated with self-esteem and negatively correlated with depression. They also found team identification was positively correlated with "positive feelings" (e.g., happiness, contentment, and joyous) and negatively correlated with negative affect (e.g., sad, regretful, and hopeless). Individuals high in team identification also demonstrated lower levels of alienation. Additionally, Wann, Inman, Ensor, Gates, and Caldwell (1999) observed that highly identified individuals reported greater levels of psychological health (as indicated by measures of fatigue, anger, vigor, tension, self-esteem, confusion, and depression) than those less identified. As well, some have posited that identifying with a team increases a sense of community or social cohesion (Eitzen, 1999; Rader, 2004; Smith, 1988).

Contrariwise, there is also a dark side to sport fandom/sport spectatorship that warrants attention. Sport spectators engage in a variety of aggressive behaviors including verbal assaults, throwing objects at opposing players, holding up distracting signs, chanting derogatory statements, vandalizing, fighting, and sometimes even rushing the field to hurt a player or coach (Steinbach, 2008; Wahl, 2008; Wann et al. 2001; Young, 2002). Thus, there is a paradoxical nature of being a sport fan/sport spectator. On the one hand, some studies have demonstrated a link between sport fandom and improved psychological health/social well being. On the other hand, many sport spectators engage in a variety of harmful, aggressive acts.

In response to spectator aggression, major sport organizations have attempted to implement various sportsmanship initiatives and fan behavior policies. For example, in 2003, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) held the Sportsmanship and Fan Behavior Summit in an effort to decrease the amount of spectator aggression at college football and basketball games (Report on the Sportsmanship and Fan Behavior Summit, 2003). Additionally, in 2006, the NCAA's Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct Committee initiated an effort to improve sportsmanship in college football among not only players and coaches but also the spectators (Richardson, 2006). Also, at the professional level, the National Football League recently implemented a strict fan behavior policy against various forms of aggressive verbal and physical behavior ("NFL Implements," 2008).

The efficacy of some these initiatives and policies, however, is questionable given the persisting incidents of sport spectator aggression. Division I college athletics are particularly illustrative. Take for example, a large group of student basketball fans known as the "Pit Crew" at the University of Oregon during the 2007-2008 season. Numerous members were involved in making threatening phone calls to an opposing player's cellular phone as well as pelting the player's family members with popcorn cartons, empty cups, and also casting a variety of insults (Wahl, 2008). As another example, Illinois student basketball fans chanted profane language at an opposing player simply because he had chosen not to accept a scholarship from Illinois (Steinbach, 2008; Wahl, 2008).

Basketball is not the only sport where spectator aggression continues to be a problem in college athletics. For instance, during the 2007 football season, Rutgers students hurled verbal assaults at both the Navy players as well as those in military uniform in the stands (Steinbach, 2008). Newark Star-Ledger columnist, Mark Dionno, a Rutgers graduate and former Navy veteran stated, "It was the most classless thing I've ever seen" (Steinbach, no page number). Additionally, the University of Wisconsin recently launched a new campaign for football games called "Rolling Out the Red Carpet" in an effort to curtail abusive behavior from Wisconsin student fans (Hofstetter, 2006). And in hockey, Boston University has recently implemented a sport spectator behavior policy as a result of students yelling various racial taunts and other foul language to opposing ice hockey teams (Hofstetter).

In this article we want to suggest that perhaps one of the reasons spectator aggression continues is because sport spectators fail to understand and value sportsmanship. According to Rudd and Stoll (1998), for athletes to practice sportsmanship, they must possess an understanding and valuing. That is, athletes must have conceptual knowledge of sportsmanship as well as a valuing of sportsmanship. Athletes must then be able to put their knowing and valuing into action, i.e., acting with sportsmanship (see also the original paradigm proposed by Lickona (1991) regarding moral character development). Rudd and Stoll argued that knowing and valuing is important to the practice of sportsmanship because without it, one is merely conforming to particular rules or threats of punishment. They argue further that in the absence of such rules or threats, individuals who lack an understanding and valuing will revert back to immoral or aggressive behavior.

There is evidence however, to suggest that many of the imposed strategies and initiatives do not even obtain basic conformity. In addition to the cases noted earlier, DeCuir (2007) reported a variety of spectator aggression from fans despite some of their respective schools' new fan behavior policies and strategies to decrease spectator aggression. For example, a Colorado student football fan referring to scoreboard and email messages designed to decrease profanity said that the messages have not helped. Also, a Virginia Tech fan referring to the athletic department's efforts to stop abusive chants by discontinuing certain songs said, "I'm going to continue yelling it every game and louder" (DeCuir). As well, a Louisiana State University student, referring to a ban on certain chants stated, "Those are big traditions. If they stop these chants, new ones will come" (DeCuir). These examples suggest that many fans continue to support the use of verbal aggression regardless of the various policies and initiatives. Thus, we argue that spectator aggression will continue to be a problem until a genuine knowing and valuing of sportsmanship is obtained.

To determine more definitively that sport spectators lack an understanding and valuing of sportsmanship, we conducted an empirical investigation of college student basketball fans. For clarification, we chose to focus on college athletics because this is an athletic level that clearly exhorts sportsmanship (e.g., DeCuir, 2007; Our Mission, n.d.; Report on the Sportsmanship and Fan Behavior Summit, 2003) but has struggled to establish it. The study was guided by two key research questions: 1) How well do college student basketball fans understand sportsmanship? 2) To what extent, if any, do college student basketball fans value sportsmanship? In attempting to answer these questions, it is important to clarify that this study was exploratory in nature given that this is the fast study to examine sport spectators' understanding and valuing of sportsmanship. Thus, the results from this study are offered as preliminary findings that will provide an initial view of how well sport spectators (college students) understand and value sportsmanship. It is hoped that this study spawns a host of further studies in the area of sport spectators' understanding and valuing of sportsmanship. Ultimately, if it is learned that many sport spectators do not understand or value sportsmanship, then more specific efforts can be directed in this area.

Explication of Constructs

Before proceeding to the methodology section it is important to clarify the key constructs studied and referred to in this article. These constructs include sport fan, sport spectator, aggression, and sportsmanship.

Sport Fan versus Sport Spectator. Warm et al. (2001) maintain that there can be a difference between a sport fan and a sport spectator. They posit that a sport fan is someone who is interested in and follows a sports team whereas a sport spectator is someone who actively attends sports events. While many sport spectators are also fans, Wann et al. note there will be cases in which a sport fan rarely witnesses the games in person and at the same time there are some that attend games but do not have a sincere interest in the team. Thus, there can be a difference between a sport spectator and a sport fan. However, given that Wann et al. acknowledges that the majority of sport spectators are also fans, we use these two terms interchangeably while at the same time alerting the reader to the fact that not all sport spectators are fans and vice versa.

Aggression. According to Coakley (2007) "aggression refers to verbal and physical actions grounded in an intent to dominate, control, or do harm to another" (p. 197). We have chosen to use Coakley's definition because it encompasses both verbal and physical actions and thus includes the various forms of spectator aggression that have been described such as verbal assaults, chanting, fighting, throwing missiles, etc. Additionally, Coakley's definition is consistent with other definitions that involve a desire to injure or bring harm (see review in Wann et al., 2001).

Sportsmanship. A review of literature reveals that that there is some variability to the way in which sportsmanship has been defined. Much of this variability is attributed to the sundry moral and social values used to connote sportsmanship. Keating (1964) for example, argued that sportsmanship is primarily concerned with fair play when conceived within the context of "athletics" and generosity when defined in relationship to "sport" (see Keating for his view of sport versus athletics). Others have characterized sportsmanship with values such as respect (primarily)(Clifford & Feezell, 1997; Vallerand, Briere, Blanchard, & Provencher, 1997), civility and positive interaction (Buford May, 2001), friendliness, generosity, and compassion (Arnold, 1994), and responsibility, fairness and respect (Rudd & Stoll, 1998).

Despite differences in the values used to define sportsmanship there is also an important commonality among many of the definitions. Some suggest that sportsmanship involves more than following rules or adhering to a code of values. Sportsmanship necessitates a desire to be morally virtuous or to act in ways that are beyond basic sport competitive expectations, e.g., following rules or refraining from kicking or punching one's opponent. Arnold (1994) explains in the following:

   This [sportspersonship] goes beyond a proper appreciation of the
   rules in terms of what is fair. It is concerned rather with certain
   types of commendatory acts done in sport which are not obligatory
   but which enrich it as a worthwhile practice (p. 10).

Additionally, Clifford & Feezell postulated, "For this reason, it is important to understand that sportsmanship is not just a matter of acceptable behavior but of excellence of character-or, in the language of the classical tradition-sportsmanship is a virtue" (p. 15) (see also, Keating, 1964; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Thus, sportsmanship can be understood not only in terms of compliance with various moral and social values but also with a desire to act in a manner of sublime nobility.

Method

Design

A mixed method design was employed in order to obtain both breadth and depth, i.e. a more expansive understanding of the phenomenon (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989; Hanson et al., 2005). A mixed method approach was also used for the purpose of triangulation which involves using one type of data to corroborate findings from the other. In the case of this study, we were interested in seeing how responses to the questionnaire (using a larger sample) corroborated some of the findings in the interview given the smaller sample size (Greene et al; Hanson et al.).

There are a variety of existing mixed method designs (Hanson et al., 2005; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2006). For this study an equal-status concurrent design was used in which the qualitative and quantitative data were collected concurrently and given equal priority. This design comes from Johnson and Onwuegbuzie's (2004) mixed method typology which is based on the dimensions of time ordering and status (see also Hanson et al., 2005). Time order refers to the order in which the qualitative and quantitative data are collected (concurrently or sequentially) while status refers to the amount of emphasis placed on the quantitative versus qualitative data (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). With regard to the latter dimension, there has been no clear prescription for how one should rationalize the dominance or equal status of the data. Quantitative and qualitative data were given equal priority in our study because both forms of data were equally important in answering the research questions.

Participants/Sampling

For the qualitative portion of the study, 10 college student basketball fans participated in interviews. More specifically, there were 2 females and 8 males. The students' year in school included freshman = 2, sophomore = 2, junior = 4, senior = 1, and graduate level = 1. Additionally, these students were members of a large basketball fan group at a major public university in the Southeast that competes at the Division I level. Students who had a reputation for being loyal and passionate basketball fans were selected for the study (see section on Data Collection and Procedures for how these students were selected). Given that studies (Wann et al., 1999; Wann, Haynes, Mclean, & Pullen, 2003; Wann et al., 2001) have shown that highly identified fans tend to act more aggressively, we felt it was important to interview these particular types of students. Selecting participants on this basis is consistent with what Patton (1987) refers to as interviewing those that are "information rich" (p. 52). Our sampling strategy is also consistent with criterion sampling which involves selecting subjects that meet a certain criteria (Creswell, 1998; Patton, 1987).

The quantitative part of the study included 198 or 197 questionnaire respondents (depending on the question) out of a total of 1509 (13% response rate) that were sent the questionnaire. These respondents were also members of the same college basketball fan group which has a total membership of 1509 students. The respondents were comprised of 104 males and 94 females. Year in school included approximately 47 freshman, 47 sophomores, 41 juniors, 43 seniors, and 20 graduate students. Additionally, when asked how strongly they see themselves as fans of the basketball team, 68% indicated strongly or very strongly, 27% somewhat strongly, and 4% not strongly. Also, a combined 83% said they go to about half, most, or all of the games. Thus, the majority of questionnaire respondents appear to be legitimate fans and spectators of the team.

For clarification, we acknowledge that the response rate for the quantitative portion of the study is considerably lower in relationship to what is typically suggested, i.e., 70% (Gay, 1992; Johnson & Christensen, 2008). However, we argue that 197 to 198 respondents should provide a good beginning to how well college student basketball fans' understand and value sportsmanship. This thinking is in line with Fowler (as cited in Black 1999) in which he posited that the overall nature of the sample in terms of its representation of the population and how the data was collected can have a greater impact on sampling error than the ratio of sample size to population.

Data Collection and Procedures

Qualitative methods. One-on-one interviews were conducted with ten college students that were members of a large student fan group. The director of the fan group was asked to help recruit these students by sending an email message out to members of the fan group that have a reputation for being loyal and passionate basketball fans (the nature of the interview questions was explained to the director beforehand). In the email message students were asked if they would be willing to participate in a one-on-one interview for a study on sport spectator behavior. Students were then selected on a "first-come, first-serve basis" until 10 volunteers were obtained.

All of the interviews were conducted by the first author and were done in the first author's office. It was explained to each interviewee that their responses were confidential. Each interviewee was asked for permission to audio tape the interview in order to strengthen descriptive validity (i.e., factual accuracy) (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). All of the interviewees accepted. None of the interviewees were students' of the first or second author. The interviews lasted approximately 25-60 minutes depending on the level of detail in the interviewee's responses. In the interviews, students were asked a variety of open-ended questions (10 total) that were mostly related to the knowing and valuing of sportsmanship such as "How do you define sportsmanship?" and "Do you think it is important for fans to uphold sportsmanship and why?" (see Appendix A for a complete list of questions). These questions were pilot tested with a member of the fan group (the student was not included in this study's sample) in order to determine how well the questions were understood and if the questions stimulated answers to our research questions. Following the practice interview, some of the questions were slightly adjusted to improve the validity of the questions.

Quantitative methods. A questionnaire was sent electronically (using survey software) to the entire membership of the college student basketball fan group (1509 members). This list was obtained from the director of the fan group who was provided a copy of the questionnaire for review before administering. The questionnaire contained a combination of closed-ended and open-ended questions (10 questions total). These questions were predominantly the same questions used in the interviews. However, given the larger sample, some of the questions were asked in a closed-ended format. For example, the question: "Do you think it is important for fans to uphold sportsmanship and why?" was changed from an open-ended question in the interview to a closed-ended question on the questionnaire. Two of the key questions however, remained open-ended which included, 1) How do you define sportsmanship? and 2) Can you describe the types of cheering you do at the basketball games? The only question not included in the interview was "How strongly do you see yourself as a fan of the basketball team." This question was asked to get a better sense of the students' level of fandom/identification. Given the nature of this study, it would not make sense have a large sample of students that did consider themselves fans or consistent spectators of the team (see Appendix B for complete questionnaire).

Additionally, there were two questions asked in the interviews that were not part of the questionnaire. These questions were 1) "Is there a difference between how the fans should behave versus the players in relationship to sportsmanship? Please explain" and 2) If you are cheering at a level that causes teams not to play their best, is winning still legitimate and why? Given the more open-ended nature of these questions, we reserved them for the interviews.

Data Analysis

The tape-recorded interviews were transcribed onto a word processing computer program. Two doctoral students conducted the transcriptions and were trained by the first author. Following transcription, the second author then compiled the responses in relationship to each question and content analyzed the data for important patterns or themes (Creswell, 1998; Patton, 1987). Responses to the open-ended questions on the questionnaire were analyzed in the same manner. Emerging themes were then given specific names or labels. The first author then reviewed the categorizing of the data to strengthen the interpretive validity (i.e., accurately portraying the participants' thoughts) (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). Overall, both authors were in agreement. There were however, a few cases in which the first author re-labeled some of the initial categories in order to better capture the responses.

For the closed-ended questions, frequency counts of the various response options (e.g. very important, important, somewhat important, and not important) to a question were tabulated using the electronic survey software program. Doing this type of analysis allowed us to assay the participants' attitudes/beliefs concerning the valuing and understanding of sportsmanship.

With regard to combining the quantitative and qualitative data, it is important to point out that mixed data can be analyzed and interpreted separately or in an integrated fashion (Caracelli and Greene, 1993; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). That is, the quantitative and qualitative data can be combined in the analysis or analyzed separately and then integrated at the level of interpretation. For this analysis, we chose to analyze the quantitative and qualitative data separately and then integrate at the level of interpretation. Such an analysis was chosen because we were interested in both triangulation and in obtaining both breadth (quantitative data) and depth (qualitative data).

Results

In this section, we present the emerging categories that came from the responses to the various open-ended questions (interviews and questionnaire) as well as the responses to closed ended questions (questionnaire). Accompanied with the categories, are examples of direct quotes to help the reader obtain a better sense of the emerging categories and to what extent sport spectators value and understand sportsmanship. As mentioned, many of the same questions were asked in both the interviews and on the questionnaire. Thus, we present many of the interview and questionnaire responses simultaneously for each question. Note that in the interest of space limitations, we have selected what we believe are the five most significant questions (from the interviews and questionnaire) as they related to sport spectators knowing and valuing of sportsmanship. Also note that for the categories, there were cases in which an individual's response to a question was grouped into more than one category if the response had multiple implications. Lastly, when providing quotes that would identify the participants' attending university, we have replaced the name of the university with "XYZ" and the university's mascot as "ABC."

Question 1: Can You Describe the Types of Cheering you do at the Basketball Games?

From the interviews, three themes emerged concerning the types of cheering. These were labeled as Positive/Non Malicious Cheers (9 responses), Heckling/Distracting Opponent (7 responses), and Heckling Towards Officials/Referees (3 responses). Concurrently, responses to the identical question on the questionnaire yielded the same three categories: Positive/Non Malicious Cheers (137 responses), Heckling/Distracting Opponent (52 responses), Heckling Towards Officials/Referees (4 responses). Additionally, there were fifteen responses categorized under Miscellaneous.

Positive/non malicious cheers. There were nine participants from the interviews and 137 participants from the questionnaire data that identified cheers that could be considered positive or non malicious. From the questionnaire data many gave examples like "Let's go Team XYZ" or "Let's go ABC." Participants from the interviews made similar comments such as "When we have the ball, we try to like go Team XYZ and go ABC and basic stuff like that." Many from the questionnaire data (and one from the interviews) also identified singing the school's fight song or university chant - neither of which is abusive (the specific song or chant will not be identified in order to protect anonymity). There were also a number of participants from the interviews and questionnaire data that said they yell positive encouragement directly to the players. For example, one person from the questionnaire data said, "I say the players' names when they shoot and do something well ..."

Heckling/distracting opponent. There were seven participants from the interviews and 52 participants from the questionnaire data that stated they heckle or distract the opponent. For example, one individual from the questionnaire data stated, "I was part of the [name omitted] at the end of the court and heckled the other team's players when they were near us." Or, another person from the questionnaire data who briefly stated, "Rip opposing players and members of their family." Some were also vulgar stating, "I say fuck you to whoever we play." Additionally, many from both the interviews and questionnaire data said they yelled or cheered with the intent of distracting or diminishing their opponent's level of play. For instance, one person from the interviews said, "... anytime they mess-up, we make sure to get in their heads." Or another from the interviews said, "Some people are pretty disrespectful to them [opponent], but you just try to get in their heads."

Heckling towards officials/referees. There were also three participants from the interviews and four participants from the questionnaire data who indicated that they heckle or abuse the referees. For example, one person from the interviews simply said, "Uh, generally heckling towards the refs." Or, another participant from the questionnaire data said, "I badger the ref sometimes because he'll make a bad call or not call something ..." It is interesting to note, however, that the number of participants falling under this category was significantly smaller compared to the category involving heckling towards an opponent (see discussion for an explanation).

Miscellaneous. There were 15 participants from the questionnaire data that provided responses that were too vague to categorize. For example, one participant said, "Normal basketball cheers and yells." We felt responses as such were too difficult to meaningfully categorize.

Question 2: How Do You Define Sportsmanship?

From the interviews, four themes emerged relating to the definition of sportsmanship. These themes include Being a Good Person/Sport (3 responses), Showing Respect (6 responses), Following the Rules (5 responses), Nice/Polite (5 responses). Concurrently, 11 different categories were identified based on responses to the questionnaire. This larger number of categories when compared to the interviews is presumably due to the greater sample size. Categories included Showing Respect (71 responses), Team Support (9 responses), Following the Rules (3 responses), Fair Play (14 responses), Positive Attitude (24 responses), Nice/Polite (27), Good Sport (7 responses), Class (4 responses), Honor (4 responses), Ethical Behavior (3 responses), Exhibiting Self-Control (5), and Integrity (3 responses). There were also 34 responses that were categorized under Miscellaneous due to the unique nature of the response or because the response was too ambiguous to be properly categorized. Notably, all of the categories (four) identified in the interview data were also found in the questionnaire data. The only minor difference was the labeling of Good Person/Sport (interview data) versus Good Sport (questionnaire data). This slight difference in labeling exists because two of the three participants that were categorized under Good Person/Sport (interview data) referred to sportsmanship as being a "good or better person" whereas those from the questionnaire data strictly defined sportsmanship in relationship to being a "good sport or good winner."

Given the large number of categories that were produced from the questionnaire data we do not highlight with quotes all of the categories. Instead, we report with quotes the categories that emerged from both the interviews and questionnaire as well as two additional categories from the questionnaire data that contained the highest number of responses in comparison to the remaining categories. These two categories include Fair Play (14 responses) and Positive Attitude (24 responses).

Being a goodperson or good sport. There were three participants from the interviews and 7 participants from the questionnaire data that defined sportsmanship in relationship to being "a good person or good sport." For example, one person from the interviews said, "Sportsmanship, um, just trying to be a better person than your opponent. As far as like, showing, more class, more character. Try to be like, not let the game get involved in how you are as a person." Or, some from the questionnaire data simply stated comments like, "Being a good sport" or "Not being a poor sport upon losing a game."

Showing respect. There were six participants from the interviews and 71 participants from the questionnaire data that defined sportsmanship as generally being respectful. For example, one person from the interviews explained, "Sportsmanship, uh, I would define it as being respectful to your opponent, the best way as possible, not to try to offend, don't use offensive remarks, and just being, for a lack of a better word, nice, I guess." Concordantly, many from the interviews made brief statements like "Being respectful to other players and fans" or "Showing respect for both teams and officials."

Following the rules. There were five participants from the interviews and three participants from the questionnaire data that included "following the rules" in their definition of sportsmanship. For instance, one person from the interviews said, "Uh, I think that maybe you can say playing by the rules ..." Another person from the interviews said, "Knowing the rules of the game and knowing how to respond to situations, ha! Being a good person." Or, from the questionnaire data one person said, "Playing by the rules of the sport, accepting your role on a team without complaining, and respect the referees, coaches, and players."

Nice/polite. There were five participants from the interviews and 27 participants from the questionnaire data that generally defined sportsmanship as being nice or polite (or it was suggested in their definition). For example, a person from the interview data said, "Accepting the outcome of the game and being polite with good manners ..." Another individual from the interviews simply stated, "Respectful and courteous to like your team and the other team." Many from the questionnaire data made statements such as "Polite and courteous," "Nice and friendly," or "Not being mean or rude."

Fair play. There were 14 participants from the questionnaire data that identified fairness in their definition of sportsmanship. For example one individual simply stated, "To play the game fairly" or even more concisely one person said, "playing fairly." Additionally, some included other values along with fairness. For example, one participant said, "Sportsmanship is playing/watching a sport with a fairness approach. Players are to play with integrity even when there's no whistle in front of them." Another person referred to sportsmanship as "when you are able to play fair and respect all players."

Positive attitude. There were 24 participants that included the notion of a positive attitude in their definition of sportsmanship. Interestingly, many of these particular participants' identified "positive attitude" in relationship to winning and losing. For instance, one person said, "having a good attitude if you win or lose." Or, another participant stated, "the ability to play your hardest and except failure, or shut down and still hold your head up high with a great attitude." Additionally, one person said, "being positive when your team is winning and losing, not getting carried away after a win, being a good winner and loser."

Question 3: Do You Think it is Important for Fans to Uphold Sportsmanship (please explain)?

From the interviews, 8 out of 10 participants acknowledged that it is important for fans to uphold sportsmanship. There was also one participant that held a mixed view ("yes, to an extent") and one person that said, "No." The explanations of these responses yielded two themes that were labeled as Reflection of Team/University (3 responses), and Part of Being a Fan (3 responses). Additionally, four responses were categorized under Miscellaneous.

Reflection of team/university. There were three participants that agreed sportsmanship should be upheld by fans. In their explanation they indicated that the fans are a reflection of the university and the team. For example, one person said, "Oh yes, definitely, because you as a fan are an extension of your school and your team." Another participant stated,

   Yeah, I've been at numerous sporting events growing up where
   parents have been kicked out for yelling at the refs, it does
   reflect your team because later on we got into the playoffs, we
   were known as the team with the really bad parents or bad fans.

The other individual within this category was less clear but seemed to imply something similar to other two comments. The person stated,

   I think it is important. It's important for the team or
   organization putting on the game to emphasize and uphold it because
   there arc so many people. Like if someone makes a bad call, they
   all start chanting bs or bullshit in unison and there are thousands
   of people saying it.

Part of being a fan. Two participants indicated that displaying poor sportsmanship is part of being a fan. Contrariwise, a third participant suggested that upholding good sportsmanship is part of being a fan. In the former case, one person said, "Um, I think yes to an extent. They wouldn't be fans if they showed good sportsmanship. You're not going to cheer when the other team makes a basket ..." Similarly, the other of the two stated,

   No, I think it is encouraged for fans to be rowdy and obnoxious and
   to create a home-court advantage and to make the opposing players
   uncomfortable. I think it is expected and it's the culture. I think
   that's what creates the home court advantage.
   The third person within this category maintained the opposite
   position stating,
   I think it is important because if you cross that line it is not a
   good thing I think. I think most members and good supporters
   usually do realize what they are there for and what they are
   supposed to do and that is part of sportsmanship to respect [the
   opponent]. So,
   I think it is part of being a good fan.

Miscellaneous. Four participants' responses were categorized under Miscellaneous for various reasons. One person was categorized as such because their answer was not clearly recorded. Another participant gave an answer that did not accurately address the question. A third participant provided a response that was unclear or not well articulated. The fourth person believed fans should maintain sportsmanship in order to protect the credibility of sport. They said:

   Absolutely. Urn, watching a European soccer match, people's
   behavior in the stands. I think that bad sportsmanship leads to a
   loss of credibility for sport, as entertainment which is just a
   mess when you have people just yelling at certain players, sexual
   or otherwise. I know some players came to [name of city removed)
   last year, Darryl strawberry's kid came and that led to a whole
   bunch of people asking if his dad was doing crack again or other
   destructive things.

The same question was also included on the questionnaire with a closed ended scale ranging from "very important" to "not important." Of 197 responses, 83% indicated that it is either very important or important for fans to uphold sportsmanship. In contrast, only 18% felt it was somewhat important or not important to uphold sportsmanship. Overall, these responses are consistent with the majority of those in the interview that also believed it is important for fans to uphold sportsmanship.

Question 4: Do You Think That Your Behavior as a Fan Ever Violates Sportsmanship (please explain)?

From the interviews, responses to the above question were mixed. For clarification, there were three participants that were not asked the question given the way they responded to one of the previous questions concerning the types of cheering. These particular participants described cheering that was clearly not a violation of sportsmanship, e.g., "Let's go Team XYZ" or singing the fight song. Consequently, the above question was not applicable to them. Of the seven participants that were asked the question, four of them felt their behavior does not violate sportsmanship. Among the other three, two indicated that their behavior "sometimes" violates sportsmanship while the third individual believed their cheering does violate sportsmanship.

An analysis of the participants' explanations produced one meaningful theme called Frustrated with Referees. This category contained three participants that indicated they "sometimes" or "do" violate sportsmanship and a fourth person that felt they do not violate sportsmanship but similar to other three, suggested that he and others may abuse the referees. For example, one person said,

   Uh, I would like to say no but sometimes I can go overboard. I
   don't use profanity until
   I get mad and stuff. That's the most I
   get out of hand when referees make calls and I get
   upset but that is about as far I will go.
   Another person stated,
   I've crossed the line a couple of times. [I] just get caught up
   in the emotion of it, so it is just like I yell something,
   I think like, this is
   really irritating to me, I say something to the effect of you're a
   damn idiot or something like that and then I say you know get back
   to the locker room or get the hell out of here, ref, but that is
   really the extent that I have done it.

The other four participants felt that they do not violate sportsmanship and thus had something in common. However, their explanations varied and consequently did not merge into any particular category. Further, the comments were rather vague and generally provided little insight. The comments were subsequently categorized under Miscellaneous.

In addition to the interviews, the same question was asked on the questionnaire in a closed-ended format. The majority (59%) responded with "No" when asked if they believe the types of cheering they do violates sportsmanship. However, there was also an additional 36% that believe the types of cheering they do either "sometimes" (31%) or "most of the time" (5%) violates sportsmanship. There was also an additional 5% that were "unsure." This distribution of responses is fairly consistent with the interviews in that people responded predominantly with "no" or "sometimes."

Question 5: If you are cheering at a level that causes teams not to play their best, is winning still legitimate?

All ten participants interviewed believed that it is legitimate to win a game by distracting and upsetting the opponent. Additionally, there were two emerging themes called Part of the Game (6 responses) and Opposing Fans Do It Too (4 responses) which supported many of the participants' positions that cheering to the point of distracting the opponent is a legitimate and fair way to win. For example, for the first category, one individual said,

   Yes, both teams agreed to play and if something illegal happened
   during the game, I'm allowed to do that, I am allowed to be
   there.... It's like if someone yells something so vulgar that you
   know takes someone out of the game, it's a valid win.
   Another person within the same category said,
   Yeah, I think it is part of the game. If fans weren't supposed to
   [cheer distractingly], they
   would play in an empty gym you know one on one and like, the better
   team would win every time. That's why fans give the underdog a
   chance, like we haven't been the better team in half of the games
   this year probably.

With regard to the other major category called Other Fans Do It Too, one person said, "I think it is a legitimate win because obviously the home games will help our team but when we go on the road for games, it will be the same for the other team." Another individual stated, "I think it is, yeah. Because at the same time, our players are going to go on the road and they're going to hear the same thing ..."

As mentioned, this question was not included on the questionnaire because we thought it would be better suited for an in-depth interview. Additionally, in an effort to improve the response rate to the questionnaire, we attempted to keep the questionnaire brief while at the same time informative to our study. In hindsight, it would have been beneficial to have included question #5 on the questionnaire. However, given the amount of consistency with responses to the same questions posed in the interviews and on the questionnaire, it is likely that a similar pattern of responses would have held from the questionnaire.

Discussion

The purpose of this article was to suggest that many college sport spectators (and presumably other sport spectators) may not understand or value sportsmanship as evidenced by the myriad acts of sport aggression (DeCuir, 2007; Report on the Sportsmanship and Fan Behavior Summit, 2003; Richardson, 2006; Wann et al., 2001; Young 2002). As a result, the attempts to curtail sport spectator aggression by the NCAA and athletic departments more specifically have not shown great success. To initially assess sport spectators' understanding and valuing of sportsmanship, a mixed-method study was conducted with a sample of college student basketball fans. The findings are offered as preliminary rather than definitive or confirmatory evidence.

To some extent, this study's sample of college student basketball fans does appear to have an understanding of sportsmanship. For example, the most identified moral value was respect, which is part era number of sport scholars' definitions (Clifford & Feezell, 1997; Rudd & Stoll, 1998; Vallerand et al., 1997). Some participants also identified the moral value of fair play which is part of sportsmanship definitions by Rudd and Stoll and Keating (1964). In addition, participants defined sportsmanship with a host of other values that have not been identified in popular sport scholars' definitions, but that could nonetheless be considered part of sportsmanship. As Clifford and Feezell note, "The word 'sportsmanship' is shorthand for a whole complex of character traits that athletic competition should instill in our young people ..." (p. 19). Therefore, participants' definitions that included values or behaviors such as nice/ polite, good sport, honor, integrity, and positive attitude could also be a reasonable part of sportsmanship. However, our analysis of participants' definitions of sportsmanship did not reveal the other component of sportsmanship involving the notion that sportsmanship is noble or morally virtuous (Arnold, 1994; Clifford & Feezell, 1997). Thus, it may be that the average sport spectator operates with a superficial and limited understanding of sportsmanship which in turn may relate to why some sport spectators engage in aggressive behavior.

Participants were also asked to consider if their behavior as a fan ever violates sportsmanship. The point of this question was to determine if there was a lack of congruence between the types of cheering fans do and perceptions of their own cheering. In other words, if many fans engage in abusive forms of cheering while thinking that it is not a violation of sportsmanship, then perhaps they do not understand sportsmanship. Unfortunately, results to this particular question were inconclusive. On the one hand, there were participants that identified abusive forms of cheering as well as many fans that believe that they do not violate sportsmanship. On the other hand, the majority (70% of the interviewees and 69% of the questionnaire respondents) identified positive forms of cheering. Consequently, there was not a preponderance of evidence to show that most fans engage in aggressive cheering while simultaneously believing they do not violate sportsmanship.

The valuing component of sportsmanship was partly sought by asking the participants if they believe it is important for fans to uphold sportsmanship and then considering responses in relationship to the nature of their cheering. Results showed that the large majority (80% in the interviews and 83% from the questionnaire) believe it is important for fans to uphold sportsmanship. Additionally, the majority provided examples of cheering that were positive or non abusive. Taken together, these pieces of evidence might suggest that many of the sport spectators in this study's sample do in fact value sportsmanship. However, it was also observed that 7 of 10 (70%) in the interviews and 52 of 198 (26%) in the questionnaire described types of cheering that were of a heckling or distracting manner. Thus, it could be that the phenomenon of sport spectator aggression is limited to a more specialized group of sport spectators. Such would be consistent with Wakefield and Wann (2006) who argued that while the majority of sport spectators act in a decent manner, there is a small percentage that are highly "dysfunctional," i.e., over identified fans that act in an extreme or abnormal manner (see also Gibson, Wilming, & Holdnak, 2002). Wakefield and Wann found that it these fans that tend to be more aggressive and abusive. Perhaps it is primarily the dysfunctional fans that do not understand or value sportsmanship. This may be an area for future research.

Lastly, participants were asked about the legitimacy of winning by cheering in a distracting manner (interviews only). This question was used as a means to assess both valuing and understanding of sportsmanship. All of the participants interviewed believed it is legitimate to win a game by such cheering. Their reasoning was primarily based on the notion that being an obnoxious fan is "part of the game" and that opposing fans will do the same to their team when visiting. Responses suggest that the participants either do not understand sportsmanship as a morally virtuous practice or that they may understand sportsmanship but do not value it. In light of responses to the above question, one has to wonder if many of the participants provided "socially desirable" answers to some of the other self-report questions (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). For example, in response to the question pertaining to the importance of fans upholding sportsmanship, the large majority (from the interviews and questionnaire) felt sportsmanship is important. Yet, their responses seem to contradict the responses given to the interview question relating to the legitimacy of winning through the use of distracting cheering methods. This is another indication that more studies are needed to better understand sport spectators' understanding and valuing of sportsmanship.

While considering the results from this study it is important to note a couple of limitations. First, the participants are a convenience sample from one particular university out of many colleges/universities that have basketball programs. Some of these universities would be regarded as being so-called "basketball schools" that presumably contain a higher number of fanatical fans than the university in this study. Thus, generalizing to the total population of college sport spectators is tentative. Additional studies with samples of college student fans from traditional basketball universities will be needed to learn more about understanding and valuing of sportsmanship and its relationship to aggression (as well as college sport spectators of other sports and universities). Second, the exploratory nature of our study provides preliminary findings that should be viewed heuristically rather than the drawing of definitive conclusions.

In conclusion, it has not been the intention of this paper to suggest that a lacking of knowing and valuing are the only causes of spectator aggression. There have been many other hypothesized causes of sport spectator aggression. These causes are based on a host of psychological theories/variables (frustration-aggression hypothesis, social learning theory, team identification/self esteem maintenance, group categorization, need for excitement, and psychological dysfunction) and sociological theories (contagion theory, convergence theory, emergent-norms theory, value-added theory, and issue-relevant and issue-irrelevant factors) (see reviews by Simons & Taylor, 1992; Wann et al., 2001). A variety of environmental variables (noise, ions, temperature, crowding, and viewing violence) and alcohol use have also been proposed to cause sport spectator aggression (Wann et al., 2001). Thus, in light of the myriad theories/variables that may contribute to sport spectator aggression, we do not intend to suggest that a lack of understanding and valuing of sportsmanship are the only potential causes of aggression. Rather, our intention was to offer a new additional explanation that may be an important contributing factor in sport spectator aggression. Given our study was the Fast to assess sport spectators understanding and valuing of sportsmanship, we hope more studies will be conducted in this area. Doing so may provide insight into how to improve the practice of sportsmanship among sport spectators.

For now, we encourage sport administrators to consider the possibility that many sport spectators believe it is their right and duty to distract and verbally abuse opponents. This in turn, suggests that athletic departments need to initiate an educational component that will teach fans the meaning and value of sportsmanship. Research has shown the moral education can be an effective medium for improving moral reasoning and changing an individual's value system (Lickona, 1991; Power, Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989; Stoll & Belier, 2006). In addition, studies need to be conducted that examine the types of conditions that can decrease spectator aggression (e.g., alcohol sales, seating arrangements, overcrowding, weather conditions, sanctioning of spectator aggression, game times, added security, and promotion of fair play over winning) (Branscomb & Wann, 1992; Report on the Sportsmanship and Fan Behavior Summit, 2003, Wann et al., 2001).

Appendix A: Sport Interview Questions

1) What year are you in school?

2) How long have you been a member of the XYZ (name replaced) fan group?

3) How often do you attend the basketball games?

4) Can you describe the types of cheering you do at games?

5) How do you define sportsmanship?

6) Do you think it is important for fans to uphold sportsmanship? Please explain.

7) Do you think it is important for players to uphold sportsmanship? Please explain.

8) Do you think that your behavior as a fan ever violates sportsmanship? Please explain.

9) Is there a difference between how the fans should behave versus the players in relationship to sportsmanship?

10) If you are cheering at a level that causes teams not to play their best, is winning still legitimate and why?

Appendix B: Sportsmanship Questionnaire

1) What year are you in school?

Freshmen

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

2) Please indicate your gender.

Male

Female

3) How long have you been a member of the XYZ (name replaced) fan group?

4) How often do you attend the basketball games?

Not often

About Half

Most of them

All of them

5) How strongly do you see yourself as a fan of the XYZ (name replaced) men's basketball team?

Not Strongly

Somewhat Strongly

Strongly

Very Strongly

6) Can you please describe the types of cheering you do? What kinds of things do you say to the opposing team?

7) How do you define sportsmanship? Please provide an answer in the space provided.

8) How important is it for fans to uphold sportsmanship?

Very important, Important, Somewhat Important, Not important

9) How important is it for the players to uphold sportsmanship?

Very important, Important, Somewhat Important, Not important

10) Do you believe any of the cheering you do violates sportsmanship?

Yes, most of the time, Yes, sometimes, No, Unsure

References

Arnold, P. (1994). Sport and moral education [electronic version]. The Journal of Moral Education, 23, 75-89.

Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1992). Role of identification with a group, arousal, categorization processes, and self-esteem in sports spectator aggression. Human Relations, 45(10), 1013-1033.

Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to research design, measurement, and statistics. London: Sage Publications.

Buford May, R. A. (2001). The sticky situation of sportsmanship: Contradictions in sportsmanship among high school boys basketball players. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 25, 372-389.

Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 195-207. http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/893068-1.html

Clifford, C., & Feezell, R.M. (1997). Coaching for Character. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Coakley, J. (2007). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeCuir, M. (2007, November 1). Schools try hard to foil fans' curses. USA Today. Retrieved October 8, 2008, from http://www.usatoday.com/ sports/college/football/2007-10-31-fan-behavior_N.htm

Eitzen, D. S. (1999). Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes of sport. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (4th ed.). New York: Merill, an imprint of Macmillan Publishing Company.

Gibson, H., Wilming, C., & Holdnak, A. (2002). We're Gators ... not just Gator fans: Serious leisure and university of Florida football. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 397-426.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.

Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 224-235.

Hofsteter, A. (2006, September 13). Fans behaving badly: Reprehensible actions have become commonplace. SI.com. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from http:// sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/adam_hofstetter/09/13/uncommon.sense/ index.html

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Johnson, R. B., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.

Keating (1964). Sportsmanship as a moral category. In W. J. Morgan, K. V. Meier, & A. J. Schneier (Eds.), Ethics in sport (7-20). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character. New York: Bantam Books.

NFL implements new fan code of conduct for 2008 season (2008, August 5). ESPN NFL. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3520559

Our Mission. (n.d.). Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=1352

Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Power, F. C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg's approach to moral education. New York: Columbia University Press.

Rader, B. G. (2004). American sports: From the age of folk games to the age of televised sports (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Report on the sportsmanship and fan behavior summit. (2003). Retrieved January 11, 2007, from http://www.unh.edu/studentsummit/sportsmanship.pdf

Richardson, S. (2006, January 11). NCAA seeks to curb poor sportsmanship. USA Today. Retrieved January 29, 2006, from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/ 2006-01-11-sportsmanship_x.htm

Rudd, A., & Stoll, S. K. (1998). Understanding sportsmanship. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 69, 38-42.

Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (1995). Character development and physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Simons, Y., & Taylor, J. (1992). A psychosocial model of fan violence in sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 207-226.

Smith, G. J. (1988). The noble sports fan. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 12(1) 54-65.

Steinbach, P. (2008). Class dismissed. Athletic Business. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http:// www.athleticbusiness.com/articles/article.aspx?articleid=1770&zoneid=9

Stoll, S. K. & Beller, J. M. (2006). Ethical dilemmas in college sport. In R. E. Lapchick (Ed.), New game plan for college sport (pp. 309-330). Westport, CT: Praeger. American Council on Education, series on Higher Education.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research In The Schools, 13, 12-28.

Vallerand, R. J., Briere, N. M., Blanchard, C., Provencher. (1997). Development and validation of the multidimensional sportspersonship orientation scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 197-206.

Wahl, G. (2008, February 26). Extreme vulgarity and taunting by college basketball fans this season raise the question: How much is too much? For schools and conferences, it's time to act. SI On Campus.com. Retrieved 15, 2008, from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ 2008/sioncampus/02/26/abusive.fans0303/index.html

Wakefield, K. L., & Wann, D. L. (2006). An examination of dysfunctional sport fans: Method of classification and relationships with problem behaviors. Journal of Leisure Research, 38, 168-186.

Wann, D. L., Carlson, J. D., & Schrader, M. P. (1999). The impact of team identification on the hostile and instrumental verbal aggression of sport spectators. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 279-286.

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., Inman, S., Ensor, C. L., Gates, R. D., & Caldwell, D. S. (1999). Assessing the psychological well-being of sport fans using the Profile of Mood States: The importance of team identification. International Sports Journal, 3, 81-90.

Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Pease, D. G. (2001). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators. New York: Routledge.

Young, K. (2002). Standard deviations: An update on North American sports crowd disorder. Sociology of Sport Journal, 19, 237-275.

Address Correspondence to: Andy Rudd, Ph.D., Florida State University, Department of Sport Management, Recreation Management, & Physical Education, 1028 Tully Gym, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-4280. Email: rudd@coe.fsu.edu. Phone: (850) 645-6883. Fax: (850) 644-O975.

Andy Rudd

Florida State University

Brian S. Gordon

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse