Using sex and gender role orientation to predict level of sport fandom.

Warm, Daniel L. ; Waddill, Paula J. ; Dunham, Mardis D. 等

Although sport fandom and spectating are often viewed as male dominated activities, recent data indicate that the number of women interested in the pastime may be on the rise (Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001). In fact, females now comprise at least 40 percent of National Hockey League, National Football League, and Major Soccer League fans (Hofacre, 1994; Meyers, 1997; Mihoces, 1998). Consequently, social scientists have recently directed their attention toward the relationship between gender and sport fandom. Often, these efforts have been aimed at documenting the gender gap in sport fandom. Empirical evidence suggests that males are more likely to be interested and involved in sport as fans than are females (Anderson & Stone, 1981; Lieberman, 1991 ; McPherson, 1975; Murrell & Dietz, 1992; Prisuta, 1979; Wann, in press; for a review, see Warm et al., 2001).

A second line of inquiry into gender differences in random has focused on sport fan socialization and motivation. With respect to sport fan socialization, McPherson (I 975) found gender differences in the impact of various socialization agents. Specifically, his work indicated that peers, family, and school were the most powerful agents for boys while family, peers, and the community was most influential for girls. Recently, Warm and his associates (2001) replicated McPherson's research. In contrast to McPherson, however, these authors found that schools were the most prominent agent of sport fan socialization for girls, a finding that may be a consequence of Title IX and the increased funding given to female youth sports at the scholastic level in the 25 years since McPherson's study. As for motivational differences, Wann and his colleagues have used the Sport Fan Motivation Scale to identify several consistent gender differences (Wann, 1995; Warm, Schrader, & Wilson, 1999). For instance, males are more likely than females to be motivated by eustress (i.e., positive stress), self-esteem needs, and the aesthetic qualities of sport. Wann et al. have found that females are more likely to view sport as an opportunity to spend time with their family, a finding replicated by Dietz-Uhler, Harrick, End, and Jacquemotte (2000).

Other investigators have examined differential perceptions of male and female fans. For instance, Dietz-Uhler, End, Jacquemotte, Bentley, and Hurlbut (2000) recently asked a group of individuals to consider the behaviors of a hypothetical male and female fan. The participants reported large differences in their perceptions as the male fan was expected to be engaged in significantly more fan behaviors (e.g., watching sport on television) than the female fan. Another recent investigation found that males with strong interest in fandom gave particularly positive ratings to a female target who was described as possessing a similarly high interest in sport (Wann, Schinner, & Keenan, 2001).

Thus, research on the relationship between gender and sport fandom is beginning to take several interesting and informative directions. However, because past work had focused solely on the relationship between anatomical sex and sport fandom, an area that has been neglected involves the potential relationship between gender role orientation and fandom. Gender role orientation involves the extent to which individuals view themselves as masculine, feminine, or androgynous, that is, possessing nearly equal levels of both masculine and feminine qualities (Hoffman and Borders, 2001, have suggested using the terms instrumentality and expressiveness to replace masculine and feminine, respectively). Although social scientists had yet to investigate the relationship between gender role orientation and fandom, a number of investigators had examined the gender role orientations of athletes (e.g., Martin & Matin, 1995; Roloff & Solomon, 1989; Swain & Jones, 1991). LeUnes and Nation (I 989) and Gill (1992) each conducted a review of this literature and concluded that female athletes tended not to express a feminine sex role orientation. Rather, masculine sex role orientations were much more common among these persons.

A more recent study of the gender role orientation of athletes was conducted by Lantz and Schroeder (1999). These authors examined the relationship between one's identification with the role of athlete and gender role orientation by asking participants Io complete the Athletic Identification Measurement Scale (Brewer, Van Raalte, & Linder, 1993) and the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bern, 1974). Correlational analyses indicated that identification with the role of athlete was positively correlated with masculinity and negatively correlated with femininity. The current investigation was designed to extend Lantz and Schroder's work to sport fans. We expected similar relationships between gender role orientations and identification to emerge with fans, hypothesizing that there would be a positive correlation between level of sport fandom and level of masculinity but a negative relationship between level of fandom and level of femininity. This prediction was based on research indicating that affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactions of sport fans often mimic those displayed by the athletes themselves. For instance, athletes and fans exhibit similar attributional biases and precompetition anxiety patterns (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann, Schrader, & Adamson, 1998). Thus, it seemed reasonable to expect fans and athletes to report similar relationships with respect to gender role orientation.

A second purpose of the present study was to compare the extent to which anatomical sex and gender role orientation predict level of fandom. As noted, a number of studies have found that males are more likely to be heavily involved in sport fandom than females. Should gender role orientation be related to fandom as expected, it would allow for a direct test of whether anatomical sex or gender roles best predict sport fandom (or, perhaps both are uniquely predictive of random). Such an examination would have important implications for sport marketers as they attempt to define their target audience. However, because the relationship between random and gender roles has as yet been untested and because there were no past data or theory on the relative importance of gender roles versus anatomical sex in predicting fandom, no direct hypotheses for these analyses were formulated. Rather, these analyses were examined within the framework of a research question asking, "Do anatomical sex and gender role orientation differ in their ability to predict sport fandom?"

Method

Participants

Participants were 336 (112 male; 2:24 female) university students earning extra course credit in exchange for participation. They had a mean age of 26.08 years (SD = 7.82, range = 18 to 60).

Materials and Procedure

Upon entering the testing room and providing their consent to participate, participants (tested in small groups) were asked to complete a questionnaire packet containing three sections. The first section contained demographic items assessing age and anatomical sex. The second section contained the Sport Fandom Questionnaire (SFQ; Warm, in press). The SFQ contains five Likert-scale items assessing level of sport fandom. Response options to the SFQ range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 8 (strongly agree). A sample item contained in the SFQ reads "Being a sport fan is very important to me." Higher ratings are associated with greater fandom. Warm reports strong internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion validity for the SFQ.

The third section of the questionnaire packet contained the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bern, 1974). The BSRI contains 60 Likert-scale items, 20 each measuring level of femininity, level of masculinity, and neutral (i.e., filler) items. Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which the traits are self-descriptive. Sample feminine items include "flatterable", "feminine" and "tender". Sample masculine items include "assertive", "masculine", and "dominant". Sample neutral items include "helpful", "happy", and "conventional". Response options range from 1 (never or almost never true) to 8 (always or almost always true). Although some authors have challenged the psychometric quality of the BSRI (e.g., Locksley & Colten, 1979; Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979), many sport scientists have successfully employed these measures in their sport research (e.g., Lantz & Schroeder, 1999; Roloff & Solomon, 1989; Swain & Jones, 1991). Although the BRSI has often been used to classify participants into various gender role categories (e.g., "androgynous" or "undifferentiated") via methods such as median splits performed on subscale scores, the current investigation attempted to avoid misclassifications by treating the femininity and masculinity scales as continuous (i.e., participants received an overall femininity and masculinity score and were not classified into specific groups).

After the participants completed their packet, they returned it to a researcher who handed them a debriefing statement. This statement disclosed the hypotheses of the study and contained information on contacting the researcher for a final report of the project. Once the participants had received the debriefing statement, they were excused from the testing session. The sessions lasted 20 minutes.

Results

A standard multiple regression analysis was performed on the dependent variable of sport random (as measured by SFQ score) with sex, Bern masculinity score, and Bern femininity score as predictor variables (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations by sex). The BSRI scores are quite consistent with past research in sport psychology (e.g., Colley, Roberts, & Chipps, 1985). The correlation matrix and descriptive statistics for the variables used in the multiple regression analysis are shown in Table 2.

Table 3 displays the unstandardized (B) and standardized ([beta]) regression coefficients, the squared semipartial correlations (sr2), and the R, [R.sup.2], and adjusted [R.sup.2] values. Masculinity ([sr.sup.2] = .13) contributed the most unique variability to the prediction of random, followed by sex ([sr.sup.2] = .05). Sex and level of masculinity in combination contributed another .06 in shared variability. Although level of femininity was significantly correlated with sport random (r = -.14), it did not contribute significantly to the regression when sex and masculinity were also taken into account. Altogether, 24% (23% adjusted) of the variability in sport random was predicted by knowing biological sex and degree of masculinity. R for regression was significant, F(3,332) = 34.67, MSE = 3.71, p < .001. These results indicate that although biological sex accounts for a significant proportion of unique variability in fan identification (with men generally expressing greater random than women), masculinity makes an even larger contribution. In short, regardless of sex, the greater the degree of masculine characteristics a man or woman possesses, the stronger the sport random.

Discussion

It was hypothesized that there would be a positive correlation between level of sport random and masculinity but a negative relationship between level of random and femininity. The hypothesis involving masculinity was supported. However, the hypothesized relationship between random and femininity was not found. Although there was a small (and significant) negative correlation between the two variables, the regression analyses revealed that there was no independent contribution of level of femininity to degree of sport random. Thus, the results indicate that sports fans are somewhat similar to athletes with regard to the impact of gender role orientation (Gill, 1992; LeUnes & Nation, 1989). That is, both athletes and fans tend to express a masculine gender role orientation. However, while athletes tend not to express a feminine role, sport fans and nonfans do not differ significantly on this variable.

Our results indicate that to fully understand the relationship between demographic variables and involvement in sport as a fan, individuals must consider both anatomical sex and masculinity. Each was found to have a significant unique contribution to level of fandom. Comparisons of the relative contributions of each revealed that masculinity accounted for greater than twice the variability of anatomical sex, suggesting that masculinity is the better predictor of random. Although previous research documenting sex differences in sport fandom was replicated (e.g., Anderson & Stone, 1981; Lieberman, 1991; Warm, in press), the current data indicate that simply focusing on effects of anatomical sex leads to an oversimplification of the relationship between demographic variables and sport fandom.

Similarly, past research on sex differences in sport fan motivation could be advanced by comparing the variance in specific motives accounted for by anatomical sex and gender roles. For instance, as noted above, males tend to be motivated by eustress, self-esteem, and aesthetics while females tend to be motivated by family needs (Dietz-Uhler et al., 2000; Warm, 1995; Warm et al., 1999). Based on the findings reported here that gender role orientation is a better predictor of general fandom than anatomical sex, one could predict that a similar pattern of effects would emerge with sport fan motivation. That is, researchers may find that masculinity is a better predictor of differences in motives such as eustress and family needs than is anatomical sex. Further, motives that have not been related to sex in past research (e.g., using sport fandom as an escape or for economic gain), may be related to gender role orientation (i.e., masculinity).

The finding that masculinity is a better predictor of fandom than anatomical sex has important implications for sport marketers and advertisers. The findings presented here suggest that sport marketers should target masculine audiences (regardless of the gender composition of the audience), in addition to audiences that tend to be male-dominant. For instance, advertisements and commercials appearing during sporting events that portray scantly-clad women (e.g., the Swedish Bikini Team ads) may well attract the attention of male fans but do little, if anything, for masculine female fans. These persons may need other marketing strategies to attract their attention (of course, additional research is needed to determine the precise nature of these strategies). That is, armed with the knowledge that masculinity is an important predictor of fandom, sport marketers should determine which advertising strategies are most effective for masculine persons (regardless of gender). This suggestion also holds true for sport teams' attempts to market their product to fans. Their strategies will be more effective and reach a larger audience if they are targeted at masculine persons of both genders, rather than simply towards males. In light of the fact that women continue to comprise a larger portion of the sport fan pool (see Wann et al., 2001), such an all-inclusive strategy would be particularly advisable.

Table 1

Mean and Standard Deviations for Level of Masculinity and Femininity by
Anatomical Sex.

 Males Females

Gender role M SD M SD

Level of:
Masculinity 110.46 14.82 100.94 14.26
Femininity 91.70 14.93 103.58 11.77

Table 2

Correlation Matrix and Descriptive Statistics for Variables Used in
Multiple Regression Analysis.

 1 2 3 4 M

1.LSFQ -- -.34 ** .43 ** -.14 * 4.34
2.Sex -- -.30 ** .40 ** --
3.Masculinity -- -.28 ** 104.12
4.Femininity -- 99.62

 SD

1.LSFQ 2.2
2.Sex --
3.Masculinity 15.11
4.Femininity 14.05

Notes: SFQ = Sport Fandom Questionnaire. Sex was coded as 1 = male, 2 =
female.

* p<.05, ** p<.01.

Author's Note

Portions of the paper were presented at the annual meeting of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport, Colorado Springs, CO, November, 2000.

References

Anderson, D., & Stone, G. P. (1981). Responses of male and female metropolitans to the commercialization of professional sport 1960 to 1975. International Review of Sport Sociology, 16(3), 5-20.

Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., & Linder, D E. (1993). Athletic identity: Hercules' muscles or Achilles' heel? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 237-254.

Colley, A., Roberts, N., & Chipps, A. (1985). Sex-role identity, personality, and participation in team and individual sports by males and females. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 16, 103-112.

Dietz-Uhler, B., End, C., Jacquemotte, L., Bentley, M., & Hurlbut, V. (2000). Perceptions of male and female sport fans. International Sports Journal, 4, 88-97.

Dietz-Uhler, B., Harrick, E. A., End, C., & Jacquemotte, L. (2000). Sex differences in sport fan behavior and reasons for being a sport fan. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 219-231.

Gill, D. L. (1992). Gender and sport behavior, in T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 143-160). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hofacre, S. (1994). The women's audience in professional indoor soccer. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 3, 25-27.

Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (200 l). Twenty-five years after the Bern Sex-Role Inventory: A reassessment and new issues regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 39-55.

Lantz, C. D., & Schroeder, P. J. (1999). Endorsement of masculine and feminine gender roles: Differences between participation in and identification with the athletic role. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 545-557.

LeUnes, A. D., & Nation, J. R. (1989). Sport psychology: An introduction. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Lieberman, S. (1991, September/October). The popular culture: Sport in America--a look at the avid sports fan. The Public Perspective: A Roper Center Review of Public Opinion and Polling, 2(6), 28-29.

Locksley, A., & Colten, M. E. (1979). Psychological androgyny: A case of mistaken identity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1017-1031.

Martin, B. A., & Martin, J. H. (1995). Comparing perceived sex role orientations of the ideal male and female athlete to the ideal male and female person. Journal of Sport Behavior, 18, 286-301.

McPherson, B. (1975). Sport consumption and the economics of consumerism. In D. W. Ball & J. W. Loy (Eds.), Sport and social order: Contributions to the sociology of sport (pp.243-275). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Meyers, B. (1997, August 28). Feminine touches planned but blood and guts remain. USA Today, pp. A1, A2.

Mihoces, G. (1998, May 7). Women checking in more as NHL fans. USA Today, pp. C1, C2.

Murrell, A. J., & Dietz, B. (1992). Fan support of sports teams: The effect of a common group identity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 28-39.

Pedhazer, E. J., & Tetenbaum, Y. J. (1979). Bern sex role inventory: A theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 996-1016.

Prisuta, R. H. (1979). Televised sports and political values. Journal of Communication, 29, 94-102.

Roloff, M. E., & Solomon, D. H. (1989). Sex typing, sports interests, and relational harmony. In L. A. Wenner (Ed.), Media, sports, and society (pp. 290-311). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Swain, A., & Jones, G. (1991). Gender role endorsement and competitive anxiety. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 22, 50-65.

Wann, D. L. (in press). Preliminary validation of a measure for assessing identification as a sport fan: The Sport Fandom Questionnaire. International Journal of Sport Management.

Wann, D. L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the Sport Fan Motivation Scale. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 19, 377-396.

Wann, D. L., & Dolan, T. J. (1994). Attributions of highly identified sports spectators. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 783-792.

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 Press.

Wann, D. L., Schinner, J., & Keenan, B. L. (2001). Males' impressions of female fans and nonfans: There really is "Something About Mary". North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 183-192.

Wann, D. L., Schrader, M. P., & Adamson, D. R. (1998). The cognitive and somatic anxiety of sport spectators. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 322-337.

Wann, D. L., Schrader, M. P., & Wilson, A. M. (1999). Sport fan motivation: Questionnaire validation, comparisons by sport, and relationship to athletic motivation. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 114-139.

Address Correspondence To: Daniel L. Warm, Department of Psychology, Murray State University, Murray, KY 42071 or to dan.wann@murraystate.edu