Rivalry Dispersion Theory: Are multiple rivals good for society?

The purpose of this study is to explore how multiple rivalries influences antisocial reactions to rivals. Based on cognitive load theory (Sweller, 2011), we expect that sport fans' hostility toward rivals is bounded by limits to affective capacity. As a consequence, fans perceiving multiple rivals of their favored team disperse hostility across these numerous outgroups, thereby diluting the animosity directed toward any single rival.

H1: The number of rivals is negatively associated with the degree of animosity toward any single rival.

Tyler and Cobbs (2017) illustrated how multiple rivals are not viewed with equal intensity and therefore, the intensity of rivalries is continuous in scale. We propose the contrasting intensity of multiple rivalries to impact the dispersion of hostility among rivals. More specifically, where there is a high deviation in the intensity of a team's rivalries, we expect fans' animosity to be concentrated toward the top rival.

H2: Variance in rivalries' intensity is positively associated with animosity toward the top rival.

The hypotheses above imply that more rivals with less variation (i.e., more equal) in intensity result in lower hostility toward rivals. Yet, could this prescription to reduce fan hostility negatively influence important marketing outcomes such as fan identification? Previous research has indicated positive relationships between fan identification and antisocial reactions to rival fans (e.g., Cobbs et al., 2017; Wann et al., 2016). To conclude our study, we explore a boundary condition of the identification-antisocial relationship where the number of rivals may moderate/reduce the association between fan identification and hostility toward rival fans.
Using the Qualtrics survey platform, we examine the relationships described above with a sample of 8,719 fans recruited through internet message boards dedicated to teams in six professional sports in North American and Asia. Initial findings indicate significant differences in the count of rivals (H1), variance in rivalry intensity (H2) and multiple measures of animosity. Descriptively, fans of the Indian Premier League (IPL cricket) name the most rivals for their favorite team and have the lowest variance in their rivalries' intensity. Accordingly, IPL fans demonstrate less hostility toward rivals, compared to fans of North American teams.

1. Rivalry Dispersion Theory: Are multiple rivals good for business and society? Joe Cobbs , Northern Kentucky University, USA Shaun Star , Jindal Global Law School, India B. David Tyler , University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA

2. Co nfrontation with a salient outgroup that poses acute threat and enhancement to in-group esteem (Berendt and Uhrich 2016; Cobbs, Sparks, and Tyler 2017; Tyler et al. 2017) Rivalry

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. Is sport fans' hostility toward rivals bounded by limits to affective capacity? If so, does the contrasting intensity of multiple rivals impact dispersion of hostility among rivals? How is the number of rivals related to desirable fan conditions? H1: The number of rivals is negatively associated with the degree of hostility toward any single rival. H2: Variance in rivalries' intensity is positively associated with hostility toward the top rival. H3: The number of rivals moderates the relationship between fan identification and hostility toward rival fans. H3(null): The number of rivals has no association with the degree of favorite team product consumption (or identification with the favorite team [control]).

6. Online fan message boards N = 8,719 NBA  N  = 971 ​ NFL  N  = 2350 ​ NHL  N  = 2068 ​ MLB  N  = 1641 ​ MLS  N  = 826 ​ IPL  N  = 863 ​ 90.5% male 28.7 mean age (10.5 SD) 87.8% some (or more) college Including 22.3% grad school Moderate identification (5.0M/7; 1.1 SD) Demographics Sample

7. Method Qualtrics online survey Name favorite team & list that team's rivals in order of intensity Allocate 100 rivalry points to the rival(s) of your favorite team Hostility (toward rival fans) scales Prejudice Relationship discrimination Schadenfreude

8. Is sport fans' hostility toward rivals bounded by limits to affective capacity? H1: The number of rivals is negatively associated with the degree of hostility toward any single rival. Hostility variable Pearson’s r: Number of Rivals Prejudice -.06* Discrimination -.03 Schadenfreude -.03* *p < .05 MANOVA F = 2.1, p = 0.055

9. Does the contrasting intensity of multiple rivals impact dispersion of hostility among rivals? H2: Variance in rivalries' intensity is positively associated with hostility toward the top rival. Hostility variable Pearson’s r: SD of Rival Points Prejudice .13* Discrimination .09* Schadenfreude .11* *p < .01

10. How is the number of rivals related to desirable fan conditions? H3: The number of rivals moderates the relationship between fan identification and hostility toward rival fans. H3(null): The number of rivals has no association with the degree of favorite team product consumption (or identification with the favorite team). Fan ID Prejudice .44* Number of Rivals .04* -.05* Team support variable Pearson’s r: Number of Rivals Support behaviors .03* Fan Identification .02 *p < .01

11. Dispersion of rivalry is… slightly related to hostility toward top rival practically unrelated to supportive feelings and behaviors Conclusion