Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=resm20
Download by: [83.29.158.31]
Date: 20 July 2016, At: 02:14
European Sport Management Quarterly
ISSN: 1618-4742 (Print) 1746-031X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/resm20
Rival conceptions of rivalry: why some
competitions mean more than others
B. David Tyler & Joe B. Cobbs
To cite this article: B. David Tyler & Joe B. Cobbs (2015) Rival conceptions of rivalry: why some
competitions mean more than others, European Sport Management Quarterly, 15:2, 227-248,
DOI: 10.1080/16184742.2015.1010558
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2015.1010558
Published online: 23 Feb 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 362
Rival conceptions of rivalry: why some competitions mean more than
others
B. David Tyler
and Joe B. Cobbs
a
College of Business, Western Carolina University, Forsyth 203, Cullowhee, NC 28723, USA;
b
Haile/US Bank College of Business, Northern Kentucky University, Nunn Drive, Highland
Heights, KY 41099, USA
(Received 30 December 2012; accepted 30 December 2014)
Research question: Despite pervasive attention to the concept of rivalry, there is
neither uniform definition nor universal understanding. The purpose of this paper is to
explore sport rivalry and derby matches from the fan perspective and identify the most
influential elements that characterize rivalry.
Research methods: This work employs a sequential exploratory mixed method
design. Study 1 engaged 38 fans through open-ended questions to explicate ante
‐
cedents to 76 rivalries. Study 2 used an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) based on
survey responses (n = 429) that measured a broader sampling of rivalries to quantify
the importance of the rivalry elements identified in Study 1.
Results and findings: We define a rival group as a highly salient out-group that poses
an acute threat to the identity of the in-group or to in-group members
’ ability to make
positive comparisons between their group and the out-group. Study 1 identified 11
recurring elements of rivalry: frequency of competition, defining moment, recent
parity, historical parity, star factors, geography, relative dominance, competition for
personnel, cultural similarity, cultural difference, and unfairness. Study 2 confirmed
these elements within three primary dimensions: Conflict, Peer, and Bias.
Implications: Our findings expand rivalry research by recognizing core rivalry
antecedents useful for scholars investigating topics such as ticket demand, promotions,
and sponsorship strategy. From a managerial perspective, these findings provide
guidance to sport entities seeking to leverage rivalry to increase fan interest;
conversely, when animosity surrounding a rivalry becomes overheated or violent,
better understanding rivalry
’s underpinnings can help managers de-emphasize the
rivalry
’s most salient contributors.
Keywords: rivalry; derby; fan identification; sequential exploratory; competition
Introduction
The term rivalry in sport is associated with an intense, often acrimonious relationship
between two teams and/or their fans (Benkwitz & Molnar,
; Spaaij & Geilenkirchen,
). Teams compete against several opponents during a season, but only contests
against certain others are considered rivalry games or derby matches (Kilduff, Elfenbein, &
Staw,
). There are numerous popular press books dedicated to long-standing rivalries
(e.g., Goodhead,
; Kryk,
; Vaccaro,
); the term appears daily in
newspapers
’ sports sections; and some coaching contracts even contain bonuses for
*Corresponding author. Email:
European Sport Management Quarterly, 2015
Vol. 15, No. 2, 227
–248, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2015.1010558
© 2015 European Association for Sport Management
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
beating specific rival teams (McCarthy,
). In academic work, rivalry frequently
appears in demand estimation and promotions research (e.g., Boyd & Boyd,
; Boyd &
Krehbiel,
; Buraimo,
). However, despite the pervasive attention given to rivalry,
a uniform definition or consistent operationalization remains elusive. In one study, rivalry
may be designated as competitions between opponents in a common division (McDonald &
Rascher,
); while in another study, rivalry is designated by the geographic proximity
between opponents (Baimbridge, Cameron, & Dawson,
). Researchers, fans, media
members, coaches, and players agree rivalry is a crucial element of sports competition, but
how certain adversaries come to be considered rivals while others remain mere opponents is
less clear (Benkwitz & Molnar,
).
The purpose of this paper is to explore the basis of rivalry from the perspective of
fans, who are central to the prominence of sport in society (Goodger & Goodger,
).
To achieve this objective, we utilize a sequential exploratory mixed method design
(Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson,
). First, we qualitatively survey fans
about their favorite team
’s rival and identify 11 recurring elements; next, we field a
quantitative questionnaire that measures the importance of the rivalry elements across a
broader sampling of rivalries. To conclude, we employ an EFA to gauge our interpretation
of the three primary dimensions underlying rivalry: Conflict, Peer, and Bias.
Literature review
Rivalry definitions
In regard to nation-states, scholars have traditionally interpreted rivalries through a
‘dispute-density’ conceptualization where rivals are identified by the number and duration
of disputes or conflicts (Goertz & Diehl,
). However, operationalizing rivalry in this
way poses several problems when applied to a sport context where many teams meet in
competition multiple times within an annual season (Benkwitz & Molnar,
). As a
result, researchers studying rivalry in sports often describe the idea vaguely using terms
such as
‘out-group’ (Luellen & Wann,
, p. 98) or
‘disliked competitor’ (Dalakas &
Melancon,
, p. 53). Others have composed more extensive definitions that recognize
the rival designation as a subjective, socially constructed idea prone to interpretation and
more complex than dispute-density (Thompson,
).
While focusing on the competing athletes, Kilduff et al. (
) conceptualized rivalry
as
‘a subjective competitive relationship that a focal actor has with another actor which
increases the focal actor
’s psychological involvement and stakes of competition
independent of the objective characteristics of the situation
’ (p. 945). Conversely,
Havard, Gray, Gould, Sharp, and Schaffer (
) define rivalry from a broader
perspective as
‘a fluctuating adversarial relationship existing between two teams, players,
or groups of fans, gaining significance through on-field competition, on-field or off-field
incidences, proximity, demographic makeup, and/or historical occurrence(s)
’ (pp. 10–11).
Included within this characterization are several key elements that Havard and colleagues
have suggested as potential basis for the conception of rivalry. Though some theoretical
support exists for such elements, empirical work to justify and explicate these and other
potential contributors to rivalry is lacking. Without a clearer understanding of the
formation and conception of rivalry, further research and practical exploitation or
moderation of the influence of rivalry is limited.
228
B.D. Tyler and J.B. Cobbs
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
Social categorization and comparison
According to Goffman (
), people implicitly and explicitly manage public and
private impressions of self to match their self-concept. Social identity theory (SIT) posits
that individuals utilize group-based categorizations of themselves and others in
developing their self-concept (Ashforth & Mael,
; Hogg,
,
; Hogg &
Abrams,
; Tajfel & Turner,
). These social categorizations
‘provide a system of
orientation for self-reference: they create and define the individual
’s place in society’
(Tajfel & Turner,
, pp. 15
–16). As part of the social comparison mechanism, those
similar to self are seen as the
‘in-group,’ whereas those who differ from self comprise the
‘out-group’ (Stets & Burke,
). Classifying the self and others in these ways is the
basis of social categorization theory (SCT), an extension of SIT (Hogg,
According to SCT, individuals make better sense of their social world through
classification techniques (Hogg & Terry,
; Jetten, Spears, & Manstead,
), which
take place within a multidimensional social space where distinctions can be objective or
subjective, continuous or discrete, significant or immaterial, and dependent on the
immediate social context (Bourdieu,
). To distinguish one
’s in-group within a given
context, an individual categorizes one
’s self and others in concordance with the
metacontrast principle
– that is, based on attributes that maximize the differences
between categories and minimize the differences within categories (Hogg & Terry,
Jetten et al.,
). Social classifications via group identification benefit individuals by
reducing social uncertainty regarding one
’s place within the environment and providing
the opportunity for self-esteem enhancement through favorable group comparison
(Festinger,
; Hogg,
). Furthermore, recognized membership in an established
group can signify a social status not enjoyed by outsiders, which perpetuates power
structures that bestow material and immaterial advantages to insiders (Elias & Scotson,
). Individuals who identify with a group consider the group as an extension of
themselves (Ashforth & Mael,
; Cialdini et al.,
; Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford,
). For sports fans, a team
’s demonstrations of on-field success reflect positively on
the affiliated fan base, allowing individuals to internalize the team
’s successes as their
own successes and feel positive affect as a result (Campbell, Aiken, & Kent,
Madrigal & Chen,
). When teams lose or have limited history, their fans search the
plurality of perspectives to find other bases of group distinction for self-esteem
enhancement (Bourdieu,
), such as redefining success through a team
’s style of
play (Jones,
), the attractiveness of group members (Trail, Robinson, Dick, &
Gillentine,
), or the team
’s home city (Lock, Taylor, & Darcy,
).
According to SIT, an in-group bias is omnipresent provided there is a salient out-
group (Otten & Moskowitz,
). In other words, theoretical group distinctions do not
necessarily manifest in practical distinctions until such distinction becomes self-evident
(Bourdieu,
). Once realized, bias against various out-groups is not uniform but
is based on moderators that include group salience, relevance, size (Mullen, Brown, &
Smith,
), power (Sachdev & Bourhis,
), and status (Bettencourt, Charlton, Dorr, &
Hume,
; Elias & Scotson,
). When an unequal level of one or more of the
aforementioned attributes is perceived between groups, and a group
’s quest for positive
distinctiveness is thereby impeded, the feeling of out-group threat is heightened (Dietz-
Uhler,
; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis,
). Conversely, out-groups too equal or
similar to the in-group can also pose a threat to group distinctiveness and force a
reexamination of perception (Bourdieu,
; Jetten et al.,
). As an in-group
European Sport Management Quarterly
229
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
increasingly views an out-group as a threat, the out-group becomes more salient
(Ashforth & Mael,
; McCauley,
; Moskalenko, McCauley, & Rozin,
and group identification by in-group members strengthens (Dietz-Uhler,
; Tajfel &
Turner,
).
Defining a rival based on SIT
The theoretical framework of social identification and related concepts offers the basis for
a definition of a rival group. We conceptualize a rival group as a highly salient out-group
that poses an acute threat to the identity of the in-group or to in-group members
’ ability to
make positive comparisons between their group and the out-group. From this theoretical
understanding, we explore the specific underpinnings of perceived rivalries among fans
of sport teams. We first conduct a qualitative study (Study 1) to inductively generate an
initial list of elements that may contribute to the formation of a rivalry. We then work
dialectically between this list and our theoretical expectations of rivalry antecedents to
discern three overarching dimensions of rivalry. This data form the basis of the
quantitative analysis in Study 2.
Study 1: Exploration of the antecedents of rivalry
To develop an initial list of rivalry antecedents, we composed a 15-minute questionnaire
that captured respondents
’ views concerning rivalries in a primarily open-ended response
format. The questionnaire asked respondents to think of their
‘favorite team in any sport’
and to think of that team
’s ‘most intense’ rival. Respondents were given space to describe
the characteristics that made this relationship a rivalry. This process was then repeated by
asking the same respondents to think of
‘another team you follow in any sport’ and that
team
’s ‘most intense rival’ (i.e., each respondent provided data for two different rivalries)
in order to increase the breadth of rivalries considered.
The questionnaire was created in Qualtrics and distributed to a purposeful
convenience sample of 47 individuals (Coyne,
). These individuals were chosen
specifically based on three factors: (1) their ability to provide diversity in rivalries
evaluated; (2) researchers
’ confidence in these individuals’ fandom and knowledge of
their favorite teams; (3) their likelihood to devote the expected time necessary to provide
valuable data. An initial email was sent to the selected individuals with one follow-up
email sent to those who did not complete the questionnaire within the first week.
A response rate of 81% yielded 38 respondents, of whom 87% were male and 61% were
age 20
–29 years (32% were age 30–39; 8% were over 40). Respondents came from the
USA (89%), UK, Belgium, UAE, and Canada; all respondents had earned a least a
Bachelor
’s degree. As each respondent analyzed two rivalries, our final sample comprised
76 rivalries, thus achieving our goal of rivalry diversification across sports (see
however, 91% of rivalries were between teams in North American leagues, a limitation
discussed below. The average response length of each rivalry description was 42.5 words.
Rivalry antecedents and dimensions
We independently coded the qualitative data to discern perceived antecedents of rivalry.
After successfully resolving any differences via discussion, we classified 25 perceived
antecedents. We then determined frequency counts of each antecedent, again conducting
230
B.D. Tyler and J.B. Cobbs
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
our efforts independently and resolving differences via discussion. Finally, by working
dialectically between the data and existing literature and considering the frequency of
mention by respondents (i.e., least popular were less likely to be included), we reduced
this list to 11 perceived antecedents detailed below. Based on the theoretical under-
pinnings described in our review, we viewed sets of these antecedents as sharing similar
foundations and grouped them into dimensions labeled Conflict, Peer, and Bias (see
).
Conflict
The development of SIT was influenced by Realistic Group Conflict Theory, which
emphasized that conflict between the interests of groups leads to actual conflict
(Campbell,
; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif,
). Competitive spectator
team sports are zero-sum competitions between groups (Fort & Maxcy,
), and the
real conflict between teams on the field generates symbolic conflict among the fans who
identify with competing teams. When conflicts occur with greater regularity or have a
historical precedent, the intensity of the perceived intergroup conflict often increases
(Goertz & Diehl,
). Yet sports fans desire some degree of uncertainty regarding the
outcome of the game (Humphreys,
; Zimbalist,
) and enjoy the eustress
associated with competition (Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease,
). In order for one to
achieve positive enhancement from seeing one
’s group succeed in conflict, the success
must be perceived as an accomplishment (Hogg & Abrams,
). Therefore, in
agreement with Kilduff et al. (
), we anticipate that not only the frequency of
Table 1.
Number of sport rivalries evaluated in Study 1 (by sport and level of competition).
North American
Other
Sport
Total
Professional
College
High school
Professional
American football
37
17
19
1
0
Baseball
18
16
1
0
1
Basketball
11
3
7
1
0
Hockey
3
2
0
0
1
Racing
2
2
0
0
0
Football (soccer)
2
0
0
0
2
Cricket
1
0
0
0
1
Cross country
1
0
1
0
0
Swimming
1
0
1
0
0
Note: Other sports were Japanese baseball, European field hockey, European football (soccer), and Indian
cricket.
Table 2.
Theorized dimensions and associated antecedents to rivalry.
Conflict
Peer
Bias
Defining moment
Geography
Cultural difference
Frequency of competition
Competition for personnel
Relative dominance of one team
Parity (historical)
Cultural similarity
Unfairness
Parity (recent)
Star factors
European Sport Management Quarterly
231
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
competition between two teams, but also the historical and recent parity of those
competitions, may be recognized antecedents to rivalry.
Frequency of competition
Consistent with the theoretical expectations, respondents pointed to the frequency of
contests between teams as a factor influencing conceptions of rivalry. Respondents
’
comments often included a temporal modifier to emphasize the frequency as current and/
or historical, such as
‘they play each other 19 times during the season’ (Respondent #24,
referring to Major League Baseball
’s 162 game season), and ‘Long standing tradition of
annual competition
’ (Respondent #15).
We also captured frequency of competition in respondents
’ comments about teams
playing in the same division/conference. For many sport leagues, games against
divisional opponents happen with greater frequency than games against teams outside
the division (Russell & Leung,
). Respondents highlighted the significance as
follows:
‘The teams play in the same division and meet many times each year’
(Respondent #33),
‘Both teams are in the Atlantic Division (play 4 times each year)’
(Respondent #24), and in an especially blunt response,
‘if they weren’t in the same
conference
… they wouldn’t be rivals’ (Respondent #29). In total, an element of
frequency was mentioned in 48 (63%) of the rivalries explored.
Parity
– historical and recent
Individuals
’ feeling of achievement due to their group’s success over an opponent is most
notable when the vanquished out-group posed a formidable challenge (Hogg & Abrams,
). Accordingly, respondents often pointed to parity between competitors as a
characteristic of rivalry using comments such as,
‘The predominant factor accounting for
the rivalry is most likely the fact that both teams are very competitive
’ (Respondent #37)
and
‘Both schools and athletic programs are very similar, highly competitive with strong
recruiting classes year after year, and consistently ranked in the Top 25
’ (Respondent #5).
Likewise, another respondent noted that aspects of parity go beyond on-field wins and
losses:
each team is consistently a top contender in the boys basketball.
… both teams have won
several state basketball championships. both teams have players that have played
professional basketball.
… [B]oth head coaches are considered to be the best of the best.
(Respondent #34)
Several respondents distinguished between the temporal dimensions of parity, noting that
parity can be recent or historical. One Formula One (F1) fan noted,
‘The two have been
the chief competitors for the title for the past decade or so
’ (Respondent #7), and an
American football fan stated,
‘both teams have been very successful in the last decade’
(Respondent #10). Likewise, results over an extended time period were clearly relevant to
perceiving a competitor as a rival, which we refer to as historical parity. For instance,
respondents described the games against a rival as
‘a close series over MANY years’
(Respondent #6, emphasis in original) and
‘years and years of intense season changing
battles
’ (Respondent #13). Other rivalries were described with both recent and historical
parity mentioned:
‘The two have been the chief competitors for the title for the past
232
B.D. Tyler and J.B. Cobbs
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
decade or so. Both teams are among the most successful teams of all time
’
(Respondent #7).
Divisional affiliation was also relevant within discussions of rivals
’ parity. Two teams
whose parity has led to regular competition for the division title appear more likely to be
seen as rivals, such as captured by Respondent #17:
‘As a result of always being in the
same division and both being above-average teams, the matchups have often determined
which team would make the playoffs.
’ This ‘contention within division for superiority’
(Respondent #25) was also portrayed as follows:
They would be rivals in the sense that they both play in the Premier League and are often
competing for one of the top four positions in that league (finishing in the top four means
that you get to play in the lucrative pan-European Champions League the following season).
(Respondent #18)
Both theory and our data suggest the more perceived parity between one
’s team and
opponent, the more likely the teams will be perceived as rivals. This finding together with
frequency of competition are elements of conflict we anticipated as germane to rivalry
based on fans
’ social identification. Yet, an advantage of inductive research is uncovering
unexpected data, and the qualitative data yielded two prominent additional conflict-
related rivalry traits: defining moments and star factors.
Defining moments
In the history of a dyadic relationship, there may be incidents
– positive or negative – that
stand out as exceptional in stakeholders
’ collective consciousness (Goertz & Diehl,
). These moments might be symbolic of the distinctions between two groups and
serve to raise the salience of these distinctions (Bourdieu,
). For example, the
‘defining moments’ of the perceived Dallas Cowboys/Washington Redskins rivalry
(American professional football) are described by a respondent as follows:
[The rivalry] stems from feud between original Cowboys owner Clint Murchison and
Redskins owner George Marshall over the vote to allow the Cowboys to become an
expansion team in 1960. George Marshall was the only owner opposed to the Cowboys
expansion bid, so Murchison bought the rights to the Redskins
’ fight song to use as a
bargaining chip for Marshall
’s vote. (Respondent #26)
The incident characterizes Elias
’ theory of the established and the outsiders (Elias &
Scotson,
) in that the Redskins
’ owner was keen to protect the exclusivity of his
franchise
’s established position as insiders in the early National Football League (NFL;
Norwood,
). By keeping the Cowboys as outsiders, the Redskins would have
maintained their status quo power and prestige by ensuring the Cowboys did not share in
the NFL
’s revenues, media exposure, or fan attention.
Another respondent also viewed a team
’s creation as the rivalry catalyst: ‘Beerschot
was created by some people leaving R Antwerp FC in 1898 after a dispute
’ (Respondent
#14). Other defining moments included
‘trash talking between players’ (Respondent #33)
and
‘fights [breaking] out’ (Respondent #35) – both of which suggest face saving
techniques where outsiders challenge
‘the positive social value a person effectively claims
for himself
’ (i.e., ‘face’ according to Goffman,
).
European Sport Management Quarterly
233
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
While understanding the significance or predicting the impact of any individual
moment in real-time is difficult, certain events become folklore within a dyad and
contribute to a specific competition being interpreted as rivalry. Additionally, those
defining moments may involve certain individuals whose presence outshines a single
moment.
Star factors
In describing factors that precipitate particular rivalries, several respondents pointed to
specific individuals involved with one or both teams. The actions, personas, and/or media
fascination with these individuals polarizes fans in such a way as to contribute to the
perceived rivalry. The
‘star’ individuals are distinct in some way from their peers and can
symbolize their team
’s distinctiveness (Bourdieu,
). Multiple respondents mentioned
‘Hall of Fame players’ in their explanations of rivalries (Respondents #11, #17, #23).
While this additional basis of distinction supplied by a star athlete, coach, or team owner
can provide fans with a positive comparison versus outsiders (Elias & Scotson,
),
when the star misrepresents the face of their team or leaves the team for an opponent, fans
can fixate on their former star as a symbolic outsider (Goffman,
). For
example, one respondent cited the
‘Babe Ruth trade’ (Respondent #38) as a precipitating
factor in the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox rivalry. In describing the perceived
rivalry between the NBA
’s Toronto Raptors and New Jersey Nets, another respondent
detailed the impact of player Vince Carter:
In the early 2000
’ s, Vince Carter was the star of Toronto Raptors. … The city embraced him.
Unfortunately, things soured between the club and its star, and Vince
‘quit’ on the Raptors.
… He stopped showing the desire and passion he had shown early in his career. …
Essentially, he shut it down and
‘sulked’ his way out of Toronto. In a difficult situation, the
Raptors traded Vince to the New Jersey Nets, where he promptly regained his old form (i.e
–
he started trying again). This
‘turn around’ offended Raptors fans who have taken to booing
Vince every time he is in Toronto. (Respondent #24)
As conveyed by this study
’s respondents, fan animosity or adulation felt toward
individuals transfers to the team itself. Thus, certain individuals achieve a symbolic
status and impact the perception of a team rivalry even beyond that individual
’s career.
Peer
Though one may assume intense competition occurs between highly differentiated
groups, theorists suggest the strongest bias exists toward a peer out-group that is highly
comparable to, but distinct from, the in-group (Ashforth & Mael,
; Brewer,
,
; Hewstone et al.,
; Jetten et al.,
). An out-group that is too similar will not
be seen as distinct from the in-group, while an out-group that is too different will not be
perceived as a legitimate threat to in-group identity. In relation to competitive conflict,
similarity in ability manifests in the importance of parity to a perceived rivalry. From the
perspective of identity, however, this idea emerges in the cultural similarity between two
teams and/or their fanbases. Spatially, this theme plays out in geographic proximity, and
in terms of resources, like-minded organizations battle off the field to acquire commonly
desired personnel. Hence, where a fan perceives an opponent
’s fans as peers, the
likelihood of viewing the opposing team as a rival increases.
234
B.D. Tyler and J.B. Cobbs
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
Cultural similarity
The issue of similarity between the cultures of two teams appeared in the data as relating
to the teams themselves or relating to associated stakeholders. In instances of the former,
respondents pointed to two teams
’ similar styles of play as contributing to the rivalry such
as
‘[the teams] have a long history of striving to beat each other with their hard-fought
style of play: tough defense and an aggressive rushing offense
’ (Respondent #5). In cases
where similarities between teams
’ stakeholders were perceived, respondents pointed to
shared cultural characteristics, such as religion and language that defined the groups
’
identity but were irrespective of on-the-field factors. For example, when comparing
religiously affiliated universities Boston College and Notre Dame, the respondent cited
the schools
’ desire ‘to be the best … Catholic schools in the U.S.’ (Respondent #21).
Another respondent, who analyzed Belgian field hockey clubs, identified them as
‘the
only 2 French-speaking clubs in Antwerp
’ (Respondent #14). As a final note in
considering this element, recall the importance of focal traits for comparison; if one
’s
team is unsuccessful in on-field competition against a rival, one often reorients one
’s
perspective to make relevant other attributes
– such as cultural traits – that allow for
favorable comparisons to enhance one
’s identity (Bourdieu,
; Jones,
; Trail
et al.,
). However, this mental task becomes more challenging, and threatening to
group distinctiveness, when group cultures are similar.
Geography
The Peer dimension of rivalries maintains a highly relevant spatial element. Sport
functions as a social institution that symbolically represents the geographic identity of a
people (Bale,
; Hassan,
; Holmes,
; Goodger & Goodger,
). Residents
view the team as an extension of the people themselves and the team
’s results as
referendums on the status of the people of that place versus others (Marks,
; Vidacs,
). Likewise, our respondents often pointed to the proximity of teams as a
contributing element to the rivalry. For example, one respondent stated that
‘The factors
are mainly geographic; the teams are from the same city and that city is one of the most
passionate in England about soccer
’ (Respondent #18).
Beyond general comments about geography, some respondents specified that teams
’
proximity facilitated increased fan interaction. In one description, a respondent stated,
‘New York and Philly are always at odds … because they are so close to each other, that
both fans can come and watch the game with ease
’ (Respondent #42). Other respondents
echoed the fan interaction effect by pointing out that teams are
‘close enough to travel for
a weekend
’ (Respondent #29), and giving the example of how ‘Chicago fans travel well
to Cincinnati and increase the intensity of games in Cincinnati
’ (Respondent #33). These
examples of more frequent interaction of opposing fans due to geographic proximity
typify the notion that an increased out-group presence will increase feelings of threat
among the in-group and strengthen members
’ group identification (Moskalenko et al.,
; Wann & Grieve,
). Furthermore, when competitors
’ spatial claims of
allegiance overlap
– as in the case of many intra-city European football contests – fan
confrontations not only become more frequent at games but also in both work and leisure
situations (Giulianotti & Armstrong,
).
European Sport Management Quarterly
235
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
Competition for personnel
The final Peer element to rivalry that emerged from our data was teams
’ pursuit of the
same human capital. Researchers have analyzed interfirm behavior in terms of an action-
response dyad and used such behavioral reactions as a way of identifying rival
organizations (Chen,
; Gimeno & Woo,
). From this perspective, organizations
that seek to acquire and defend resources against one another are rivals. For a sport team,
the most visible and scarce assets are specialized human capital, including players and
coaches (Hausman & Leonard,
; Smart & Wolfe,
). A peer team
– an
organization adhering to a similar philosophy or style of play
– likely competes off the
field for personnel attractive to one
’s own team.
In our work, this intense competition for personnel was particularly apparent in
rivalries between teams at American universities. Respondents expressed the influence of
recruiting personnel on rivalry with comments such as
‘competition for recruiting the
same athletes out of high school
’ (Respondent #25), ‘Because … getting the best talent in
the country is so important, these schools compete for all the talent and year after year
’
(Respondent #30), and
‘Directly compete for recruits every year’ (Respondent #15). The
competition for personnel even extends to rivalries between secondary schools, as one
respondent noted that the schools
‘draw enrollment from the same middle schools, [and]
almost everyone has a used-to-be friend that plays for the other team
’ (Respondent #26).
Bias
The third dimension to rivalry emphasized by respondents was a form of intergroup bias.
Intergroup bias manifests when
– in order to make positive comparisons between groups
that reinforce self-esteem
– particular points of differentiation unflattering to the outsiders
are exaggerated in accordance with the metacontrast principle (Elias & Scotson,
Hogg & Terry,
; Jetten et al.,
). A sport fan will focus on the ways in which fan
groups are different and make biased conclusions about opposing fans due to their out-
group status (Havard,
; Noel, Wann, & Branscombe,
). In this way, any
perceived cultural differences are highly relevant material for fans
’ bias comparisons.
Furthermore, intergroup bias is magnified by unequal power or status (Bettencourt et al.,
; Elias & Scotson,
; Sachdev & Bourhis,
), which often manifest in sports
through relative dominance in on-field performance. Since dominance or other inequality
poses a particularly negative threat to fans
’ self-esteem (Hewstone et al.,
), some fans
resort to assertions of unfairness when evaluating certain opponents.
Cultural difference
Scholars have pointed to differences in national identity as a source for animosity
between fan bases (e.g., Armstrong & Giulianotti,
). This phenomenon was reflected
in our data when respondents cited the cultural differences between nations as driving the
rivalry. Comments included,
‘Being from different countries certainly creates some
nationalistic rivalry
’ (Respondent #7), ‘there is some national pride as well. Ferrari for
Italy, but also McLaren (English)
’ (Respondent #1), and in describing the perceived
cricket rivalry between India and Pakistan,
‘The rivalry stems from the two countries’
political tension. [also the] Large expatriate populations living side by side (e.g. in the
United Arab Emirates)
’ (Respondent #8).
236
B.D. Tyler and J.B. Cobbs
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
While the cultural difference component of international rivalries may be most
obvious, scholars of European football have noted how opposing values
– such as ‘rich
versus poor, left versus right, localist versus nationalist
’ – become salient to fans with
shared civic settings (Giulianotti & Armstrong,
, p. 228). Likewise, our respondents
also noted rivalries within the same country, state, and even city for their cultural
difference between fans. For example, a baseball fan stated that
‘Tokyo considers itself
superior as it is the capital of Japan. Osaka is considered a merchant city and merchants
were a low rung on the social scale for hundreds of years
’ (Respondent #18), and another
respondent described the NBA
’s Lakers–Celtics games as an ‘East coast vs. West Coast
rivalry
’ (Respondent #38). A Texas A&M University fan pointed out that the rival
University of Texas (Austin)
‘is a urban school with a slant toward fine arts [and] A&M
is a rural school with a slant towards science and math fields
’ (Respondent #12).
While the respondents quoted here focused on the differences between their teams/
institutions, one may note that the institutions have overarching similarities. For instance,
both the University of Texas and Texas A&M are large, public, research universities
within the same state
– a trait noted by the same Respondent, who added that ‘they are
the two largest universities in Texas
’ (Respondent #12). Likewise, a fan’s description of
the rivalry between Duke University and the University of North Carolina reads:
The schools are very close in proximity to one another only about 8 miles apart. Both
programs have storied coaches and both are very good academic schools. [Yet,] the students
of each school are very different. One is private and one is public. Duke is smaller and are
nerds while carolina is older and less nerds. (Respondent #30)
In these comments, we see that respondents
’ views are consistent with SIT and the
metacontrast principle in that the salient out-group is perceived as being distinct from the
in-group but similar enough to pose a threat in social comparison. Under a different
perspective, the rival institutions may be considered peers; yet, respondents are clearly
focused on how the institutions and/or their fans are different. This viewpoint leads us to
distinguish
‘cultural difference’ as an element of the Bias dimension of rivalry.
Relative dominance of one team
While many of our respondents supported Kilduff et al. (
) conception of rivalry as
resulting from historic competitiveness, an
‘underdog’ component also emerged. Support
for the underdog team is often motivated by identification with nondominant entities or as
‘a means to keep the little guy competing’ (McGinnis & Gentry,
, p. 191). This
potential antecedent to rivalry was best exemplified in the following passage:
They beat us all the time. They are in the same division, but until this year, we could not beat
them. They are only 4 hours away and Michael Vick has kicked our butt for every year he
has been in the league. (Respondent #30)
Other respondents used terms like
‘envy’ (Respondent #16) or ‘jealousy’ (Respondent
#10) in describing such situations. Therefore, we interpret relative dominance as one team
aspiring to overcome the historical success or dominance of the other team, similar to
outsiders
’ attempts to tap into the social capital of the established (Elias & Scotson,
). This element raises the possibility that rivalry may be unidirectional. Based on our
study
’s data, we would not expect fans to perceive a rivalry when their team is the
European Sport Management Quarterly
237
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
dominant entity because the opponent does not pose a threat to the dominant group
’s
identity.
Unfairness
As occurred with the antecedents of
‘defining moments’ and ‘star factors,’ the element of
‘unfairness’ was not anticipated a priori but emerged from the qualitative data. Some
respondents felt that the rival team (never one
’s own team) was favored by those with
governing power politically or within the sport, and the favoritism created an unfair
advantage in competition. Respondents
’ comments included, ‘They [the opposing team]
are favored by the city council
’ (Respondent #14) and ‘The ruling body of formula 1
seems to favor Ferrari so that creates additional rivalry
’ (Respondent #7). Thus, we
interpreted
‘unfairness’ as the perceived preferential treatment toward one opponent by
powerful authorities (e.g., governing bodies, referees).
Study 2: Quantitative analysis of antecedents
To broaden our exploration of rivalry, we composed an online questionnaire to measure
the importance of our identified antecedents (see
) across a larger sample of
rivalries and respondents. The questionnaire in Study 2 asked respondents to choose their
favorite team and that team
’s rival; respondents then evaluated the contribution of each
potential antecedent to the rivalry utilizing 6-point Likert-type scales. Respondents were
also given space for added qualitative comments, such as for other contributions to rivalry
not included in our list. The survey respondents were predominantly students at two large
universities in the USA
– one in the Northeast region and another in the Midwest –
though the students were also encouraged to solicit participation from others (e.g.,
alumni, other faculty, friends). The resulting dataset included 429 individuals who were
primarily male (56.4%), age 18
–22 years (56%, with the remainder being older), and
students (74% were undergraduates). The majority of rivalries selected (97%) for this
stage of the research pitted teams in North American leagues.
Beyond quantifying each antecedent
’s importance to a myriad of rivalries, the
questionnaire served two additional purposes. The wider sample of rivalries further
explored potential underlying theoretical dimensions (Conflict, Peer, and Bias), and the
quantitative approach facilitated the comparison of each antecedent
’s relative contribution
to the broader conceptualization of rivalry. To achieve these objectives, we conducted a
factor analysis and computed each antecedent
’s mean importance to the respondents’
chosen rivalries. We then executed a series of t-tests to empirically determine statistical
differences in importance between antecedents.
Factor analysis
Coupling qualitative responses in our first study with applicable theoretical foundations
of rivalry led us to characterize the elements of rivalry within three potential dimensions
or factors
– Conflict, Peer, and Bias. To statistically gauge our characterization of these
underlying dimensions, we employed an EFA (Gorsuch,
First, we assessed our contention of three factors using a principal component
analysis, which yielded two components with eigenvalues greater than one and a third
component just shy (0.99) of one, which is the Kaiser
–Guttman criterion (Jackson,
).
238
B.D. Tyler and J.B. Cobbs
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
As Jackson (
) points out, there are benefits and drawbacks to various stopping rules
for component analysis and a single approach is not necessarily best in all situations. In
our case, the three component solution accounted for almost 60% of the variance with a
notable decline in eigenvalues and variance explained by subsequent components beyond
three. Therefore, we retained three components for EFA.
Given that the elements contributing to rivalry are likely to be highly correlated, we
utilized principal axis factoring with oblique rotation to explore the three factors (Ford,
MacCallum, & Tait,
). The resulting factor loadings (see
) generated several
clear patterns and one questionable loading.
‘Parity’ – both recent and historical – as well
as
‘frequency of competition’ displayed strong loadings (>0.6) on the first factor, which
we therefore labeled as
‘Conflict.’ Also loading significantly (>0.4) on the Conflict factor
were
‘star factor’ and ‘defining moment.’ While ‘competition for personnel’ loaded
highest on the Conflict factor, the magnitude was relatively low (0.33) and not much
different from its loading on the other two factors.
‘Geography’ and ‘cultural similarity’ both loaded onto the second factor, which we
labeled as
‘Peer’ and assert as representative of the competition between socially or
psychologically close individuals or organizations. Conversely, the third factor reflected a
difference or perceived bias regarding a rival. The elements of
‘unfairness’ and ‘cultural
difference
’ loaded strongly on this Bias factor, while ‘relative dominance’ also loaded
significantly here. We labeled this third factor as Bias because of the implied bias in
fairness, dominance, and culture within the associated elements.
In summary, the EFA supports the delineation of three dimensions within the
contributions to rivalry identified in Study 1. The most dominant of these factors, with
five elements strongly associated, is the dimension of conflict. However, distinct factors
beyond mere conflict appear relevant to the conception of rivalry. As hinted in the
literature, competition can be heightened to the degree of rivalry when stark similarities
or differences in the competing organizations are salient.
Relative importance of antecedents to rivalry
While the qualitative evidence suggests that each of the 11 identified elements contributes
to consumers
’ conception of rivalry, not all elements may be equally important. To
Table 3.
EFA pattern matrix.
Rivalry elements
Conflict
Peer
Bias
Recent parity
0.73
0.04
−0.06
Frequency of competition
0.69
−0.18
−0.07
Historical parity
0.64
0.02
−0.02
Star factor
0.56
−0.01
0.20
Defining moment
0.47
0.03
0.23
Competition for personnel
0.33
−0.23
0.23
Geography
0.01
−0.85
−0.04
Cultural similarity
0.07
−0.38
0.30
Unfairness
0.01
0.07
0.72
Cultural difference
−0.03
−0.08
0.62
Relative dominance
0.18
−0.06
0.43
Note: Extraction via principal axis factoring; oblique rotation.
Loadings > |0.3| in bold.
European Sport Management Quarterly
239
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
explore the potential for varying importance between the elements and compare their
influence across rivalries, we computed the mean importance of each element as rated by
survey respondents on a 6-point scale. We then executed a series of t-tests to statistically
compare the importance of each element to the other 10 elements (see
). The
results demonstrate significant differences in importance between many, but not all, of the
contributors to rivalry.
The frequency of competition is clearly the most important element of a rivalry.
‘Frequency of competition’ generated the highest mean rating (5.12 of 6.00), which was
significantly greater (p < .01) than the ratings of all other rivalry elements. However, the
difference in importance between the next five most important elements
– ‘defining
moment,
’ ‘recent and historical parity,’ ‘star factors,’ and ‘geography’ – was statistically
nonsignificant. All five elements were deemed important to rivalry by respondents and
only geography was not aligned with the Conflict factor.
‘Relative dominance’ – the
seventh highest rated element
– was significantly more important than all elements rated
lower and less important than all elements rated higher except
‘geography.’ The final four
contributors to rivalry earned mean importance ratings different from all other elements,
although the last two elements
– ‘cultural difference’ and ‘unfairness’ – were only
marginally different (p < .10).
Judging by the importance ratings, the elements of Conflict are most vital to the
conception of rivalry. Yet, the perception of a Peer factor
– through ‘geographic
proximity
’ or ‘cultural similarity’ – also holds considerable importance to the formation
of rivalries. Generally less important are the elements within the dimension of Bias,
which primarily rate lower than the other antecedents to rivalry.
Discussion and implications
Many scholars have studied SIT in an attempt to understand ethnocentric behavior as
applied to ascribed characteristics (e.g., race, gender, ethnicity) with the goal of reducing
out-group hatred in the form of racism, misogyny, etc. (Cook,
; Hewstone et al.,
). An irony of using SIT to understand rivalry is that sport managers likely have
goals opposite those of sociologists. Since rivalries frequently benefit sport organizations
(Buraimo,
; García & Rodríguez,
; Wilson & Sim,
), sport managers may
seek to increase out-group animosity as a way of sparking interest in games and creating
more strongly identified fans (Luellen & Wann,
). This is particularly relevant when
teams change leagues, divisions, or conferences, which severely alters match schedules
(Groza,
; Havard, Wann, et al.,
). However, stoking animosity raises a delicate
balance for which managers must be responsible so as not to incite inappropriate
behaviors including violence (Dalakas & Melancon,
; Havard, Wann, et al.,
).
By empirically exploring several elements that contribute to rivalry, we not only facilitate
a greater understanding of the social phenomenon, but we also enhance the ability of
sport managers to encourage or discourage fans
’ perceptions of ‘us’ versus ‘them.’
While the core of our findings is consistent with the assertion that competition is the
foundation of rivalry (Goertz & Diehl,
; Kilduff et al.,
), our qualitative inquiry
has exposed 11 elements that contribute to the conception of a rivalry. This has relevance
for demand estimation, where previous researchers may have assumed rivalry to be based
primarily on geographic proximity or common divisional affiliation (e.g., Butler,
McDonald & Rascher,
; Paul,
; Welki & Zlatoper,
) and are likely
240
B.D. Tyler and J.B. Cobbs
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
Table 4.
Descriptive statistics and test of difference in relative importance to rivalries.
Rivalry elements
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
Frequency of
competition
5.12
1.03
8.00***
8.00***
8.40***
8.40***
10.21**
12.03***
14.85***
20.08***
32.38*** 35.20***
2
Defining moment
4.72
1.22
−6.68***
0.08
0.42
0.42
1.94*
3.47***
5.84***
10.23***
20.55*** 22.92***
3
Recent parity
4.72
1.23
−6.82***
−0.07
0.26
0.26
1.78*
3.30***
5.66***
10.05***
20.34*** 22.70***
4
Historical parity
4.70
1.22
−7.13***
−0.36
−0.36
−0.02
1.50
3.02***
5.39***
9.79***
20.11*** 22.48***
5
Star factor
4.70
1.25
−7.00***
−0.36
−0.36
−0.02
1.47
2.97***
5.29***
9.61***
19.75*** 22.07***
6
Geography
4.61
1.41
−7.48***
−1.62
−1.62
−1.32
−1.32
1.32
3.37***
7.18***
16.13*** 18.18***
7
Relative
dominance
4.52
1.35
−9.12***
−3.00***
−3.00***
−2.70***
−2.70***
−1.32
2.19**
6.16***
15.48*** 17.62***
8
Competition for
personnel
4.38
1.34
−11.37***
−5.20***
−5.20***
−4.89***
−4.89***
−3.50***
−2.11**
4.06***
13.48*** 15.64***
9
Cultural similarity
4.12
1.38
−15.03***
−9.03***
−9.03***
−8.73***
−8.73***
−7.39***
−6.04***
−3.94***
9.10*** 11.19***
10
Cultural difference
3.51
1.49
−22.40*** −16.85*** −16.85*** −16.57*** −16.57*** −15.32*** −14.08*** −12.13***
−8.52***
1.89*
11
Unfairness
3.37
1.51
−24.00*** −18.51*** −18.51*** −18.24*** −18.24*** −17.00*** −15.77*** −13.84*** −10.27*** −1.90*
n = 429.
*t-value ± 1.65 = p
< .10; **t-value ± 1.96 = p < .05; ***t-value ± 2.58 = p < .01.
Eur
opean
Sport
Manage
ment
Quarter
ly
241
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
capturing different underlying characteristics that may under or over specify actual
rivalries.
Overall, the most empirically prominent of rivalry
’s 11 elements focus on conflict, yet
offer different dimensions of the Conflict factor. Beyond the frequency of conflict, the
perception of parity in competition
– recently or historically – marks rivalry for many
fans and substantiates the theoretical importance of threat (Branscombe & Wann,
Wann & Grieve,
). Also emerging from our data was the potential for defining
moments to ignite feelings of rivalry. This element has appeared in practice where
motorsports series have responded to drivers
’ criticism by revising rules that too
discourage the aggressive racing that leads to rivalry-defining moments (ESPN,
).
Other sports have relied more on the escalating conflict between individuals with star
power to build rivalries, such as tennis foes Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer (Marzorati,
). The clout of opposing star athletes and coaches fueled rivalries in our studies,
though little research currently exists on this element of sporting conflict. Nevertheless,
sport managers should consider stars in their arena as part of managing rivalry
perceptions, perhaps through emphasizing either similarities or appropriate differences
to opponent stars or defining moments in relation to an opponent.
In regard to human capital, the competition off the field for personnel aligned with the
Conflict factor in Study 2, but not as convincingly as other conflict dimensions. Teams
’
competition for personnel is fierce, as evidenced in the professional ranks by multimillion
dollar transfer fees and complex rules governing player movement within leagues
(Kesenne,
). Managers could somewhat regulate fans
’ perception of this factor by
emphasizing or de-emphasizing the other teams in competition to recruit or attract a
certain player or series of players. Our first study found that when one team acquires a
player sought after by an opposing team, animosity from the fans of the opposing team
often heightens. This influence to rivalry is not surprising given the theoretical principle
that a shared desire for scarce resources (e.g., human capital) will lead to intergroup
conflict (Sherif et al.,
Not surprisingly, the strongest element of the Peer factor
’s influence on rivalry is
geography. Geographic proximity
’s contribution to perceptions of rivalry is not
unexpected, but its mean rank of importance to rivalry (sixth of 11) is not as high as
its prominence in past studies implies. Much of the sports literature that utilizes the
concept of rivalry emphasizes geography, sometimes exclusively (Morley & Thomas,
; Paton & Cooke,
); however, five other elements of rivalry scored just as
important in our results, and one factor
– frequency of competition – scored as
significantly more important than geography. This finding should be encouraging to team
administrators who cannot rely on physical proximity to spark a rivalry because of
isolated locations or some other obstacle to competing against foes nearby.
Perhaps the element of rivalry that best characterizes the Peer factor is cultural
similarity, which enjoys a substantial sociological foundation (as described in Study 1)
despite minimal consideration in the sports literature to date. Following SIT, leaders of
sports organizations can take advantage of this element by subtly highlighting similarities
between opposing teams
– such as shared history, economic fates, climates, or social
institutions
– which should raise the salience of threat posed by the opponent and enhance
fans
’ favoritism toward their chosen team (Wann & Grieve,
). However, managers
need to be cognizant of the theory that perceived out-group threat displays a curvilinear
relationship with group similarity (Jetten et al.,
). Our respondents judged cultural
similarity and difference to be important elements to their chosen rivalries, but if fans
’
242
B.D. Tyler and J.B. Cobbs
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
comparison of sports teams raises neither salient similarities or differences, we would
expect the perceived out-group threat and resulting perception of rivalry to be minimal.
When cultural differences are evident, SIT suggests rivalry may take the form of
intergroup bias, where the perception of threat results from inequality (Bettencourt et al.,
). Recall that fans build self-esteem by emphasizing favorable differences and de-
emphasizing unfavorable distinctions between their team and a salient opponent (Hogg,
), which is a form of group bias. This psychological bias effect triggers heightened
perceptions of threat (to self-esteem) when the opponent appears to possess a distinct
advantage. The bias factor of rivalry was manifest in our studies through admissions of
relative dominance and perceptions of unfairness in the competition. Relative dominance
was somewhat important to our respondents
’ rivalries and may help administrators
engage fans through an underdog rivalry campaign against a dominant opponent. Such a
campaign could be constructed in a way that admits the relative dominance of the
opponent while also emphasizing one of the other rivalry factors relevant to the
competition.
Limitations and future research
Research on rivalry in sports remains sparse despite the widespread popularity of rivalries
among sports fans, the media, and sponsors (Smith & King,
). Consequently, many
avenues exist for scholars interested in studying the concept of rivalry, beginning with the
several limitations in our work. While our sequential exploratory mixed method design
allowed us to explicate a range of rivalry antecedents and gauge their relative importance
across a breadth of rivalries, the design applied within a single article also limited the
depth of meaning we could interpret and articulate for any individual antecedent or
contest. Further qualitative work could not only add specification to each antecedent and
its application to individual contests
– as called for by Benkwitz and Molnar (
)
– but
also explore the interaction, temporal nature, and geographic diversity of rivalry factors.
Although the rivalries evaluated for qualitative analysis in this study included
European and Asian competitions, the data were dominated by North American rivalries;
yet, rivalry is a phenomenon embedded in cultural context (Finn & Giulianotti,
).
Future research is needed to compare and contrast our findings across a broader sample of
rivalries outside North America. Moreover, we did not attempt to measure the intensity of
our respondents
’ chosen rivalries, though such a measure of magnitude would be
informative in regard to the antecedents explored here. Admittedly, a single rivalry is
unlikely to feature all 11 elements and relating the intensity of rivalries to specific
antecedents or combinations of antecedents is appealing. This next step could aid future
researchers in more uniformly recognizing opponents that are, or are not, rivals. We have
begun this process by explicating a collection of rivalry
’s elements and producing a
measure of the relative importance of each, but there remains the opportunity for
investigation of certain elements
’ ability to set an opponent apart as a rival and fuel more
intense rivalries. In other words, certain elements that contribute to rivalry may be
necessary but not sufficient in isolation to produce a rivalry.
Prior to such future research, work is needed to extend our exploratory findings to full
scale development. While we employed EFA to gauge our conception of the themes
underlying rivalry, our goal was not to establish a definitive rivalry scale. However, the
development of such a scale for widespread use
– perhaps building on the foundation of
Havard, Gray, et al. (
) work
– would be useful for the discipline.
European Sport Management Quarterly
243
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
Finally, definitions of rivalry suggest competitions against certain opponents rise to a
heightened level beyond competitions against other opponents (e.g., Dmowski,
Havard, Gray, et al.,
; Kilduff et al.,
). Given that such a characterization
implies the existence of non-rival opponents, what is the optimal mix of rival and non-
rival opponents within a competitive frame? In other words, can a team or organization
reach a rivalry saturation point where the theoretical benefits (e.g., motivation,
involvement, in-group identification) to rivalry are diluted? In our exploratory investiga-
tion of rivalry, we limited our respondents to their perceptions of one or two chosen
rivalries, and yet the respondents may have described more opponents as rivals if our
instrument allowed.
Conclusion
In this paper, we described two studies that employed different but complementary
methods to explore the elements that contribute to fans
’ perception of rivalry. By
identifying the contributing factors to rivalry from the perspective of the fan, we have
equipped sport managers with the knowledge to best leverage the resources at their
disposal to facilitate, or de-emphasize, a rivalry salient to fans. Eleven elements of rivalry
emerged from the qualitative inquiry of Study 1, and the second study engaged over 400
respondents to rate the importance of the elements to a wide-range of rivalries. Frequency
of competition stood out as the most important element, but several other elements also
focused on conflict scored as important to rivalries: defining moment, recent and
historical parity, star factor, and competition for personnel. The elements of geographic
proximity and cultural similarity highlighted the Peer factor of rivalries, which appeared
less important than Conflict but still influential to perceptions of rivalry. The final factor,
Bias, contained elements of relative dominance, cultural difference, and unfairness. With
the identification of these 11 contributors to fans
’ conception of rivalry, and the
exploration of three potential underlying factors, future researchers and sport managers
now have an empirical foundation from which to better understand, leverage, and
moderate the phenomenon of rivalry.
ORCID
B. David Tyler
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2189-2920
Joe B. Cobbs
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6869-0488
References
Armstrong, G., & Giulianotti, R. (Eds.). (2001). Fear and loathing in world football. Oxford: Berg.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 20
–39.
Baimbridge, M., Cameron, S., & Dawson, P. (1996). Satellite television and the demand for
football: A whole new ball game. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 43, 317
–333.
10.1111/j.1467-9485.1996.tb00848.x
Bale, J. (1986). Sport and national identity: A geographical view. International Journal of the
History of Sport, 3(1), 18
–41. doi:
Benkwitz, A., & Molnar, G. (2012). Interpreting and exploring football fan rivalries: An overview.
Soccer & Society, 13, 479
–494. doi:
Bettencourt, B. A., Charlton, K., Dorr, N., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group
bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group
permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520
–542. doi:
244
B.D. Tyler and J.B. Cobbs
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14(6), 723
–
744. doi:
Bourdieu, P. (1987). What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of
groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32, 1
–17.
Boyd, D. W., & Boyd, L. A. (1998). The home field advantage: Implications for the pricing of tickets
to professional team sporting events. Journal of Economics and Finance, 22(2
–3), 169–179.
doi:
Boyd, T. C., & Krehbiel, T. C. (2003). Promotion timing in major league baseball and the stacking
effects of factors that increase game attractiveness. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 173
–183.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475
–482. doi:
Brewer, M. B. (1993). Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity. Social Cognition,
11(1), 150
–164. doi:
Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup
derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24,
641
–657. doi:
Buraimo, B. (2007). Stadium attendance and television audience demand in English league football.
Managerial and Decision Economics, Early view. Retrieved on May 18, 2008, from
www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/116838514/PDFSTART
Butler, M. R. (2002). Interleague play and baseball attendance. Journal of Sports Economics, 3,
320
–334. doi:
Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation (pp. 283
–311). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Campbell, R. M., Aiken, D., & Kent, A. (2004). Beyond BIRGing and CORFing: Continuing the
exploration of fan behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13, 151
–157.
Chen, M. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration.
Academy of Management Review, 21, 100
–134.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976).
Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 366
–375. doi:
Cook, S. W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues: The case of school desegregation. American
Psychologist, 40, 452
–460. doi:
Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging
or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 623
–630. doi:
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed
methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in
social & behavioral research (pp. 209
–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dalakas, V., & Melancon, J. P. (2012). Fan identification, schadenfreude toward hated rivals, and
the mediating effects of Importance of Winning Index (IWIN). Journal of Services Marketing, 26
(1), 51
–59. doi:
Dietz-Uhler, B. (1999). Defensive reactions to group-relevant information. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 2(1), 17
–29. doi:
Dmowski, S. (2013). Geographic typology of European football rivalries. Soccer & Society, 14,
331
–343. doi:
Elias, N., & Scotson, J. (1994). The established and the outsiders: A sociological enquiry into
community problems (2nd edition). London: Sage.
ESPN. (2010, March 5). Gordon: NASCAR needs some rivalries to stir it up. Associated Press.
Retrieved February 2, 2015, from
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?id=4969912
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117
–140.
Finn, G. P. T., & Giulianotti, R. (2000). Football culture: Local contests, global visions. Portland,
OR: Frank Cass.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in
applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291
–314.
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00583.x
European Sport Management Quarterly
245
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
Fort, R., & Maxcy, J. (2003).
“Competitive balance in sports leagues: An introduction”. Journal of
Sports Economics, 4, 154
–160. doi:
García, J., & Rodríguez, P. (2002). The determinants of football match attendance revisited:
Empirical evidence from the Spanish football league. Journal of Sports Economics, 3, 18
–38.
Gimeno, J., & Woo, C. Y. (1999). Multimarket contact, economies of scope, and firm performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 42, 239
–259. doi:
Giulianotti, R., & Armstrong, G. (2002). Avenues of contestation. Football hooligans running and
ruling urban spaces. Social Anthropology, 10, 211
–238. doi:
10.1111/j.1469-8676.2002.tb00055.x
Goertz, G., & Diehl, P. F. (1993). Enduring rivalries: Theoretical constructs and empirical patterns.
International Studies Quarterly, 37(2), 147
–171. doi:
Goffman, E. (1959/1998). The presentation of self in everyday life. In C. Lemert & A. Branaman
(Eds.), The Goffman reader (pp. 21
–25). Oxford: Blackwell.
Goffman, E. (1967/2003). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction.
Reflections: The SoL Journal, 4(3), 7
–13.
Goodger, J. M., & Goodger, B. C. (1989). Excitement and representation: Toward a sociological
explanation of the significance of sport in modern society. Quest, 41, 257
–272. doi:
Goodhead, G. (2003). Us vs them: Journeys to the world
’s greatest football derbies. New York, NY:
Viking.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1990). Common factor analysis versus component analysis: Some well and little
known facts. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 33
–39. doi:
Groza, M. D. (2010). NCAA conference realignment and football game day attendance.
Managerial and Decision Economics, 31, 517
–529. doi:
Hassan, D. (2006). Sport, identity, and the people of the Irish border lands. New Hibernia Review,
10(2), 26
–43. doi:
Hausman, J. A., & Leonard, G. K. (1997). Superstars in the National Basketball Association:
Economic value and policy. Journal of Labor Economics, 15, 586
–624. doi:
Havard, C. T. (2014). Glory out of reflected failure: The examination of how rivalry affects sport
fans. Sport Management Review, 17, 243
–253. doi:
Havard, C. T., Gray, D. P., Gould, J., Sharp, L. A., & Schaffer, J. J. (2013). Development and
validation of the Sport Rivalry Fan Perception Scale (SRFPS). Journal of Sport Behavior, 36,
45
–65.
Havard, C. T., Wann, D. L., & Ryan, T. D. (2013). Investigating the impact of conference
realignment on rivalry in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 22, 224
–234.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
575
–604. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social
identity. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. Leary, & J. P. Tangey (Eds.), Handbook of self and
identity (pp. 462
–479). New York, NY: Guilford.
Hogg, M. A. (2005). The social identity perspective. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of
group research and practice (pp. 133
–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke, Contemporary social psychological
Theories (pp. 111
–136). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup
relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121
–140.
Holmes, M. (1994). Symbols of national identity and sport: The case of the Irish football team. Irish
Political Studies, 9(1), 81
–98. doi:
Humphreys, B. R. (2002). Alternative measures of competitive balance in sports leagues. Journal of
Sports Economics, 3(2), 133
–148. doi:
Jackson, D. A. (1993). Stopping rules in principal components analysis: A comparison of
heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology, 74, 2204
–2214. doi:
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead A. S. R. (1998). Defining dimensions of distinctiveness: Group
variability makes a difference to differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 1481
–1492. doi:
246
B.D. Tyler and J.B. Cobbs
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
Jones, I. (2000). A model of serious leisure identification: The case of football fandom. Leisure
Studies, 19, 283
–298. doi:
Kesenne, S. (2002). The monopsonistic player labour market in a win-maximising league.
European Sport Management Quarterly, 2, 180
–187. doi:
Kilduff, G. J., Elfenbein, H. A., & Staw, B. M. (2010). The psychology of rivalry: A relationally
dependent analysis of competition. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 943
–969. doi:
Kryk, J. (2004). Natural enemies: Major college football
’s oldest, fiercest rivalry - Michigan vs.
Notre Dame. Lanham, MD: Taylor Trade.
Lock, D., Taylor, T., & Darcy, S. (2011). In the absence of achievement: The formation of new team
identification. European Sport Management Quarterly, 11, 171
–192. doi:
Luellen, T. B., & Wann, D. L. (2010). Rival salience and sport team identification. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 19, 97
–106.
Madrigal, R., & Chen, J. (2008). Moderating and mediating effects of team identification in regard
to causal attributions and summary judgments following a game outcome. Journal of Sport
Management, 22, 717
–733.
Marks, J. (1998). The French national team and national identity:
‘Cette France d'un “bleu metis”’.
Sport in Society, 1(2), 41
–57.
Marzorati, G. (2011, August 23). The fierce intimacy of tennis rivalries. New York Times Magazine
Online. Retrieved August 24, 2011, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/magazine/the-fierce-
intimacy-of-tennis-rivalries.html
McCarthy, M. (2007, December 5). Coaching bonuses take unusual form. USA Today. Retrieved on
May 18, 2008, from
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2007-12-05-coaching-
McCauley, C. (2001). The psychology of group identification and the power of ethnic nationalism.
In D. Chirot & M. Seligman (Eds.), Ethnopolitical warfare: Causes, consequences, and possible
solutions (pp. 343
–362). Washington, DC: APA Books.
McDonald, M., & Rascher, D. A. (2000). Does bat day make cents?: The effect of promotions on
the demand for baseball. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 8
–27.
McGinnis, L. P., & Gentry, J. W. (2009). Underdog consumption: An exploration into meanings and
motives. Journal of Business Research, 62, 191
–199. doi:
Morley, B., & Thomas, D. (2007). Attendance demand and core support: Evidence from limited-
overs cricket. Applied Economics, 39, 2085
–2097. doi:
Moskalenko, S., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (2006). Group identification under conditions of threat:
College students
’ attachment to country, family, ethnicity, religion, and university before and after
September 11, 2001. Political Psychology, 27(1), 77
–97. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00450.x
Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and
status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 103
–122. doi:
Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and
public negativity toward outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 127
–
137. doi:
Norwood, S. H. (2010). Corporate Cowboys and blue-collar bureaucrats: The Dallas-Washington
football rivalry. In D. K. Wiggins & R. P. Rodgers (Eds.), Rivals: Legendary matchups that made
sports history (pp. 265
–289). Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Press.
Otten, S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Evidence for implicit evaluative in-group bias: Affect-biased
spontaneous trait inference in a minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 36(1), 77
–89. doi:
Paton, D., & Cooke, A. (2005). Attendance at county cricket: An economic analysis. Journal of
Sports Economics, 6(1), 24
–45. doi:
Paul, R. J. (2003). Variations in NHL attendance: The impact of violence, scoring, and regional
rivalries. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 62, 345
–364. doi:
Russell, R. A., & Leung, J. M. Y. (1994). Devising a cost effective schedule for a baseball league.
Operations Research, 42, 614
–625. doi:
European Sport Management Quarterly
247
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and majority group
relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21(1), 1
–24. doi:
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1954). Experimental study of
positive and negative intergroup attitudes between experimentally produced groups: Robbers
cave study. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.
Smart, D. L., & Wolfe, R. A. (2003). The contribution of leadership and human resources to
organizational success: An empirical assessment of performance in Major League Baseball.
European Sport Management Quarterly, 3, 165
–188. doi:
Smith, M., & King, B. (2012, November 12). Rivalries, ratings and revenue. Street & Smith
’s Sports
Business Journal, 15(30), 1.
Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure:
Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 382
–388. doi:
Spaaij, R., & Geilenkirchen, M. (2011). Ta(l)king sides: Ethical and methodological challenges in
comparative fieldwork on avid football rivalries. Soccer and Society, 12, 633
–651. doi:
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 63, 224
–237. doi:
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel
& W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7
–24). Chicago, IL:
Nelson-Hall.
Thompson, W. R. (2001). Identifying rivals and rivalries in world politics. International Studies
Quarterly, 45, 557
–586. doi:
Trail, G., Robinson, M., Dick, R., & Gillentine, A. (2003). Motives and points of attachment: Fans
versus spectators in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 217
–227.
Vaccaro, M. (2005). Emperors and idiots: The hundred year rivalry between the Yankees and Red
Sox, from the very beginning to the end of the curse. United States of America: Doubleday.
Vidacs, B. (2000). Football in Cameroon: A vehicle for the expansion and contraction of identity. In
G. P. T. Finn & R. Giulianotti (Eds.), Football culture: Local contests, global visions (pp. 100
–
117). Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
Wann, D. L., & Grieve, F. G. (2005). Biased evaluations of in-group and out-group spectator
behavior at sporting events: The importance of team identification and threats to social identity.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 531
–546. doi:
Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Pease, D. G. (2001). Sport fans: The psychology
and social impact of spectators. London: Routledge.
Welki, A. M., & Zlatoper, T. J. (1999). U.S. Professional football game-day attendance. Atlantic
Economic Journal, 27, 285
–298. doi:
Wilson, P., & Sim, B. (1995). The demand for semi-pro league football in Malaysia 1989
–91: A
panel data approach. Applied Economics, 27(1), 131
–138. doi:
Zimbalist, A. S. (2002). Competitive balance in sports leagues: An introduction. Journal of Sports
Economics, 3(2), 111
–121. doi:
248
B.D. Tyler and J.B. Cobbs
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
Document Outline
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Literature review
- Study 1: Exploration of the antecedents of rivalry
- Study 2: Quantitative analysis of antecedents
- Discussion and implications
- Limitations and future research
- Conclusion
- ORCID
- References
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
adornos concept of life
conception of?mininities
Investigating the Afterlife Concepts of the Norse Heathen A Reconstuctionist's Approach by Bil Linz
Analysis of Gangs Why are Youth drawn to them
A Critical Look at the Concept of Authenticity
AT2H Science Advanced Concepts of Hinduism
article expenditure patterns and timing of patent protection in a competitive R&D environment
concepts of life time fitness
1 5 1 1 Class?tivity Draw Your Concept of the Internet Now Instructions
Mill and Lockes conception of Freedom
BYT 2004 The concept of a project life cycle
1 0 1 2 Class?tivity Draw Your Concept of the Internet Instructions
Conception of Poetic Creation
Pitfalls of Relativism Why the Relativist Theory is Wrong
Economic and political concepts of?rdinand Lassalle
adornos concept of life
więcej podobnych podstron