Sacred Sports: Moral Responses to Sports Media Content

Abstract

This study examines moral responses to sports media content. Using two conditions, participants (N = 639) were randomly assigned to read a damaging sports article about their university’s basketball team, either written by an ingroup or outgroup member. Participants then reported their moral outrage to the article, moral cleansing responses, and team support intentions. Findings demonstrated that individuals demonstrated moral outrage, moral cleansing, and team support intentions when their favored team was derogated against, especially when the source of disparagement came from an outgroup member. Results are discussed in light of social identification and moral foundations theories.

Keywords

sports fanship social identification moral foundations sports media

Scholars have examined the phenomenon of sports fanship from a variety of perspectives, including social psychology (e.g., Cialdini et al., 1976; Devlin & Billings, 2016), audience studies (e.g., Gantz, 1981; Gantz & Lewis, 2017), and marketing (e.g., Bristow & Sebastian, 2001; Tsordia, Papadimitriou, & Parganas, 2018). The outcomes of sports fanship can be cognitive, affective, and behavioral in nature—influencing self-esteem, relationships, media use, intentions, and actions. Even favorable or unfavorable outcomes of individual games can affect perceptions of the self, especially for fans (Hirt, Zillmann, Erickson, & Kennedy, 1992; Schramm & Knoll, 2017). Being a sports fan clearly matters for many individuals, and for some, it is considered a tribal religion. To be sure, the structure of sport is similar to religion in many ways. Symbols are held sacred (e.g., logos, mascots), rituals are shared (e.g., tailgating, chants, cheers), and in many cases, the team’s head coach is revered as the high priest. In these ways, fanship provides focus and meaning for those who partake in it. Both sports fanship and religious membership have been explored from the perspective of social identity theory (e.g., Hogg, Adelman, & Blagg, 2010; Wann & Branscombe, 1990) in that high identification with these types of groups can be beneficial to one’s self-concept.

Media coverage of sports capitalizes on this phenomenon by ever increasing the amount of content available and providing it on multiple platforms. Sports consumers have a demanding desire for content, and now, coverage goes beyond the box scores and statistics. Today’s 24/7 sports media culture provides endless previews, in-game commentary, and postgame analyses. Storylines are crafted to capitalize on tropes already present in American culture, including the “underdog,” “rags to riches,” and “redemption” narratives. This translates to increased interest in athletes who are often portrayed as heroes, some even to epic proportions (e.g., LeBron James as King James). Furthermore, increased exposure to personal information about athletes results in more positive attitudes toward them (Lewis & Weaver, 2015) and speaks to athletes’ elevation in society as they become worthy of worship and emulation.

Several other examples signify sports’ infiltration in society and include effects on language (e.g., sports clichés), barriers created by sports knowledge aficionados (e.g., trivia), and the rituals of activity (e.g., weekly/fantasy leagues, sports bars, gambling). Holidays are now devoted to sports as well. Super Bowl Sunday is informally known as a national holiday, and Thanksgiving includes watching NFL (National Football League) games before, during, or after the day’s meal. There is also a strong social component of sports media consumption. Content is often watched and shared with like-minded others, including friends and family (Gantz, 2013; Raney, 2006). These consumption patterns demonstrate the role of sports in shaping social identity for many (Branscombe & Wann, 1991; Keaton & Gearhart, 2014).

While sports media consumption has steadily grown (Nielsen, 2016), participation in other civic and social activities (e.g., attending church, volunteering) has declined (National Conference on Citizenship, 2009; Pew Research Center, 2012; Putnam, 1995). In a survey of clergy members, many reported competing Sunday activities as the reason for the decrease in church attendance, with children’s sports activities being cited as the main factor (McMullin, 2013). In another survey, 21% of Americans stated they would be more likely to be watching football on Sundays than attending church (Jones, Cox, & Navarro-Rivera, 2014). Following and participating in sports may not be replacing religion in American civil life per se, but there is little doubt that these sports-related activities have been elevated in the nation’s social consciousness.

Considering the increasing presence of sports in our daily lives and the role it may serve in our civic and social identities, it is advantageous to examine whether there is a strong moral component of fan identification, in addition to the factors usually associated with sports fanship (e.g., Branscombe & Wann, 1991; Cialdini et al., 1976; Wann & Branscombe, 1990). If being a sports fan provides a sense of community while requiring a strong sense of allegiance and commitment from those who partake, then it is possible that sports fanship can take on a moral frame. Graham and Haidt (2010) proposed that for those who are religious, religion and morality are inseparable. Religious beliefs have historically served as one of mankind’s strongest moral guideposts (albeit not the only driver of moral behavior). Perhaps sports fanship and morality are entwined in a similar way.

To be sure, fans hold strong allegiances to their favorite teams. They can and do react strongly when they feel their favored team has been derogated against. What remains unknown is whether these responses are moral in nature, that is, do individuals perceive pointed critiques of their favored team as moral violations? Furthermore, do they perceive the source of those critiques to have committed moral transgressions? The goal of this study is to answer these questions by understanding the ways individuals cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally respond to disparaging information about their favored team, what influences those responses, and how they can take on a moral frame. It is our hope to add to the existing literature on sports fanship by examining it through the lenses of both social identification theory and moral psychology—in that beyond having passion and reverence for sports teams, fans use moral norms to defend, protect, and support them.

Sports Fanship and Social Identification

Being a sports fan of a specific team bonds people to large-scale social networks, including groups of friends, family, acquaintances, and colleagues—sharing in the rituals and activities associated with being a fan. Accordingly, sports fanship has often been studied using social identity theory (Phua, 2010; Tajfel, 1978), which examines how one’s self-identity and self-esteem are closely tied to the reputation of the social groups they belong to. It also serves to explain some of the behaviors and shared attitudes within social groups. Being a fan creates ingroups and outgroups, including intense rivalries with other teams and their fan bases, where one’s fan ingroup is evaluated positively and outgroups are evaluated negatively.

Brewer (1991) proposed that social identity and group loyalty are strongest when individuals can experience both a sense of belonging and distinctiveness. Sports fanship, especially of a specific team, can satisfy both of these needs. Fans can feel a sense of belonging with other fans while embracing their team’s distinctiveness from other conference and/or division rivals. Thus, as Brewer suggests, the individual’s competing needs for assimilation and differentiation are both gratified.

In 1976, Cialdini and colleagues specifically examined the social identification processes of sports fanship. Fans bask in reflected glory (BIRG) when their favored team wins a contest and cut off reflected failure (CORF) when their favored team loses. The researchers measured social identity based on whether individuals used possessive (e.g., “we won”) versus nonpossessive pronouns (e.g., “they lost”). Thus, individuals identified with the team when it was victorious and distanced themselves from the team when it was defeated. The strength of one’s fanship moderates these BIRGing and CORFing effects, where those who highly identify as sports fans are more likely to BIRG and less likely to CORF, and lowly identified fans are more likely to CORF and less likely to BIRG (Wann & Branscombe, 1990). Beyond fan identification after wins and losses, the success and failure of one’s favorite team can influence perceptions of the self, including predictions of one’s own performance. Hirt et al. (1992) found that fans predicted better outcomes for themselves on a variety of performance and social dimensions when their favored team won as opposed to when they lost. More recent efforts have demonstrated similar effects, with highly identified men reporting the highest ratings of self-confidence post-win (Schramm & Knoll, 2017). In all, the performance of one’s favored team can influence both self-perceptions and fan identification.

As outlined above, previous research on social identification in sports fanship has centered broadly on the concept of social identification as a whole. Recent developments in the social identification literature (Roccas & Berlin, 2016; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy, & Eidelson, 2008) suggest that there are specific dimensions of social identification. These scholars incorporated concepts from social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978), work on individualism–collectivism, nationalism–patriotism, and research on identification with organizations to establish four dimensions of identification: importance, commitment, superiority, and deference. Importance is associated with how much individuals view the group as a part of who they are. Commitment relates to how much individuals want to benefit the group. Superiority involves how much individuals view their group as superior to others. Finally, deference is related to how much individuals honor, revere, and submit to the group’s norms, symbols, and leaders.

Roccas, Klar, and Liviatan (2006) further dictated that importance and commitment comprise the attachment component of social identification, while superiority and deference make up the glorification component of social identification. These components demonstrate two different but not necessarily mutually exclusive processes—that individuals can feel connected to their social groups and/or exalt the status of those social groups. Again, we see the potential similarities in identification processes of being a sports fan with the identification processes of being a part of other social institutions, such as religion or politics. Thus, beyond BIRGing and CORFing behaviors (Cialdini et al., 1976), these specific dimensions of identification allow for the examination of not only how much but exactly in what ways individuals identify with their favorite organizations and teams.

Depending on the individual, the relevance of these dimensions may vary in meaningful ways, all while not taking away from the certainty that the individual still identifies as a fan. For instance, the importance of a specific team or organization to one’s self-concept may vary as the fan ages, commitment may change as a fan moves away from the geographic location of the team, superiority may increase or decrease based on the team’s performance, and deference may depend on the trustworthiness of the ownership or coach and whether the team has rich history or traditions. By distinguishing the dimensions of team identification in this way, we can gain a greater understanding of what it means to be a “fan” and the variability that exists among fan bases along these factors.

The Moral Dimension of Sports Fanship

By considering the modes of identification outlined previously, we can also determine whether being a sports fan involves a moral component, similar in many ways to how being a devoted follower of a religion or political party can (Haidt, 2012; Tetlock, Kristel, Elson, Green, & Lerner, 2000). To this point, the moral codes of fans themselves are likely to influence thoughts, emotions, and behaviors associated with their fanship. Moral Foundations Theory (MFT; Haidt & Joseph, 2004) proposes that several distinct and universal psychological systems exist at varying levels among individuals and societies. These systems, or foundations, inform the moral codes of cultures around the world. Five foundations were originally outlined in the theory, including care, fairness, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.

Much of the current research on MFT has focused on political “cultures” and the competing relevance of specific foundations for liberals as compared with conservatives (e.g., Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009). However, it is not unreasonable to assume that sports can take on a moral undertone for fans (Cottingham, 2012), as evidence suggests that we regularly moralize situations in our everyday lives (Hofmann, Wisneski, Brandt, & Skitka, 2014). More concretely, any violation against one’s identified organization or team is likely to instigate retributive responses. In this vein, Tetlock and colleagues (2000) developed the Sacred Values Protection Model (SVPM), which proposes that individuals take action to protect their sacred values from attack. Sacred values are rules within social groups that are not to be violated. A serious example of a sacred value would be selling children for adoption. The economic drive for the individual to earn money from the process is outweighed by the moral norms of the group. In applying this to sports, a sacred value would be wearing a despised rivals’ jersey to a home game of one’s favorite team. The desire to support a player of a rival team would be outweighed by the pressure from home team fans to maintain one’s allegiance with that team (at risk of being heckled, or worse, physically accosted in some way).

Group members evaluate norm violators negatively, experience disparaging emotional responses toward those violators, and reinforce support for the group’s norms. The protection of sacred values after they have been violated results in two responses: moral outrage and moral cleansing (Tetlock et al., 2000). Moral outrage is an angered response that serves to derogate and punish the individual responsible for violating the sacred value while also reinforcing the sacred value within the social group, effectively outlining what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior (Tetlock, 2003). More clearly, moral outrage is the cognitive, affective, and behavioral rejection of norm violators. Moral cleansing, on the contrary, reaffirms the role of the sacred value to the group and the group members’ commitment to it. According to Tetlock (2003), even entertaining counter-normative thoughts is enough to instigate a moral cleansing response. In a sports context, individuals who moralize their fanship are likely to react to violations (such as media content that is critical or disparaging of their favorite team) by using these moral outrage and moral cleansing responses, along with demonstrating traditional team support behaviors, to punish violators and reestablish their sacred values.

The Role of Gender in Sports Fanship

The final component of this study involves the consideration of gender and how it might specifically relate to social identification and moral processes. Regarding fan identification, women have been found to live more vicariously through their university teams and portray stronger feelings of pride than men (Ridinger & Funk, 2006). The social component of sports fanship is also valuable to women (Gantz & Wenner, 1991) as is the narrative component of sports storytelling (Brown, Devlin, & Billings, 2013). Men, on the contrary, are more likely to strongly identify as a fan and identify with a specific sport, as well as engage in more sports fan behaviors (Dietz-Uhler, Harrick, End, & Jacquemotte, 2000). Thus, women form strong alliances to specific teams and men identify more as sports fans in general (and their behavior supports this).

These differences broadly align with gender differences established in social psychology literature (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000), which posits women to be more communal in nature and more likely to foster interpersonal relationships. Men, on the contrary, tend to be more independently oriented and assertive. In a sports context, women take pride in their allegiance to the team and value the social relationships that are associated with it. Alternatively, men are more likely to express their fanship through discussing, watching, and learning about sports, that is, through their behavior and actions.

The Current Study

As described earlier, for sports fans, identifying with their favorite organizations and teams may take on a moral undertone, similar to other social institutions like religion and politics. This moral component becomes especially relevant when a favored team has been violated or derogated against. Accordingly, the SVPM (Tetlock et al., 2000) dictates that individuals engage in moral outrage and moral cleansing responses when a sacred value has been attacked. There is also existing evidence that heated rivalries among fans develop into rituals of defending their favored parties against outsiders (Collins, 2009), which is in accordance with social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978). In a sports media context, coverage that contains disparaging statements against one’s favored team or coach could be perceived as an attack on the values that are held sacred. Considering this, the relative salience of certain modes of identification (Roccas et al., 2008) and moral foundations (Haidt & Joseph, 2004) should influence fans’ responses to perceived moral violations, including outrage, cleansing, and subsequent support intentions. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1: Those who read a criticizing article written by an outgroup member will engage in stronger moral outrage, cleansing, and team support responses than those who read a criticizing article written by an ingroup member.

H2: The relative salience of dimensions of identification will influence moral outrage, moral cleansing, and team support responses.

H3: The relative salience of moral foundations will influence moral outrage, moral cleansing, and team support responses.

Another consideration of this study involves the specific role fan identification has in influencing moral outrage, cleansing, and team support intentions. The similarities between sports fanship and religion have been alluded to earlier, and indeed, being a fan involves social, psychological, and affective dimensions that often mirror those of belonging and practicing a specific religion. Both institutions have specific codes of conduct that are often associated with existing value systems in society and both can influence personal and collective identities (Giulianotti, 2005; Uszynski, 2013).

Functionalist perspectives of religion determine that individuals establish a sense of identity through the structure religion provides. In following the rituals associated with sports, a sports fan could establish a sense of identity through a similar process. In the same way that social identification and morality can be categorized by different dimensions and foundations (Haidt & Joseph, 2004; Roccas et al., 2008), finding purpose and meaning in life can manifest in different ways as well. The various life roles taken (e.g., partner, parent, worker, friend) and the groups we align ourselves with combine to construct the identities we create for ourselves. For many, at least at some point in their lives, being a sports fan makes up a fundamental part of one’s identity (Branscombe & Wann, 1991). Thus, it is likely that the stronger one identifies as a fan, the more protective he or she will be in defending his or her favored team against norm violators. As a result, the following hypothesis is posited:

H4: Highly identified fans will experience the strongest moral outrage, moral cleansing, and team support responses.

The final aim of this study is to explore the gender differences in moral responses to norm violations in a sports context. To this point, it is clear that gender influences fan identification (e.g., Dietz-Uhler et al., 2000; Ridinger & Funk, 2006). There is also evidence that the social and narrative components of sports fanship hold great meaning for women (Brown et al., 2013; Gantz & Wenner, 1991), while engaging in sports-related behaviors is valued by men. The gender differences described here also relate to gender differences more broadly, that is, women tend to be more socially oriented while men tend to be more independent and task oriented (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Eagly et al., 2000). What is unknown is whether specific gender differences will emerge when one’s favorite team is derogated against. Thus, the following research question is posed:

RQ1: What influence will gender have on moral outrage, moral cleansing, and team support responses?

Method

Participants

Undergraduate students (N = 691) were recruited from business classes at a large, Midwestern university and participated in this study in exchange for extra credit. Fifty-two of those participants failed the manipulation check for properly identifying the author of the sports article they read, leaving a final N of 639. The ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 39 (M = 21.21) with 337 males and 302 females participating.

Procedure

During recruitment, students were informed that this was a study about their personality and fanship of the university’s basketball team. After recruitment, a link to the online experiment was posted on associated course websites. Once participants clicked on the link, an informed consent form was provided. After filling out a questionnaire that included social identification, moral foundation, and fan identification items, participants were assigned to read a sports news article that appeared to be written either by an ingroup member or an outgroup member. After reading the article, participants reported their reactions to it, including moral outrage, moral cleansing, and their intentions to support the team. Finally, they reported some demographic information, were debriefed, and thanked for their participation in the study.

Materials

A sports article was crafted to properly assess responses of moral outrage, moral cleansing, and intentions to support the team in the future. The article was several paragraphs long and similar in appearance to opinion/editorial pieces regularly featured in the sports section of local newspapers, both in print and online. The article detailed several recent and true to life examples of the participants’ college basketball team’s unruly behavior and the coach’s lack of control both on and off the court. It framed the content in a critical and disparaging way. For example, in reference to the team’s alcohol violations, the article stated, “Six out of 13 on scholarship. All busted for one thing or another. All since February. That’s damn near half the team . . . These guys decided it’s more important to go out drinking than prepare for a scrimmage . . . .” Regarding the coach, another statement read, “(The coach) never had control of the locker room or his team . . . (The coach) has never taken responsibility for this team.”

This article was then modified as if written by a member of the participants’ ingroup or outgroup. The only difference between the article types involved changing the author’s name and affiliation that was listed in the byline. The ingroup author was named as a former interim head coach of the team and local media personality, and the outgroup author was named as a national sportswriter with no former or current affiliation with the team. In this sense, the disparaging content of the article served as a violation of the participants’ sacred norm, that is, their support for their college basketball team, and the author served as the target of moral outrage. In turn, reassuring statements of moral cleansing and additional statements of team support served to repair the norm violation.

Measures

Dimensions of social identification

Social identification with the team was measured using Roccas and colleagues’ (2008) 16-item measure of identification with groups, which contained four-item subscales associated with the following dimensions: importance (M = 4.42, SD = 1.65), commitment (M = 4.96, SD = 1.46), superiority (M = 4.62, SD = 1.16), and deference (M = 4.28, SD = 1.10). The items were answered using 7-point Likert type scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and were introduced with the following statement: “Answer each of the following questions regarding your identity as a (university name) basketball fan.” Responses were combined and averaged for each subscale. Cronbach’s alpha for each is reported as follows: importance (α = .90), commitment (α = .88), superiority (α = .76), and deference (α = .63). Of note, low Cronbach’s alpha values can occur when scales contain less than 10 items. As a result, mean inter-item correlations can serve as a good measure of a scale’s internal consistency. For the subscale of deference, which reported a relatively low Cronbach’s alpha, the mean inter-item correlation was .31 and well within the recommended range of .20 to .40 for these values (Briggs & Cheek, 1986).

Moral foundations

The 30-item Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ; Graham et al., 2009) was used to measure moral values. Five subscales were included: care (M = 5.18, SD = 0.92), fairness (M = 5.14, SD = 0.80), ingroup/loyalty (M = 4.69, SD = 0.96), authority/respect (M = 4.64, SD = 0.92), and purity/sanctity (M = 4.16, SD = 1.13). Each subscale included six items that were answered on a 6-point Likert-type scale, and ratings for each subscale were combined and averaged. Cronbach’s alpha for each factor is reported as follows: care (α = .60), fairness (α = .56), ingroup/loyalty (α = .61), authority/respect (α = .58), and purity/sanctity (α = .67). Again, these subscales included less than 10 items, and because the Cronbach’s alphas were relatively low, the mean inter-item correlations of the subscales were calculated. Those values were as follows: care (.22), fairness (.19), ingroup/loyalty (.21), authority/respect (.20), and purity/sanctity (.26). On further review of the fairness subscale, there was one item that was not positively correlated with the other items. After that item was dropped (and done so for subsequent analyses), the mean inter-item correlation of this subscale reached an optimal value of .29 (Briggs & Cheek, 1986).

Fan identification

Four items from Wann and Branscombe’s (1993) Sport Spectator Identification Scale (SSIS) were used to measure fan identification. This scale addresses how individuals see themselves as fans of their favorite team, how others see them as a fan of their favorite team, and how individuals display their fanship. Items were answered using 7-point Likert type scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and prefaced with the following statement: “Answer each of the following questions regarding your identity as a (university name) basketball fan.” Responses were combined and averaged across the factor (M = 4.99, SD = 1.66). The fan identification measure achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of .91.

Moral outrage

A series of moral outrage items were developed to assess anger responses to the article’s content and its author. These 17 items were answered on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Participants were asked directly how the article made them feel and how they felt toward the article’s author. Several of the emotions included anger, disgust, and condemnation. Additional items asked how much participants would like to criticize the author if they ever met him, how offended they were by the arguments made by the author, and how ignorant or foolish they thought the author was in his opinions. Items were combined and averaged for this measure (M = 3.24, SD = 0.84), which reached a Cronbach’s alpha of .83.

Moral cleansing

Five moral cleansing items were developed to assess reaffirmation of the role of the sacred value (in this case, the men’s basketball team) to the participants. These items asked participants how much they agreed with statements that emphasized the program’s elevated and respected status. These items were answered on 7-point Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample items included, “The athletes on the (university name) men’s basketball team take their role as students seriously, as reflected in the strong graduation rate of its players,” and “(Coach name) is a man of integrity who runs a clean program and does it ‘the right way,’ unlike the coaches at many other top Division I programs.” Items were averaged and collapsed across the factor (M = 4.05, SD = 1.15). Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .80.

Team support intentions

Twenty items were developed assessing various aspects of team support intentions, including wearing team-identifying apparel, making efforts to watch or attend every game when possible, and following the coach and team on social media. These items were answered on 9-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (definitely disagree) to 9 (definitely agree) and prefaced with the following statement: “Using the scale indicated, tell us right now how much you agree with each of the following statements.” Sample items included, “I wear team-identifying apparel often to display my allegiance to the (university name) basketball team,” and “I make the effort to watch or attend every (university name) game I can.” The team support intention items were combined and averaged (M = 4.61, SD = 1.69), reaching a Cronbach’s alpha of .94.

Results

A series of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tests were conducted to determine whether author affiliation (H1), dimensions of identification (H2; importance, commitment, superiority, deference), moral foundations (H3; care, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity), fan identification (H4), and participant gender (RQ1) significantly predicted participants’ moral outrage, moral cleansing, and team support responses. For the continuous predictor variables (dimensions of identification, moral foundations, and fan identification), additional regression analyses were conducted if they were found to be significant in the ANCOVA and are noted with their beta weights below. In measuring gender differences in fan identification, males (M = 5.37, SD = 1.60) identified more strongly as fans than females (M = 4.57, SD = 1.63), t(631) = 6.24, p < .001, d = .50.

Moral Outrage

The first ANCOVA on feelings of moral outrage determined that author affiliation, F(1, 553) = 7.84, p = .005, η² = .01; the identification dimension of superiority, F(1, 553) = 5.28, p = .02, η² = .01; and participant gender, F(1, 553) = 7.87, p = .005, η² = .02; all significantly predicted these responses. More clearly, feelings of moral outrage were predicted by those who read the article written by an outgroup author (H1), those who perceived their team as superior to others (H2), and females (RQ1).

Because feelings of moral outrage were stronger for those who read the outgroup author (M = 3.34, SD = 0.87) as compared with those who read the ingroup author (M = 3.11, SD = 0.82), H1 was supported. H2, which suggested that salient dimensions of identification would predict moral outrage, was only supported for the identification dimension of superiority (β = .16, p = .02). H3 proposed that salient moral foundations would predict moral outrage. Because none of the moral foundations predicted moral outrage, H3 was not supported. H4 posited that highly identified fans would experience strong moral outrage responses. This was not supported. RQ1 asked what influence gender had on moral outrage responses, and in this case, females (M = 3.31, SD = 0.83) experienced stronger moral outrage than males (M = 3.14, SD = 0.87).

Moral Cleansing

For moral cleansing responses, the identification dimension of superiority, F(1, 581) = 15.62, p < .001, η² = .03; the identification dimension of deference, F(1, 581) = 4.57, p = .03, η² = .01; the moral foundation of purity, F(1, 581) = 4.76, p = .03, η² = .01; fan identification, F(1, 581) = 8.74, p = .003, η² = .02; and an interaction between author affiliation and gender, F(1, 581) = 6.46, p = .01, η² = .01, all significantly predicted these responses.

Follow-up Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) post hoc t tests were used to assess mean differences in the interaction between author affiliation and gender. Means with different subscripts were significantly different at p < .05. Males who read the article from the outgroup author experienced stronger moral cleansing responses (M = 4.23_b, 95% CI [4.05, 4.41]) than males who read the ingroup author (M = 3.89_a, 95% CI = [3.72, 4.06]). There were no significant differences for females who read the ingroup author (M = 4.10_ab, 95% CI = [3.92, 4.28]) or females who read the outgroup author (M = 3.99_ab, 95% CI = [3.81, 4.17]).

In all, those who perceived their team as superior to others (H2), those who strongly honored their team’s norms (H2), those who valued the moral foundation of purity (H3), those who were not highly identified with the team (H4), and males who read the article from an outgroup author (RQ1, H1) experienced strong moral cleansing responses. Because males who read the article from an outgroup author experienced strong moral cleansing responses, H1 was supported for males but not females. Addressing RQ1, gender did influence moral cleansing responses but only when affiliation of the author was accounted for. H2 was supported for moral cleansing responses associated with the identification dimensions of superiority (β = .26, p < .001) and deference (β = .11, p = .04). Regarding H3, it was only supported for the moral foundation of purity (β = .10, p = .03) on moral cleansing responses. Counter to our prediction, it was lowly identified fans who experienced strong moral cleansing responses (β = −.16, p = .005), not highly identified fans. Thus, H4 was not supported.

Team Support Intentions

The final ANCOVA examined team support intentions. The identification dimension of importance, F(1, 561) = 34.11, p < .001, η² = .05; the identification dimension of commitment, F(1, 561) = 28.58, p < .001, η² = .04; fan identification, F(1, 561) = 37.70, p < .001, η² = .05; and gender, F(1, 561) = 10.82, p = .001, η² = .02, all significantly predicted responses of team support. In sum, those who saw the team as an important part of who they are (H2), those who were highly committed to the team (H2), those who highly identified with the team (H4), and males (RQ1) reported strong team support intentions.

Author affiliation had no significant effect on team support intentions, and as a result, H1 was not supported here. The identification dimensions of importance (β = .30, p < .001) and commitment (β = .29, p = .001) predicted team support intentions, partially supporting H2. Moral foundations did not predict team support intentions, and thus, H3 was not supported. H4 was supported because highly identified fans demonstrated strong team support intentions (β = .22, p < .001). Addressing RQ4, males (M = 5.02, SD = 1.73) expressed stronger team support intentions than females (M = 4.13, SD = 1.54).

Discussion

The results of this study offer a glimpse into the influence that dimensions of social identification, moral foundations, fan identification, and gender have on individuals’ responses to sports media content that disparages and violates their favored sports team. Moral outrage was the first outcome measured, and it was the most negatively valenced of the responses, involving the emotions of anger, disgust, and condemnation. Simply changing the byline of the author was enough to instigate strong feelings of outrage, where those who read the article written by a supposed outgroup member responded in a more angered manner than those who read the article written by a supposed ingroup member (H1). In line with social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978), individuals who felt that their ingroup and its values had been violated by an outsider experienced strong feelings of moral outrage.

Of all the dimensions of identification (importance, commitment, superiority, and deference), the dimension of superiority predicted strong moral outrage responses (H2). The dimension of superiority involves seeing oneself as better than others as a result of one’s membership in a group (Roccas et al., 2008) and is the only dimension that involves looking down on perceived worse-off others. Alternatively, importance, commitment, and deference are associated with respect toward the ingroup, in this case, the participants’ own university basketball team. These dimensions do not involve the derogation of outgroup members. Thus, it is logical that those who see their favored team as superior to others would be angered at those who would challenge it.

Regarding gender (RQ1), females experienced stronger moral outrage responses than males. This finding speaks to the existing literature on the gender differences of sports fans, where women have been found to have stronger ties, exhibit stronger feelings of pride, and experience vicarious achievement through their favorite university teams as compared with men (Ridinger & Funk, 2006). Thus, even though males may generally report to be stronger sports fans than women (Dietz-Uhler et al., 2000), women in this study responded more angrily when their team had been maligned. These outrage responses provide support for the notion that women value the social component of sports (Gantz & Wenner, 1991). The strong alliances formed by women to their favored teams and other fans may have resulted in stronger outrage responses when that sacred allegiance was attacked. Alternatively, men may not have been as morally outraged and, instead, responded to the article by demonstrating stronger team support intentions.

Beyond moral outrage, moral cleansing serves as a way to remind oneself of the elevated and respected status of the chosen ingroup (Tetlock, 2003). Here, it is clear that different modes of identification predicted different responses after participants’ experienced disparagement of their favored team. Again, and logically, the identification dimension of superiority (perceiving the team as superior to other groups) predicted strong moral cleansing responses. Deference did as well (H2). Deference relates to the level at which individuals honor and revere the group’s norms, symbols, and leaders. Thus, those who highly respected the traditions of the program reacted to degradation by reminding themselves of the elevated status of their chosen ingroup. Roccas et al. (2006) refer to superiority and deference as the glorification component of social identification. Thus, it is possible that sports fans who strongly value superiority and deference are more likely to engage in moral cleansing to restore their favored team’s reputation (at least in their own minds) back to glory.

Similarly, the moral foundation of purity was a significant predictor of moral cleansing (H3). This foundation was originally developed as associated with the understanding of disgust (Haidt & Joseph, 2004) and has religious undertones. It relates to the desire to live in a noble and elevated way. Disgust is not only physical but can be sociomoral as well (Rubenking & Lang, 2014). Immoral behaviors can contaminate not only the body but also the cultures, norms, and activities that individuals hold near and dear (e.g., religion, sports). Interestingly, in a comparatively innocuous context (that of reading a sports article critical of one’s university basketball team), those who value the moral foundation of purity engaged in moral cleansing as a result of the article’s disparaging tone. Here, there is a tentative connection between social identification and MFT (Haidt & Joseph, 2004; Tajfel, 1978), in that the groups that we identify with provide not only social norms but also moral norms.

Fan identification actually had a negative effect on moral cleansing responses (in contrast to what was proposed by H4), suggesting that those who highly identify with their favorite team do not engage in cleansing responses when their allegiance has been violated. However, it does align with the notion that highly identified fans are less likely to CORF than lowly identified fans (Wann & Branscombe, 1990). These highly identified individuals’ identities may be so strongly entwined with the team that they are less likely to let disparaging remarks do real damage to their allegiance, which in turn would mean that little cognitive or emotional damage control or cleansing would be required.

The final significant predictor of moral cleansing responses was the interaction between author affiliation and gender, where males who read the article as written from an outgroup author predicted strong moral cleansing responses (H1, RQ1). This is perhaps indicative of the “male-warrior hypothesis” (Vugt, Cremer, & Janssen, 2007), which posits that men experience stronger relatedness to their ingroup than females and, thus, are more likely to respond negatively to outgroup males. Indeed, the two basic requirements were met here: The author was part of an outgroup and was male. This may have been all that was required for male participants to remind themselves of (and to protect) the elevated and respected status of their favored ingroup. Instead of demonstrating strong moral outrage, men have been more concerned with reaffirming the role of the sacred group in their lives.

The final outcome measured in this study was associated with team support intentions. Not surprisingly, males (RQ1) and highly identified fans (H4) reported strong team support intentions, in line with previous research (Dietz-Uhler et al., 2000). As mentioned earlier, women tended to be morally outraged after reading the article, while men were more likely to reinforce their allegiance through support intentions. Interestingly, the identification dimensions of importance and commitment (H2) also predicted strong team support intentions. Importance relates to how much individuals view the team as a part of who they are, and as a result, those who perceive their favorite team as a fundamental part of their identity will be more likely to support that team to feel a part of it. Commitment is associated with how much individuals want to benefit the group, not the other way around (Roccas et al., 2008). Perhaps when faced with criticism, those who are highly committed to a team are compelled to support it even more. The team support intentions measured in this study involved both monetary and time investments, and willingness to publicly portray support for their favored team on social media. These public displays only reiterate those highly committed fans’ devotion to the team. Seeing that dimensions of importance and commitment were predictive of team support intentions, it is important to note that these modes of identification have been labeled as the attachment components of social identification (Roccas et al., 2006). The findings here suggest that those who form strong social attachments to their ingroups manifest these social psychological predispositions through their self-reported team support intentions.

As with all experimental research, there were several limitations to this study. We were only able to access a student sample from one university, which limits the explanatory power of our findings. The chosen sample could have also influenced the low Cronbach’s alphas reported for the moral foundations subscales and the social identification subscale of deference, considering that the sample was made up largely of business students. Previous research has demonstrated that business majors are generally more tough-minded and less agreeable as compared with other majors (Lounsbury, Smith, Levy, Leong, & Gibson, 2009; Vedel, 2016). Thus, these general personality dispositions may have influenced the way participants fared on the measures related to fairness, submission, and respect examined here. The findings of this study should be considered in light of the sample that was employed and may not reflect the general population as a whole. In addition, because the sample was largely White (77%), we were unable to examine race as a potentially important individual difference variable. Previous research efforts (e.g., Appiah, Knobloch-Westerwick, & Alter, 2013; Denham, 2010) have highlighted the importance of race in social identification processes, especially as it can relate to sports and athletic performance. It would be advantageous in future efforts to account for the various attributes by which individuals often identify with others (e.g., race, age, nationality).

Assessing a wider array of sports fans who support a variety of different sports teams would also provide a greater understanding of the roles that identification and morality play in the formation and affirmation of allegiance to our favorite teams. Of specific interest would be efforts that examine when fans experience moral outrage toward their favored teams as opposed to the media sources that criticize those teams. Furthermore, there are a variety of ways in which the sports articles themselves could have influenced these responses, including reputation and credibility of the outlet and author, along with other relevant content factors. These considerations offer exciting avenues for future research. That being said, the present study did offer some promising findings. It provided a more nuanced look at identification processes as they relate to sports fanship and detailed the relationship between morality and sports fanship. Taken together, the findings here demonstrated that individuals experience moral outrage and engage in moral cleansing when a team they support is derogated against. Sports fans identify with their teams based on different dimensions, and for those who value purity as a moral foundation, these factors influence how individuals react when their team has been maligned (especially when the source of disparagement comes from an outgroup member). Gender also mattered here; females responded with more outrage, and males responded with more support.

More importantly, the results here provide additional evidence that we regularly moralize situations in our everyday lives (Hofmann et al., 2014), even when it comes to our favorite sports teams, and that these moral contexts have significant effects on cognition, emotion, and behavior. For many, sports fanship is an important way to bond with others, similar to other social institutions such as religion and politics. In all, this effort suggests that devotion to sports teams and identifying as a fan often go far beyond the games taking place on the court or the field. Following sports can draw on some of our core moral values and violations of those core values can elicit responses that are moral in nature.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Nicky Lewis

Author Biographies

Nicky Lewis (PhD, Indiana University) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Kentucky.

Edward R. Hirt (PhD, Indiana University) is a professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Indiana University.

References

Appiah

Knobloch-Westerwick

Alter

(2013). Ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation: Effects of news valence, character race, and recipient race on selective news reading. Journal of Communication, 63, 517-534. doi:10.1111/jcom.12032

Branscombe

N. R.

Wann

D. L.

(1991). The positive social and self-concept consequences of sports team identification. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 15, 115-127. doi:10.1177/019372359101500202

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:10.1177/0146167291175001

Briggs

S. R.

Cheek

J. M.

(1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106-148. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x

Bristow

D. N.

Sebastian

R. J.

(2001). Holy cow! Wait’til next year! A closer look at the brand loyalty of Chicago Cubs baseball fans. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 256-275. doi:10.1108/07363760110392976

Brown

Devlin

M. B.

Billings

A. C.

(2013). Fan identification gone extreme: Sports communication variables between fans and sport in the Ultimate Fighting Championship. International Journal of Sport Communication, 6, 19-32. doi:10.1123/ijsc.6.1.19

Cialdini

R. B.

Borden

R. J.

Thorne

Walker

M. R.

Freeman

Sloan

L. R.

(1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.366

Collins

(2009). Micro and macro causes of violence. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 3, 9-22. doi:10.4119/UNIBI/ijcv.45

Cottingham

M. D.

(2012). Interaction ritual theory and sports fans: Emotion, symbols, and solidarity. Sociology of Sport Journal, 29, 168-185. doi:10.1123/ssj.29.2.168

10.

Denham

B. E.

(2010). Correlates of pride in the performance success of United States athletes competing on an international stage. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 45, 457-473. doi:10.1177/1012690210373540

11.

Devlin

M. B.

Billings

A. C.

(2016). Examining the world’s game in the United States: Impact of nationalized qualities on fan identification and consumption of the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60, 40-60. doi:20.1080/08838151.2015.1127243

12.

Dietz-Uhler

Harrick

E. A.

End

Jacquemotte

(2000). Sex differences in sport fan behavior and reasons for being a sport fan. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23(3), 219-231. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/journals/j-sport-behav/

13.

Eagly

A. H.

Steffen

V. J.

(1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735-754. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735

14.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

Diekman

A. H.

(2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In Eckes

Trautner

H. M.

(Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

Gantz

(1981). An exploration of viewing motives and behaviors associated with television sports. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 25, 263-275. doi:10.1080/08838158109386450

16.

Gantz

(2013). Reflections on communication and sport: On fanship and social relationships. Communication & Sport, 1, 176-187. doi:10.1177/2167479512467446

17.

Gantz

Lewis

(2017). Sports as audience studies. In Billings

A. C.

(Ed.), Defining sport communication (pp. 235-251). New York, NY: Routledge.

18.

Gantz

Wenner

L. A.

(1991). Men, women, and sports: Audience experiences and effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 35, 233-243. doi:10.1080/08838159109364120

19.

Giulianotti

(2005). Sport: A critical sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

20.

Graham

Haidt

(2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140-150. doi:10.1177.1088868309353415

21.

Graham

Haidt

Nosek

B. A.

(2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141

22.

Haidt

(2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon.

23.

Haidt

Joseph

(2004). Intuitive ethics. How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55-66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555

24.

Hirt

E. R.

Zillmann

Erickson

G. A.

Kennedy

(1992). Costs and benefits of allegiance: Changes in fans’ self-ascribed competencies after team victory versus defeat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 724-738. doi:10.1037/00223514.63.5.724

25.

Hofmann

Wisneski

D. C.

Brandt

M. J.

Skitka

L. J.

(2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345, 1340-1343. doi:10.1126/science.1251560

26.

Hogg

M. A.

Adelman

J. R.

Blagg

R. D.

(2010). Religion in the face of uncertainty: An uncertainty-identity theory account of religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 72-83. doi:10.1177/1088868309349692

27.

Jones

R. P.

Cox

Navarro-Rivera

(2014, January). Half of American fans see supernatural forces at play in sports. Retrieved from https://www.prri.org/research/jan-2014-sports-poll/

28.

Keaton

S. A.

Gearhart

C. C.

(2014). Identity formation, identity strength, and self categorization as predictors of affective and psychological outcomes: A model reflecting sports team fans’ responses to highlights and lowlights of a college football season. Communication & Sport, 2, 363-385. doi:10.1177/2167479513498077

29.

Lewis

Weaver

A. J.

(2015). More than a game: Sports media framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and enjoyment. Communication & Sport, 3, 219-242. doi:10.1177/2167479513508273

30.

Lounsbury

J. W.

Smith

R. M.

Levy

J. J.

Leong

F. T.

Gibson

L. W.

(2009). Personality characteristics of business majors as defined by the big five and narrow personality traits. Journal of Education for Business, 84, 200-205. doi:10.3200/JOEB.84.4.200-205

31.

McMullin

(2013). The secularization of Sunday: Real or perceived competition for churches. Review of Religious Research, 55, 43-59. doi:10.1007/s13644-012-0089-7

32.

National Conference on Citizenship. (2009). America’s civic health index 2009: Civic health in hard times. Washington, DC: Author.

33.

Nielsen. (2017, February). The year in sports media report: 2016. Retrieved from https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2017/the-year-in-sports-media-report-2016.html

34.

Pew Research Center. (2012, October). “Nones” on the rise. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/

35.

Phua

J. J.

(2010). Sports fans and media use: Influence on sports fan identification and collective self-esteem. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 190-206. doi:10.1123/ijsc.3.2.190

36.

Putnam

R. P.

(1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65-78. doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0002

37.

Raney

A. A.

(2006). Why we watch and enjoy mediated sports. In Raney

A. A.

Bryant

(Eds.), Handbook of sports and media (pp. 313-329). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

38.

Ridinger

L. L.

Funk

D. C.

(2006). Looking at gender differences through the lens of sport spectators. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15(3), 155-166. Retrieved from http://fitpublishing.com/journals/smq

39.

Roccas

Berlin

(2016). Identification with groups and national identity: Applying multidimensional models of group identification to national identification. In Grimm

Huddy

Schmidt

Seethaler

(Eds.), Dynamics of national identity: Media and societal factors of what we are (pp. 53-75). New York, NY: Routledge.

40.

Roccas

Klar

Liviatan

(2006). The paradox of groupbased guilt: Modes of national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 698-711. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.698

41.

Roccas

Sagiv

Schwartz

Halevy

Eidelson

(2008). Toward a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 280-306. doi:10.1177/1088868308319225

42.

Rubenking

Lang

(2014). Captivated and grossed out: An examination of processing core and sociomoral disgusts in entertainment media. Journal of Communication, 64, 543-565. doi:10.1111/jcom.12094

43.

Schramm

Knoll

(2017). Effects of women’s football broadcastings on viewers’ moods and judgments: Investigating the moderating role of team identification and sex. Communication Research, 44, 54-76. doi:10.1177/0093650215583894

44.

Tajfel

H. E.

(1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. New York, NY: Academic Press.

45.

Tetlock

P. E.

(2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 320-324. doi:1016/S1364-66130300135-9

46.

Tetlock

P. E.

Kristel

O. V.

Elson

S. B.

Green

M. C.

Lerner

J. S.

(2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 853-870. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.853

47.

Tsordia

Papadimitriou

Parganas

(2018). The influence of sports sponsorship on brand equity and purchase behavior. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 26, 85-105. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2017.1374299

48.

Uszynski

E. T.

(2013). Implicit religion and the highly-identified sports fan: An ethnography of Cleveland sports fandom (Doctoral dissertation). Available from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

49.

Vedel

(2016). Big five personality group differences across academic majors: A systematic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.011

50.

Vugt

M. V.

Cremer

D. D.

Janssen

D. P.

(2007). Gender differences in cooperation and competition: The male-warrior hypothesis. Psychological Science, 18, 19-23. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01842.x

51.

Wann

D. L.

Branscombe

N. R.

(1990). Die-hard and fair-weather fans: Effects of identification on BIRGing and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 14, 103-117. doi:10.1177/019372359001400203

52.

Wann

D. L.

Branscombe

N. R.

(1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 24(1), 1-17. Available from http://www.ijsp-online.com/