Mitigating Antisocial Effects in College Football Rivalries

Based on the theory of in-group threat (Stephan and Renfro 2002), we propose that specific elements of rivalry—cultural difference and unfairness—exhibit an extraordinary relationship with prejudice toward rival fans, which mediates a path to discrimination against rival fans. Yet, these same elements are less essential to realizing fans' supportive behaviors. Therefore, mitigating impressions of cultural difference and unfairness in rivalries could reduce antisocial effects without inhibiting positive outcomes.
To investigate this proposition, we used online message boards to survey fans (N = 11,625) of teams in the highest division of American intercollegiate football, the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). While this respondent recruiting method allowed us to build a large sample across 128 favorite teams, the sample is highly educated (98% some college or more), male (96%) and identified with their team (6.3/7 mean, 1.2 SD). However, the latter of these traits may align with those fans most likely to exhibit aggression toward rivals (Wann et al. 2003), and are therefore relevant to mitigation of such antisocial tendencies.
Even when controlling for fan identification and the intensity of the rivalry, our results indicate that fans' perceptions of cultural difference and unfairness in their team's top rivalry are each significantly related to prejudice toward rival fans, which is strongly related to discrimination against rival fans in social relationships (e.g., friends, coworkers). While perceptions of cultural difference and unfairness in rivalry are also associated with fan identification and team supportive behaviors, other elements of rivalry (e.g., defining moments, competition for personnel) appear to share similar positive effects but without the contribution to prejudice and discrimination toward rival fans. Explicating these findings is important to crafting responsible promotional content that encourages fan engagement in rivalries but minimizes the propensity for antisocial hostilities between fans.

1. Mitigating Antisocial Effects in College Football Rivalries Joe Cobbs, Northern Kentucky University B. David Tyler, UMass Amherst T. Marius Truta , NKU Bridget Nichols, NKU

2. A narrative of competition with a highly salient outgroup that poses acute threat and enhancement to ingroup identify and/or esteem (Berendt & Uhrich 2016; Cobbs, Sparks, & Tyler 2017; Tyler et al. 2017) Rivalry Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner 1979) Theory of in-group threat (Stephan & Renfro 2002) A narrative of competition with a highly salient outgroup that poses acute threat and enhancement to ingroup identify and/or esteem (Berendt & Uhrich 2016; Cobbs, Sparks, & Tyler 2017; Tyler et al. 2017)

3. Match attendance Television ratings Fan cohesion Distinctiveness Aggression Prejudice Discrimination Schadenfreude Rivalry can be good for business ( Berendt & Uhrich , 2016; Tyler et al., 2017) Rivalry can be bad for people (Cobbs et al., 2017; Dalakas & Melancon, 2012; Wann et al., 2003)

4. What sparks a rivalry?

5. Are certain rivalry ingredients linked to undesirable outcomes? If so, are these ingredients necessary for positive outcomes? In MLS, ‘disparate values’ and ‘discrimination by authority’ are associated with antisocial reactions to rival fans. (Cobbs and Tyler 2018) Disparate values/ appearance: "Islanders-Rangers rivalry is basically built on the blue-collar hardworkers versus the haughty rich city folk" Discrimination by authority : "League caters heavily to facilitate NYRB's success" In other North American professional sports, a similar pattern exists; however, the influence of disparate values is less apparent in IPL cricket. (Cobbs, Star, and Tyler 2022)

6. Investigated model Relationship discrimination Prejudice Controls : Rivalry intensity Fan identification Discrimination by authority Disparate values Dominance Synonymous values/ appearance Spatial proximity Shared supply pool Consistency Competitiveness Conspicuous characters Conspicuous moments

7. FBS football Online message boards N = 11,625 128 favorite teams 96% male 98% some (or more) college Including 45% grad school Highly identified (6.3/7 M ; 1.2 SD ) Demographics Sample

8. Model weights Relationship discrimination Prejudice Controls : Rivalry intensity Fan identification 0.15 0.27 -0.03 0.07 0.08 -0.21 -0.04 -0.06 0.04 0.08 Discrimination by authority Disparate values Dominance Synonymous values/ appearance Spatial proximity Shared supply pool Consistency Competitiveness Conspicuous characters Conspicuous moments 0.44

9. Model weights Relationship discrimination Prejudice 0.15 0.27 -0.03 0.07 0.08 -0.21 -0.04 -0.06 0.04 0.08 Discrimination by authority Disparate values Dominance Synonymous values/ appearance Spatial proximity Shared supply pool Consistency Competitiveness Conspicuous characters Conspicuous moments 0.44 Controls : Rivalry intensity Fan identification

10. Moving forward Current study: No notable variation in how the ingredients influenced positive effects Positive measures: Identification, Methods of consumption Ongoing/ Future studies: Improved measurement of positive dependent outcomes; diversified respondents and contexts