Rival conceptions of rivalry why some competitions mean more than others.pdf

(591 KB) Pobierz
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
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
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,
2015
Vol. 15, No. 2, 227–248, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2015.1010558
Rival conceptions of rivalry: why some competitions mean more than
others
B. David Tyler
a
*
a
b
and Joe B. Cobbs
b
College of Business, Western Carolina University, Forsyth 203, Cullowhee, NC 28723, USA;
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
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
Introduction
The term
rivalry
in sport is associated with an intense, often acrimonious relationship
between two teams and/or their fans (Benkwitz & Molnar,
2012;
Spaaij & Geilenkirchen,
2011).
Teams compete against several opponents during a season, but only contests
against certain others are considered rivalry games or derby matches (Kilduff, Elfenbein, &
Staw,
2010).
There are numerous popular press books dedicated to long-standing rivalries
(e.g., Goodhead,
2003;
Kryk,
2004;
Vaccaro,
2005);
the term appears daily in
newspapers’ sports sections; and some coaching contracts even contain bonuses for
*Corresponding author. Email:
dtyler@wcu.edu
© 2015 European Association for Sport Management
228
B.D. Tyler and J.B. Cobbs
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
beating specific rival teams (McCarthy,
2007).
In academic work, rivalry frequently
appears in demand estimation and promotions research (e.g., Boyd & Boyd,
1998;
Boyd &
Krehbiel,
2003;
Buraimo,
2007).
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,
2000);
while in another study, rivalry is designated by the geographic proximity
between opponents (Baimbridge, Cameron, & Dawson,
1996).
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,
2012).
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,
1989).
To achieve this objective, we utilize a sequential exploratory mixed method design
(Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson,
2003).
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,
1993).
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,
2012).
As a
result, researchers studying rivalry in sports often describe the idea vaguely using terms
such as
‘out-group’
(Luellen & Wann,
2010,
p. 98) or
‘disliked
competitor’ (Dalakas &
Melancon,
2012,
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,
2001).
While focusing on the competing athletes, Kilduff et al. (2010) 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 (2013) 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.
European Sport Management Quarterly
Social categorization and comparison
229
According to Goffman (1959/1998), 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,
1989;
Hogg,
1992, 2003;
Hogg &
Abrams,
1988;
Tajfel & Turner,
1986).
These social categorizations
‘provide
a system of
orientation for self-reference: they create and define the individual’s place in society’
(Tajfel & Turner,
1986,
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,
2000).
Classifying the self and others in these ways is the
basis of social categorization theory (SCT), an extension of SIT (Hogg,
2006).
According to SCT, individuals make better sense of their social world through
classification techniques (Hogg & Terry,
2000;
Jetten, Spears, & Manstead,
1998),
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,
1985).
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,
2000;
Jetten et al.,
1998).
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,
1954;
Hogg,
2005).
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,
1994).
Individuals who identify with a group consider the group as an extension of
themselves (Ashforth & Mael,
1989;
Cialdini et al.,
1976;
Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford,
1986).
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,
2004;
Madrigal & Chen,
2008).
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,
1987),
such as redefining success through a team’s style of
play (Jones,
2000),
the attractiveness of group members (Trail, Robinson, Dick, &
Gillentine,
2003),
or the team’s home city (Lock, Taylor, & Darcy,
2011).
According to SIT, an in-group bias is omnipresent provided there is a salient out-
group (Otten & Moskowitz,
2000).
In other words, theoretical group distinctions do not
necessarily manifest in practical distinctions until such distinction becomes self-evident
(Bourdieu,
1985; 1987).
Once realized, bias against various out-groups is not uniform but
is based on moderators that include group salience, relevance, size (Mullen, Brown, &
Smith,
1992),
power (Sachdev & Bourhis,
1991),
and status (Bettencourt, Charlton, Dorr, &
Hume,
2001;
Elias & Scotson,
1994).
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,
1999;
Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis,
2002).
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,
1987;
Jetten et al.,
1998).
As an in-group
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
230
B.D. Tyler and J.B. Cobbs
increasingly views an out-group as a threat, the out-group becomes more salient
(Ashforth & Mael,
1989;
McCauley,
2001;
Moskalenko, McCauley, & Rozin,
2006)
and group identification by in-group members strengthens (Dietz-Uhler,
1999;
Tajfel &
Turner,
1986).
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.
Downloaded by [83.29.158.31] at 02:14 20 July 2016
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,
1997).
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
Table 1);
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

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin