An examination of levels of fandom, team

2 downloads 0 Views 666KB Size Report
In 1995, Wann and Hamlet reported that less than 5 percent of articles ... ship between team identification (a fan's psychological connection to a team, see Wann ...
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312023850

An examination of levels of fandom, team identification, socialization processes, and fan behaviors in Qatar Article · January 2017 CITATIONS

READS

0

330

5 authors, including: Nicholas D. Theodorakis

Ahmed Al-Emadi

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Qatar University

54 PUBLICATIONS   855 CITATIONS   

8 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Attitudes and Behaviors of Football Fans from Ten Countries in the Middle East View project

This is part of SESRI project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Al-Emadi on 23 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

An Examination of Levels of Fandom, Team Identification, Socialization Processes, and Fan Behaviors in Qatar

Nicholas D. Theodorakis and Ahmed Al-Emadi, Qatar University Daniel Wann Murray State University and Yannis Lianopoulos and Alexandra Foudouki Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

The current investigation extended past efforts on cultural differences in sport fandom by investigating sport fandom in Qatar, a previously unexplored culture. A sample of 259 sport fans completed a questionnaire packet assessing demographic variables, sport fandom, team identification, impacts of various socialization agents, and six typical sport fan behaviors. The results revealed a number of interesting findings including gender differences (males exhibited both greater levels of identification with a team and sport fandom than females), the influence of team-related factors for selecting a sport team, and a particularly large percentage of foreign teams listed as one’s favorite team. To further our understanding of the behavior of sport fans globally and provide insights to sport managers, the results of this research are compared and contrasted with similar studies conducted in Australia, Greece, Norway, U.K., and the U.S.

Address correspondence to: Daniel L. Wann, Department of Psychology, Murray State University, Murray, KY 42071, Email: [email protected]. Note: All authors contributed equally to this project.

2 / Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 40, No. 1

In 1995, Wann and Hamlet reported that less than 5 percent of articles appearing in several sport journals (e.g., International Journal of Sport Psychology, Journal of Sport Behavior) targeted fans and spectators. However, in the decades since there has been tremendous growth in this literature. Fueled by research from a variety of fields (e.g., sport psychology, sport sociology, sport marketing and management), huge advancements have been made in our understanding of the affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactions of fans and spectators. These reactions include, but are far from limited to, the socialization process (Funk & James, 2001; Yoh, Pai, & Pedersen, 2009), spectator aggression (Dimmock & Grove, 2005; Gunter, 2006), the relationship between fandom and well-being (Reding, Grieve, Derryberry, & Paquin, 2011; Wann, 2006), and sport consumption (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Zhang, Pease, Hui, & Michaud, 1995). Although these recent advances have been valuable, a limitation to this literature has been a lack of cross-cultural work. This void is concerning given that interesting patterns across cultures have been noted in several studies (e.g., Harrolle, 2010; Kwon & Trail, 2001), leading to a call for more cross-cultural work on fandom and spectating (Theodorakis & Wann, 2008). Beginning with work published in 2001 (Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease), Wann and his colleagues have authored a number of articles examining cross-cultural comparisons of sport fan-related behaviors in an attempt to partially fill this research void. These included the original work examining U.S. fans (Wann et al., 2001), subsequent studies targeting Norwegian (Melnick & Wann, 2004), Greek (Theodorakis & Wann, 2008), and Australian fans (Melnick & Wann, 2011), and the most recent publication on British fans (Parry, Jones, Wann, 2014). This body of literature has highlighted a number of similarities and differences among fans across various cultural groups and, thus, suggests the need for additional work in this area (work targeting as yet untested cultures). With respect to consistencies across cultures, one of the more striking findings involves the high degree of consistency of perceptions of the most influential socialization agent. Specifically, when asked to indicate the single greatest influence on their decision to become a fan, the most frequently listed agent for all cultures was a father. Another consistent result across each sample was the positive relationship between team identification (a fan’s psychological connection to a team, see Wann et al., 2001) and sport fan behaviors such as attendance at events and frequency of conversing about sport with others. In other areas, there were clear differences between cultures. For example, although the impact of community as a socialization agent was ranked quite low in the majority of cultures, in Norway participants reported this to be the most influential agent. Given the powerful impact of club sports in the Norwegian sport culture, this difference seems quite

SPORT FANDOM IN QATAR. . . / 3 reasonable. Large cross-cultural differences were also noted in frequencies of sport fan behaviors. For instance, participants comprising the British sample were much more likely to discuss sport daily than were persons from other cultures. The current investigation was designed to extend past efforts by investigating a previously unexplored culture, namely, sport fandom in Qatar. Although the aforementioned studies had examined sport in numerous locations (e.g., North America, Australia, Europe), researchers had yet to examine fandom in the Middle East. Lately, Qatar has earned a prominent reputation as a hub of various sports and has become renowned for organizing many of the world’s most exciting sport events in tennis, golf, handball, swimming, and boxing, to name just a few. Additionally, Qatar is home to diverse and less common sports, such as falconry and camel racing. In fact, evidence of its in investment and passion for sports has enabled it to attract the world’s most sought after sporting events such as the 2019 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) World Championships and the 2022 Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup. The development of sports and physical activity are considered critical domains that are expected to motivate and propel the nation its endeavor to achieve Qatar’s National Vision toward 2030 (Sport Sector Strategy, 2011-2016, p.6). In its strategic undertakings to promote sports and physical activity, Qatar has now embraced the pioneering initiative “National Sports Day” that is celebrated every second Tuesday of February. The National Sport Day is a public holiday, its purpose to further embed the values of sport into the nation’s culture and encourage the citizens and residents of Qatar to actively participate in various sporting ventures. The Ministry of Youth and Sports in Qatar is responsible for preparing and implementing the government’s policies toward sports and youth development. The Qatar Olympic Committee has also played a leading role in promoting sports in Qatar. In terms of popularity, football (soccer) is the most popular sport in the country and enjoys professional status. For example, now featuring 14 teams, The Qatar Stars League is a relatively new professional league established on 2008. As with the previous studies (Melnick & Wann, 2004, 2011; Parry et al., 2014; Theodorakis & Wann, 2008; Wann et al., 2001), we were interested in a wide range of fan characteristics. This included fan behaviors (e.g., consumption), sport fan socialization, level of sport fandom, and level of identification with a favorite team. Given that specific examinations such as this had yet to be conducted with Qatari fans, the development of specific hypotheses was not warranted. Thus, consistent with previous efforts of this type, this research was guided by several research questions. These questions included:

4 / Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 40, No. 1

1. What are sport fandom levels for the Qatari sample and how do they compare with the previous cross-culture studies. 2. What are team identification levels for the Qatari sample and how do they compare with the previous cross-culture studies. Further, do sport fans in Qatar tend to identify with locale or distant teams? 3. What are typical fan behaviors among fans in Qatar and how do these compare with other cultures? 4. What are the key socialization agents impacting the development of fandom among individuals in Qatar? 5. What is the agent impacting the development of team identification among individuals in Qatar? This research question was an extension of the previous cross-cultural efforts (Melnick & Wann, 2004, 2011; Parry et al., 2014; Theodorakis & Wann, 2008; Wann et al., 2001). As noted above, in past studies participants indicated the primary socialization agent responsible for their fandom was their “father”, and this was clearly the most frequently listed agent in all cultures. For the current investigation, we chose to alter this question to assess the single agent responsible for the selection of their favorite team (rather than fandom in general). Two factors prompted this decision. First, given that data sets from all previous cultures indicated the powerful influence of fathers, it appeared that there was little additional information to be learned from this item. However, research had yet to ask what factor was most influential on one’s decision to select a specific favorite team. Second, given the sport culture in Qatar (see above), it seemed that a large number of persons would have a non-local team as a favorite (this was indeed the case, as discussed in the Results below). Thus, we felt a better picture of Qatari sport fandom would be provided by understanding the primarily agent responsible for socialization fans into following distant teams (as well as those residing locally). Thus, this item was designed to extend and improve on previous investigations. Method Participants Participants were 259 students of a medium-sized University in Qatar. There were 188 (72.6%) males and 71 (27.4%) females. The mean age was 21.2 (SD=1.98) ranging from 18 to 28 years. Regarding education level, participants were fairly equally represented across grade: freshmen (20.9%), sophomores (21.2%), juniors (19.3%), seniors (17%), and graduate students (21.6%). The participants comprised a highly diverse sample representing 33 nationalities, although Qataris were the clear majority (44.4%).

SPORT FANDOM IN QATAR. . . / 5 Materials and Procedure Data for this study were collected via an online survey. This methodology was deemed appropriate because university students in Qatar frequently utilize the Internet for various educational and entertainment reasons (e.g. following sport teams). An electronic questionnaire was sent to students with an embedded link. They voluntarily participated in the study without receiving any incentive. To achieve the replication goals of this study and to facilitate cross-cultural comparisons among fans, the questionnaire previously used by Melnick and Wann (2004), Parry et al. (2014), and Theodorakis et al. (2006) was utilized in this study. This questionnaire contained five sections. In the first section, demographic information regarding gender, age, nationality, and educational level were requested. In the next section, participants reported how frequently they engaged in six sport fandom-related behaviors: attending sporting events, watching sports on television, listening sports on the radio, following sporting events on the Internet, discussing sport via social media, and discussing sport with friends/relatives. The usage of social media has not been included in the previous studies mentioned above and was, thus, an extension of the current research. Response options to these Likert-type scale items were: 1 = never, 2 = once a year, 3 = twice a year, 4 = once a month, 5 = twice a month, 6 = once a week, 7 = twice a week, and 8 = once a day. In the third section, participants ranked the impact of four socialization agents (parents, friends, school, and community) on their sport fandom socialization process. This was assessed via an 8-point scale ranging from 1 (the agent had no influence) to 8 (the agent had a great deal of influence). In addition, a single open-ended question asked participants to report the most influential person/factor/entity in their decision to identify with their favorite sport team or athlete. The fourth section contained the Sport Fandom Questionnaire (SFQ; Wann, 2002) to assess level of sport fandom. This unidimensional scale comprises five items (i.e. “I consider myself to be a sport fan”). Respondents expressed the degree of their agreement with each statement on an 8-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 8 = strongly agree). Thus, higher numbers indicated greater levels of sport fandom. The fifth and final section of the questionnaire contained the seven-item Sport Spectator Identification Scale (SSIS; Wann & Branscombe, 1993) to measure levels of identification with a favorite sport team/athlete. A sample item on the unidimensional SSIS reads: “How important is for you that your favorite team/athlete wins?” Responses to SSIS ranged from 1 (low identification) to 8 (high identification). Both the SFQ and the SSIS have demonstrated reliability and validity in a series of studies among sport fans (for a review see, Wann et al., 2001). Responses were given in English, because students attended academic programs that were instructed in this language.

6 / Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 40, No. 1

Results Preliminary analyses Initially, several preliminary analyses were conducted. First, the psychometric properties of the SFQ and the SSIS were examined. This was deemed necessary given that both scales had yet to be used in the Qatari culture. The factorial validity of the scales was examined using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with the Mplus 7.3 software (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). The Mplus option for maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) was employed. For the SFQ, results indicated that the model did not fit the data well: χ2 = 37.04, df = 5, p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .88 RMSEA = .15, SRMR = .02. A further analysis indicated that the fit of the model would be substantially improved by including an error covariance (ε1 ↔ ε2). Similarity of item wording (“I consider myself to be a sport fan” ↔ “My friends see me as a sport fan”) justified this decision (Byrne, 2006). The re-specified model had an adequate model fit: χ2 = 13.21, df = 4, p < .01, CFI = .98, TLI = .95 RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .01. The average variance extracted (AVE) value was .90 and the factor loadings ranged from .49 to .94 indicating evidence of convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). For the SSIS, results showed a good fit of the model: χ2 = 36.68, df = 14, p < .001, CFI = .97, TLI = .96 RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .02. All factor loadings were > .84 and the AVE value was .83 indicating strong evidence of the convergent validity of the scale. In terms of reliability, Cronbach’s alpha values were satisfactory for both scales (.94 for the SFQ and .92 for the SSIS). The five items comprising the SFQ were combined to constitute a single score of fandom (M = 26.70; SD = 10.15). A one-way analysis of variance revealed that males (M = 28.39; SD = 9.03) had significantly higher levels of fandom than females (M = 22.32; SD = 11.55; F(1, 249) = 19.37, p < .001). The seven SSIS items were similarly combined to create a single index of team identification (M = 39.13; SD = 11.89). Males (M = 41.46; SD = 10.10) again had significantly higher levels of team identification than females (M = 32.75; SD = 13.97; F(1, 259) = 30.59, p < .001). Examination of Fandom-related Behaviors The frequencies of participants’ engagement in sport fandom-related behaviors are presented in Table 1. Consistent with scores on the SFQ and SSIS, the results indicated that males exhibited greater levels of sport fandom than females in most categories. Specifically, 41.4% of males compared to 12.9% of females reported that they attend sporting events at least once a week. One third of the female participants reported that they watch sports

SPORT FANDOM IN QATAR. . . / 7 Table 1 Frequency Distributions (Percentages) of Responses to the Item Assessing Sport Fandom Behaviors. Response Sport-Fandom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Behavior Attendance at sporting events All participants 7.3 13.4 13.8 18.4 13.4 14.9 13.4 5.4 Males 4.2 8.9 12.6 17.3 15.7 17.3 17.8 6.3 Females 15.7 25.7 17.1 21.4 7.1 8.6 1.4 2.9 Watching sport on television 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 All participants 2.7 4.2 5.4 8.8 12.7 19.2 23.1 23.8 Males 0.0 2.6 3.2 5.3 13.2 22.1 24.7 28.9 Females 10.0 8.6 11.4 18.6 11.4 11.4 18.6 10.0 Listening to sport on radio All participants 31.5 10.8 8.8 9.5 5.8 15.4 11.1 8.8 Males 28.9 8.9 8.9 10.0 6.3 17.4 4.3 8.9 Females 38.6 15.7 8.6 9.6 4.3 10.0 9.2 8.6 Following sporting events on the internet All participants 5.0 1.9 5.7 7.3 11.1 14.9 14.6 39.5 Males 0.5 1.0 3.7 17.1 13.1 15.2 15.7 47.1 Females 17.1 4.3 11.4 7.3 5.7 14.3 11.4 18.6 Discussing sport with friends/family via social media All participants 5.8 4.2 3.5 8.8 13.7 16.5 23.5 26.5 Males 2.1 2.1 2.1 5.8 4.3 18.9 25.8 29.5 Females 15.7 10.0 7.1 17.1 11.2 10.0 17.1 18.6 Discussing sport with friends/relatives All participants 4.6 2.7 5.0 6.2 12.7 17.7 20.8 31.2 Males 2.1 7.1 1.1 4.2 15.8 19.5 17.1 35.3 Females 11.4 1.1 15.7 11.4 4.3 12.9 21.1 20.0 Notes: Response options were: 1 = never, 2 = once a year, 3 = twice a year, 4 = once a month, 5 = twice a month, 6 = once a week, 7 = twice a week, and 8 = just about every day. Percentages for each item may not sum to 100 due to rounding. on television two or less times per year. In contrast, only a 5.8% of all males indicated this level of consumption. Rather surprisingly, the genders seemed to consume sport radio shows almost equally: 30.6% of males and 27.8% females listening sports on radio at least once a week. Regarding following sport events on the Internet, 32.8% of females reported that

8 / Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 40, No. 1

they were using the internet less than twice a year in contrast to a mere 5.2% among males. Following sport via social media appears to be a particularly popular behavior among fans in Qatar. In was found that 55.3% of males and 35.7% of females reported that they used social media to follow sports at least twice a week. Finally, sport conversations with friends and relatives received the highest scores for females, with 54% of them reported that they discussed sport at least once a week. Furthermore, 71.9% of males reported that they were engaged in sport discussions once a week or more. Similar to other cross-cultural studies of sport fandom (Melnick & Wann, 2004, 2011; Theodorakis & Wann, 2008; Parry et al., 2014), the relationships among the sport-fandom behaviors, levels of team identification (SSIS scores) and levels of sport fandom (SFQ scores) were examined using Spearman’s correlation and a series of regression analyses. As presented in Table 2, all correlations between fandom, identification, and the six fan behaviors were positive and statistically significant (p < .01). To further investigate the above relationships, six regression analyses were conducted. For each regression, a sport behavior was used as the depended variable while team identification and sport fandom were entered in the model as predictor variables. With the exception of radio listening, which was not predicted by team identification, the regression coefficients showed that team identification and sport fandom were significant predictors of all behaviors (Table 3).

Table 2 Correlations between Team Identification, Sport Fandom and the Six Sport Fandom Behaviors. Attendance at sporting events

Watching sport on television

Listening to sport on radio

Following sports events on internet

Discussing sport with friends/family via social media

Team Identi.41** .55** .23** .51** .52** fication Sport Fan.43** .61** .26** .53** .64** dom Note: ** Indicates correlation was significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Discussing sports with family and relatives

.52** .60**

SPORT FANDOM IN QATAR. . . / 9 Table 3

t 1.9

beta .34

t 5.1**

Discussing sport with friends/family via social media beta t .23 3.7**

.43

beta .26

6.7**

t 4.1**

Listening to sport on radio

beta .15

7.6**

Discussing sports with family and relatives

t 5.2**

.48

Following sports events on internet

beta .32

4.9**

Watching sport on television

t 3.7**

.33

Attendance at sporting events

beta .27

2.1*

R²= .41, Sig.=.00

.17

R²= .44, Sig.=.00

6.5**

R²= .61, Sig.=.00

.41

R²=.08, Sig.=.00

3.7**

R²= .67, Sig. =.00

.27

Regression Analyses with Team Identification and Sport Fandom as Predictor Variables for the Sport Fandom Behaviors.

Team Identification Sport Fandom R²= .25, Sig.=.00

Notes: *p