In Team Identification? Elizabeth Burke Delia

Home , MacArthur Stadium, Manley Field House, Sports in Syracuse, Syracuse Orange

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2015 What Is the "Team" in Team Identification? Elizabeth Burke Delia

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

WHAT IS THE “TEAM” IN TEAM IDENTIFICATION?

ELIZABETH BURKE DELIA

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Sport Management in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

2015

Elizabeth Delia defended this dissertation on May 15, 2015. The members of the supervisory committee were:

Jeffrey D. James Professor Directing Dissertation

Gerald R. Ferris University Representative

Michael D. Giardina Committee Member

Joshua I. Newman Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My completion of this dissertation and the doctoral program at Florida State University would not have been possible without the encouragement of my family, friends, and colleagues.

No words can truly convey my appreciation for these individuals, as they have supported me in

unimaginable ways. However, the paragraphs that follow are my attempt to recognize those who

have played a role in this memorable journey.

I would not have had the courage to pursue a doctoral degree without my family’s

unconditional love and support. I am immensely grateful for my parents, who have always

encouraged me in anything I wish to pursue, and who instilled in me a will to accomplish my

goals, whatever they may be. I am also appreciative of my siblings, who keep me motivated,

grounded, and humble. I have benefitted from observing the academic, athletic, and professional

accomplishments of my siblings, always striving to match their successes. I must also thank my best friends, who I consider part of my family, and who always have been and forever will be a

source of strength for me.

In addition to the support of my family, I am not sure I would have had a desire to enroll

in a doctoral program if it were not for my professional experience in market research. I am

especially thankful for: Lois Friedman, Kerrilyn Curtin, and the rest of my insights and planning

colleagues at Madison Square Garden, who allowed me to realize my passion for conducting

research in sport settings; my KJT Group colleagues, particularly Lynn Clement, Wendy Banker,

and Trish Bauch, who exposed me to the practical value of qualitative techniques in market

research; and Bob Mortenson, who gave me the authority to design and manage research projects

at KS&R and wholly supported me in my decision to pursue a doctoral degree.

iii

Reflecting on my experience as a doctoral student, I struggle to think of a program that may have better fit my research interests; I think it does not exist. I find it even more difficult to think about being advised by anyone but Dr. Jeffrey James. I am deeply appreciative of Dr.

James, not only for encouraging me to move to Tallahassee, but also for the guided freedom he has given me as a doctoral student. Dr. James has never discouraged me from exploring my seemingly endless, often strange, stream of thoughts regarding sport consumer behavior; instead, he has enthusiastically supported me. Repeatedly, Dr. James has turned my frustration into calmness, my eagerness into patience, and perhaps most importantly, my doubt into confidence.

It is odd to think I have only known Dr. James for three years, perhaps because we have been through a lot during this time; I believe this has propelled our relationship into a truly collegial one, and I look forward to maintaining this relationship for years to come.

As a doctoral student at Florida State, I have been encouraged to conduct research I am passionate about, using methods that allow me to embrace creativity. I am thankful for

Drs. Michael Giardina and Joshua Newman, whose enthusiasm for qualitative inquiry helped ignite my own interest in this area. I also feel indebted to Dr. Giardina for recognizing my excitement for Syracuse University Men’s Basketball early in my doctoral studies and encouraging me to leverage my fandom in my research, which ultimately led to this dissertation.

Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of being a doctoral student at Florida State has been my ability to build relationships with faculty outside of the sport management department, especially Dr. Gerald Ferris. Dr. Ferris’ genuine interest and enthusiasm in supporting sport management doctoral students is admirable. I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to study with Dr. Ferris and for him to be a member of my dissertation committee.

In addition to my dissertation committee members, my work on this dissertation and

other accomplishments as a doctoral student may not have been as significant or meaningful if it

were not for other academics I have met along this journey. I am particularly appreciative of: Dr.

Robert Eklund, for encouraging me to study group identity during my first year at Florida State;

Dr. Yukyoum Kim, for mentoring me throughout my doctoral studies; Dr. John Peloza, for pointing me to a vast consumer behavior literature outside of sport to draw upon in my research;

and Dr. Stephen Ross, for being a good friend and mentor.

As I near the end of my doctoral studies, I have realized that perhaps the most joyful part

of being a doctoral student is not the exams passed, manuscripts accepted for publication, jobs

offered, or dissertations defended, but instead the relationships formed along the way. This is

especially true of the relationships I have formed with the sport management doctoral students at

Florida State; I believe our range of backgrounds and interests enhances our experience as

doctoral students. I am incredibly thankful for my buddies who have kept me sane and made this journey all the more worthwhile, including: Simon Brandon-Lai, Cole Armstrong, Kyle Bunds,

Justin Lovich, Tim Kellison, Jordan Bass, Jeeyoon Kim, Mark DiDonato, Eric George, Chris

McLeod, John Holden, and Matt Horner. I will never forget the time we have spent together and

I look forward to our reunions for years to come.

Finally, I must thank Syracuse fans, especially those I interviewed as part of this

dissertation, whose graciousness made this project a success; collectively, they make me proud

to be a Syracuse fan and Central New Yorker. Let’s Go Orange!

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ...... viii List of Abbreviations ...... ix Abstract ...... x 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Preface ...... 1 What is the “Team” in Team Identification? ...... 4 What is the “Identity” in Team Identification? ...... 7 Why Does the “Team” and “Identity” in Team Identification Matter? ...... 9 Purpose and Research Questions ...... 10 Dissertation Chapters ...... 12 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 16 Psychological Connection to Sport ...... 17 Why is “Team” Ambiguous? ...... 29 Sport Teams as Brands ...... 33 Identity ...... 40 Summary ...... 65 3. METHODS ...... 68 Interviews ...... 69 Concept Mapping ...... 76 Research Methods in the Current Project ...... 78 Summary ...... 86 4. RESEARCH CONTEXT: SYRACUSE AND CENTRAL NEW YORK ...... 88 An Introduction to Syracuse and Central New York ...... 89 Sport in Syracuse and Central New York ...... 96 Syracuse University Men’s Basketball ...... 99 Summary ...... 108 5. WHAT IS THE "TEAM" IN TEAM IDENTIFICATION? ...... 110 Defining the Team ...... 110 (Team) Performance and (Team) Identification ...... 119 The (Un)Fixed Nature of Team ...... 121 Discussion ...... 123 6. WHAT IS THE "IDENTITY" IN TEAM IDENTIFICATION? ...... 142 Idiographic Analysis ...... 144 Cross-Case Analysis ...... 163 Discussion ...... 167 7. GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 171 Summary of Findings ...... 172 Limitations and Future Research Suggestions ...... 175 Conclusion ...... 176 APPENDICES ...... 178 A. INTERVIEW DISCUSSION GUIDE ...... 178 B. IRB APPROVAL MEMORANDUM ...... 181 C. IRB RE-APPROVAL MEMORANDUM ...... 184 D. BEHAVIORAL CONSENT FORM ...... 186 E. PARTICIPANT CONCEPT MAPS ...... 189

References ...... 202 Biographical Sketch ...... 215

vii

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Team Identification Items ...... 20

3.1 Research Aims and Research Questions ...... 68

3.2 Participant Information ...... 81

4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Central New York Counties ...... 90

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACC Atlantic Coast Conference AHL American Hockey League BIRG Bask In Reflected Glory CCT Consumer Culture Theory CORF Cut Off Reflected Failure IL International League MLB Major League Baseball NBA National Basketball Association NCAA National Collegiate Athletic Association NFL National Football League NHL National Hockey League PAI Points of Attachment Index PCM Psychological Continuum Model SSIS Sport Spectator Identification Scale SU Syracuse University SUNY State University of New York TAM Team Associations Model TBAS Team Brand Associations Scale

ABSTRACT

For decades, sport consumer behavior scholars have been interested in understanding individuals’ psychological connection to sport teams. Through their efforts—including the development of concepts such as team identification—scholars have provided a foundation for subsequent research into various consumer thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors in relation to identification with or attachment to a team. However, scholars have not studied how sport consumers construct the team in regard to their psychological connection to it. Moreover, sport

consumer behavior scholars have not addressed the potential fluidity and/or partiality of the

sense of self one derives from supporting a team. These scholars have also often overlooked the

contextual circumstances in which sport-related identities are negotiated and maintained.

Collectively, the preceding shortcomings are what led me to the research I conducted in

this dissertation. Given the complexity of the research aims, I conducted qualitative research

with sport consumers, utilizing Syracuse University Men’s Basketball as a case to study. I

utilized phenomenological interviews and concept mapping to understand the meaning of team in

the mind of consumers and how individuals derive a sense of self from such an entity. In

conducting the research, I remained cognizant of the situational aspects of the research

environment, acknowledging the temporal sensitivity of the research act.

In pursuing of Research Aim 1 (i.e., to understand the meaning of “team” in team

identification), I discovered that the individuals interviewed consider the coach, current and

former players, fans, facility, geographic location, rivalry, and a history of success part of the

“team” they identify with. I also found that the meaning of “team” varies based on its use in

regard to psychological connection (i.e., identification) versus performance. Finally, I discovered

that the meaning of “team” is continually changing and thus, relatively unfixed. Considering

Research Aim 2 (i.e., to understand the stability and sources of identity associated with supporting the team), I discovered that the group identity of Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball is constructed in both a social and cultural sense, and largely influenced by history.

Essentially, the sense of self individuals derive from supporting Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball is continually changing based on the life-world of the individuals and changes in the program; this allowed me to highlight the importance of context in studying fan identity. In addition, I discussed the enmeshed nature of group identity regarding Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball and Central New York.

Collectively, the research I have conducted in this project allows me to contribute to the sport consumer behavior by illustrating the complex meaning of team in regard to individuals’ psychological connection to sport teams. This research should be of interest to scholars and practitioners in regard to branding, targeted marketing, and consumer well-being. Future research into this area should allow scholars and practitioners to understand how the meaning of team and team-related group identities may change over time and in varied sport environments, and the influence of such on behaviors.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Preface

I conceived the idea for this project somewhat fortuitously, largely influenced by my own life experiences. Born and raised in Central New York, I have been a Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball fan for as long as I can remember—I “bleed orange,” will never forget where I was when Syracuse won the National Championship in 2003, and will always feel at home inside the

Carrier Dome. As such, I feel it is necessary to begin this introductory chapter by telling my own abridged “Orange-story” which I believe played a significant role in igniting my interest in studying sport consumer behavior and eventually, devising this research project.

Growing up in Oswego, New York, a small city on the shore of Lake Ontario about 40 miles north of Syracuse, New York, Syracuse fandom was instilled in me from an early age. My father, a native Oswegonian, is a lifelong Syracuse fan, and my mother grew up in Wayne

County, New York, the same rural Central New York county where long-time head coach Jim

Boeheim was raised. As Boeheim became increasingly successful, my grandmother used to proudly remind us she was once Boeheim’s teacher at Lyons Central High School in Lyons, New

York. My parents have told the story on numerous occasions of the time my oldest sister, then six years old, cried when Syracuse lost the National Championship to Indiana University in

1987, and my superstitious brother is convinced every time he attends a Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball game at Madison Square Garden, his presence causes Syracuse to lose.

When Syracuse won the National Championship in 2003, my best friend’s father emotionally explained how he had waited his whole life for that day to come. In the weeks that followed, I heard similar stories among other Syracuse fans in Central New York as we rejoiced

in the victory with a parade in downtown Syracuse, celebrations at the Carrier Dome, and

speaking engagements between players and fans. It was during this time I began to realize, for

many Central New Yorkers, Syracuse University Men’s Basketball is a way of life. I would say

the same of myself—Syracuse University Men’s Basketball is not just a team I support, but also

an entity to which I owe a collection of memories. Syracuse basketball is part of my life.

Notably, I did not attend Syracuse University, nor did anyone in my family or most of the

Syracuse fans I know. Moreover, although I was incubated by the Central New York community

of Orange fans growing up, it was not until I ventured outside of the region that I began to realize

the meaning associated with being that fan—the individual who is often relentlessly questioned on her fanship to a team which she has no apparent affiliation. Over time, the inquisitive interrogations of others led me to question the legitimacy of my Syracuse fanship, to wonder who (and perhaps what) should and should not validate one’s perceived connection to the team, and eventually, in particular specificity to this project, to consider what or who might constitute elements of the team and the identity one derives from support of such an entity.

Perhaps more so than the games themselves, my greatest memories as a Syracuse fan involve the rituals, traditions, and celebrations around being a Syracuse fan: the “Dome walks” as I now refer to them1; the stand-and-clap2; the countless orange T-shirts I have collected over the years; the pep rallies before Big East Tournament games at Madison Square Garden; and the sense of otherness felt when seeing a Georgetown University or University of Connecticut (and now, Duke University) fan. I believe these intangible experiences have influenced and are in some ways part of how I identify myself as a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan.

1 The “Dome walk” describes the long, uphill walk Syracuse fans make from parking garages to the Carrier Dome in Syracuse, New York. 2 At the beginning of each half of basketball games, Syracuse fans stand and clap in unison until a Syracuse player scores a field goal. 2

Additionally, I believe tangible aspects of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, such as the

Carrier Dome, Coach Jim Boeheim, and other Syracuse fans, have also influenced and are in

some ways part of my Syracuse Orange identity. In a sense, I consider some of these seemingly peripheral intangible and tangible aspects of the entity as central to my connection to the

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team.

Interestingly, although the accumulation of my experiences as a Syracuse fan have certainly shaped my Syracuse Orange identity, I am concurrently aware that this identity has influenced, and is influenced by, my previous and current accomplishments as a student-athlete,

young professional, daughter, sibling, friend, and so on. My Syracuse Orange identity has

influenced, and is influenced by, the places I have lived, the people I have known, and

opportunities afforded to me.

The meaning of my Syracuse Orange identity at this moment is not a replication of what

it was five years ago or one year ago, and it likely will not be the same as it will be five years

from now or one year from now. Essentially, the meaning of my Syracuse Orange identity is

malleable, and the borders between it and my other identities are sometimes vague. However,

despite the apparent fluid nature of my Syracuse Orange identity, I quizzically view my

connection to Syracuse University Men’s Basketball as a constant in my life; that is, despite

changes to the “team” I support, I have maintained a heightened connection to it, thus allowing

me to realize an enhanced sense of self.

In summary, my Syracuse Orange fan identity is what inspired this project. Although I

could have conducted this research in almost any sport team environment, it made sense for me

to choose Syracuse University Men’s Basketball as a case to study, as it enabled me to utilize my

intimate connection to the Syracuse Orange community. Thus, while it is apparent I veered from

objective research in this project, I believe the act of doing so afforded me the opportunity to

conduct transparent, collaborative, and pragmatic research, all aimed at obtaining a deep

understanding of what the “team” means to individuals and its influence on identity projects.

In the remaining pages of this introductory chapter, I consider the notion of an

individual’s psychological connection to a sport object. Specifically, I discuss team identification

(Wann & Branscombe, 1993), a concept referenced and utilized extensively in analyses of sport

consumer behavior, before abruptly challenging what both team and identity mean. I emphasize

the need for scholars and practitioners to understand how fans and spectators construct the team as well as the sense of self they derive from their affiliation with such an entity, arguing that such

can afford a more cohesive and strategic approach to marketing activities, as well as a greater

understanding of the influence of sport consumption on individuals. Subsequently, I introduce

the research purpose and research questions. Finally, I conclude the chapter with a brief outline

of the remaining chapters of this dissertation.

What is the “Team” in Team Identification?

Social psychology scholars have taken great interest in understanding individuals’ perceived connections to sport entities (e.g., Cialdini, Borden, Thorne, Walker, Freeman, &

Sloan, 1976; Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Funk & James, 2001; Heere & James, 2007a; Wann &

Branscombe, 1993). Perhaps the most widely utilized term associated with sport fans’ psychological connection to a sport entity is team identification (grounded in social identity theory; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), the degree of an individual’s psychological connection with a sport team or event (Wann & Branscombe, 1993).

Scholars have posited that consumers with high team identification are more involved with and committed to a sport entity than those with low team identification (Wann &

Branscombe, 1993). Scholars have also suggested that team identification is positively related to

a variety of sport related behaviors, such as attitude toward sponsors (Madrigal, 2001), team

merchandise purchasing behavior (Kwon & Armstrong, 2002), and fan aggression (Dimmock &

Grove, 2005). The range of work reflects scholars’ interest in understanding the behaviors and processes underlying sport consumption, and the extent to which team identification influences

such consumption.

Scholars have developed unidimensional (e.g., Wann & Branscombe, 1993) and multidimensional (e.g., Heere & James, 2007a) constructs to measure team identification.

Collectively, however, these constructs contain ambiguous references to the “team” without an explicit definition of what might be thought to comprise such a group. For example, an item in

Wann and Branscombe’s (1993) Sport Spectator Identification Scale (SSIS) is worded, “How important is being a fan of [team] to you?” (p. 5). Such a question fails to address—or perhaps, mistakenly assumes—the consumer’s dynamic perception of what constitutes the team.

Considering social identity—particularly, the sense of self one derives from being a member of a group—this omission is critical, as the elements that comprise the group (i.e., the “team” as constructed by the consumer) are likely fundamental to the consumer’s psychological connection to the group.

Points of Attachment

The notion of consumers relating the “team” to other entities has been addressed in various discussions of multiple group identities or points of attachment. In introducing the points of attachment index (PAI), Trail, Robinson, Dick and Gillentine (2003) suggested the following as potential points of attachment: team, players, community, coaches, university, and sport type/level. As well, building on Heere and James’ (2007b) discussion of the idea of the team as

representative of multiple group identities, Heere, James, Yoshida, and Scremin (2011) found

that college students’ university, city, and state identities positively influenced their

identification with a university football team. Heere and his colleagues concluded, “Any change

to the state identity or university identity can have direct and indirect effects on the identity

students have with the football team” (p. 619).

Although external entities may indeed be influential in an individual’s attachment to a team, one might contend that—in the mind of the consumer—these elements might actually be part of the team. Indeed, while encouraging marketers to adopt a broader perspective of the team,

Heere and James (2007b) emphasized the possibility of sport fans themselves as being considered part of the team. In addition to fans, it could be possible that other points of attachment (e.g., coaches, community)—as discussed by Trail et al. (2003) and Heere and James

(2007b)—are defining elements of the team in the mind of the consumer as a result of their symbolic meanings; however, the literature is void of such empirical findings.

Team Brand Associations

Separate from the points of attachment literature, scholars have considered consumers’ associations (i.e., thoughts) with a particular sport entity for business purposes, specifically brand equity (e.g., Ross, James, & Vargas, 2006). Brand associations are considered a fundamental component in consumer-based brand equity (Keller, 2003b), and thus are important for sport managers to understand. Ross et al. (2006) developed the team brand association scale (TBAS) to understand consumers’ thoughts about a team; the TBAS includes multiple dimensions such as team history, brand mark, and rivalry. Scholars have since examined team brand associations in relation to team identification. Ross and James (2007) found that individuals characterized by high team identification had stronger team brand associations than those characterized by low or

moderate team identification. Walsh and Ross (2010) found that erosion of team brand

associations as a result of exposure to potential brand extensions was less likely among

consumers with high team identification than those with low or moderate identification.

However, scholars have not explored the notion of team brand associations as part of the team in the mind of the consumer. Explicitly, if individuals think of, for example, team success, team history, the fans themselves, and particular rivalries when thinking about the team, perhaps these elements are actually constructed as their “definition” of team.

What is the “Identity” in Team Identification?

As mentioned, team identification is grounded in social identity theory, the notion that an individual derives a greater sense of self from the perceived awareness, value, and emotional significance of belonging to a group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Within sport consumer behavior, scholars have conceptualized and utilized team identification in a manner that often glides over the cultural and historical elements discussed by many scholars of social identity theory (e.g.,

Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979); acknowledging the foundations of social identity theory, these elements are fundamental to the team’s carried meaning and/or perception, however much of the team identification literature is void of discussions of the fluidity of social identities.

In venturing outside the boundaries of the social psychology discipline, one can find that scholars have indeed have considered the fluidity of identity. Specifically, cultural studies scholars have long contended that identities are fluid, malleable, and socially constructed (Hall,

1996), continually changing based on sociocultural and sociohistorical circumstances (Bhabha,

1996; Grossberg, 1996). Moreover, from this perspective, groups from which individuals derive a sense of self are much fuzzier—more gray—than we might think (Bhabha, 1996; Zerubavel,

1993); that is, one might not necessarily easily place themselves in a particular social group, and,

7 because such groups are subject to change based on contextual circumstances, determining who

is and who is not a member of particular groups can be problematic. Additionally, many scholars

have rationalized that contextual approaches are most ideal to comprehending identity.

Contextualized approaches to examining identity, as du Gay, Evans, and Redman (2000) noted,

allow scholars to emphasize “the historical contingency and plurality of personae and the

necessity of not abstracting properties of particular forms of personhood from the specific

cultural milieu in which they are formed” (p. 4).

Scholars have described the self-concept as a ‘context-dependent cognitive

representation’ (Onorato & Turner, 2004, p. 260). However, within sport, scholars’

operationalization of identity to understand the influence of sport on the self have frequently

stripped away such context-dependent factors (for exceptions, see, e.g., Beissel, Giardina &

Newman, 2013; Shobe, 2008). Interestingly, such context-rich perspectives of identity can be

found in the consumer behavior literature (see, e.g., Arnould & Thompson, 2005; Holt, 1995;

Schouten, 1991)3; scholars have discussed the value of descriptive research that accounts for the life-world of the individual (see, e.g., Thompson, Locander, & Pollio, 1989). It is difficult to argue that scholars aiming to understand the social structures from which one perceives reality and thus derives a sense of self (Hogg & Abrams, 1988) within sport might not benefit from research conducted within—and with a deep understanding of—these very social structures and contextual circumstances.

3 Notably, these consumer behavior scholars’ “context-rich” discussions of identity have been taken up through an interpretivist worldview, compared to a majority of the team identification literature conducted through a post-positivist paradigm. I discuss these paradigmatic differences in detail in Chapter 2. 8

Why Does the “Team” and “Identity” in Team Identification Matter?

In endeavoring to comprehend the team and identity in team identification, it is important to understand the value in doing so; that is, why the meaning (or definition) of each of these

terms matters. Additionally, in venturing to comprehend why the meaning of team and identity in

team identification matter, it is equally important to acknowledge who these terms matter for.

Essentially, understanding the meaning of these terms has potential implications for both sport

organizations and sport consumers.

For sport organizations, considerations of the “team” as constructed by the consumer

could potentially allow sport marketers to communicate more effectively with consumers by

understanding what particular elements of the team resonate with individuals. For example, if

individuals believe a sport facility is imperative to their connection with a sport team—indeed, if

they believe the facility is part of the team—including such material in communications

regarding the entity might be beneficial for the organization. As well, if an individual’s

conceptualization of the “team” varies based on his or her unique life-world (including factors

such as socioeconomic status or life stage), understanding how the “team” meaning varies among

specific groups of individuals may be beneficial in targeted marketing campaigns.4

From a more strategic marketing perspective, understanding what consumers believe the

team is comprised of could allow sport organizations to understand that any potential change in

what individuals may believe the team is comprised of could inherently jeopardize—or

challenge—individuals’ psychological connection to a sport entity. For example, if individuals believe the specific geographic location a team plays in is a defining element of the team,

4 Although I understand that lumping individuals into groups is potentially harmful in that it assumes certain individuals have similarities that can be marketed to homogeneously (Zerubavel, 1996), I also understand the pragmatic nature of the sport industry and the need for some degree of “grouping” in marketing endeavors. 9

considerations of moving the team should also warrant considerations of potentially threatening

individuals’ connection to the sport entity. Moreover, given the possibility the team may potentially consist of a variety of (fluid) elements in the mind of the consumer that contribute to

some greater object of identification, the team may be unique relative to other entities an

individual may form a psychological connection to.

The potential fluidity of the team could emphasize the power of sport to connect with some individuals on such heightened levels that, despite such uncertainty, connections to sport entities still remain. In this regard, considering the influence of a psychological connection to sport on the individual, it would be important to understand the effort individuals may exert to remain connected to teams despite their ever-changing structure.

Purpose and Research Questions

My purpose in this research project is to better understand how sport consumers construct the sport team, and the sense of self they derive from such an entity. As mentioned, scholars examining team identification—while certainly progressing the study of fan behavior in regard to fan-team relationships—have not endeavored to understand how fans construct the team in team identification. Further, although evident in seminal work on social identity theory (e.g., Hogg &

Abrams, 1988), scholars of team identification have not deeply investigated the idea of fluidity and partiality of group identity, and they have also often overlooked the contextual circumstances in which such identities are formed, negotiated, and maintained (that is, in examining team identification, scholars often overlook the particular life-worlds, or lived experiences, of the individuals interviewed). Given the purpose of the research, my fundamental research aims and questions in this project are:

Research Aim 1: To understand the elements of the team from the consumer’s perspective.

RQ1a: According to the fans or spectators I interview, how do they define the team?

RQ1b: According to the fans or spectators I interview, is there a difference between the

meaning of team in terms of performance versus the meaning of team in terms of

the entity they are psychologically connected to?

RQ1c: According to the fans or spectators I interview, is the meaning of team fixed?

Research Aim 2: To understand both the stability and source(s) of identity associated with supporting the team.

RQ2a: According to the fans or spectators I interview, is their identification with the

team constructed in a social and/or cultural sense?

RQ2b: To what extent are sociocultural and sociohistorical conditions influential in

identities realized through supporting the team?

To address the preceding research aims and questions, I utilized interviewing and concept mapping as qualitative research method. Specifically, I engaged with Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball fans and spectators5, immersing myself into the research environment to obtain a deep

understanding of how individuals construct the team and the sense of self (if any) they derive as

a result.

In addressing the research questions in the current project, I maintained a heightened

awareness of the lived experiences of the individuals I engage with in an effort to obtain a rich

appreciation for how individuals construct the team. Thus, following a phenomenological

5 Trail et al. (2003) noted the importance of distinguishing between fans and spectators of a team for theoretical and managerial purposes. Essentially, a fan is one who identifies with the team, whereas a spectator does not; marketing activities may need to be specialized to the wants and needs of fans versus spectators. A description of how I will distinguish between fans and spectators in the current study is provided in Chapter Three. 11

approach to interviewing, understanding the life-world of the individual in consideration of the

research questions was an overarching component of this project.

Dissertation Chapters

In Chapter One, I have introduced the significance and purpose of this study, and the

research aims and questions. In the remaining chapters of this dissertation, I will: review the

relevant literature (Chapter Two); introduce the methods used to investigate the research aims

(Chapter Three); describe the context in which I conducted this research (Chapter Four); and present and discuss the findings of the research (Chapters Five and Six), and summarize and

conclude the findings (Chapter Seven). I have summarized each of these chapters in the paragraphs that follow.

In Chapter Two, I review the literature relevant to this research project in five sections.

First, I discuss the notion of individuals’ psychological connection to a sport entity, reviewing

the team identification (Wann & Branscombe, 1993) and points of attachment (Trail et al., 2003)

literature, as well as related concepts, such as internalization (Kolbe & James, 2003) and the psychological continuum model (Funk & James, 2001, 2006); in each of these instances, I scrutinize how scholars have (or have not) acknowledged what is meant by team.

Second, upon making apparent scholars’ neglect to understand the meaning of team in terms of one’s psychological connection to the entity, I contend that the ambiguity of team may be a result of the paradigmatic perspectives of those who have dominated research in this area.

Specifically, I explain how the overwhelming majority of the psychological connection to sport research has been conducted from a post-positivist worldview—in which one believes in a single reality—which might partially explain why scholars have not addressed the ambiguity of team

despite decades of research on individuals’ identification with this “object”. Consideration of

interpretivist worldviews (e.g., the ontological belief in multiple realities) allows me to speculate

the potential (multiplicity of) meaning(s) of team among individuals.

Third, I discuss the extent to which scholars have conceptualized sport teams as brands,

calling upon the brand knowledge literature (Keller, 2003a) as well as the work that has been

conducted in regard to spectator sport brand equity (Ross, 2006) and sport team brand

associations (Ross et al., 2006). My discussion of sport teams as brands and individuals’

associations with such entities allows me to speculate the possibility of brand associations as

elements comprising the team in the mind of the consumer.

Fourth, I discuss identity as it has been theorized by scholars from multiple disciplinary views. Specifically, I review social psychological theories of intergroup behavior and social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) as well as cultural studies (Hall & du Gay, 2000) perspectives on identity. This review allows me to develop an interdisciplinary appreciation of identity to reflect upon in carrying out this research project.

In Chapter Three, I discuss the methods I employed to answer the research questions posed in Chapter One. After acknowledging my grounding of this research project in the interpretive paradigm, I discuss the specific methods used in pursuit of the research aims, including interviews and concept mapping. Specifically, I lean on the phenomenological interview (Thompson et al., 1989) to follow an unstructured approach to interviewing. My use of concept mapping allowed me to elucidate individuals’ construction of team organically (rather than outright probing to find if particular objects or experiences are considered part of the team).

I conclude Chapter Three by discussing specific elements of the research design for this project, including participants and procedure, materials, and analysis.

As I have emphasized in this introductory chapter, an overarching endeavor in

conducting this research was to maintain a heightened awareness of the contextual specificities

of the research environment. As such, in Chapter Four, I discuss the research context for the project. Specifically, I introduce the reader to Syracuse and the surrounding Central New York

region, detailing the rise and decline of urbanization and industrialization in the region. I also

acknowledge sport in Syracuse, the various major and minor league professional teams the area

has supported over time, and Syracuse University Athletics.

In Chapter Five, I share and discuss the findings of Research Aim 1, to understand the

elements of “team” from the consumer’s perspective. I discuss a definition of “team” in team

identification, based on interviews conducted with Syracuse fans, which includes the coach,

current and former players, fans, facility, geographic location, rivalry, and a history of success. I

also discuss how the meaning of “team” varies based on its use in regard to psychological

connection (i.e., identification) versus performance, and how the meaning of “team” in team

identification is continually changing and thus, relatively unfixed. I conclude Chapter Five by

discussing these findings and offering implications for scholars and practitioners.

In Chapter Six, I address Research Aim 2, to understand the stability and sources of

identity associated with supporting the team. I discover that the group identity of Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball is constructed in both a social and cultural sense, and largely

influenced by history. Essentially, the sense of self individuals derive from supporting Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball is continually changing based on the life-world of the individuals

and changes in the program. In addition, I discuss the enmeshed nature of group identity

regarding Syracuse University Men’s Basketball and Central New York. I conclude Chapter Six

14 by discussing the implications of these findings for scholars, particularly emphasizing the

importance of context in studying fan identity.

In Chapter Seven, I revisit the overall purpose of the research I conducted in this

dissertation and summarize the findings of the research, briefly addressing each research aim and

question. I conclude by discussing the limitations of the research and providing suggestions for

future research.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

As I emphasized in Chapter One, sport scholars have examined the concept of team

identification as a means to understand an individual’s psychological connection to a sport object

and the attitudinal and behavioral consequences of such. In endeavoring to do so, however,

scholars have not addressed a somewhat critical question: In the mind of the sport consumer,

what is the team? Further, is the idea of the team in the mind of the consumer—in regard to his or her psychological connection to the entity—fixed or fluid?

The potential ambiguity of team is perhaps what has kept scholars from addressing these complex questions, however I contend consideration of these questions is necessary to obtain a richer, fuller understanding of an individual’s psychological connection to a sport entity. As such, in this chapter, I review the literature that has led me to my fundamental research aims for this project, which will serve to guide me in carrying out this research.

First, I review the psychological connection to sport literature with a particular focus on team identification. Second, I interrogate the ambiguity of team, acknowledging the epistemological and ontological assumptions that have perhaps contributed to the continuance of such ambiguity in the team concept over time. Third, I discuss sport teams as brands, acknowledging the work that scholars have conducted in regard to team brand associations, and the possibility of such associations being enmeshed in the sport consumer’s concept of the team.

Fourth, I undo the notion of identity in team identification, engaging in a multidisciplinary review of identity theories that ultimately leads me to a relatively interdisciplinary perspective of identity from which to conduct this research. Fifth, I discuss micro and macro consumer behavior, emphasizing that both approaches to the study of consumer behavior are not only

necessarily, but potentially complementary. Collectively, the various topics I review in this

chapter provide the framework for the research to be conducted in this project.

Psychological Connection to Sport

For decades, numerous scholars of sport consumer behavior have endeavored to understand the perceived connection individuals form with sport entities. Although scholars have focused on both the sociological and psychological aspects of individuals’ connection to sport entities, many sport scholars have focused on the psychological connection individuals have with the sport entities they support (Funk & James, 2001). Scholars have used a variety of terms to describe the connection an individual may have with a sport entity, including identification

(Wann & Branscombe, 1993), allegiance (Funk & James, 2001), and internalization (Kolbe &

James, 2003); although the components or “stages” within these conceptual models vary, commonalities can be found. Collectively, these scholars have illustrated that individuals with heightened levels of psychological connection to a sport entity often exhibit stronger attitudinal and behavioral loyalty toward the sport entity of interest. As such, in the following section, I review the identification, allegiance, and internalization concepts, paying particular attention to the notion of team identification.

Team Identification

Considering the study of sport consumers’ psychological connection to sport entities, perhaps the most well-known and utilized concept has been that of team identification (Wann &

Branscombe, 1990, 1993). Before in depth review of the team identification literature, however,

it is important to begin by briefly noting the various literatures from which team identification

emerged.

Scholars such as Wann and Branscombe (1993) utilized the seminal work of scholars

such as Cialdini, Borden, Thorne, Walker, Freeman, and Sloan (1976) and Sloan (1989) as a

fundamental framework to understand: the ways in which individuals may affiliate themselves

with sport entities as a way to enhance their own self-esteem; the various motives individuals

have for consuming sport to fulfill basic needs; and the extent to which individuals might come

to perceive themselves as part of a sport entity (i.e., via perceived group membership).

Collectively, these various works conducted by scholars through the 1980s laid the foundation

for the conceptualizations offered by sport consumer behavior scholars beginning in the 1990s

and continuing today.

Basking in reflected glory. In their observation and interview research with college

students, Cialdini et al. (1976) suggested that individuals affiliated themselves with the

university’s successful football team as a way to positively enhance their self-esteem. This basking in reflected glory phenomenon has since been examined and furthered by several

scholars, including, Branscombe and Wann (1991); Cialdini and Richardson (1980); Dalakas and

Melancon (2012); Madrigal and Chen (2008); and Trail et al. (2012). Branscombe and Wann

(1991), for example, suggested that individuals who were “die-hard” fans (i.e., those with high

levels of identification) were more likely to bask in the reflected glory (BIRG) of the team and

less likely to cut off reflected failures (CORF) than “fair-weather” fans (i.e., those with a lower

level of identification).

The team as a symbolic entity. Scholars such as Anderson and Stone (1981) and Sloan

(1989) provided foundational discussion of consumers’ psychological connection to sport.

Anderson and Stone (1981) suggested that a sport team may become a symbolic representation

of community for individuals, thus to some extent encouraging the formation of psychological

connections. As well, Sloan (1989) discussed that for some individuals who feel a strong

psychological connection to a sport team, they may feel as if they are part of the team itself; this

is an important point to note, as this is essentially how concepts such as team identification have

since been built, the consumer feeling as if they are part of a group—that is, the team—and

subsequently deriving a sense of self from it.

The team identification concept. Wann, Melnick, Russell, and Pease (2001) described

team identification as the degree of psychological connection an individual may have with a

sport entity. Because team identification is grounded in social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner,

1979), it is important to note that “connection” here refers to the extent to which an individual perceives herself as belonging to a group (in this instance, the “team”) and as such has an

enhanced sense of self from this connection. Scholars have illustrated that team identification is positively related to various consumer behaviors, including attitudes toward sponsors (Madrigal,

2001), team merchandise purchasing behavior (Kwon & Armstrong, 2002), amount paid to

attend events (Wann & Branscombe, 1993), fan aggression (Dimmock & Grove, 2005), social- psychological health (Wann, 2006), and team brand associations (Ross & James, 2007).

As Lock et al. (2012) noted, team identification is an ‘attitudinal barometer’ (p. 284) in

that it can allow scholars to predict various consumer behaviors. However, in measuring team

identification, scholars’ references to the “team” have been relatively ambiguous—essentially, it

is not known what consumers think of when answering questions about their psychological

connection to (or identification with) the team; this shortcoming is evident in both the

unidimensional and multidimensional scales scholars have developed to measure team

identification.

Measurement of team identification. In introducing team identification, Wann and

Branscombe (1993) developed the SSIS; the SSIS is a unidimensional scale comprised of seven items measured on an eight-point likert-type scale. Considering all of the team identification scales offered by scholars to date, the SSIS has been utilized the most; however, as previously noted, considering the object the SSIS is purported to measure a connection to (i.e., the team), references to the team are not explicit, thus leaving respondents to interpret in their own minds what such a “team” may consist of. Similar shortcomings can be found in Trail and James’

(2001) unidimensional team identification index, a three-item measure using a seven-point likert- type scale to measure team identification.

Table 2.1. Team Identification Items

Scale Example Items

Sport Spectator • How strongly do you see yourself as a fan of the [team]? Identification Index • (Wann & Branscombe, How strongly do your friends see you as a fan of the [team]? 1993) Group Identification • If asked who I am, one thing I'll tell is that I am a fan of this team. (Fisher & Wakefield, • 1998) The team is an important part of my life.

Team Identification • I would feel a loss if I had to give up being a [team] fan. Index (Trail & James, • 2001) Others recognize that I am a big [team] fan. Multidimensional Team Identification Scale • When I talk about my favorite team, I say “we” rather than “they.” (Dimmock, Grove, & • I am proud to be a fan of my favorite team. Eklund, 2005)

TEAM*ID (Heere & • The team I am a fan of is an important reflection of who I am. James, 2007a) • I have a strong sense of belonging to my team.

Ambiguous references to the team continue when reviewing multidimensional scales

scholars have developed to measure team identification (see, e.g., Dimmock, Grove, & Eklund,

2005; Heere & James, 2007). Although the use of multidimensional scales to measure team

identification is insightful in that it allows scholars to gauge various components of group

identity (see Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004), considering the focal object of such

measures (i.e., the team) it still remains unknown what this entity might be comprised of in the

mind of the sport consumer (see Table 2.1 for examples of team identification items containing

ambiguous references to the “team” as the focal object).

Development and maintenance of team identification. Although scholars have conducted a considerable amount of research regarding the behaviors of individuals as a result of team identification (e.g., examining differences in behavior based on identification), scholars have paid much less attention to the development and maintenance of team identification.

Exceptions include the work of scholars such as Wann (2006) and Lock et al. (2012) which have been particularly insightful in considering how individuals come to be “identified” with a sport entity, and subsequently, how the maintenance of such identification influences individuals.

Wann (2006) briefly explained that team identification might develop from psychological, environmental, or team-based sources. Psychological bases of team identification include the feeling of belongingness or affiliation individuals derive from connecting with a team; environmental bases of team identification entail the socializing aspects of sport; and team-based aspects of team identification include the success of the team or specific players.

In their qualitative research conducted with supporters of a new football club in Australia,

Lock and colleagues (2012) found that individuals’ identification with the football club increased over the course of the first season. Specifically, Lock and colleagues found that individuals

interviewed exhibited both extrinsic (i.e., searching for information about the club, publicizing

their connection to the club with others in word-of-mouth type behavior) and intrinsic (centrality

in that supporting the team began to be integrated into their everyday life, and feeling a

connection to others such as players and coaches) aspects of connection to the football club.

In terms of maintaining a connection to a sport entity, Wann’s (2006) extensive Team

Identification-Social Psychological Health Model has been the most insightful in that in this

model, Wann explained the ways in which individuals may: form temporary or enduring

connections to a sport team; cope with various threats to said connection with a sport team; and

realize an enhanced sense of self from identifying with a sport entity (i.e., social well-being).

Although Wann’s conceptual model is insightful in that it offers a more comprehensive perspective of team identification, most scholars examining team identification have continued to

examine it in its simplest form (i.e., as an attitudinal barometer). Moreover, considering the

meaning of team in team identification, much of Wann’s Team Identification-Social

Psychological Health Model—in line with ordinary measures of team identification—is

relatively ambiguous in this regard; in conceptualizing the model, although Wann acknowledged

various ways in which individuals may come to be identified with a team, he did not

acknowledge the complexities that may be involved in connecting with a sport team, which

might further elucidate why or how individuals are able to maintain such heightened connections

to sport entities.

Other Psychological Connection to Team Concepts

Separate from team identification, sport consumer behavior scholars have offered other

conceptual frameworks for individuals’ psychological connection to sport entities. In considering

how individuals construct the sport team to which they identify with, it is important to

acknowledge these alternative frameworks, including the psychological continuum model (PCM;

Funk & James, 2001, 2006) and internalization (Kolbe & James, 2003); in this section, I review both of these concepts.

Psychological continuum model. The PCM (Funk & James, 2006) consists of distinct processes (awareness, attraction, and attachment) and outcomes (level 1, level 2, level 3, and

allegiance). Similar to other sport consumer typologies, scholars and practitioners can utilize the

PCM to understand an individual’s connection to a sport entity. Although Funk and James

(2006) emphasized that an individual may not systematically progress through the PCM’s

various processes and outcomes, a step-by-step explanation of such a progression effectively

illustrates movement within the continuum.

According to Funk and James (2006), an individual’s relationship with a sport entity is posited to begin through the process of awareness (via socialization; see Greendorfer, 2002);

subsequently, the individual is knowledgeable of the sport entity (level 1 outcomes). From level

1, an individual may progress to the attraction process, wherein she experiences the hedonic and

social aspects of consumption, which can lead to the formation of positive attitudes toward the

sport entity and needs fulfillment (level 2 outcomes). From level 2, an individual may progress to

the attachment process, marked by an individual internalizing her connection to or perceived

relationship with the sport entity. Through the attachment process, the sport entity begins to take

on symbolic meaning to the individual, representative of her own values and beliefs, and thus

contributing to her overall sense of self. As a result, the individual’s attitudes toward and

identification with the sport entity may be strengthened (level 3 outcomes). From level 3 and/or

attachment processes, an individual may progress to allegiance level outcomes, whereby she becomes committed to her relationship with the sport entity; here, she exhibits persistence of

attitudes toward the entity and resistance to change, as well as biased cognitive processing in

evaluating information about the sport entity (Funk & James, 2006).

Since its inception, various scholars have utilized the PCM as a framework for examining

individuals’ psychological connection to sport. Some scholars have utilized the PCM to conduct

qualitative research (i.e., via interviews) with sport consumers (de Groot & Robinson, 2008; Filo,

Funk, & O’Brien, 2009); others have utilized segmentation instruments (Beaton, Funk, &

Alexandris, 2009) to conduct quantitative research (i.e., via survey) with sport consumers (e.g.,

Doyle, Kunkel, & Funk, 2013). Similar to team identification, however, scholars utilizing the

PCM to understand consumers’ psychological connection to a sport entity have not endeavored

to unpack what the entity (e.g., team) might consist of in the mind of the consumer. Such considerations might be insightful in that they could possibly enable scholars to understand differences in conceptualizations of the team by PCM level, and/or how potential fluidity in the team concept might influence individuals at various levels of the PCM.

Internalization. An additional conceptualization of the way in which individuals form a connection with a sport entity has been offered by Kolbe and James (2003); although not oft cited in the sport consumer behavior literature, the work of these authors is particularly worthy of noting in consideration of the psychological connection individuals form with a sport entity.

Kolbe and James (2003) grounded their work in self-determination theory and social identity theory, and discussed the process of internalization in regard to the connection individuals have with a sport entity, which they describe in three stages: initial, identification, and internalization.

For review purposes, these stages can be equated to the attraction (initial), attachment

(identification), and allegiance (internalization) components of the PCM.

In introducing the concept of internalization, Kolbe and James (2003) conducted research

with Cleveland Browns football fans, using a one-item measure to gauge internalization (i.e., “I bleed Orange and Brown”). Kolbe and James were able to illustrate how individuals may align

with particular stages of the internalization process (initial, identification, and internalization).

As well, the authors measured persistence of attitudes in the same study, finding that individuals

in the internalization group had more persistent attitudes than those in the lower stages of

internalization (thus furthering support of the notion of persistence of attitudes as a key

differentiator between those in the identification stage versus those in the internalization stage).

What is the team? In discussing the concept of internalization and the findings of their

research with Cleveland Browns football fans, a key point raised Kolbe and James (2003) was

the idea that individuals seemed to think of the team differently than other elements of the entity

examined. Specifically, the authors discussed that individuals seemed to have more persistent

attitudes toward the notion of the “team” than they did toward other elements (e.g., the city, the players).

Although Kolbe and James were not able to find why this difference in attitudes may

have existed, and/or what the team might consist of in the minds of individuals studied, they did emphasize that such should be considered in the future, specifically the idea that the team seems

to have a greater meaning than other related objects. Kolbe and James’ speculation of the

meaning of team is largely absent from other psychological connection to team concepts (e.g.,

team identification, PCM) and much of the sport consumer behavior literature in general.

However, it is critically important for scholars to consider as the amalgamation of entities

comprising team in the mind of the consumer are indeed likely the very mixture to which they feel so strongly connected.

In their research on internalization, Kolbe and James (2003) noted that individuals at the

internalization stage—whereby the team becomes a part of the self—appeared to make a

distinction between the team as an entity and its elements, noting that they seemed to think of the

team separate from players, coaches and staff, and other individuals who might be thought as being a part of the team. As such, Kolbe and James wrote:

What is the object that serves as the target of these people’s identity with the team? This

may initially seem obvious, as the answer in this case would appear to be the team.

However, given that ‘The Cleveland Browns team’ was rated as distinct from what would

typically be identified as components of the team, the answer is not quite so clear. ‘The

Cleveland Browns team’ may be represented in peoples’ minds as a real or ephemeral

entity and could represent different things to different people. Further, ‘The Cleveland

Browns team’ might be a summary unit, containing a multitude of characteristics that the

individual has endowed to this entity. As a target for self-identity, the specification of

such an entity among people who follow the team would be an important step in

understanding team loyalty. (p. 40)

Thus, following Kolbe and James, while scholars have found consumers of sport are capable of

forming strong psychological connection to a sport team, the meaning of team has been difficult

to pinpoint. Essentially, investigation of the meaning of the team to sport consumers is warranted

to further our understanding of sport consumer loyalty.

Points of Attachment

Although scholars have utilized team identification, the PCM, and internalization to examine individuals’ psychological connection to a sport entity, as Trail et al. (2003) noted, individuals may have a psychological connection to a variety of objects in sport-related contexts.

As such, Trail and colleagues (2003) described the following points of attachment: team, players,

coach, university, community, sport type, and sport level. Comparing the points of attachment

concept to the various psychological connection to sport concepts discussed previously, points of

attachment has been operationalized similarly to team identification (i.e., building on the work of

Trail & James, 2001). Trail and his colleagues have primarily been interested in understanding points of attachment in regard to sport consumer motivation research (e.g., Kwon, Trail, &

Anderson, 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Trail et al., 2003), as they have suggested that

different points of attachment are associated with particular motives for consuming sport.

The body of literature on points of attachment and sport consumer motivations is

extensive and insightful, however the value in considering points of attachment in this project is

that the points of attachment concept is one of the first within sport management that begins to

illuminate the potential complexity of the idea of the team as an object individuals are psychologically connected to. Specifically, in developing the points of attachment index (PAI),

Trail and his colleagues acknowledged that there are various entities at stake in considering how individuals are attracted to (and for some, identified with) the sport entity of interest.

In studying fans of a college basketball team, Kwon and colleagues (2005) found that identification with the team alone explained a significant amount of variance in satisfaction and loyalty, and that identification with the players and the sport were not predictive of satisfaction or loyalty. As such, the authors suggested that a more parsimonious approach to examining identification may be beneficial for scholars; however, it is critical that scholars acknowledge that such parsimony allows scholars to avoid complex yet important considerations of what

“objects” individuals may be connecting with that lead to such desirable consumer behavior outcomes (in the instance of Kwon et al., satisfaction and loyalty).

Explicitly, if indeed team identification seems to be more predictive of behavior than identification with other objects, this is insightful, but only to a certain extent. That is, embracing the idea of team as the most important point of attachment in considerations of sport consumer behavior allows scholars to continue to dodge the question of what is the team. Considering the speculations of Kolbe and James (2003) discussed earlier, one individual’s idea of the team may be different than another’s idea of the team, and the next person, and so on. Further, one might possibly contend that the team consists of players, or of players and coaches—similar to Kolbe and James’ (2003) mention of the team as a ‘summary unit’ (p. 40). However, if these objects

(including the team) are conceptualized as distinct points of attachment (as in the PAI), we are still left wondering what individuals may believe the team consists of. Indeed, answering such a puzzling question is imperative given that so many scholars have found that psychological connection to this ambiguous entity (i.e., the team) can be so influential in the attitudes and behaviors of individuals.

In addition to the points of attachment research conducted by Trail and his colleagues,

Heere and his colleagues have built from the conceptual work of Heere and James (2007b), in which the notion of team as being symbolic of other identity sources was discussed. As Heere and James (2007b) noted, “A sports team might represent not only a collection of owners, coaches, and players, but also the city or state in which they operate, the university to which they are linked, or other groups” (p. 321); under this conceptualization of identification with a team, the identity becomes a “hybrid” identity of sorts, consisting of multiple entities (Heere & James,

2007b). For example, in conducting research with university students regarding the school’s football program, Heere, James, Yoshida, and Scremin (2011) found that university, state, and team identification explained 48% of the variance in team identification. As well, in examining

city, state, and university identification in relation to team identification, Heere, Walker,

Yoshida, Ko, Jordan, and James (2011) found that university identity was significant in

explaining the variance in team identification.

Taken together, the work of Trail, Heere, and their respective colleagues has allowed

them to suggest team identification may be influenced by or related to identification with other

focal objects. However, similar to other psychological connection to team concepts (e.g., team

identification, PCM), these scholars have not endeavored to unpack the complexity of what the

team as an object of attachment may be comprised of. Although Heere and James (2007b) did discuss the idea of fans themselves being thought of as part of the team, a study addressing what additional elements might comprise the team is absent from the sport consumer behavior literature, or literally any other body of literature.

Explicitly, the approaches taken by sport scholars thus far in endeavoring to understand the relation of multiple group identities in sport consumer behavior has been to view these various identities as separate. For example, in their conceptual work on team identity and external group identities, Heere and James (2007b) treated identity groups such as geographic, ethnic, and gender as distinct; interestingly, they also noted, “there is likely to be overlap between different external identities” (p. 326). Thus, rather than treating multiple group identities in a compartmentalized fashion from the start, it might be beneficial to engage with individuals to understand the extent to which they might construct the team as a larger—more holistic— entity within which various elements (e.g., university, city, state) reside.

Why is “Team” Ambiguous?

As mentioned, social psychology and sport consumer behavior scholars have utilized

team identification as a variable to understand its relation to various attitudinal and behavioral

measures. However, drawing from the preceding literature review, these scholars have not paused to question or discuss the meaning of half of this variable; that is, while it is widely

understood that the “identification” in team identification is grounded in social psychology (i.e.,

social identity theory), we (i.e., scholars) have not considered the meaning(s) of “team” in team

identification.6 Explicitly, scholars seem to have taken the word “team” for granted, effectively leaving half of the team identification concept unknown. Why have scholars not tried to understand the meaning of team in regard to one’s psychological connection to the entity? Taken further, why have scholars continued to measure individuals’ psychological connection to “team” ambiguously, as if team has identical, constant meaning across all individuals?

Scholars’ failure to question the meaning of “team” in terms of one’s psychological connection to a sport entity might indeed be an oversight—a taken for granted assumption that all individuals construct the meaning of “team” in the same (or, similar) way. However, one may wonder: Have scholars actually taken the word “team” for granted in their various endeavors to understand one’s psychological connection to a sport entity, or have they intentionally dodged this question because of their position as objective researchers who seek to approximate a single truth? The very paradigmatic nature of nearly all of the psychological connection to sport literature—team identification included—might illuminate how this reasonably large oversight came to be.

Psychological Connection to Sport: A Post-Positivist Perspective

A review of the psychological connection to sport (team) literature reveals that a majority of this work has been conducted through a post-positivist worldview—that is, an ontological belief that there is one reality from which knowledge is derived, and an epistemological

6 Or, the body of literature to date would lead one to believe these scholars have not considered the meaning of “team” in team identification. 30

assumption that knowledge is constructed objectively, is value-free, and that there is a distinct

separation between the mind and world (Amis & Silk, 2008; Sparkes, 1994). Post-positivist

researchers seek to approximate a single truth and thus, it would be essential for the meaning of

“team” in team identification to be uniform across individuals, so that measurement of

identification with the “object” of interest (i.e., the team) is the same; essentially, from this point of view, ambiguity in the meaning of team may have allowed scholars to maintain a degree of control over the team identification variable so that predictions could be made.

From the perspective of a post-positivist, then, the ambiguity of “team” is logical and necessary. If “team” does not have uniform meaning across individuals, measurement of identification to this “object” would seem inherently problematic, as researchers essentially would be capturing one’s degree of psychological connection to any combination of objects and meanings. Curiously, however, what would it mean if post-positivists sought to clarify the meaning of “team”, and further, considered the potential multiplicity of meanings of “team” among individuals? For this consideration, it is helpful to step into the shoes of an interpretivist.

Psychological Connection to Sport: An Interpretivist Perspective

In contrast to a post-positivist worldview, from an interpretivist perspective, consideration of the different meanings of “team” among individuals (rather than a single definition of “team” agreed upon by individuals) is quite plausible. Interpretive researchers believe there is no separation of the mind and the world (Sparkes, 1994), and as such, that no knowledge is value free (Amis & Silk, 2008). Further, in this worldview, because one’s evaluation of the environment is mind-dependent, the notion of one reality is rejected, replaced with an ontological belief in multiple realities. Epistemologically, interpretivists believe knowledge is constructed subjectively based on one’s unique vantage point and interactions with

others. Because interpretive researchers reject the notion of one reality (for multiple realities) and

a single truth (for partial truths), they do not seek to approximate the truth through testing

hypotheses in the way that post-positivists do. Instead of prediction, interpretivists are interested

in understanding and interpretation in conducting research.

The contrast between post-positivist and interpretivist worldviews makes apparent the potential explanation of the dearth of research into understanding the meaning of “team” in team

identification. As mentioned, team identification (and other related psychological connection to

sport concepts) has been investigated primarily by post-positivists who believe in one reality and

a single truth. If an interpretivist enters the team identification conversation, however, the

concept of team identification is shaken—it is no longer (only) about seeking a single truth, but

rather understanding and making sense of the potential multiplicity of meanings of such a

concept based on individuals’ unique vantage points.

How Can We Clarify the Meaning of “Team” in Team Identification?

Whether the absence of an understanding of “team” in team identification is the result of

scholars’ assumption that all individuals construct the team uniformly, or if indeed the paradigmatic alignment of these scholars has served as a barrier to asking such a question, it is

clear that scholars of sport consumer behavior would be well suited to pause to consider how

consumers construct “team” in regard to their support of the entity. In endeavoring to understand

how individuals construct “team”, however, where is one to begin?

Although a grounded theory approach to understanding the construction of “team” could be insightful, one might also look to the existing literature to draw from in such a task. I argue

for some of both—that scholars endeavoring to understand the “team” in team identification

should allow themselves to discover individuals’ understanding of “team” organically, but that

they might also benefit from utilizing existing concepts such as points of attachment (Trail et al.,

2003; as discussed previously) to understand the meaning of team. Separately, in addition to points of attachment, acknowledgement of the empirical work on team brand associations might

also be a beneficial starting point for understanding the “team” in team identification. As such, in

the proceeding section, I discuss sport teams as brands, and the various associations (i.e.,

thoughts) scholars have found individuals may possess in regard to sport teams.

Sport Teams as Brands

Separate from the psychological connection to sport literature, sport consumer behavior scholars have examined sport teams as brands. Consumer behavior scholars have traditionally defined a brand as a name, symbol, design or mark that enhances the value of a product beyond its functional purpose (Farquhar, 1989). From an organizational perspective, establishing a strong brand can allow a company to be competitive and/or distinctive in the marketplace while simultaneously giving meaning to a product from a consumer perspective. Additionally, branding efforts have been illustrated to give personalities and human-like characteristics to products, allowing for the development of “relationships” between a brand and consumer (see, e.g., Fournier, 1998).

The concept of branding in sport has led scholars to investigate brand equity, brand knowledge, and brand associations in sport settings (Gladden & Funk, 2002; Ross et al., 2006).

Although not directly connected to the psychological connection to sport literature to date, insights may be drawn from the sport team brand associations literature into consumers’ thoughts regarding sport teams. Thus, it is imperative to acknowledge this work in considerations of the meaning of team. As such, a review of this literature follows, beginning with a discussion of brand equity, and subsequently focusing on brand knowledge and associations.

Brand Equity

Within academic and practical environments, discussions of establishing strong or valued brands often entail the concept of brand equity. Quite simply, brand equity can be explained as the value of the brand (Keller, 1993). Keller (1993) distinguished between two different approaches to understanding or examining brand equity. First, brand equity may be thought of from a financial perspective, utilizing readily available figures (e.g., revenue) to assess the value of the brand. Second, from a marketing perspective, brand equity consists of the more intangible aspects of a brand that contribute to its overall value in the mind of the consumer. This second, consumer-based brand equity (Keller, 1993) concept has drawn the interest of many marketing scholars, including those in sport. From a marketing perspective, consumer-based brand equity is critical for brands as it often determines subsequent behaviors among consumers (e.g., loyalty, purchasing), and is especially important in increasingly competitive markets.

Marketing scholars have conceptualized the components of consumer-based brand equity in various ways. For example, while Aaker (1996) suggested that loyalty is part of brand equity,

Keller (1993) suggested loyalty is an outcome of brand equity. Aligned with Keller’s conceptualization of brand equity, Ross (2006) developed the spectator-based brand equity model.7 Ross suggested that spectator-based brand equity consists of brand awareness and brand associations. The antecedents of sport spectator-based brand equity are organization-induced

(i.e., marketing mix elements), market-induced (i.e., word of mouth, publicity), and/or experienced-induced (i.e., the consumer’s experience with the brand). The amalgamation of brand equity antecedents leads to awareness of the brand (often measured by recall or recognition of a brand) and brand associations. Subsequently, spectator-based brand equity leads

7 Keller (2001) has presented consumer-based brand equity as a pyramid, consisting of salience at the base, then imagery and performance, then judgments and feelings, and finally, resonance. 34 to various consequences, including brand loyalty, ticket or merchandise purchasing, and revenue solicitation.

Brand Knowledge Considering the components of spectator-based brand equity, the concept of branding sport teams has led scholars to investigate brand knowledge and associations in sport settings

(Gladden & Funk, 2002; Ross et al., 2006). Brand knowledge is the foundation of brand equity

(Hoeffler & Keller, 2003), and has been described as a “personal meaning about a brand stored in consumer memory” or “all descriptive and evaluative brand-related information” (Keller,

2003a, p. 596). Because brand knowledge is an inherent component of a consumer’s memory, this knowledge is thought to influence a consumer’s reaction to an organization’s marketing activities for a particular brand (Keller, 2003a).

Keller (2003a) discussed brand knowledge as multidimensional, consisting of awareness, attributes, benefits, images, thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and experiences relating to a brand. A consumer’s perceived attributes and benefits of a particular brand may be intrinsic (i.e., functional or based on product/service performance) or extrinsic (based on, e.g., tradition, brand personality, symbolic meaning). Considering the multidimensionality of brand knowledge, many scholars have examined particular dimensions of brand knowledge, but few have endeavored to ascertain multiple dimensions of brand knowledge holistically (Keller, 2003a). As Keller (2003a) emphasized, it is critical to examine brand knowledge dimensions collectively or interactively rather than in isolation, as such is likely the way consumers’ memory of a brand is constructed.

Brand Associations One dimension of brand knowledge that has been addressed by marketing and sport scholars is brand associations. Brand associations are a consumer’s thoughts about a brand

(Keller, 2003b). Once consumers have an established awareness of a particular brand, they may

develop thoughts that come to mind when cued about the brand.

As Keller (2003b) noted, “Although a myriad of different types of brand associations are possible, brand meaning broadly can be distinguished in terms of more functional versus more

abstract considerations” (p. 12). Brand associations can be distinguished between brand performance and brand imagery (Keller, 2003b). Associations relating to brand performance include the functional aspects of a product, and the extent to which they meet the consumer’s needs. In his discussion of customer-based brand equity, Keller (2001) described five types of brand performance perceptions: primary characteristics of the product; product reliability, durability, or serviceability; service effectiveness, efficiency, and empathy; aesthetic elements

(e.g., style, design); and price. Brand imagery includes more extrinsic properties of a product or service such as its symbolic meanings; here, rather than functional needs, the consumer’s psychological and social needs are attended to (Keller, 2001).

The importance of better understanding brands from the consumer’s perspective has been emphasized by scholars. As Grace and O’Cass (2002) noted, “Although valuable information can be gained by understanding brands through those who work closely with them (brand managers

and consultants), the true significance of brands can only be seen through the eyes of the beholder, i.e. the consumer” (p. 97). Ross et al. (2006) noted the same of brand association research in sport as well, emphasizing that sport scholars (e.g., Gladden & Funk, 2002) had neglected to conceptualize sport team brand associations from the consumer’s perspective. As such, the brand association research conducted by Grace and O’Cass (2002) and Ross et al.

(2006) is worth noting because of these scholars’ focus on consumer-generated brand

associations in the research process; adopting the viewpoints of these scholars, in what follows I

focus more on the types and dimensions of brand associations as constructed by consumers.

Strength, favorability and uniqueness of brand associations. In addition to the various types of brand associations consumers may possess, brand associations can also vary by strength, favorability, and uniqueness (Keller, 2003b). The theoretical framework for brand associations, as Keller (1993) noted, is rooted in that of associative network memory models (Collins &

Loftus, 1975), which suggests that nodes are linked together in an individual’s mind, with links varying in terms of strength; brand associations, in this regard, are triggered when thinking about a brand through a “spreading activation” of other nodes through the links connecting them.

Sport brand associations. Considering sport-related brand associations, scholars have

discussed the distinct nature of brand associations in sport in that sport is a service based product; as such, they have justified that the study of brand associations within sport requires its own particular focus. In endeavoring to build the body of literature regarding sport brand associations, Gladden and Funk (2002) developed the Team Associations Model (TAM). The

TAM consists of 16 brand association categories and is largely based on Keller’s (1993) claim that brand associations consist of attributes, benefits, and attitudes.

Although Gladden and Funk conducted an extensive literature review to develop the

TAM, a critical limitation of their work is that they did not endeavor to elicit brand associations from the source itself (i.e., consumers). Considering brand associations are the thoughts about a brand in the consumer’s mind, this shortcoming cannot go without mention. Moreover, the extensive list of brand association categories identified by Gladden and Funk reads more like a mix of brand associations and sport consumer motivations, as Ross and colleagues (2006) have noted.

Building from the conceptual work of Keller as well as the shortcomings of some

scholars’ work (e.g., Gladden & Funk 2002), Ross and colleagues (2006) developed the Team

Brand Associations Scale (TBAS). In acknowledging the major limitation of Gladden and

Funk’s (2002) TAM, Ross and his colleagues conducted a thought elicitation exercise with

individuals to generate an initial list of associations consumers had about a sports team; this

subsequently allowed the authors to build and the TBAS.

The TBAS consists of eleven categories: commitment (i.e., enduring connection to the team); concessions (i.e., consuming food or beverage at the team’s facility); rivalry (i.e., thoughts about key competitors of the team, often historical in nature); organizational attributes

(i.e., the humanlike characteristics or brand personality of the organization); stadium community

(i.e., the team’s facility and its surrounding area); social interaction (i.e., experiencing the happenings of the team with friends or other team fans); team play (i.e., the team’s particular style of play); team history (i.e., any thoughts regarding the history of the team, such as performance, coaches, players); team success (i.e., the perceived performance or quality of particular players or the team in general); brand mark (i.e., team logo, symbol, and colors); and non-player personnel (i.e., coaches, management, front office staff). Each of the eleven categories of the TBAS contains multiple items to measure brand associations related to the particular category.

Since the development of the TBAS, scholars have continued to test the scale in a variety of settings to illustrate its usefulness in multiple contexts, such as intercollegiate and professional sport (e.g., Ross, 2007; Ross, Bang, & Lee, 2009; Ross & James, 2007; Walsh & Ross, 2010). In doing so, scholars have discovered interesting findings in regard to team brand associations. For example, Ross and James (2007) found that individuals with high team identification (compared

to those with low team identification) had more brand associations, and Walsh and Ross (2010)

found that the dilution of a brand (measured via brand associations) as a result of brand extension

was only marginal (and was even less likely among individuals with high team identification).

What is the team? A brand associations approach. In addition to the value of team brand associations in considering sport brand equity and the consequences of such, scholars might benefit from utilizing the brand associations literature to understand individuals’ psychological connection to sport. As noted earlier in this chapter, sport consumer behavior scholars have often skirted around the meaning of the team in their various endeavors to understand individuals’ psychological connection to sport entities. Explicitly, while the team is known to be the focal object of these individuals’ psychological connection, what this team consists of in the consumer’s mind is unknown. Considering brand associations are an individual’s thoughts about a brand—in this instance, a sport team—the brand associations literature could be an insightful starting point in aiming to understand how fans or spectators construct the team; essentially, some (or all) of these associations could indeed be the team in the mind of the consumer.

Endeavoring to understand the meaning of the team among sport consumers could allow scholars to obtain a deeper understanding of the psychological connection individuals have with various sport entities. In undertaking such an effort, however, it is critical to also address the psychological connection itself—that is, the sense of self (or identity) individuals derive from supporting a particular sport team. In the following section, I discuss multiple theories of identity to guide my analysis of individuals’ identification with the team in the current study.

Identity

Consideration of team identification requires a mindful examination of the concept team; additionally, it is important to consider the very nature of identity itself.8 Identity (or identification) is inherently influential on individuals’ thoughts and behaviors. As Ashforth,

Harrison, and Corley (2008) noted:

In the study of human cognition and behavior, identity is one of the key foundational

concepts helping to explain why people think about their environments the way they do

and why people do what they do in those environments… Identification matters because

it is the process by which people come to define themselves, communicate that definition

to others, and use that definition to navigate their lives, work-wise or other. (p. 334)

Considering these two terms—identity and identification— many social psychology scholars, including those studying group-related identities in sport contexts, have long treated identification as a process or act of classifying and distinguishing the self, and identity as an outcome of such a process. For example, one may have an identity as a “college basketball fan”, which is realized through the process or act of continually evaluating one’s thoughts, feelings, or behaviors toward college basketball in relation to others (i.e., identification). While the

identification-identity (process-outcome) paradigm has been helpful in allowing scholars to

understand the sense of self individuals derive from being part of a group, a critical issue

resulting from this has been scholars’ tendency to discuss identity as something that is fixed—an

outcome, or endpoint—when in reality, the identification process is always adjoined to an

identity. In this regard, the term identity should perhaps be reconceptualized, thought of and

8 Although I emphasize the importance of considering the concept of identity in examinations of team identification, my purpose of examining identity in this project is to acknowledge the foundation of the team identification concept. Thus, theorizing identity is not the focus of this project, but rather a means to support the primary purpose of understanding the notion of team in team identification. 40

studied as an unfixed outcome because of the process (identification) always tied to it; in this project, I use the term identity to refer to both a process and an outcome.

Scholars’ perspectives of identity vary across disciplines, and while social identity theory

(e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979) has been utilized most often by sport consumer behavior scholars

(e.g., team identification; Wann & Branscombe, 1993), considering other views of identity, such as those perspectives of cultural studies scholars (e.g., Hall & du Gay, 1996)—could provide a more interdisciplinary understanding of the sense of self individuals derive from a sport entity.

As such, I review each of these identity in this section; before doing so, however, I briefly discuss the value of interdisciplinary research in sport management.

Interdisciplinary Research in Sport Management

Given the interdisciplinary understanding of identity I adopt in the current project, it is important to acknowledge scholars’ discussion of interdisciplinary research in sport management

(e.g., Doherty, 2012; Love & Andrew, 2012; Mahony, 2008). In her North American Society for

Sport Management Zeigler Lecture Award speech, Doherty (2012) discussed mono-, multi-, and interdisciplinary research approaches, arguing that sport management scholars should strive to conduct research that is interdisciplinary. Rather than conducting research that is narrowly focused in one discipline (mono-disciplinary), or that which draws upon the expertise of scholars from a variety of disciplines to study a particular topic (multi-disciplinary), Doherty argued that scholars should deeply engage with scholars from various disciplines, sharing their knowledge to understand a particular phenomenon in a multitude of ways; this can allow for a deeper, interdisciplinary understanding of a particular phenomenon that mono- or multi-disciplinary research might not offer. As Doherty noted:

Interdisciplinary research is a process of relating one perspective, one discipline, one way

of knowing, one ‘take’ on things to another perspective, discipline, and so on, and then

integrating those perspectives for a fuller and deeper insight into and understanding of a

problem, issue, or question. (p. 3)

Doherty’s (2012) discussion of the need for interdisciplinary research in sport

management illuminates the relatively narrow focus scholars tend to adopt in their research.

Indeed, the prominence of mono-disciplinary research and theory is prevalent across disciplines

in academia (Bruhn, 2000). Reaching beyond one’s “home” discipline—or, the literature that is prevalent within the home discipline—may be uncomfortable or risky (Doherty, 2012), and such

efforts may be perceived as challenges or threats to disciplinary studies (Bruhn, 2000). However,

the purpose of interdisciplinary research is not to discount disciplines—indeed, interdisciplinary

research requires disciplines (Bruhn, 2000)—but rather to leverage unique vantage points of

multiple disciplines to ask and answer questions in a creative, somewhat transdisciplinary

fashion. As Bruhn (2000) emphasized, “Interdisciplinarity is a philosophy of integrative

thinking” (p. 60); in this regard, interdisciplinary research is not a threat to disciplines, but rather

a means to break boundaries for broadening knowledge.

Considering interdisciplinarity in sport management, such an approach could allow

scholars’ work within sport management to be more relevant to scholars in other disciplines (and

even within sport itself; see, e.g., Love & Andrew’s [2012] discussion of scholars’ publications

in sport management and sport sociology journals), bolstering the sport management discipline

in the process. Doherty explained, “Interdisciplinary research may, as it happens, enable sport

management scholars to strengthen the field itself (through self-reflection, creative thinking, and broader research) while gaining a (further) foothold with other disciplines and fields” (p. 6).

Returning to the current project, depending on one’s disciplinary view, identity can be

examined and understood in a variety of ways. For example, while social psychology scholars

often view identity as socially constructed by individuals through interactions with one another

(i.e., in social groups), sociology and cultural studies scholars view society—and the established

structures of such—as inherently influential in identity projects. Just as Doherty (2012) noted,

somewhat conflicting disciplinary views such as these can be troubling (or, unnecessary and/or

irrelevant) for the mono-disciplinary scholar; for the interdisciplinary scholar, however, these

opposing views are inviting, and might allow for a more holistic appreciation of identity. Thus,

in what follows, I review theories of group identity offered by scholars in multiple disciplines,

including social identity theory and cultural identity theory, allowing me to realize an

interdisciplinary understanding9 of identity to guide me in the research conducted in this project.

Intergroup Behavior and Social Identity Theory

According to social identity theory, group membership contributes to an individual’s

overall self-concept as a result of the derived awareness, value, and emotional significance with being a member of a group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The social group(s) an individual perceives herself as belonging to contribute to her self-image by classifying herself with fellow group members and distinguishing herself from non-group members (i.e., intergroup relations). Such behavior defines the social environment in which an individual exists.

Social identity theory is routinely traced to the seminal scholarship of Tajfel and Turner

(e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979), both of whom are credited with developing the fundamental framework of the theory of intergroup relations and social identity. Tajfel (1974) explained the

9 It should be noted that interdisciplinary research is often viewed as that which is done in teams (i.e., through interaction) of scholars from multiple disciplines. Contrarily, my understanding of identity is an interdisciplinary perspective, a result of my own reading of identity from more than one discipline (Bruhn, 2000). 43

need for such a theory as a result of limited social psychological research on intergroup relations.

Although attention had been focused on areas such as stereotyping and ethnocentrism, Tajfel

indicated the emphasis of such work was on subsequent perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of

only the outgroup. Thus, no theoretical foundation had been laid in understanding the social psychological processes of the ingroup.

As Tajfel (1974) explained, “in order for the members of an ingroup to be able to hate or

dislike an outgroup, or to discriminate against it, they must first have acquired a sense of belonging to a group which is clearly distinct from the one they hate, dislike or discriminate

against” (p. 66). He continued by suggesting that, “in any complex society an individual

confronts from the beginning of his life a complex network of groupings which presents him

with a network of relationships into which he must fit himself” (p. 67). These statements were

supported by findings of experimental studies that group members exhibited ingroup favoritism

toward a group they were randomly assigned (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). This led

to the conceptualization of social identity, which suggests an individual is a member of social

groups, and from such group memberships, a degree of emotional or value significance is

obtained.

Self-Categorization. An individual’s identification with a group requires the awareness, perceived value, and emotional importance in being a member of the group (Tajfel, 1982).

However, acknowledgement of this group’s existence requires at least one other group, distinct from the group to which one belongs. As Tajfel (1974) stated, “A group becomes a group in the sense of being perceived as having common characteristics or a common fate only because other groups are present in the environment” (p. 72). The existence of multiple social groups permits the existence of perceived ingroups (the group in which an individual belongs to) and outgroups

(the comparative or contrasting groups in relation to the ingroup). The interaction of multiple

groups allows for intergroup behavior in which members of a group identify their group as the

ingroup and all other groups as outgroups (Tajfel, 1982). This process of self-categorization

allows for the emphasis of perceived similarities between the self and the ingroup members, and perceived differences between the self and the outgroup members. While social categories are

generally perceived to precede individuals, one should note that the subsequent membership of

individuals in groups shapes the social groups which exist in society; thus, it could be beneficial

to consider any individual-group ordering as reciprocal rather than directional.

Consequences of self-categorization. Tajfel (1974) emphasized social identity theory’s

departure from a narrow focus of group perceptions of the outgroup. However, an awareness of

the more narrowly focused consequences of self-categorization (specifically, social stereotyping

and ethnocentrism) that preceded the conceptualization of social identity theory provides a more

complete understanding of social identity theory and more broadly, the theory of intergroup

relations.

Social stereotyping. Stereotyping is a fundamental component in understanding cognitive

aspects of social identity theory. Generally, a stereotype can be understood as the impression an

individual may have toward another individual as a result of a particular social category. It is

through social stereotyping that an individual is depersonalized–that is, he or she is perceived

homogeneously based on his or her affiliation with a group, rather than traits or behaviors unique

to the individual (Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarty, & Reynolds, 1997; Hogg, Terry, & White,

1995; Tajfel, 1982). This is evident of not only outgroup members, but also among individuals in

the ingroup–that is, the perception of the self as what is characterized by the group. These

uniform perceptions among group members provide the grounding for the distinction between

the ingroup and outgroup (Hogg et al., 1995; Stets & Burke, 2000).

Ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is conceptualized as the way in which an individual judges other ethnic or cultural groups (outgroups) based on the values and beliefs of her own

ethnic or cultural group (ingroup), typically with a sense of superiority of the ingroup relative to

the outgroup(s) (Tajfel, 1982). Ethnocentrism has been of great interest to scholars in the fields

of sociology, psychology, and anthropology for more than a century. While it has been suggested

ethnocentrism was inescapable and ‘universal’ (Tajfel, 1982, p. 7), more recently researchers

have studied the way in which ethnocentric behavior can vary in situations. Specifically, a major

finding of the Cross-Cultural Study of Ethnocentrism (LeVine & Campbell, 1972, as cited in

Tajfel, 1982) was the independence of ingroup and outgroup attitudes; essentially, the degree of

outgroup attitude depends on the social situation, largely a result of individuals’ possession of

multiple group identities. Thus, although ethnocentric behavior is not atypical, attributions for

such perceptions and behaviors can be complex as a result of an individual’s identification with

multiple groups.

Intergroup behavior: Continuum of social interaction. Tajfel (1982) explained a

‘continuum of social interaction’ (p. 13), with interpersonal behavior and intergroup behavior as its extremes. It should be noted that, although conceptualized as frequently discussed in terms of its polar ends, Tajfel (1974) indicated the incidence of an individual locating herself at either extreme of the continuum is unlikely, as the actions of an individual frequently take into account both the individual and the group to which she belongs (see, e.g., Tajfel et al., 1971).

The interpersonal extreme of this continuum assumes the interaction of individuals to be based on the individuals’ unique characteristics. As one moves further from the interpersonal

extreme toward the intergroup extreme of the continuum, however, these individual

characteristics become irrelevant. Instead, interactions between individuals are based on the

social groups to which they belong; thus, attitudes and behaviors of group members are

homogeneous. This normalization of individuals based on group membership illustrates the

depersonalization that occurs as a result of intergroup behavior. Normalized intergroup behavior,

as Tajfel (1974) has explained, is largely driven by: the social distinctiveness of the ingroup and

relevant outgroup(s) (i.e., a group perceived as better or more powerful than the others); conflict between the ingroup and relevant outgroup(s); and relative ease in which individuals are able to move from one group to another (and related movements for change in the social situation).

Social categorization. Social categorization is largely a cognitive process for the

individual. For Tajfel (1974), social categorization in relevance to the study of intergroup

relations was “the ordering of social environment in terms of social categories, that is of

groupings of persons in a manner which is meaningful to the subject” (p. 69). This emphasis on

grouping relative to what is ‘meaningful to the subject’ is of importance, as it suggests a more

subjective approach to grouping as opposed to traditionally objective group references in social psychology (see Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1974).

Social identity. The accumulation of intergroup relations and social categorization

allows for the introduction of social identity. Without perception or awareness of distinct social

groups and those which an individual claims membership to, one cannot derive social identity–

intergroup behavior and social categorization dictate an individual’s sense of place in society

(Tajfel, 1974). An individual’s social identity can, quite literally, be understood as society’s perception of her identity. Thus, it seems logical that an individual would strive to maintain

and/or obtain membership in social groups which she perceives as being positive to her sense of

self and, contrarily, aim to distance herself from those social groups which she believes are a

negative influence on her sense of self.

As discussed in a preceding section, movement into, out of, and between groups is

neither always possible nor desirable. In such circumstances, an individual may alter her perception of the inferiority of the group (Tajfel, 1974). For example, if an individual identifies

herself as a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan and the team is consistently

underperforming against known rivals (e.g., Duke University), she may begin to compare herself

to fans of other teams who Syracuse still outperforms (e.g., Florida State University). By

adjusting the outgroup(s) to which an individual compares herself, she is able to maintain a positive social identity.

Self-enhancement: Social comparison and distinctiveness. An individual’s social

identity is evaluative in that it is derived from the social comparisons made between the favored

ingroup and relevant outgroup(s). Such comparisons may not always result in conflict or

competition between groups (although they can); rather, it is the distinctiveness of each group

that allows for comparisons to be made. Through the process of intergroup social comparisons,

an individual is able to enhance her social identity.

An interesting component of the evaluative social identity process is how, once an

individual becomes aware of her membership in a low-status group, she behaves or reacts to this

knowledge. In some circumstances–primarily, those groups that she has chosen to be a part of—

she can choose to exit the group. However, when her membership in a group cannot be easily

ceased–for example, her age group–she cannot leave. She can deal with this through coping (e.g.,

“I may be a young adult, but at least I am an adult”) or she may seek to mobilize her low-status

group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Such aspirations, however, require the perception of malleability

of status in intergroup relations. In their review of Turner’s contributions to social identity

theory, Reicher, Haslam, Spears, and Reynolds (2012) explained this notion of social change as

an underlying aim of both Turner and Tajfel in developing the social identity theory of

intergroup relations: “The theory presupposes that when people stop acting as isolated

individuals and start acting together as group members in order to challenge the dominant group,

then together they have the power to bring about change” (p. 353).

Multiple group identities. Scholars have increasingly discussed the notion of individuals being members of multiple groups (e.g., Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Ashmore, Deaux,

& McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Roccas & Brewer, 2002; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &

Wetherell, 1987). Scholars utilizing a self-categorization theory framework, for example, have

suggested individuals organize their multiple group identities at different levels of abstraction

(see, e.g., Turner, 1985; Turner et al., 1987). For example, an individual might be a resident of a

city, which has a university, which has a football team, and as such, perceive group membership

to each of these entities; from a self-categorization theory perspective, university and football

team group identities are nested within each other. Separately, Roccas and Brewer (2002) have

offered social identity complexity, a separate extension of social identity theory, which suggests

that individuals organize their multiple group identities along a continuum from simple (i.e.,

exclusive) to complex (i.e., inclusive), contingent on situational circumstances. Regardless of

approach (i.e., self-categorization theory versus social identity complexity), it is apparent

individuals possess multiple group identities, thus studies into particular group identities (e.g.,

team identification) must to some extent acknowledge such.

Social identity in sport: Team identification. Considering the use of theory to examine

identity within sport consumer behavior, a majority of scholars (e.g., Dimmock et al., 2005;

Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002; Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Greenwell, Fink, & Pastore, 2002;

Heere & James, 2007a, 2007b; Inoue, Mahan, & Kent, 2013; Lock et al., 2012; Madrigal, 2001;

Reysen, Snider, & Branscombe, 2012; Trail & James, 2001; Trail et al., 2003; Wann &

Branscombe, 1993) have utilized social identity theory, specifically team identification.

Interestingly, despite the focus of social identity theory on intergroup relations, scholars’ use of

social identity theory as a theoretical framework to study consumers of sport has primarily

allowed them to understand differences within the ingroup (e.g., “high identified fans” and “low

identified fans”), rather than the dynamic between groups (i.e., identified fans of two or more

rival teams; for notable exceptions see Havard, Gray, Gould, Sharp, & Schaffer, 2013; Levine,

Prosser, Evans, & Reicher, 2005). A relative lack of consideration of intergroup relations in

examinations of social identity theory in sport illuminates a possibility for such to be considered

in future research.

However, as debate about interdisciplinary research in academia mounts, scholars of

sport consumer behavior might benefit from understanding and utilizing multiple disciplinary

theories of identity in their studies; if such an endeavor is undertaken, yet another theory of

identity might be of interest to scholars: cultural identity.

Cultural Identity In endeavoring to understand “how social structural variables or social belief structures

really enter the picture” (Hogg et al., 1995, p. 264) in regard to identity, examinations of group

identity through a social identity theory lens—as scholars of sport consumer behavior have

examined it—may not be able to provide us with such knowledge. As such, in this section, I

introduce a different view of identity—that of many cultural studies scholars—that may be beneficial in building a foundation of (interdisciplinary) knowledge from which we can strive to better understand the socially constructed self.

The remainder of this section is organized around common ideas I have fused together regarding various scholars’ viewpoints of identity from a cultural studies perspective.

Specifically, I discuss the following: identity as a cultural phenomenon; socially constructed identity; the notion of groups in identity; and multiple identities. I should note that while each of these ideas are complex on their own and partially contingent on the others, my separation of these “assumptions” is intentional for organizational purposes.

Identity: A cultural phenomenon. Generally, scholars who have conceptualized identity from a cultural studies perspective have discussed the notion of identity as socially constructed

(e.g., Featherstone, 1995; Hall, 1996). In his work on cultural identity, for example, Hall (1996) discussed identity as, “a construction, a process never completed—always in process” and that,

“identification is in the end conditional, lodged in contingency” (pp. 2-3). Much like Hall’s

(1996) view of identity as incomplete, Bhabha (1996) emphasized the notion of culture—and thus, identity projects—as temporal.

It is important here to note the distinct view of cultural studies scholars that culture and identity cannot be separated; that is, culture informs identity, and identity informs culture. If culture is temporal (Bhabha, 1996), identity is temporal; if culture is utilized as demarcation from others (Bhabha, 1996), so too is identity. These thoughts introduce a seemingly simple yet apparently necessary set of questions: Both generally and within the study of sport, what do we mean by culture, and what do we mean by identity?

Considering the meaning of culture, cultural studies scholar Raymond Williams (1985) noted, “Culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language,” further explaining that “it has now come to be used for important concepts in several intellectual disciplines and in several distinct and incompatible systems of thought” (p. 87). Tracing the

51 historical roots of the word culture, Williams viewed culture as a process, and an entire way of life, “whether of a people, a period or a group” (Williams, 1976, p. 80). Williams viewed cultural as “ordinary”, explaining:

A culture has two aspects: the known meanings and directions, which its members are

trained to; the new observations and meanings, which are offered and tested. These are

the ordinary processes of human societies and human minds, and we see through them

the nature of a culture: that it is always both traditional and creative; that it is both the

most ordinary common meanings and the finest individual meanings. We use culture in

these two senses: to mean a whole way of life—the common meanings; to mean the arts

and learning—the special processes of discovery and creative effort. (Williams, 2011, pp.

53-54)

Separately, identity is often understood as how individuals define themselves—who they are, or “the imagined sameness of a person or of a social group at all times and in all circumstances” (Robins, 2005, p. 172). Cultural studies scholars, however, contest this

“essentialist” perspective of identity. As Robins (2005) noted:

Identities are seen to be instituted in particular social and historical contexts, to be

strategic fictions, having to react to changing circumstances, and therefore subject to

continuous change and reconfiguration. What is also made clear is that identities cannot

be self-sufficient: they are in fact instituted through the play of differences, constituted in

and through their multiple relations to other identities. An identity, then, has no clear

positive meaning, but derives its distinction from what it is not, from what it excludes,

from its position in a field of differences. (p. 173)

For cultural studies scholars, identity projects are culturally based phenomena because culture is

what enables individuals to construct and understand perceptions of difference (discussion of

“difference” will be taken up in a following section). Because culture is embedded in one’s perception of the self, “identity” and “cultural identity” can be conceptualized as synonymous—

identity projects are inherently cultural.

The fluidity of the self: Socially (re)constructed identities. Regressing momentarily to

consider social identity theory, most scholars have supported the notion that society exists before

the individual; that is, an individual is born into society that already exists. However, these same

scholars have acknowledged that social structures are fluid, always changing based on factors

such as economics and history (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). As such, Hogg

and Abrams (1988) noted that groups’ defining features are susceptible to change, as are their

relations with other groups.

Thus, a subtle commonality exists between social identity theory scholars’

acknowledgement of the potential fluidity of groups as a result of society and cultural studies

scholars’ viewpoint that identities are temporally and/or spatially constructed based on particular

contextual circumstances, subject to change at any time (e.g., Bhabha, 1996; Grossberg, 1996;

Hall, 1996; McCarthy, 1998; Zerubavel, 1993). Rather than understanding a particular identity as

complete and resistant to societal influences, these scholars view identity as partial and

malleable; identities are (re)constructed continually as a result of our experiences and

interactions in society. As McCarthy (1998) noted, “The terrain on which theories and practices

are built is endlessly shifting and reconfiguring itself” (p. 155). This ‘endless shifting and

reconfiguring’ is perhaps what has propelled scholars to view identity as a project, always partial

and fluid rather than static.

Similar to the notion of partial identities, Grossberg (1996) discussed “fragmentation” in

that identities are always partial and situational and thus, are often contradictory. In discussing

identities as decentered and fractured, Grossberg noted, “Fragmentation emphasizes the

multiplicity of identities and of positions within any apparent identity… Identities are thus

always contradictory, made up out of partial fragments” (p. 91).

Who constructs identity? Considering the social construction of identity, one might ask:

Who constructs identity? Scholars of social identity theory and/or identity theory have often

discussed (the formation and maintenance of) identity rather ambiguously, as if it is something

derived from some higher order that designates social categories. Hogg and Abrams (1988), for

example, noted, “Society comprises social categories which stand in power and status relations

to one another” (p. 14). The issue that arises from discussing and theorizing about social

categories (and thus, social identities) in this manner is that it can impede us from viewing

identity as something people—both individually an collectively— (re)construct continually—an idea that cultural studies scholars are very upfront about.

The viewpoint that identity is constructed by society—as if it is the same for all individuals—as opposed to a perspective that views identity as unique projects undertaken by individuals (each of them with varied meaning), could likely be rooted in an ontological belief in one reality rather than multiple realities. As Featherstone (1995) wrote:

In one sense we are all cultural producers in that we engage in practices which not only

reproduce the culture repertoires we are provided with and need as we move through

social life, but are to some extent able to modify and shape them as they are passed down

the unbroken chain of generations which constitutes human life. (p. 3)

As Featherstone explains, although we do, to some extent, “enter” particular cultures (and

thus, may adopt particular identities), we also have the authority to change such societal

structures. This is particularly true if we recall the discussion of identity in the current project

considers consumer identities. Giddens (2000) referred to consumer identities as lifestyles (or

‘post-traditional’ settings), noting they are something we choose or adopt rather than inheriting.

From this perspective, the self may be viewed as reflective and reflexive and thus, in ‘being true

to oneself’ (Giddens, 2000, p. 254) one can know oneself, and have a more ‘authentic’

understanding of her beliefs and values. However, the notion of lifestyle “choice” itself can

quickly be problematized itself, as it is important to note the lifestyle we choose is almost always

to some extent influenced by the cultural circumstances we experience.

Studying identity: The need for context. Although discussion of potentially enmeshed

identities is largely absent from the sport consumer behavior literature, the notion of such should

not be foreign to scholars, as it is apparent the sense of self one derives from supporting a particular sport entity often involves one’s other identities (e.g., social class, hometown).

Nonetheless, many scholars seem to continue to examine identity narrowly, perhaps to allow for

a more simplistic and orderly vantage point of the self. Although endeavors to understand

identity from a more complex perspective (i.e., multiple, fragmented identities) might be

approached in a variety of ways, cultural studies scholars (e.g., du Gay et al., 2000; Grossberg,

1996; Zerubavel, 1993) have rationalized that contextual approaches are most ideal.

Given various scholars’ perspectives of identity as partial and malleable, many advocate

for contextualized approaches to comprehending identity. Contextualized approaches to

examining identity allow scholars to emphasize “the historical contingency and plurality of

55 personae and the necessity of not abstracting properties of particular forms of personhood from

the specific cultural milieux in which they are formed” (du Gay et al., 2000, p. 4).

Although examinations of identity from a cultural studies perspective are relatively scant

in the sport management literature (for exceptions, see, e.g., Beissel, Giardina & Newman, 2013;

Shobe, 2008), cultural studies perspectives of identity have a relatively strong grounding within

consumer behavior. For example, Schouten (1991) conducted interpretive ethnographic research

with men and women who had cosmetic surgery; he found that through the act of consuming (in

this instance, cosmetic surgery), individuals were able to maintain or reconstruct particular role

identities. Thus, identities—especially those related to consumption of products or services—are

often enacted deliberately, by choice. Moreover, Schouten discussed the notion that individuals

were often forced to confront the possible positive and negative aspects of consuming (for self-

concept maintenance/transformation); he noted that several informants often chose the possible

“positive” outcome over negative. This finding is perhaps in line with social identity theory

scholars’ supposition that individuals strive to be members of social groups that positively

contribute to their self-concepts (see, e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Differentiation dependency. The notion of difference in regard to identity is

acknowledged almost universally, regardless of theoretical lens or disciplinary alignment. As

Zerubavel (1993) noted of the boundaries that mark particular social categories or groups,

“Boundaries are mere artifacts that have little basis in reality. It is we ourselves who create them,

and the entities they delineate are, therefore, figments of our own mind” (p. 3). Thus, following

Zerubavel and cultural studies scholars, we should perhaps be more upfront in presenting identity

as something (re)constructed by ourselves—we (collectively) create the social groups that we

derive a sense of self from. Considering our role as scholars, our research into identity further

defines such groups or types of people, largely a result of our fixation on differentiating and/or

compartmentalizing entities (e.g., people, places).

Why are we so accustomed to classifying or categorizing people? Quite simply, it allows

us to make sense of the complex world we live in. In the absence of groups or categories by

which to view people, we would have much less “black and white” and much more “gray”, or, as

Zerubavel (1993) explained, we would have much less rigidity and much more fuzziness. In his

work on cognitive sociology, Zerubavel (1993, 1996) has discussed the notion of “lumping and

splitting” which leads to our construction of “islands of meaning” in which people seem to

habitually group entities together based on perceived similarities; these islands of meaning allow

us to make sense of the world10. It is important to note that although lumping and splitting are typically individual endeavors (i.e., individuals perceive similarities and differences among entities in their own minds), our social nature inevitably leads to our tendency to create islands of meaning based on our own unique position in society (Zerubavel, 1996).

Us and them. Similar to social identity theory scholars’ premise of identity marked by individuals’ perceived ingroups and outgroups, many cultural studies scholars discuss identity as an us-versus-them phenomenon (e.g., du Gay, Evans, & Redman, 2000; Grossberg, 1996;

Zerubavel, 1993). Identities are realized through difference; as du Gay et al. (2000) noted, the difference or otherness in regard to identities “both denies and provides the conditions of their possibility” (p. 2). Thus, absent of the notion of the other, there is no difference, and thus, no grounds for development of identity. It is not until we begin to question or examine the ways in

10 I see Zerubavel’s (1993) idea of lumping and splitting as similar to Bhabha’s (1996) discussion of differentiation and condensation; Bhabha explained “Rationalization of the life world means differentiation and condensation at once—a thickening of the floating web of intersubjective threads that simultaneously holds together the ever more sharply differentiated components of culture, society, and person” (p. 55). 57

which we distinguish entities from one another that we can begin to obtain a rich understanding

of identity in relation to society. As Zerubavel (1993) noted:

Things assume a distinctive identity only through being differentiated from other things,

and their meaning is always a function of the particular mental compartment in which we

place them… By throwing light on the way in which we distinguish entities from one

another and thereby give them an identity, we can explore the very foundations of our

social world, which we normally take for granted. (p. 3)

The in-between. Where cultural studies perspectives of identity veer from traditional

identity discussions of ingroup/outgroup or us/them is that of the “in-between”, or what

Grossberg (1996) discussed as hybridity. In this ‘in-between’ state, an individual is not “in” or

“out”; rather, the individual is somewhere between in and out. As Grossberg (1996) noted of

such instances of hybridity, “the subaltern is neither one nor the other but is defined by its

location in a unique spatial condition which constitutes it as different from either alternative” (p.

91).

Regarding the “other”—the individual who may not be in any (or, most often, “either”) group in a particular setting—Zerubavel (1993) noted, “Our need to arrange the world around us in categories is so great that, even when we encounter mental odds and ends that do not seem to belong in any conventional category, we nonetheless ‘bend’ them so as to fit them into one

anyway” (p. 6). As a society, we—scholars of identity included—have become fixated on placing people in categories or groups based on particular characteristics, regardless of whether

or not they truly fit.

Pausing momentarily to consider the way scholars of sport have often conceptualized and

examined group identity, it is apparent we often seek to ‘bend’ individuals so that they fit in

58 particular groups. For example, if an individual scores low on Wann and Branscombe’s (1993)

Sport Spectator Identification Scale (SSIS), scholars would typically report that he or she has

“low” identification with the team, when in reality he or she might not have any identification

with the team at all. Thus, following Zerubavel, it seems this type of individual is a victim of our

tendency to lump and split entities so that we can more simply reach conclusions regarding

groups and differences among such groups. Although it is certainly pragmatic to create such

islands of meaning to bolster theoretical development or practical application of research, as

scholars, we should remain cognizant of our own influence in such endeavors.

Multiple cultures, multiple identities. Because identity is contingent on society and

comparison to others within society, cultural studies scholars acknowledge that examinations of

a particular culture or particular people do little to depict the entire picture of identity projects; that is, to understand the culture (and identity) of a particular person or group, one must understand the multiple cultures (and identities) that are influential—and inherent—in this process. Considering identity and its social (re)construction, in his discussion of multiple cultures coexisting, Bhabha (1996) described a “contaminated yet connective tissue between cultures” (p.

54); essentially, this ‘connective tissue’ is what pieces together multiple cultures—sewing multiple “locals” to create a larger, “global” culture. In this vein, in acknowledging the dynamic modern world, when we consider one particular identity, we should keep in mind it is just one identity among several others (McCarthy, 1998). These suggestions, of course, are in line with my discussion of social identity theory and multiple identities (e.g., the notion of social identity complexity).

Following the acknowledgement that individuals possess multiple, sometimes conflicting identities, Bhabha (1996) discussed the idea of differentiation and condensation, noting that the

two interpenetrate. Specifically, Bhabha noted, “The multicultural has itself become a ‘floating

signifier’ whose enigma lies less in itself than in the discursive uses of it to mark social processes

where differentiation and condensation seem to happen almost synchronically” (p. 55). Thus,

considering multiple identities, they can often be viewed simultaneously unique yet similar,

separate but together, or a ‘part-in-the-whole’ (Bhabha, 1996, p. 57).

In discussing the existence of multiple cultures and/or identities, it is necessary to

acknowledge that many scholars have discussed identity as a power struggle of sorts (i.e., particular identities may be assumed and maintained as a result of inequalities among

individuals). In critiquing ideas of equality and liberalism in regard to identity, Bhabha (1996)

emphasized:

The sharing of equality is genuinely intended, but only so long as we start from a

historically congruent space; the recognition of difference is genuinely felt, but on terms

that do not represent the historical genealogies, often postcolonial, that constitute the

partial cultures of the minority.” (p. 56)

Striving toward equality among “groups” of individuals may indeed be a legitimate

objective. However, we must keep in mind that in such situations, the current relations (and

inequalities) between and within groups of individuals are often based—or a product of—the past. From this viewpoint, one cannot conceptualize differences between groups without a

historically grounded depiction of the multiple parties involved, which frequently involves some

consideration of power relations (Grossberg, 1996). Indeed, in discussing culture, Featherstone

(1995) also noted the power struggle inherent in the formation of identities, noting that, “Under

certain circumstances the power potential of certain groups of cultural specialists may increase to

the extent that particular cultural forms gain greatly in autonomy and prestige” (p. 3).

Toward an Integrative Identity Theory in Sport

While scholars of social identity and identity theory have emphasized the notion of the

socially constructed self as established yet contingent on the social structures that surround them,

scholars who adopt a cultural understanding of identity see the entire project of identity as

unfixed—as a project always in progress. Essentially, these “differing” views are separate explanations for the same phenomenon—the notion that an individual’s sense of self is continually evolving due to the society in which they exist. However, although these ideas may seem to align theoretically, the ways scholars have utilized them differ quite dramatically.

Scholars have described the self-concept as a ‘context-dependent cognitive representation’ (Onorato & Turner, 2004, p. 260). However, within sport, scholars’ operationalization of social identity theory to understand sport-related identities has frequently stripped away such context-dependent factors. For example, scholars have used team identification (see Wann & Branscombe, 1993) extensively to understand the influence of an individual’s psychological connection to a sport entity, however these scholars have tended to group fans of the team together in a relatively homogenous manner with little attention given to context. Although such groupings could indeed simply be reflective of team identification’s housing under social identity theory (and thus, the need to “depersonalize” individuals), it is apparent that to obtain a rich understanding of how fans come to derive a sense of self from their perceived relation to a sport entity, scholars must endeavor to understand not only how fans identify collectively as a group, but also as individual selves who have unique life-worlds (and the subsequent interaction of collective identities and unique life-worlds) which are continually influenced by contextual circumstances.

Contextualized approaches to understanding identity. To understand the interaction of these multiple, context-dependent identities in tandem, and how they are continually shaped and influenced by social structures, I contend scholars need to take a more mindful approach to the self and its relation to society. As Bourdieu (2000) noted, “One can understand a trajectory (of the self) only on condition of having previously constructed the successive states of the field through which the trajectory has progressed” (p. 302).

While scholars of sport—specifically, those who have studied psychological connection to sport—have indeed been mindful of the sense of self sport provides individuals from a group perspective, they have been much less cognizant of the contextual circumstances from which such identities are realized and transformed. It may be that the methods most utilized (i.e., experimental or survey research) in scholars’ examinations of fan identity have prohibited them from obtaining a deep understanding of individuals’ identities as they are constructed in relation to the world they live in. However, it is difficult to argue that research aimed at understanding the social structures from which one perceives reality and thus derives a sense of self (Hogg &

Abrams, 1988) might not benefit from research conducted within—and with a deep understanding of—these very social structures.

Consumer culture theory. An example of how scholars have provided contextually rich depictions of consumer identity can be found in the consumer behavior field, specifically within consumer culture theory (CCT). CCT is an interdisciplinary research field that emphasizes the

“sociocultural, experiential, symbolic, and ideological aspects of consumption” (Arnould, 2006, p. 605). Considering the construction or realization of consumer (or fan) identities, CCT scholars acknowledge the unique engagement between an individual’s sense of self and the sociocultural circumstances she experiences.

CCT scholars view culture—and thus, identity—as, “constituted, sustained, transformed, and shaped by broader historical forces (such as cultural narratives, myths, and ideologies) and grounded in specific socioeconomic circumstances and marketplace systems” (Arnould &

Thompson, 2005, p. 869). Holt’s (1995) widely referenced research on the sociocultural aspects of consumption provides an insightful example of how CCT can offer scholars an understanding of identity and its (re)construction in relation to society. In conducting ethnographic research at

Wrigley Field over two consecutive Chicago Cubs baseball seasons, Holt developed a typology of consumption practices among baseball spectators; he discussed the notion of individuals consuming (objects or actions) as a means of classification to enhance affiliation and distinction in relation to others (thus contributing to their sense of self). By immersing himself in the specific culture experienced by spectators at Wrigley Field (in fact, becoming a spectator himself), Holt was able to fully appreciate the cultural and historical elements embedded in fan identity projects.

Undoing team identification: Toward a flexible identity theory. Scholars have discussed the notion that individuals frequently possess multiple social identities (e.g., Brown,

2000; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). As discussed in a previous section of this chapter, within sport, scholars have conceptualized the notion of individuals identifying with multiple entities by introducing concepts such as points of attachment (Robinson & Trail, 2005) or sport communities (Heere & James, 2007b); each of these concepts have furthered scholars’ understanding of fans as complex individuals who may not only identify with the ‘team’ they support, but other related entities as well (e.g., community, institution).

In endeavoring to illustrate the complexity of fan identity, however, these scholars have not deeply engaged with and among fans, in the very context they (re)construct such identities.

As such, a critical missing component of these projects are scholars’ failure to comprehend

and/or account for the social structures that preside in the individuals they study. If scholars

immerse themselves into the culture(s) these individuals experience, it may be conceivable to

elucidate not only how fans become identified with or attached to a team from a social perspective, but also how they do so in relation to their unique life-worlds, all in consideration of the social structures that surround them.

Identity is a complex and often disordered area of contention among scholars. While many scholars of sport have utilized social identity theory and identity theory to understand how individuals derive a relatively stable (as noted by Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001) portion of their sense of self from their consumption of sport, other scholars have comprehended

identity as culturally constructed and incomplete (e.g., Bhabha, 1996; Hall, 1996). Despite these

differences, the influence of sport on the individual (and his or her self-concept) will

undoubtedly continue to intrigue scholars into the future.

In discussing what he referred to as the flexible mind, Zerubavel (1993) noted, “Having a brain that allows for both analytic and synthetic thinking, we need not really choose between

structure and flow and can allow both the rigid and the fuzzy mind to operate in a

complementary fashion” (p. 121). While theories of intergroup and intragroup relations allow

scholars the opportunity to examine the self with relatively rigid parameters, cultural studies perspectives are comparatively much more fuzzy.

Acknowledging that in our endeavors to understand identities in relation to sport

consumer behavior, some degree of conclusiveness is often sought, while simultaneously

recognizing identity projects as fluid and partial, perhaps a flexible, mindful perspective of

identity may yield richer understandings of the socially constructed self. With a flexible mind,

we might be able to simultaneously acknowledge the ‘boundedness’ and ‘boundlessness’

(Zerubavel, 1993, p. 120) of identity projects.

Summary

In endeavoring to understand what individuals believe the team is comprised of in regard

to their psychological connection to the entity, it is important to acknowledge the body of

literature that supports such an aim; this chapter has served to meet this need. My review of the psychological connection to sport literature, including team identification, PCM, internalization,

and points of attachment, allowed me to gain an appreciation for the ways in which scholars have

conceptualized individuals’ connection to a sport team.

Reviewing the psychological connection to sport literature allowed me to illuminate

scholars’ neglect to acknowledge the meaning of “team” and instead, their widespread tendency

to refer to “team” ambiguously. I contended that the overwhelming majority of the psychological

connection to sport research has been conducted from a post-positivist worldview, and suggested

that this paradigmatic alignment might in fact be the reason why scholars have not addressed the

ambiguity of “team” despite decades of research on individuals’ identification with this “object”.

Consideration of interpretivist worldviews allowed me to speculate the potential (multiplicity of)

meaning(s) of “team” among individuals.

Continuing my efforts to understand the meaning of “team” in this project, I discussed

the possibility individuals’ construction of “team” may include various points of attachment

(e.g., players, coaches, community). Although points of attachment provides a starting point for

such an endeavor, I also looked to the research scholars have conducted on sport teams as brands, particularly the associations (i.e., thoughts) individuals may have with a sport entity; I suggested that if brand associations are indeed the thoughts that come to mind when an

individual considers a sport team, perhaps they could in fact be constructed as the team in the consumer’s mind.

Following my review of the psychological connection to sport and brand literatures, I transitioned to consideration of the sense of self (i.e., identity) one derives from supporting a sport team. Although scholars of identity have frequently aimed to understand the self in a relatively mono-disciplinary fashion (including scholars of team identification, i.e., social identity theory), I took a different path in my review of identity, instead pushing the traditional boundaries of disciplines (e.g., social psychology) in an effort to obtain an interdisciplinary

appreciation of the concept of identity. My review of identity theories from multiple disciplines,

including social identity theory and cultural identity theory, provided me with an

interdisciplinary understanding of identity that will guide my research in this project.

Specifically, my somewhat holistic understanding of identity will allow me to understand the

sense of self (if any) individuals realize through supporting the “team”.

Finally, I discussed the prevalence of micro consumer behavior research in sport, noting

that sport consumer behavior scholars have spent a considerable amount of effort understanding

the influence of organizational activities (including marketing) on specific consumption patterns

(e.g., purchasing behavior, attitudes towards organizations). Although there is certainly value in

micro perspectives of consumer behavior, I explained that sport consumer behavior scholars

might also consider macro perspectives of consumer behavior in sport settings. For example,

scholars might consider how organizational activities are influential on individuals’ well-being.

My discussion of both micro and macro consumer behavior perspectives allowed me illustrate

my intent to consider both micro and macro consumer behavior perspectives in this project.

Although tensions exist between some of the concepts and theories I reviewed in this

chapter (i.e., from a disciplinary perspective), the range of literatures I reviewed in this chapter provided me a base of knowledge to rely on in conducting the research in the current project. By

maintaining sensitivity (Glaser, 1978) to various theories and concepts reviewed in this chapter

in carrying out this research project, I should be well positioned to contribute to the existing

literature. With this knowledge in tow, in the following chapter I discuss the specific methods I

used in pursuit of the research questions in the current project.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODS

My purpose in this research project is to better understand how sport consumers construct the sport team and the sense of self they derive from such an entity. In Chapter One, I introduced the research aims and research questions guiding this project; a synopsis of the aims and questions is provided in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Research Aims and Research Questions Research Aim 1 To understand the elements of the team from the consumer’s perspective. RQ1a According to the fans or spectators I interview, how do they define the team? RQ1b According to the fans or spectators I interview, is there a difference between the meaning of team in terms of performance versus the meaning of team in terms of the entity they are psychologically connected to? RQ1c According to the fans or spectators I interview, is the meaning of team fixed? To understand both the stability and source(s) of identity associated with Research Aim 2 supporting the team. RQ2a According to the fans or spectators I interview, is their identification with the team constructed in a social (i.e., with others who identify with the team) and/or cultural (i.e., society informing individuals of particular norms to conform to) sense? RQ2b To what extent are sociocultural and sociohistorical conditions influential in identities realized through supporting the team?

Using Syracuse University Men’s Basketball and its fans and spectators as a case study in this project, I utilized interviewing and concept mapping to obtain a deep understanding of how individuals construct the team and the identity derived from such an entity. Given the complexity of the research questions, qualitative research was a fitting avenue; as McCracken (1988) noted,

“When the questions for which data are sought are likely to cause the respondent greater difficulty and imprecision, the broader, more flexible net provided by qualitative techniques is appropriate” (p. 17). Beyond a decision to use qualitative research methods, however, this

68 project is most closely aligned with traditions of the interpretive research paradigm.11

Interpretive researchers acknowledge subjective knowledge, the existence of multiple realities, and partial truths.

In this chapter, I review the specific methods used to answer the research questions in the current research project. I conclude the chapter by discussing the research design for this project, including participants and procedure, materials, and analysis.

Interviews

Interviews, quite simply, can be thought of as conversations with a purpose (Kvale,

2006). The use of the interview as a qualitative research method in the social sciences has become increasingly prevalent in recent decades. As Denzin (2001) noted, we live in an interview society where dialogic conversation informs culture and shared experience. Interviews allow researchers to understand a particular phenomenon from the participant’s point of view

(Brinkman, 2011; Kvale, 2006; McCracken, 1988). As well, interviews “give us the opportunity to step into the mind of another person, to see and experience the world as they do themselves”

(McCracken, 1988, p. 9). In this regard, interviews can function as a narrative device, giving voice to individuals who otherwise might not be heard, often in a highly contextualized fashion

(Denzin, 2001); as Denzin (2001) noted, “The interview is a simulacrum, a perfectly miniature and coherent world in its own right” (p. 25).

Depending on the objectives and/or epistemological views of the researcher, interviews can vary greatly in style. Some researchers conduct highly structured depth interviews, while others prefer unstructured ethnographic (or phenomenological) interviews, allowing conversation

11 I describe this project as “most closely” aligned with the interpretive paradigm rather than a truly interpretive approach due to my tendency not to reject particular research paradigms but rather to acknowledge the foundations of each paradigm and allow myself to work within, between, and to some extent, beyond them. 69

to emerge freely. Some researchers prefer to take on a passive, non-active, or ‘spectator’

(Brinkman, 2011) role as interviewer, while others take on an active, participatory role,

acknowledging they are influential in the construction of meaning via conversation (e.g., the

epistemic interview; Brinkman, 2011).

Lying somewhere between a highly structured and unstructured interview is the semi-

structured interview; this type of interview, which is both analytical and culturally mindful,

focused yet open, is relevant to the type of interview I will conduct in the current research project. In what follows, I review the phenomenological interview (primarily guided by

Thompson et al., 1989) and the long interview (McCracken, 1988), both of which inform my

approach to interviewing in this research project.

The Phenomenological Interview

The phenomenological interview is fundamentally descriptive and contextual, focusing

on the lived experienced (i.e., life-world) of the individual (Thompson et al., 1989). In a phenomenological interview, the participant is essentially in the driver’s seat in that what he or

she says dictates the scope of the interview, as the researcher often has no established interview

questions (beyond an initial question to begin the dialogue). As Thompson et al. (1989) noted,

“the descriptive questions employed by the interviewer flow from the course of the dialogue and

not from a predetermined path. The interview is intended to yield a conversation, not a question

and answer session” (p. 138). In this regard, in phenomenological interviews, the researcher

assumes an equal position with the participant; that is, it is the researcher’s goal to ensure she

does not present herself as more knowledgeable or powerful than the participant.

Questions and topics discussed in a phenomenological interview are intended to yield a

rich description of a particular topic rather than a confirmation of hypotheses. It is important for

the researcher to avoid asking “why”12 questions that are highly theoretical or abstract; questions should be about participants’ lived experiences. An example of how a researcher can avoid theoretical questions and encourage discussion of lived experience is to ask the participant to describe a past experience that is relevant to the topic of discussion (Thompson et al., 1989). In the phenomenological interview, the greatest benefit is that the conversation stays at the level of the respondent—at his or her life-world—allowing him or her to describe particular experiences rather than abstractly talking about general phenomena.

In analyzing phenomenological interviews, Thompson et al. (1989) recommended an emic approach, staying at the level of the respondent’s lived experience by using his or her own words shared in the interview. The researcher should allow the text (i.e., the transcribed interview) to remain autonomous in that inferences should not be made from what a respondent says; the text should be analyzed for what it is, not what it could be or mean. The researcher should engage in ‘bracketing’ by acknowledging preexisting knowledge (e.g., theory) and prohibiting such knowledge from intruding on or influencing analysis of the dialogue.

Thompson et al. (1989) suggested involving colleagues—‘an interpretive group’ (p.

140)—in analyzing interviews to ensure the lone researcher does not take a narrow approach to analyzing the data; indeed, involving others in the analysis phase of the research can ease the burden of analysis and offer multiple views. Finally, Thompson et al. (1989) encouraged a part- to-whole analytic process, in which individual interviews are first analyzed separately; after the

12 Thompson et al. (1989) explained that asking “why” questions in an interview forces the participant to rationalize their reasoning for some thought or behavior with a specific cause, when a more effective follow-up question might describe a particular occurrence and provide a more holistic explanation for an action. For example, if an individual states that they do not usually attend basketball games, rather than asking, “Why?” the researcher should ask, “Can you tell me about a time you decided not to attend a basketball game?” 71

idiographic level of analysis, separate interviews are compared to each other to discover patterns

and global themes within the texts.

The Long Interview

Although the interview is often thought of as simply a qualitative mode of inquiry,

McCracken (1988) noted a researcher’s decision to use interviewing as a mode of inquiry must be reflected in all phases of the research process, from conception of the research idea through

discussion. Specifically, in what he termed the long interview, McCracken explained the

interview can be broken into four phases.

First, the researcher reviews analytic categories through a review of the relevant

literature; this helps the researcher familiarize herself with the topical area, as well as in

constructing the discussion guide for the interview. Second, the researcher reviews cultural

categories by examining her own self to understand her own experience with the topic, which

subsequently allows her to sensitize to the participants she will interview. This acknowledgement

of ‘intellectual capital’ (p. 34) can also allow the researcher to refine the discussion guide and

identify gaps in the existing literature.

Third, the researcher constructs the discussion guide, paying particular attention to the

organization of the guide so as to ease the participant into the interview (i.e., placing basic,

demographic questions at the beginning of the interview, with more complex questions focused

on the research objectives further in the interview). Fourth, the researcher discovers analytic

categories through examination of interview transcripts, while concurrently reflecting on the

existing literature and her own personal experiences; the analysis begins at the individual level of

the participant, and as themes emerge through analyzing multiple interviews and constant

comparison, the researcher is ultimately able to generate theoretical conclusions.

Subjectivity in the long interview. McCracken (1988) encouraged researchers to use the

self as an instrument of inquiry; that is, reflecting on one’s own experiences to be able to imagine

or relate to experiences shared by the participant. Similarly, a degree of reflexivity is necessary

in conducting interviews. Just as a researcher might reflect on her own experiences to relate to

the participant, she must also acknowledge what or how she can relate to the situation—

especially if conducting research in an environment with which she is familiar—and how this

can be influential in the entire research act. Researchers must create distance between themselves

and the participant/environment to allow what is ordinarily familiar to seem unfamiliar; this

‘defamiliarization’ (McCracken, 1988, p. 33) allows for a more robust analysis.

In conducting interviews, researchers strive to balance obtrusive and unobtrusive inquiry

(McCracken, 1988). Researchers should not guide participants into particular responses, but

rather engage in active listening; they should use prompts to inquire deeper into what the participant is saying (similar to Thompson et al.’s [1989] idea of having participants share particular experiences instead of asking “why”).

Discussion guides. Although some qualitative researchers prefer to conduct unstructured interviews, one must be cognizant that the interview can be a Pandora’s box (McCracken, 1988).

As such, it should be no surprise that some researchers prefer a degree of structure in conducting interviews; the use of a questionnaire or discussion guide can provide order in the interview. As

McCracken noted, a discussion guide “protects the larger structure and objectives of the interview so that the interviewer can attend to the immediate tasks at hand” (p. 25). However, the discussion guide should not be so constrained that it prohibits opportunities for unstructured follow-up questions. Essentially, good interviews are semi-structured—flexible—in that they

have some pre-established order, yet can veer from this order occasionally to explore certain

ideas.

Interview discussion guides often include broad questions as well as floating, planned,

and contrast prompts to support broad questions (McCracken, 1988). Floating prompts consist of

using body language (e.g., head nodding) or repeating a keyword mentioned by the participant to

encourage elaboration. Planned prompts are simply questions the researcher intends to ask participants as a follow up if he/she does not already mention it. Contrast prompts are used by

the researcher to elucidate the difference between various topics or concepts the participant

mentions; for example, a researcher might ask, “What is the difference between the team and the players?” Separately, allowing for flexibility in the interview, researchers can also engage in

‘auto-driving’ (McCracken, 1988, p. 36), in which participants construct their own materials

(e.g., journal, video, pictures) from which comments or explanations are subsequently solicited.

Interviewer-participant relationship. McCracken noted that researchers should

endeavor to strike a balance between formality and informality in the interview; although

informality can allow for ‘rapport-filled interviews’ (Brinkmann, 2011, p. 63), it is evident the

interviewer has power. Thus, while a co-creation of knowledge is certainly welcomed and

advocated by some (e.g., Brinkmann, 2011; Denzin, 2001), it must be controlled in such a way

that the participant does not take over the interview and potentially steer the researcher away

from the original objectives or purpose of the research.

Interviews in Consumer Behavior Research Considering the use of the interview in consumer behavior research, Kvale (2006) discussed how an increasingly market consumption oriented economy has contributed to the popularity of the qualitative interview (see also Brinkman & Kvale, 2005). He noted:

With the transition from dominance of the sale of products for concrete use to the sale of

experiences, lifestyles, and identities, it becomes paramount for a market-sensitive

capitalism to investigate carefully the meanings the products have to the consumers…

The knowledge about the consumer’s experiences, dreams, and desires produced through

qualitative interviews is essential for marketing. (p. 494)

Thus, following Kvale, the knowledge obtained via qualitative interviews with consumers often

serves to ‘predict and control’ (p. 495) consumers in an increasingly consumption-oriented

society. As such, it is important for researchers to be aware of the power dynamic in interviews,

as well as the potential manipulation of and control exerted over consumers in interviews for

marketing purposes (Kvale, 2006).

Power dynamics aside, consumer behavior scholars readily use interviews as a mode of

qualitative inquiry. An example of interview research with sport consumers can be found in the

work of de Groot and Robinson (2008), who conducted research on an Australian football fan’s psychological connection to an Australian football team (using the PCM as a conceptual

framework). Using one Australian football fan, Ben, as a case study, the authors took an

interpretive biography approach to conducting their research, allowing them to understand the

unique life-world of Ben (i.e., his lived experiences as a fan). The authors conducted in-depth

interviews with Ben, as well as with his family and friends, to construct a deep, holistic perspective of Ben’s psychological connection to the Collingwood football club. Overall, de

Groot and Robinson’s work allowed them to illustrate the value in applying a quantitative

framework (i.e., PCM) in qualitative research to provide a descriptive perspective of an

individual’s experience as a fan of a sport team.

Another insightful example of the use of interviewing in consumer behavior research,

although not related to sport, is Fournier’s (1998) research on consumers’ relationships with brands. Fournier used phenomenological interviewing to understand the unique life-worlds of

three women, interviewing each woman for more than ten hours (over four to five interviews) in

their homes to understand their experiences with and use of particular brands. Fournier explained

that she chose to interview just three individuals to allow for a deep understanding necessary for

thick description of life-worlds and brand relationships. As the research was phenomenological,

Fournier began the interviews by having participants talk about any brands in their kitchen

cabinets, which subsequently guided their conversation. Fournier analyzed the information

obtained from interviews using both idiographic and cross-person analysis, thus allowing her to

construct findings and theory from specific brand stories as well as collectively across all brand

stories shared by all participants (using the constant comparison method; Strauss & Corbin,

1990); further, Fournier utilized existing literature to create a priori codes in coding the

information.

As mentioned, interviews can vary on a variety of factors (e.g., type, length). Although

some researchers may conduct interviews that simply consist of utilizing a predetermined list of

questions, phenomenological interviews, such as the example of Fournier (1998) in the preceding

section, can allow for a more organic, less structured interview. Two examples of methods that

might be used in such settings are free-thought listing and concept mapping, both of which have been illustrated by scholars of consumer behavior to be an effective mode of inquiry.

Concept Mapping

Concept mapping is a technique researchers can use to guide conversation during an

interview. Although concept mapping can be included in a relatively structured interview, it can

also be utilized to give the participant (i.e., interviewee) ownership of the interview—essentially,

concept mapping can be used to obtain an organic, less intrusive understanding of a participant’s

views. In this section, I discuss concept mapping, referencing the work of various scholars to

illustrate how this method has been used in examinations of consumer behavior.

Concept mapping can allow the researcher to understand the complex way in which an

individual thinks about a particular phenomenon in a relatively unbiased fashion. As well,

concept mapping can offer researchers an additional opportunity to analyze cases at the

individual level as well as cross-case analysis (Bitoni, 1993). As Wheeldon (2011) noted, “Mind

maps are diagrams used to represent words, ideas, and other concepts arranged around a central

word or idea” (p. 510).

Techniques such as concept mapping “may provide a means for participants to personally

construct a graphic representation of their experiences” (Wheeldon, 2011, p. 510). The idea of

concept mapping is grounded in theories of associative memory modeling (e.g., Collins &

Loftus, 1975), whereby information in an individual’s mind is linked in such a way that thinking

about one concept may trigger an individual to think of a linked concept through ‘spreading

activation.’ Compared to more simple methods to elicit thoughts with individuals, such as

thought-listing (Cacioppo & Petty, 1981; Cacioppo, von Hippel, & Ernst, 1997), concept

mapping allows the research to capture how individuals’ thoughts are linked in their minds.

Concept mapping can range from relatively unstructured in which individuals are

encouraged to generate maps based on their own thoughts, to a structured procedure in which

specific concepts are provided for individuals to construct maps from (John, Loken, Kim, &

Monga, 2006). Concept maps may be utilized to understand individual perspectives, but can also be aggregated to construct a consensus map; considering the latter, John et al. (2006)

recommended using a structured elicitation method, relying on previous research to generate

map contents from which individuals can construct maps (i.e., using predetermined concepts). In

constructing maps, individuals can also be instructed to convey the strength of related (i.e.,

linked) concepts with lines—single, double, or triple—with a greater number of lines signifying

a stronger relationship (John et al., 2006).

To date, the sport management literature does not include any empirical work using

concept mapping as a research method. However, the use of concept mapping can be found in

the consumer behavior literature (although, use of concept mapping in this discipline is still

limited). Both Joiner (1998) and John et al. (2006) have used concept mapping as a method to

understand consumers’ thoughts about a given brand (i.e., brand associations). In both instances,

the researchers illustrated the value of concept mapping in capturing the often complex

structuring of individuals’ knowledge of and thoughts about brands, and the ability of concept

maps to capture the relationship between and strength of particular brand associations. As such,

sport consumer behavior scholars might benefit from using concept mapping as a method to better understand consumers’ thoughts about a particular sport entity.

Research Methods in the Current Project

In endeavoring to understand how individuals construct the Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball team and the sense of self they derive from the entity, I utilized the qualitative methods reviewed in this chapter (i.e., interviews and concept mapping). The use of multiple qualitative methods in tandem have been suggested by scholars to ‘illuminate each other’ (Silk &

Amis, 2000, p. 275) in such a way that the combination of them yields contributions greater than any one method could alone (see also McCracken, 1988).

My choice of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball as the focal entity in this research

allowed me to use this particular program and its fans/spectators as a case study into examining

my research aims in this project. My familiarity with Syracuse University Men’s Basketball (as a

fan) and Central New York (as a native of the area) eased my entry into the research

environment and allowed me to deeply engage with fans or spectators, as I am one of them

myself; I believe this level of intimacy was imperative to the research I conducted in this project.

Beyond my familiarity with the research environment, Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball is an interesting case to study, as the program is in the midst of many changes (e.g., joining the Atlantic Coast Conference, considerations of a new facility, the impending retirement of its longtime head coach, rebranding as “New York’s College Team”) which might illuminate the fixed versus fluid nature of a team in regard to one’s psychological connection to it (part of

Research Aim 2). As well, the prevalence of college basketball fans in the Syracuse area (a 2012 report indicated 59% of adults in the Syracuse, NY designated market area are college basketball fans; Scarborough, 2012) indicates recruitment of individuals to converse with regarding the program should not be too burdensome.

Interviewing Syracuse University Men’s Basketball Fans and Spectators

Although I took a relatively unstructured approach to interviewing in this project, guided by participants’ concept maps, I entered each interview with an idea of the type of questions I wanted to discuss with participants; these questions were captured in an interview guide. A sketch of the interview questions, approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board, is provided in Appendix A. I conducted interviews from July 2014 to February 2015. Interviews were informal in nature and were conducted in public settings (e.g., sport events, coffee shops) or participants’ homes, based on their preference.

Participants were recruited to participate via purposive sampling. It is important to note

that because of the nature of the research questions and depth of inquiry necessary to answer

them, I followed Shankar, Elliott, and Fitchett (2009) by recruiting participants via friends and

acquaintances “with whom trust, empathy and a shared past” (p. 80) is established. Indeed,

Cacioppo et al. (1997) noted a limitation of involved exercises such as thought listing is the potential for participants to be unwilling to accurately share their thoughts; thus, this can be

alleviated by engaging with individuals whom the researcher has already established a good

rapport. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 70, and all had resided in Central New York at

some point; efforts were made to speak with individuals with a range of backgrounds (e.g., age,

social class, occupation). Table 3.2 is a summary of participant information.

As McCracken (1988) noted, “qualitative research does not survey the terrain, it mines it”

(p. 17). Thus, following the idea that “less is more” in qualitative research, I conducted

interviews with 13 individuals. All initial interviews were conducted in-person; subsequent

interviews were conducted in-person or via telephone or Internet technology (i.e., Skype).

Scholars have suggested conducting interviews via telephone or Internet technology can allow

the researcher and participant to overcome scheduling difficulties (e.g., geographic location,

unforeseen changes in schedules) that might otherwise serve as barriers to an interview occurring

(Hanna, 2012; Holt, 2010). All interviews were recorded, pending consent of participants.

During the interviews, participants were encouraged to share their feelings and

experiences as fans/spectators of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball in an effort to

understand how they define the team they are psychologically connected to, and the sense of self

Table 3.2. Participant Information Ashley Ashley is in her 20’s and currently resides in Florida, where she attends college. Ashley’s father was born and raised in Central New York, where her family still owns a home; she spends holidays and summers in Central New York. Ashley has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan since childhood. Carter Carter is in his 40’s and currently resides in Central New York. Born and raised in Central New York, lived in Boston and Atlanta before returning to Central New York. Today, Carter works in financial services. He has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan since childhood. Cole Cole is in his 30’s and currently lives in Hartford, Connecticut where he works in higher education. Cole was born and raised in Central New York and attended college at a small private college in upstate New York, where he was a student-athlete. Cole has been a Syracuse University his entire life. George George is in his 60’s and is a lifelong resident of Central New York. After graduating from a small public university, George owned a small business for 20 years but has since sold the business and worked in finance. George has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan for more than 40 years. Jamie Jamie is in her 30’s and is a lifelong resident of Central New York. Jamie attended a private liberal arts college in Central New York before pursuing a career in education. Jamie has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan since childhood. Jamie identifies herself as a fan. Justin Justin is in his 60’s and currently resides in a Syracuse suburb. Born and raised in Syracuse, Justin attended a private university in Canada before returning to Central New York to work at a university. Justin has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball his entire life. Mark Mark is in his 30’s and is a lifelong resident of Central New York. Mark received his bachelor’s degree in business from a small public university in Central New York, and has since pursued a career in finance. Mark has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan for as long as he can remember. Nicole Nicole is in her 30’s and currently lives in Syracuse. Born and raised in Central New York, Nicole attended a public university in Western New York. After pursuing a career in coaching, Nicole returned home to work in education. Nicole has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan her entire life. Oliver Oliver is in his 20’s and is a lifelong resident of Central New York. Oliver attended a small public university in Central New York, and has since pursued a career in sales. Although Oliver regularly attends Syracuse University Men’s Basketball games, he is a lifelong fan of Duke University. Rachael Rachael is in her 30’s and currently lives in Syracuse. Rachael attended a private university in New York. After leaving New York to pursue a career in the sports industry, Rachael returned to Central New York, where she was born and raised. She has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan her entire life. Regina Regina is in her 60’s and currently resides in Central New York. Born and raised in Western New York, Regina attended a small public university in Central New York before beginning a career in education. Regina has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball supporter for more than 20 years. Simon Simon is in his 30’s and currently lives in a suburb of Syracuse. Born and raised in Central New York, Simon attended a small private university in Western New York. Today, Simon owns and operates a small business. Simon has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan his entire life. Wilson Wilson is in his 20’s and is currently an undergraduate student at Syracuse University. Born and raised in California, Wilson was not a fan of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball until arriving at Syracuse University.

they derive from such. Prior to engaging in conversations about the team, I began with a series of

questions aimed to understand about participants’ backgrounds, such as: Where are you from?

- Where do you live now?

- Where else have you lived?

- Are you a college graduate, and if so, what college/university did you attend?

- Did you consider other schools in your search? How did you choose your school?

- What do/did/do you plan to do for your professional career? Is this what you planned to do?

- What do/did you like most/least about living in Central New York?

- What makes you “proud” to be a Central New Yorker?

- If you could change anything about Central New York, what would it be?

Broad questions such as these allowed me to understand the participant’s background and the extent to which his/her background influences his/her construction of the team and the identity they derive from such—that is, paying particular attention to individuals’ unique life-worlds.

Assessing team identification. After discussing participants’ backgrounds, I steered our conversation toward Syracuse University Men’s Basketball. Because the focus of the current project was on unpacking the notion of team identification, a construct utilized by many sport scholars, I began by briefly assessing fans’ identification with the team. Using Trail and James’

(2001) Team Identification Index, I explained the following:

To begin our discussion of Syracuse basketball, I’m going to read you a few statements

about how strongly you identify yourself as a fan of Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is “Strongly Disagree” and 7 is “Strongly

Agree”, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree:

o I already consider myself a fan of the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team.

o I would feel a loss if I had to give up being a fan of the Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball team.

o Other people recognize that I am a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan.

Sport scholars often use measures of team identification to quantitatively assess the

relationship between team identification and various other measures (e.g., purchasing behaviors).

However, the purpose of assessing team identification in the current project was simply to

understand and illustrate participants’ degree of psychological connection to the Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball team in a relatively traditional manner, from a post-positivist perspective; although this is somewhat juxtaposed to my interpretivist approach to conducting

this research, my use of this measure was intentional, aimed to push scholars to consider the potential multiplicity of meanings in an individual characterized by, for example, “high team

identification”.

Essentially, although interpretive scholars rarely use (or even acknowledge) post- positivist methods or measures in their research, my interest in and willingness to work

“between” these paradigms to generate knowledge about the team identification concept allowed

me to do so in this project. Further, it should be noted that while certainly a rarity, use of

quantitative measures (aligned with post-positivist traditions) in this manner have proven beneficial for other scholars engaging in (interpretive) qualitative research with consumers to

demonstrate the marked differences between nomothetic and idiographic approaches to research

and analysis (see, e.g., Holt, 1997).

Distinguishing between fans and spectators: A dual approach. In addition to using the

Team Identification Index to illuminate the potentially diverse meaning of individuals’ psychological connection to the “team”, my administration of this scale will also allow me to

83 distinguish between fans and spectators from a post-positivist perspective. Specifically, I used the item, “I already consider myself a fan of the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team” to determine whether individuals I interviewed were fans or spectators (as Trail et al., 2003, suggested in examinations of sport consumer behavior). As fans are those individuals who identify with a team, individuals who indicated 4 or higher on this item were considered fans; those who rate 3 or lower were considered spectators.

Subsequently, I contrasted the scaled approach to categorizing fans and spectators by simply asking participants, “Do you consider yourself a fan of the Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball team?” Utilizing this perspective, individuals who responded “yes” were considered fans. This dual-approach to comprehending fan-versus-spectator classification should provide yet another layer of discussion in regard to utilization of scaled items in examinations of team identification.

Concept mapping. Following the brief assessment of team identification, I asked individuals to consider the meaning of the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team. To encourage an organic construction of the “team” from the perspective of the consumer and eliminate any potential bias in such endeavors, I intend to have interviewees construct a concept map with the various thoughts that come to mind when thinking of the Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball team. The use of concept mapping as a method to understand individuals’ construction of the team also elucidated the relationships between various elements thought to comprise the team; specifically, the use of lines or “links” in the concept mapping activity illustrated how individuals seam together various objects, symbols, and experiences to construct their “definition” of team. The following is a description of how this interaction occurred:

I’d like to have you do a short mapping activity. I have a sheet of paper here and I’m going to

write “Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team” in the center. Take a few minutes to

draw or map what you think of when you think of “Syracuse University Men’s Basketball

team”. Draw lines to link associated or related thoughts to each other, and from those

thoughts you can also write down what comes to mind when you think of that, and so on.

The concept map served to guide discussion with interviewees to understand the extent to which particular “associations” may be essential to individuals’ conceptualization of the team.

Because I took a phenomenological approach to interviewing, I relied on each individual’s concept map to guide conversation about team identification, rather than relying on a traditional interview guide. Essentially, once the participant finished constructing his/her concept map, I simply asked them to tell me about each item included on their concept map; this often resulted in participants telling stories and sharing memories they have about their Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fandom. Once participants finished talking about a particular item on their map, I asked them if they considered this part of the “team” they are psychologically connected to.

Analysis of Interviews

Empirical material for analysis consisted of field notes, concept maps, audio recordings, and transcripts. In analyzing this information, I followed what Thompson et al. (1989) referred to as a ‘part-to-whole’ analytical process (p. 141), examining cases at the idiographic (i.e., individual) level as well as universally, across all individual interviews (see also Fournier, 1998;

Joy & Sherry, 2003; Thompson & Arsel, 2004). To accomplish this, I analyzed each interview on a case-by-case basis, allowing me to understand and account for each individual’s lived experiences and the potential influence of such on his/her perceptions of the team and self.

It is important to note that part of the analysis actually occurred during interviews, as I

utilized participants’ concept maps to co-create knowledge with participants as the interview

occurs. Such an approach echoes Brinkmann (2011), who noted:

I believe that researchers ought to experiment more with testing their own and their

respondents’ statements in public discussion in the course of the interview, rather than

just seeing this as something to be carried out behind closed doors. I believe that this

could often improve the analyses and perhaps also create more interesting interviews. (p.

72)

I analyzed the information across all cases, using the constant comparison method

(Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to compare all participants’ interviews. This entailed, for example,

comparing how one individual feels about various points of attachment as part of the team to

other individuals’ thoughts about the same topic; such a process allowed for the discovery of

themes emerging through the research.

In analyzing the empirical material, I used multiple tactics to enhance the trustworthiness

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of the research. Considering the credibility of the research, participants

reviewed their concept maps following interviews, allowing for member checking (Wallendorf &

Belk, 1989). I frequently engaged in peer debriefing to convey thoughts about emerging themes

to disinterested others. Other tactics to enhance the trustworthiness included prolonged

engagement (Wallendorf & Belk, 1989), thick description (Geertz, 1973), and reflexive journaling (Wallendorf & Belk, 1989).

Summary

In this chapter, I discussed the methods I used to understand how fans or spectators of

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball construct the team and the sense of self they derive from

supporting the entity. As a result of my interpretivist worldview and the complexity of the

research questions, I discussed the somewhat logical decision to conduct qualitative research in

this project. I reviewed the methods used in the current study in detail, including interviews and

concept mapping. I concluded by discussing the research design for this project, including the participants, procedure, materials, and analysis.

Although I have emphasized my decision to utilize Syracuse University Men’s Basketball

as a case to study in discussion of the research methods for this project, I believe more than mere

mention of the program is necessary in conducting this research. Explicitly, I contend it is

imperative to acknowledge the particular environment in which I will conduct this research. As

such, in the chapter that follows, I discuss the research context for this project, including a

discussion of Syracuse and Central New York, sport in the region, and finally, Syracuse

University Athletics and its NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball program.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH CONTEXT: SYRACUSE AND CENTRAL NEW YORK

In Chapter Three, I introduced the research methods I used in pursuit of the research aims

for the current project. However, before doing so it is important to consider the context in which

I conducted this research. Thompson et al. (1989) noted, “Experience emerges in a contextual

setting and, therefore, cannot be located "inside" the person as a complete subjectivity nor

"outside" the person as a subject-free objectivity” (p. 136). Essentially, to understand an

individual’s thoughts, feelings, or behaviors, we must also acknowledge the environment he or

she finds him/herself in.

As Bowers and Green (2013) noted, an interaction exists between an individual and the specific situations that confront him or her. Understanding the unique aspects of an individual’s experiences in relation to his or her connection to a sport entity should allow for ‘methodological rigor and explanatory potential’ (Bowers & Green, 2013, p. 425) and thick description (Geertz,

1973) of the phenomenon under investigation.

In this chapter, I address the specific context in which I conducted research regarding

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball. I begin by briefly discussing the history of Syracuse and

Central New York, with a particular focus on the economic conditions of the area over time. I then discuss sport in Syracuse and Central New York, considering the prevalence and popularity of particular sports in the area, as well as existing professional sport teams. Subsequently, I transition to a discussion of Syracuse University Athletics and Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball.

An Introduction to Syracuse and Central New York

Situated four hours northwest of New York City and roughly equidistant between Buffalo

and Albany, Syracuse is a city of modest size but rich in history. Located in a valley formed by

glaciers thousands of years ago, Syracuse is the county seat of Onondaga County and the

geographic and economic epicenter of Central New York. Onondaga County is bordered by

Oswego County to the north, Madison County to the east, Cortland County to the south, and

Cayuga County to the west; collectively, these five counties comprise Central New York.13

Central New York is part of Upstate New York, an area generally understood to be the (rural) portion of the state outside of the New York City metropolitan area. As Eisenstadt (2005b)

noted, “Upstate is still often used as a synonym for rural, forgetting that few areas in the nation

compare to the state north of New York City for their history of urbanization and

industrialization” (p. xi).

Central New York is home to 791,939 people with 145,170 residing in the city of

Syracuse. Generally, residents of the city of Syracuse earn less and are less educated than the rest

of Onondaga County and the entire state of New York. The median household income in

Syracuse is $31,459, compared to $53,593 in Onondaga County and $57,683 statewide. In

Syracuse, 80.1% of individuals age 25 or older are high school graduates, while 25.9% have

earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 89.4% and 32.9% in Onondaga County, and

84.9% and 32.8% statewide. Compared to Onondaga County and New York, a considerably

higher amount of Syracuse residents live below the poverty line. In Syracuse, 33.6% of the population lives below the poverty level, compared to 14.3% in Onondaga County and 14.9%

13 The U.S. Bureau of Labor recognizes these five counties as comprising Central New York, however the borders of Central New York are debatable and often vary by source. For example, the New York Department of Transportation considers Central New York to consist of Cayuga, Cortland, Onondaga, Oswego, Seneca, and Tompkins counties, and residents of other nearby counties (e.g., Jefferson, Oneida, Wayne) consider themselves Central New Yorkers as well. 89

statewide (U.S. Census, 2010). Table 4.1 illustrates the demographic characteristics of Central

New York counties compared to the entire state.

Table 4.1. Demographic Characteristics of Central New York Counties

Cayuga Cortland Madison Onondaga Oswego New York State Population (2010) 80,026 49,336 73,442 467,026 122,109 19,378,102 Median household $50,950 $47,497 $52,293 $53,593 $47,288 $57,683 income % Below poverty level 12.2% 15.0% 10.8% 14.3% 16.4% 14.9%

Median value of owner- $101,500 $101,900 $117,400 $131,700 $92,500 $295,300 occupied housing units High school graduates 85.6% 89.8% 90.2% 89.4% 86.7% 84.9% Bachelor’s degree or 18.6% 23.7% 24.4% 32.9% 16.0% 32.8% higher Note: All figures are based on the 2010 U.S. Census (U.S. Census, 2010)

A Brief History of Syracuse and Central New York

Although Syracuse and the surrounding region today is simply another area of New York

State, the area is rich in history. The Syracuse area was of great interest to French and British colonists in the 17th and 18th centuries due to the nearby Onondaga Nation, part of the Iroquois

League. By the early 19th century, settlers from eastern New York and New England were attracted to Syracuse for salt production near Onondaga Lake, located on the northwest side of present-day Syracuse. Growing interest among entrepreneurs from the east ignited interest in constructing the Erie Canal to connect Syracuse to cities to the east and west (and thus, through links with rivers as well, connecting transportation from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes;

Eisenstadt, 2005a), and by 1825, the Village of Syracuse was established, named after the

Sicilian city with rich history in salt works (Connors, 2005).

Canal and railroad expansion in all directions from Syracuse helped salt production surge in Syracuse, allowing the economy to thrive in producing a wide range of goods, including auto

90 parts (e.g., New Process Gear), typewriters (e.g., L.C. Smith & Bros. Typewriter), and china

(e.g., Syracuse China). With a growing economy, the population of the region grew exponentially, with the city of Syracuse alone expanding to more than 200,000 inhabitants by

1930.

In addition to eastern New Yorkers and New Englanders migrating to the area, thousands

of immigrants from western and eastern Europe (e.g., Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia) and

Canada arrived in Syracuse and Central New York in the 19th and 20th centuries, with the promise of employment in one of the area’s growing industries. After taking a hit from the depression, the arrival of Carrier Corporation, an air-conditioning manufacturer, brought a wealth of jobs to the area, leading resurgence in economic activity in the area (Connors, 2005).

Residentially, much of Syracuse’s population was concentrated in the present-day

downtown portions of the city in the 19th century, thanks to trains serving much of the downtown

area. As electric streetcars and automobiles became common in the early 20th century, residential areas began to spread outward into the hills surrounding the center of Syracuse (i.e., the hills to the south, east, and west of the downtown area). When Interstate-81 was built in the 1960s, it effectively separated downtown Syracuse from University Hill, where Syracuse University and various hospitals are located today, while simultaneously encouraging suburbanization. Thus, by the mid to late 20th century, Syracuse’s once bustling urban center was looking increasingly desolate.

Syracuse and Central New York Today

The economic and geographic landscape of Syracuse and Central New York looks much different today compared to the past. Slowly, manufacturing corporations with a strong presence in Syracuse and the surrounding region, such as New Process Gear and Carrier Corporation, have

either gone out of business or relocated to other areas of the country and/or overseas (Connors,

2005; Hannagan, 2012; Polgreen, 2003). While the decline in manufacturing jobs certainly

stagnated the rapid growth of the local economy in many regards, it has more recently allowed

for the welcoming of employment opportunities in the health, education and services industries.

Indeed, compared to the national average unemployment rate of 5.9% in April 2014, the city of

Syracuse was not much worse, at 6.3% (U.S. Bureau, 2014).

In 2013, the largest industries in Central New York in terms of employment were:

Education and Health; Government; and Trade, Transportation and Utilities Information (NYS

Labor, 2014a). Growth in the private sector in Central New York has steadied employment, with

top employers such as Crouse Hospital, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and National Grid leading

the way (NYS Labor, 2014b). However, it should be noted that the transition into more services-

oriented industries has not been a seamless one, as skilled workers do not always have the

experience or means to enter a new profession (Polgreen, 2003). Thus, while the economy in

Syracuse and surrounding Central New York region is certainly not failing today, it has simply been forced to change in response to evolving industry demands locally, nationally, and globally.

While still considered a transportation hub, Syracuse and the surrounding area no longer

relies on waterways such as the Oswego and Erie Canal for transport (in fact, several portions of

the original Erie Canal have since been filled in and replaced with roads, e.g., Erie Boulevard in

Syracuse). Instead, the intersection of north-south Interstate-81 and east-west Interstate-90 just

north of Syracuse has allowed the area to remain a travel hub in the Northeast. As well, the junction of these highways as well as other limited access highways looping Syracuse has eased

commutes for area residents, thus encouraging suburbanization, dispersing much of the area’s population throughout Onondaga County and Central New York (Rivette, 2005).

Arts and entertainment. Perhaps partly a result of the economic structure of Central

New York, the way of life in Central New York, speaking in generalities, is distinct from that of

other regions of the state. The area is not a tourist destination by any means, as regions to the

west (Finger Lakes) and north (Adirondack Mountains) are more popular destinations for travel.

Nonetheless, Syracuse is home to a small number of theaters (e.g., Landmark Theater, Oncenter

Crouse-Hinds Theater) and museums (e.g., Everson Museum of Art, Museum of Science and

Technology) that provide year-round entertainment to residents. Local festivals and musical performances can be found throughout the warmer weather months, a time of the year when

Syracuse’s Rosamond Gifford Zoo is also a popular destination. As well, gentrification of downtown neighborhoods such as Armory Square, Clinton Square, and Franklin Square have made them popular areas for residents to convene for urban dining and entertainment.

Destiny USA (formerly Carousel Center), the nation’s sixth largest shopping mall located just north of downtown Syracuse adjacent the south shore of Onondaga Lake, has recently become one of the area’s top destinations for area residents. Indeed, Destiny USA touts itself as

“the premier entertainment destination for the Syracuse area and surrounding region” (Destiny

USA, 2014). After decades of dispute between local government officials and the mall developers regarding expansion plans to make the mall the largest in the nation, the shopping mall has recently expanded to include numerous restaurants, thus reviving local and regional interest in the destination.

In addition to Syracuse’s year-round entertainment offerings, the town of Geddes, which borders Syracuse to the west, hosts the Great New York State Fair annually for two weeks from late August through Labor Day. Although short in duration, The Fair is arguably the Syracuse area’s biggest entertainment event of the year, attracting more than 800,000 people annually

(The Fair, 2013). The Fair annually draws national performing artists (a rarity in the area),

numerous exhibitors, and is an agricultural showcase for farmers from across the state.

In summary, while some might be quick to judge Syracuse and Central New York for its

lack of entertainment options relative to the rest of the state or country, it is not that there is

nothing to do in the area, but rather that one must seek out the activities the area affords

individuals. As well, one must not forget the area’s sport entertainment, especially college basketball (both discussed later in this chapter), is a vital component of the cultural landscape of the region.

Higher education. Syracuse and the larger Central New York region is home to many higher education institutions. In Syracuse, higher education institutions include Le Moyne

College, Onondaga Community College, Syracuse University (discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section of this chapter), the State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate Medical

University, and SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Outside of Syracuse, other colleges and universities in Central New York14 include Cayuga Community College

(Auburn, NY), Cazenovia College (Cazenovia, NY), Colgate University (Hamilton, NY), SUNY

Cortland (Cortland, NY), SUNY Morrisville (Morrisville, NY), and SUNY Oswego (Oswego,

NY).

Collectively, the colleges and universities of Central New York range in scope and size

and offer a range of academic programs to students at the undergraduate and graduate levels. As

well, these higher education institutions offer a host of employment opportunities to area

residents, and are contributors to the local culture through arts and entertainment. As such,

higher education represents a sizeable portion of the Syracuse and Central New York economy

14 As defined previously, consisting of Cayuga, Cortland, Madison, Onondaga, and Oswego, counties. 94

and to some extent, informs culture in the region. Considering all of the higher education

institutions in Central New York, however, Syracuse University is perhaps the most recognized

regionally and nationwide.

Syracuse University. A private coeducational institution chartered in 1870 by members

of the Methodist Episcopal Church15, Syracuse University offered its first classes to a group of fewer than 50 students in 1871 in a rented building in downtown Syracuse. Not long after its founding, construction soon began on a plot of land located atop a hill on the east side of

Syracuse (what residents today refer to as University Hill). By the spring of 1873, the first building on the current Syracuse University campus, the Hall of Languages, was dedicated. By the turn of the century, the campus had expanded to include multiple buildings, including its own

College of Law, and by 1922, student enrollment had soared to 4,800. This early growth in enrollment, campus construction, and academic programs was largely thanks to financial support from entrepreneurs such as Andrew Carnegie and John Archbold (Bennett, 2005; Galvin, Mason,

& O’Brien, 2013).

Syracuse University continued to expand through the 20th century, adding its own

College of Medicine (now SUNY Upstate Medical University) and satellite campuses (Utica

College and Binghamton University, both of which are now independent from Syracuse

University). The S.I. Newhouse School of Communications16, named after publishing tycoon

Samuel Irving Newhouse Senior (who provided a founding gift), was dedicated in 1964. During the same period, the university’s athletic programs (discussed in greater detail in a later section of this chapter) were becoming competitive on the national level; the football program rose to

15 In 1920, Syracuse University altered its charter to define itself as nonsectarian (Bennett, 2005). 16 Newhouse has since grown to be one of the most reputable communications schools in the nation, often recognized for its strong journalism program. 95 prominence during the 1950s and 1960s, and the men’s basketball program quickly followed in

the 1960s and 1970s. By the end of the 20th century, Syracuse University had established itself as a highly regarded private research university, attracting students and faculty from around the world.

Today, Syracuse University boasts a total student population of roughly 20,000 (about three-quarters of which are undergraduate students), and employs more than 4,000 full-time faculty and staff. Considering the undergraduate student population, less than half are New York

State residents (Bennett, 2005a), indicative of the university’s appeal nationally and internationally. Undergraduate tuition as of 2014 was $38,970, making the university one of the most expensive to attend in the region. To encourage enrollment among local residents and bolster relations with the surrounding community, Syracuse University partnered with the

Syracuse City School District in 2008, to provide financial support to students in the Syracuse

City School District as part of the Say Yes to Syracuse program (SU Facts, 2014).

Sport in Syracuse and Central New York

Although residents of Syracuse and the surrounding region are entertained by a variety of

activities (e.g., theater, museums, festivals) year-round, sport has been a particularly important

source of entertainment for area residents. Recreationally, a range of sports are enjoyed by those

in the area, including summer and winter activities that allow residents to take advantage of the

nearby lakes, rivers, and trails. Additionally, the region is known for its development of (men’s and women’s) lacrosse players through youth and interscholastic programs; as a sport, lacrosse has a strong historical presence in the area, with members of the Iroquois Nations playing games as early as the 17th century (Fisher, 2005).

In terms of spectator sport, although Syracuse was once home to major league professional sport teams in baseball (the Syracuse Stars in 1879; Writing, 2014) and basketball

(the Syracuse Nationals from 1946-1963; Ramsey, 2005), residents of the area now have to

travel quite a distance to see sport at that level of play. Considering North America’s “big four” professional sport leagues, the current organizations in each league located closest to Syracuse

are: the Major League Baseball (MLB) New York Yankees, New York Mets, Philadelphia

Phillies, and Toronto Blue Jays (all four hours from Syracuse); the National Basketball

Association (NBA) Brooklyn Nets, New York Knicks, Philadelphia 76ers, and Toronto Raptors

(all four hours from Syracuse); the National Football League (NFL) Buffalo Bills (two hours

from Syracuse)17; and the National Hockey League (NHL) Buffalo Sabres (two hours from

Syracuse). Notably, Central New York is in close proximity to the National Baseball Hall of

Fame in Cooperstown, New York (about 90 minutes from Syracuse).

Major and Minor League Sport in Syracuse

Although Central New Yorkers certainly follow major league professional teams (e.g., many Central New Yorkers support the New York Yankees), the distance required to travel to attend games has perhaps propelled the area’s minor league professional teams and intercollegiate athletic programs to popularity. In this section, I discuss several of the (past and present) major and minor league sport teams in Syracuse.

As early as the late 19th century, residents enjoyed watching baseball teams play at the professional level. The Syracuse Stars had a short stint in the National League (which later merged with the American League to form Major League Baseball) in 1879. However, a poor record (22-48) led to the team forfeiting before the season ended. The Stars continued to play in

17 The New York Jets hold an annual training camp 40 minutes south of Syracuse on the campus of SUNY Cortland (Kramer, 2014a). 97

various minor leagues through the 1920s. In 1934, the Syracuse Chiefs baseball team was

established, along with the construction of MacArthur Stadium, which continues to compete

today as a member of the International League (IL) and minor league affiliate of the Major

League Baseball (MLB) Washington Nationals. Despite their tenure in the community, the

Chiefs have struggled to attract spectators for years; midway through the 2014 season, the Chiefs

ranked last among IL teams in average attendance per game, at 3,490 (International League,

2014).

In addition to minor league baseball, Syracuse is home to a minor league hockey team,

the Syracuse Crunch, currently an American Hockey League (AHL) affiliate of the NHL’s

Tampa Bay Lightning (2013-present). Originally an affiliate of the Vancouver Canucks (1994-

1999), and later the Columbus Blue Jackets (2000-2009) and Anaheim Ducks (2010-2012), the

Crunch have competed in the AHL for more than 20 years (Syracuse Crunch, 2014). The Crunch play home games in downtown Syracuse at the War Memorial, a building that has hosted many

sporting events in Syracuse since its construction in 1951. Given the popularity of ice hockey as

a sport in Central New York’s long winters, the Crunch regularly draw a considerable amount of

spectators to home games, averaging 5,574 attendees per home game in 2014 (Kramer, 2014b).

Although forgotten by many today, Syracuse was a city known for its professional basketball long before amateur basketball (i.e., Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, discussed

in a subsequent section of this chapter) had a stronghold on the surrounding community. The

sport grew in popularity among Central New Yorkers as a recreational activity for both men and

women into the early 1900s (Writing, 2014). By mid-century, Syracuse had its own professional basketball team, the Syracuse Nationals.

The Syracuse Nationals or “Nats” as they were known colloquially, purchased in 1946 by

Danny Biasone, an Italian immigrant who owned a bowling alley and liquor store in Syracuse,

were one of the original National Basketball Association (NBA) franchises. Indeed, it was Nats

owner Biasone himself who introduced the 24-second shot clock to the NBA in 1954.18 The

Nats—along with other small-city NBA teams such as the Rochester Royals—provided Syracuse

and the larger Central New York community and opportunity to compete among teams from

some of the nation’s largest cities, such as the New York Knickerbockers (Marc, 2005).

The Nats played home games at the Jefferson Street Armory in downtown Syracuse and

later, the Onondaga County War Memorial. Although they struggled in the early years, the Nats

won the NBA championship in 1955, generating buzz and excitement within the community in

the process. Although the Nats were able to attract sizeable crowds to games given the relatively

small market they competed in (compared to teams in cities such as Boston, Chicago, or New

York), the overall low attendance led to a financial loss for the organization in 1963, leading

owner Biasone to sell the team to new owners in Philadelphia; in this transaction, the Syracuse

Nationals became the Philadelphia 76ers. Coincidentally, the departure of the Nats to

Philadelphia directly preceded a surge in the local following of the Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball program, the popularity of which has remained strong through today.

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball is a storied program with a history dating back to

the start of the 20th century. In this section, I begin by discussing Syracuse University Athletics

generally, including its programs, facilities, and brand elements. Subsequently, introduce the

reader to Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, the focal entity of the current research project.

18 To commemorate Biasone’s introduction of the shot clock in Syracuse, a shot clock monument can be found in downtown Syracuse’s Armory Square. 99

Syracuse University Athletics

Syracuse University Athletics offers student-athletes the opportunity to compete in

NCAA Division I programs, the highest level of competition recognized by the NCAA. As of

2014, Syracuse University Athletics offers seven Division I men’s programs (basketball, cross country, football, lacrosse, rowing, soccer, and track and field) and eleven Division I women’s programs (basketball, cross country, field hockey, ice hockey, lacrosse, rowing, soccer, softball, tennis, track and field, and volleyball). As of 2014, Syracuse University Athletics has earned 26 national team championships and 22 individual national champions (Cuse, 2014).

Syracuse University was a charter member of the Big East Conference, formed in a meeting on May 31, 1979 along with Boston College, the University of Connecticut,

Georgetown University, Providence College, Seton Hall University, and St. John’s University

(The Big East, 2014). Syracuse University was invited to join the Atlantic Coast Conference

(ACC) in 2010, and the university’s Board of Trustees soon after unanimously voted to join the conference (Quinn, 2011). In addition to the ACC’s appeal among Syracuse University administrators for academic excellence, the university was lured by the ACC’s lucrative media rights deal with sports network ESPN (McMurphy, 2013) and the potential to become more competitive in football. Syracuse University officially joined the ACC on July 1, 2013, ending a

34-year stint in the Big East Conference (Frye, 2013).

The (Carrier) Dome. Discussions of Syracuse University Athletics—especially among those who have attended or visited Syracuse University—seldom conclude without mention or thought of the Carrier Dome. Built on the ground that was formerly occupied by Archbold

Stadium, the Carrier Dome opened its doors in 1980 and has remained the home of the university’s football, men’s and women’s basketball, and men’s and women’s lacrosse programs

100 since. The Carrier Dome is named after a $2.75 million gift from (then local) Carrier Corporation to contribute to the $26.85 million construction cost (Galvin et al., 2013; History, 2014).

The Carrier Dome, or simply “The Dome” as local residents refer to it, has become an

iconic structure in Syracuse; approaching Syracuse from the south on Interstate-81, the city’s

modest skyline of mid-sized downtown buildings is almost dominated by the Dome to the east.

Located on the Syracuse University campus in University Hill, the Dome has a capacity of nearly

50,000—modest among college football venues, but enormous by college basketball standards.

Syracuse University continually breaks attendance records in men’s basketball (e.g., over 35,000 people were in attendance for Syracuse’s first-ever ACC home game versus Duke University in

2014; Lawrence, 2014), with spectators frequently enduring Central New York’s brutal winter

weather to make the trek to the urban venue.

Despite the Dome remaining a landmark for area residents and its national recognition as

a unique college sport venue for more than 30 years, the lifespan of the Dome is nearing its end.

In June 2014, following months of discussion of possible renovations to or replacement of the

Dome, Syracuse University Chancellor Kent Syverud announced he will give university officials

two years to decide the fate of the Dome; the inflatable roof of the Dome was replaced in 2000,

and will once again be due for a replacement in the coming years. As such, university officials

are currently deliberating three potential options: replace the Dome’s inflatable roof; replace the

inflatable roof with a different roofing system (e.g., retractable roof); or build a new (off-site)

facility (Tobin, 2014). Not surprisingly, given the Dome’s historical significance to Syracuse

University Athletics and the city of Syracuse in general, modifications to the home of the Orange

have ignited much conversation among Syracuse University stakeholders, students and local

residents included.

101

Branding “The Orange”. Although Syracuse University today is associated with the color orange, the university’s original colors—adopted in 1872—were pink and pea green; the colors were altered slightly to “rose pink and azure blue” in 1873. In 1890, following a track and field meet victory over nearby Hamilton College, a group of Syracuse students concluded the school colors were not appropriate for athletic competition and subsequently approached the

Chancellor about their concerns. A committee was formed to address the issue and, after some consideration of adopting the color orange along with another color (e.g., green, blue), the committee ultimately decided to adopt orange as its single color, as no other university appeared to have done the same (Why Orange, 2010). Although athletic uniforms periodically include other colors (e.g., navy blue is an unofficial accent color), Syracuse has maintained the color orange as its (only) official university color since 1890. As such, the university has endeavored to be recognized nationally for its association with the color orange; on March 24, 1995,

Syracuse University began National Orange Day (Galvin et al., 2013).

Just as Syracuse University’s colors have evolved over the years, the university’s mascot has changed as well. Originally adopting a goat dubbed “Vita the Goat” as its mascot in the

1920s, the Saltine Warrior became recognized by students beginning in the 1930s, under a hoax among students that the remains of “Big Chief Bill Orange” had been found on the Syracuse

University campus (Galvin et al., 2013). By the 1950s, the Saltine Warrior became a regular mascot at football games. However, after members of a Native American student organization protested the use of the Saltine Warrior as a university mascot in 1978, efforts were made to change the mascot.

After exploring various options in the 1980s, a fuzzy orange prevailed as the university’s unofficial mascot, and in 1995, Otto the Orange was recognized by the Chancellor as the official

102 university mascot (Syracuse University Mascots, 2010). Although Otto the Orange has changed slightly in appearance over the years (e.g., currently, it dons a Syracuse cap with a Nike swoosh, signifying the university’s relationship with Nike), Otto has remained a fan favorite for decades, and has frequently been recognized nationally as one of the top mascots in college football and basketball (e.g., Cornfield, 2013; Herbert, 2014).

Rebranding under new leadership. Syracuse University Director of Athletics Dr. Daryl

Gross (2004-2015) is frequently credited with leading the charge to revitalize the Syracuse

University Athletics brand during his tenure with the Orange. Along with the department’s

marketing and communications staff, Gross focused on promoting the program beyond Syracuse

and Central New York. Much of the change to Syracuse University Athletics that came about

during Gross’ tenure was in line with the trend toward an increasingly commercialized

intercollegiate athletics landscape, particularly NCAA Division I Football and Men’s Basketball.

Under Gross, Syracuse University Athletics branded its programs as “New York’s

College Team,” capitalizing on its status as the leader statewide in football and men’s basketball.

Identifying itself as New York’s College Team, Syracuse University Athletics has leveraged the

New York metropolitan area; men’s basketball has had a historical presence in Manhattan with

contests held at Madison Square Garden, and in recent years the football program has played a

game annually at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands sport complex (home of the NFL’s New

York Giants and New York Jets).

In promotion of the “New York’s College Team” campaign, Syracuse University

Athletics has increased its marketing spend statewide, particularly the New York metropolitan

area, including advertisements on New York City taxi tops and signage within Yankee Stadium

(Gross, 2014). Interestingly, the focus of the campaign to claim New York—and New York

103

City—as its own market has come with a dose of criticism from some who have noted (a) the abundance of universities in New York State and the surrounding area, and (b) the inability of any university to ever truly claim New York City as its own (e.g., Cassillo, 2013; Wiedeman,

2012).

In addition to its “New York’s College Team” campaign, Syracuse University Athletics

altered its logo in 2005, returning to the traditional block “S” as the university’s official athletics

logo. Debuted in 1893 to recognize Syracuse University student-athletes obtaining varsity letters,

the block “S” took on “rounded” and “angular” variations through the 20th century before

eventually being replaced with an interlocking “SU” logo in the early 21st century (since many

members of the university community and surrounding Central New York area commonly refer

to the university as SU). Upon Gross’ arrival, however, the block “S” was reestablished as the

official Syracuse University Athletics logo in an effort to promote Syracuse nationwide under

one recognizable emblem (Howe, 2010).

Fans of the Orange. Similar to many intercollegiate athletic programs, Syracuse

University Athletics has a strong fan base in its student (and alumni) population. Since 2006, the

student section of Syracuse University Athletics (mainly present at the football and men’s basketball games) has been known officially as Otto’s Army. Considering men’s basketball in particular, students have been known to camp outside of the Carrier Dome (in severe winter

weather) for days leading up to home games against rivals, hoping to obtain an ideal seat in the

Dome’s first come, first serve student section; over time, this campsite has become known as

“Boeheimburg” (Otto’s Army, 2014). In addition to Otto’s Army, Syracuse University alums are

loyal supporters of the Orange as well, and have always ensured Syracuse players receive a

104 warm welcome at games played at New York City’s Madison Square Garden, as many former students reside in the New York metropolitan area.

A unique aspect of Syracuse University Athletics’ fan base—specifically, that of the football and men’s basketball programs—is the strong following among local residents (i.e.,

Central New Yorkers). For more than a half century, Central New Yorkers have embraced the

Syracuse University Athletics programs as if they were their own. The absence of any major professional sport teams in the area has allowed for a boost in support of Syracuse University

Athletics from the local community; essentially, for many Central New Yorkers, Syracuse

University Football and Men’s Basketball are the professional sport teams in the area (from a

celebrity and fanfare perspective). Syracuse University Athletics has welcomed the local support,

involving itself as a member of the local community through programs such as the ‘Cuse Cares

Community Service Program (Cuse Cares, 2014).

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball: The Early Years (1900-1975)

Although Syracuse University Men’s Basketball is perhaps most known for its rise to

national prominence during the Jim Boeheim era, the university’s basketball program enjoyed

success not long from its inception. After beginning in 1900 with no coach for its first three

seasons, the basketball program rose quickly to success. Syracuse University Men’s Basketball

enjoyed an undefeated season in 1913-14, and was named the national champion in 1917-18 and

1925-1926 under Coach Lew Andreas (Snyder, 2005).

In the early years, basketball home games were held at on-campus Archbold Gym, built

in 1908 and named after oil mogul John D. Archbold, who funded the gymnasium as well as

Archbold Stadium, home of the football team (Galvin et al., 2013; Snyder, 2005). The basketball

team was forced to play its home games at a variety of off-campus venues from 1947 to 1952

105 after a fire in Archbold Gym required its rebuilding; during this time, the team played at locations around Syracuse, including the Onondaga County War Memorial, the Jefferson Street

Armory, and the New York State Fair Coliseum (Waters, 2013).

After a period of poor play in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the opening of Manley

Field House in 1962 (home of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball until 1980) and talent of stars such as Dave Bing gave the program the momentum it has maintained through today

(Writing, 2014). Situated on Syracuse University’s Skytop campus located just south of the main campus, Manley Field House would remain the home of the Orange for nearly 20 years. It was within this time period (i.e., the 1960s) that Syracuse University Men’s Basketball gained a slew of fans from the local community. Indeed, it is partly the historically consistent winning records of the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team that led the community to embrace the program as part of the local culture. The program’s last losing season was 1968-69, and by 1975, it had made its first appearance in the NCAA Final Four (Snyder, 2005).

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball: The Boeheim Era (1976-present)

After its 1975 trip to the NCAA Final Four, the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team continued its streak of success, however under new leadership—in 1976, Jim Boeheim took over as head coach of the Orange. A Central New York native himself, after playing basketball at

Syracuse University as a walk-on guard from 1962 to 1966, Boeheim began a career in coaching as an Assistant Coach for Syracuse under then head coach Roy Danforth from 1969 to 1976.

When Danforth left in 1976, an unsuccessful search for his replacement led to the promotion of

Boeheim to head coach of the program, a position he has held since.

Soon into Boeheim’s tenure as leader of the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball program, the program experienced several milestones, including joining the Big East

106

Conference—arguably one of the greatest NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball conferences in history—in 1979, and playing its first games in the Carrier Dome in 1980. It was during this time that Syracuse’s national rivalries grew, most notably with fellow Big East member Georgetown

University. The team enjoyed great success in the 1980s, making eight NCAA Tournament appearances. Most notably, the Orange—with the talents of Derrick Coleman, Sherman Douglas, and Rony Seikaly—made it to the national championship game in 1987, ultimately falling to

Indiana University in the final seconds of the game (Galvin et al., 2013).

Syracuse’s consistent winning seasons continued into the 1990s, again making frequent appearances in postseason play. In 1996, led by forward John Wallace, the team had another chance to win the national championship when it faced the University of Kentucky in the NCAA

Final, but the talented Kentucky prevailed. Just seven years later, however, the Orange finally claimed the national championship; in 2003, led by freshman standout Carmelo Anthony19 (as well as other memorable players, e.g., Gerry McNamara, Hakim Warrick), Syracuse defeated the

University of Kansas 81-78 to win its first NCAA Tournament Championship (Galvin et al.,

2013; Snyder, 2005).

In the decade that has past since Syracuse’s national championship run, much of the same success it experienced for decades has continued. Syracuse has enjoyed winning seasons each year, and as of 2014, has appeared in the NCAA Tournament for six straight seasons. Syracuse’s last NCAA Final Four appearance came in 2013, the same year the team played its final games as a member of the Big East. In the 2013-2014 season, Syracuse made a strong debut in the

19 Although Anthony played only one season for the Orange, he has remained a loyal supporter of the program and Syracuse Athletics. In 2009, men’s and women’s basketball began practicing at the Carmelo K. Anthony Basketball Center, a state-of-the-art practice facility on the Syracuse University campus; Anthony donated $3 million for construction of the $19 million facility (Galvin et al., 2013; Melo, 2014). 107

ACC, winning a record 25 straight games—including a remarkable overtime win in the Carrier

Dome against new rival Duke University—before ultimately finishing the regular season 27-5; in the postseason, the Orange suffered a disappointing loss in the third round of the NCAA

Tournament to the University of Dayton.

All told, Syracuse University Men’s Basketball is one of the winningest NCAA Division

I Men’s Basketball programs of all time (NCAA, 2013). Under Jim Boeheim, who has accrued more than 900 career wins as head coach of the Orange, the team has earned one NCAA

National Championship, four NCAA Final Four appearances, and nine Big East Conference regular season championships (Boeheim, 2014). Although Boeheim is nearing the end of his career, if past success is any indicator of future success, Syracuse University Men’s Basketball players, coaches, fans, and other supporters should have little reason to worry.

Summary

In this chapter, I sought to contextualize the environment in which I conducted research for this project. By providing a background of Syracuse and Central New York, including the area’s past and current economic conditions, I aimed to provide the reader with a sense of what it is like to live in or visit the Syracuse area.

Although Syracuse was once a rapidly growing hub for manufacturing and trade in the

Northeast, these days have long since passed. Today, Central New York’s growth has plateaued, and a decline in the demand for industrial work has forced area residents to embrace alternative industries in which to excel, such as education, healthcare, and business services. Central New

York is home to several colleges and universities, including Syracuse University, a major employer in the area.

108

Syracuse has historically offered a range of spectator sports for residents of Central New

York to support. During the height of the area’s growth, the city of Syracuse was home to major league professional teams such as the NBA Syracuse Nationals, who won a national championship in 1955. The Nationals’ stay in Syracuse was terminated in 1963 as a result of poor attendance (relative to larger NBA markets) and the organization’s financial distress. For the past 50 plus years, minor league professional sport has become the norm in the area in regard to professional play, with the Syracuse Chiefs (baseball) and Syracuse Crunch (hockey) continuing to compete today.

Perhaps a result of the loss of major league professional sport in the area, area residents have strongly supported Syracuse University Athletics programs for decades. A perennial leader in NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball, trips to the Carrier Dome have become the norm for students and the local community from November through March. Although the program has recently undergone changes (e.g., a move from the Big East Conference to the ACC, various rebranding campaigns), the program has continued its consistent success, and fans have shown no signs of wavering.

Collectively, chapters one through four provide the foundation for the research I conducted in pursuit of the research aims for this project. With this knowledge in tow, in the remaining chapters I present the findings of the research I conducted in this project, and conclude with a discussion of the findings, including marketing implications and direction for future research.

109

CHAPTER FIVE

WHAT IS THE “TEAM” IN TEAM IDENTIFICATION?

Collectively, the preceding chapters served as a foundation for the research conducted in

this project in pursuit of the research aims. In this chapter, I discuss the findings pertaining to

Research Aim 1, to understand the elements of the team from the consumer’s perspective.

Specifically, I discuss the findings in accordance with the following research questions:

RQ1a: According to the fans or spectators I interview, how do they define the team?

RQ1b: According to the fans or spectators I interview, is there a difference between the

meaning of team in terms of performance versus the meaning of team in terms of

the entity they are psychologically connected to?

RQ1c: According to the fans or spectators I interview, is the meaning of team fixed?

Verbatim responses are included to illuminate the findings, and example concept maps are included in Appendix F; to ensure anonymity, participants are represented with pseudonyms.

The remainder of this chapter is divided in four parts. First, I discuss how individuals interviewed define “team” regarding their psychological connection to Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball, emphasizing that although the meaning of team is contingent on individuals’ unique experiences, common themes can be found in the meaning of team. Second, I describe how individuals appear to make a distinction in “team” regarding performance versus the entity to which they may have a connection. Third, I discuss how the meaning of team is simultaneously fixed and unfixed. Fourth, I provide a discussion of Research Aim 1 findings.

Defining the Team

In analyzing the interviews and concept maps, it was evident that individuals construct the meaning of “team” according to the way they were introduced to and have experienced

110

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball over time. In this regard, the “team” to which individuals are psychologically connected to is discursive, comprised of a collection of memories and experiences unique to the individual. Despite the expansive, highly contextualized nature of team, common themes can be found in how individuals define the team. Across all individuals interviewed, most included the coach, players, fans, facility/location, rivalry, and a history of success in their definition of team; each “team” element is discussed here.

Coach

Nearly all of the participants included Jim Boeheim, current Head Coach of Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball, in their concept map and their idea of the team. Boeheim has held this position since 1976, and most of the individuals interviewed have never followed Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball under other leadership. As such, these individuals have come to think of Boeheim as part of the team they are connected to. As Wilson noted, “He’s the one constant that’s been with the team forever, and kind of inseparable.” George remarked similarly,

“The consistent person in all of this is the coach. The players come and go, but he’s the architect of the team. He’s part of the team.”

Carter explained Boeheim’s longstanding involvement with Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball might be why he sees Boeheim as part of the team he is connected to, noting, “He’s been the face of SU for so long, you know? Even in Syracuse, there’s no real celebrities, right?

It’s funny. In Syracuse Jim Boeheim is probably the biggest celebrity. He’s the first one I think of.” Although Boeheim was often the first person recalled when thinking of the Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball team because of his involvement with the program, individuals frequently linked Boeheim to other people, such as players, in their concept maps.

111

Players

All participants considered players to be part of the Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball team and included at least one player in their concept map. Interestingly, nearly all participants included former players in their concept map, with current players still considered part of the team but in a more transient role. As George noted, “The current players are the mercenaries.” Similarly, Rachael included both current and former players in her concept map, and emphasized that “the current players are just part of the team.”

The viewpoint that current players are just part of the team was especially true of individuals who have supported Syracuse University Men’s Basketball for more than one to two years. For these individuals, past players (e.g., Carmelo Anthony, Derrick Coleman) come to mind and are considered part of the team. Mark commented on how much more significant former players are to him than current players, noting:

I saw Billy Owens when I was just in New York, and we chatted for about 10 minutes

and, that’s, if I see Gerry McNamara, it’s like, “what’s up, Gerry?” But I don’t have the

same, almost in awe feeling as I do with the others. Maybe it’s because I’m closer in age

to those guys, whereas guys like Derrick Coleman I grew up watching as a kid. But now,

I have not felt any connection to any players recently. And part of that maybe is because

they don’t stay long enough. I thought Tyler Ennis was really good, but then he was

gone. Michael Carter-Williams, good, then he’s gone. So, there hasn’t been any four-year

standout lately. So I just never really connected with them.

Alternatively, individuals who had only recently become fans of Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball consider current players to be the foundational component of the “team” they are connected to. As Wilson, a current Syracuse University student, noted, “The coach is part,

112 but the players are really the team. I go to school with them, see them around campus, have class with them.” Wilson’s unique perspective as a Syracuse University student contrasts that of long- time fans (e.g., Central New Yorkers); nonetheless, it is evident players—current and/or former—are considered part of the team.

Fans

Beyond the coach and players, participants frequently included other individuals (e.g., family, friends) in their maps and in describing their psychological connection to the Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball team. Although these other individuals do not directly impact the success or failure of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, participants appear to include other fans and community members in constructing the team as a result of experiencing Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball alongside them; for some, this includes specific groups of people.

For example, Justin, a former season ticket holder, noted his relationship with season ticket holders and the inclusion of these individuals in his idea of the team he is connected to, explaining:

Season ticket holders. I think it’s a piece of what [the team] is. It might tie to pride or it

might tie to big crowds. My brother was a season ticket holder for 25 or 30 years; he

knew everyone in the section.

In addition to season ticket holders, participants remarked on the vast Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball fan base as integral in their connection. As Carter noted:

In 1987, when they went to the Final Four, I remember people painting roads orange and

everyone was all, “Go SU.” I remember thinking, wow, everybody—just realizing that

everyone was kind of tied together, all a part of this team, and it was pretty cool.

113

The remarks of Justin and Carter illustrate the larger group of fans and community members that are considered part of the team in regard to the connection they have formed to Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball.

Facility

In addition to the people considered part of the team, other entities are also included in

individuals’ definition of team. For many, the Carrier Dome, home of Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball since 1980, is considered part of the team. In explaining why she included “Dome” in

her concept map, Ashley remarked, “I definitely think the dome is part of the team. You’re going

to see Syracuse play in the dome. I don’t think it would be the same if they didn’t play there.”

Others commented similarly, explaining that attending games at the Carrier Dome and its relative

uniqueness as a basketball venue has led them to include the facility in their conceptualization of

the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team.

Geographic Location

Beyond the notion of the Carrier Dome being part of the team in participants’ minds,

geographic location is also included in individuals’ idea of the team they are connected to. For

native Central New Yorkers, this includes the city of Syracuse and more broadly, Central New

York. As Carter noted, “Around here, growing up, it’s the one thing that, growing up in a small

town, it sort of ties you to the city, to Syracuse. It makes you feel like you’re a part of something bigger.” Others remarked similarly, explaining that the city of Syracuse and Syracuse basketball

are somewhat synonymous in their minds; this was especially true among individuals who have

spent time away from Central New York. These individuals explained they feel as though

“outsiders” perceive Syracuse and the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team as the same,

and as such, the city has become part of the team they identify with.

114

Rivalry

In thinking about the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team, most participants included rivals of Syracuse in their concept maps. Individuals who have followed Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball for some time often included “old” Big East Conference rivals such as Georgetown University and the University of Connecticut, whereas individuals who have only supported Syracuse University Men’s Basketball in recent years tended to mention “new”

Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) rivals such as Duke University.

The distinction individuals make between Syracuse University Men’s Basketball and its

rivals makes them feel unique, which illustrates how individuals are (ironically) able to think of a

conference (e.g., Big East, ACC) or rival university as part of the team they are connected to;

this is especially evident considering social identity theory and the need for ingroup and

outgroup distinction in identity formation and maintenance (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). As Mark

noted, “That’s one thing, like, I think we have that shared hatred with Georgetown; you have the

unique opportunity to have something bigger than everyone else has.” Simon discussed his

feelings about Syracuse and the Big East, explaining, “I mean we kind of made the Big East, we

were part of it for so long, it’s kind of like a marriage, part of us.” As a result of perceiving

Syracuse (ingroup) as distinct from Georgetown or other rivals (outgroups), Mark, Simon, and

others have come to consider these rivalries part of their connection to Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball; the absence of these rivalries would make Syracuse less distinct, and thus

more difficult to derive an enhanced sense of self from.

History of Success

In addition to the people, places, and groups individuals appear to include in their

definition of the team, conversations with participants revealed that the history of the Syracuse

115

University Men’s Basketball program—and the unique way they have experienced such—is part of the team they are connected to; this often includes achievements they have witnessed (e.g., victories over rivals, Boeheim’s 900th win, NCAA Final Four appearances). Although participants indicated they would still support Syracuse University Men’s Basketball if they were

not successful, the program’s success over time has given them something positive to identify

with; that is, the history of successful seasons over time has become part of what they consider to be the team. Some individuals indicated if Syracuse had not been successful over the years, they might not identify with it. As George noted, “All of those other things are nothing if they don’t win. Winning is a huge part of the team.” Essentially, the absence of consecutive losing seasons makes it difficult for individuals to imagine anything but success or league dominance when thinking of the team.

Additional Elements of Team

In addition to the common themes of meaning previously discussed, it is important to acknowledge unique or less common elements of team; doing so allows us to further illustrate the complexity of team, particularly that individuals do not think of the team identically.

Although not included in all individuals’ definition of team, more than half included the Big East

Conference and cold weather. Other less common elements included dome traditions (i.e., dome walk, dome dogs) and orange.

Big East Conference. In addition to considering specific rival universities as part of the

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team they are psychologically connected to, many individuals also included in their maps the larger athletic conference to which the schools belong. Although Syracuse has been a member of the ACC since 2013, individuals tended to discuss the Big East, which Syracuse was a member of for more than three decades.

116

Individuals who consider the Big East Conference part of the Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball team seemed to be particularly tied to the Big East Tournament, which Syracuse fans looked forward to watching or attending annually at Madison Square Garden. As Mark said,

“Not being able to go to the Big East Tournament. Not having the same rivalries they’ve had in the past. Obviously, they have new rivalries. But, Syracuse/Duke, in my mind, will never compare to Syracuse/Georgetown, or even Syracuse/UConn.” Because Syracuse and its classic rivals such as Georgetown University and the University of Connecticut were all housed under the Big East Conference, thinking of the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team without the

Big East Conference or the Big East Tournament is currently difficult for those who have been

fans for some time.

Cold weather. More than half of the individuals interviewed included “cold,” “cold weather,” or “snow” on their concept maps and how they think of the team. In nearly all instances, these items were linked to the Carrier Dome or Syracuse (location) on individuals’ concept maps. Because individuals think of the facility/location as part of the “team” they are connected to, and think of cold weather when considering the facility/location, cold weather is essentially a peripheral part of the team these individuals are psychologically connected to.

College basketball season lasts the duration of winter, and in a region that often

experiences harsh winter weather, some think of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball as a

diversion during this time. Essentially, Syracuse University Men’s Basketball is an escape from

the long winters experienced in Central New York. Perhaps similar to how individuals think of

Syracuse or Central New York as part of the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team, the

specific weather experienced during basketball season is central in the minds of some when

thinking of the team; as such, it is part of the psychological connection to the “team” for them.

117

Carrier Dome traditions. Due to the urban location of the Carrier Dome on the

Syracuse University campus, most fans walk about a mile from parking garages to the Carrier

Dome to attend games. Similar to the “cold weather” team element, the “dome walk” is a peripheral team element, linked to the Carrier Dome, when thinking about the “Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball team.” For many fans, this walk is part of the experience of attending a game, as they are joined by thousands of others before they even enter the Carrier

Dome. In a sense, the dome walk has become a tradition for those who travel by car to games, and thus, in considering the Carrier Dome as part of the team, the “dome walk” has become part of the experience for fans.

In addition to the dome walk being thought of as part of the team for some, dome dogs were included on the concept maps of a few individuals. Served at the Carrier Dome in the 1980s and 1990s, dome dogs (i.e., branded hot dogs) have since been replaced with a local hot dog brand. Interestingly, the individuals who included dome dogs on their concept maps are all men in their 30’s, whose earliest memories of attending basketball games at the Carrier Dome include eating a dome dog. Similar to dome walks, eating dome dogs at the Carrier Dome was a

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball tradition among these individuals, and is part of the

“team” they are psychologically connected to as a result. The fact that this past tradition remains in the minds of individuals is indicative of the significance of socialization into sport fandom on thoughts regarding the team, and psychological connection to such.

Orange. Only a few individuals included “orange” on their concept map and thought of it as part of the team. This was a relatively surprising discovery given that the nickname of

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball is “Orange,” was previously “Orangemen,” and nearly all branding efforts regarding Syracuse University Athletics include the word and color orange (e.g.,

118

Orange Nation, Otto the Orange). In addition, the absence of “orange” on most individuals’ concept maps was surprising because most of them did discuss orange in some capacity during the interview. For example, George explained that he is, “loyal orange in and orange out,”

Rachael stated that, “orange is their thing,” and Justin explained how he and his wife often have orange items in their house, but none of them included “orange” on their map.

Although Syracuse is known as “Syracuse Orange” to fans and non-fans, it seems that this branded aspect of the program is not essential to individuals’ psychological connection.

Indeed, in conversing with Ashley—who did include “orange” in her concept map—about

Syracuse’s color, she indicated that she would still be fan if they wore green. Essentially, although Syracuse fans are able to identify themselves as fans by wearing orange, this

“nickname” is not necessarily what individuals are psychologically connected to. Instead, individuals are connected to those they interact with and experiences they have had as Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball fans.

(Team) Performance and (Team) Identification

In the previous section, I discussed the various elements individuals interviewed associated with the team; many of these entities are not traditionally thought of as being part of a team (e.g., a sport facility). To better understand how these seemingly “nontraditional” entities can be considered part of the team individuals are psychologically connected to, it is important to highlight individuals’ tendency to distinguish “team” in terms of performance versus identification.

Upon interviewing individuals, it was immediately evident the meaning of “team” varies by context. Specifically, individuals use the word team to describe the performance of players, but also to describe a discursive bundle of people, places, and experiences they identify with.

119

Based on the findings of the current study, the latter, more complex “team” is what individuals are psychologically connected to—this is the team in team identification.

Team Performance

In discussing recent or past performances of the team, individuals use “team” to refer to the group of players who were involved in the game(s). For example, recalling his memory of

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball in the 1960s, Justin explained, “I remember following

Syracuse basketball in the newspaper—we used to have something called newspapers—and um, the team was awful.” Similarly, in discussing how he felt when Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball lost to Boston College in the 2013-2014 season after beginning the season with a 25-0 record, Wilson explained:

I mean, I don’t know, it definitely was unfortunate. It was a culmination of all of the

things that were wrong with the team… I mean, they just lost one game, they were the

last of the unbeaten teams, so it was fine.

In both instances, Justin and Wilson are simply referring to the basketball players who competed for Syracuse University during this period of time when using the word team.

Team Identification

Contrasting the performance-oriented meaning of team, the team in team identification

has a much broader and more holistic meaning, as it may include an array of entities, contingent

on individuals’ unique experiences. George explained his socialization into Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball:

When I was probably, 6 or 8 years old, I started rooting for teams that sounded like me.

With Syracuse basketball, I’m from Syracuse, and the team is Syracuse; they were from

New York, and they had New York, or a city in New York, in their name.

120

Here, and in contrast to “team performance”, the meaning of team for George is broad, and rooted in geographic locations. In other instances, the dual, contrasted meanings of team are used in tandem. A statement made by Rachael illustrates this oddity:

The team is just part of life here, it’s part of the community, it’s Syracuse, and it puts

Central New York on the map. What you do on Saturday revolves around what time the

game is, and the general mood of people in the community is influenced by whether the

team wins or loses.

The multiple meanings of team (i.e., performance and identification) are indicative of what could essentially be a temporary (team performance) versus durable (team identification) conceptualization of the team. While reference to the team in terms of performance is routinely situated in a particular moment of time, reference to identification with the team is a result of a collection of experiences over time, and thus, more persistent and resilient. A more in-depth explanation of this distinction is included in the discussion.

The (Un)Fixed Nature of Team

Engaging in deep conversation with individuals regarding their “Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball team” concept maps allowed me to understand the entities thought to comprise the team in the mind of consumers. In addition, conversing with individuals allowed me to realize that a distinction should be made in “team,” in terms of team performance versus team identification. Nonetheless, the entities thought to comprise the team in team identification provide a cross sectional understanding of the meaning of team.

Because I found that individuals believe multiple entities comprise the team in regard to team identification (e.g., coach, players, facility), it was important to also examine the extent to which an individual’s identification with the team is contingent on each individual element of the

121 team (as constructed by the individual). I discovered that collectively, the focal object—team— that individuals have formed a psychological connection to is an assemblage of entities; this assemblage is complex, to the point where elimination of any one element of the team barely unsettles individuals’ psychological connection to the team. Essentially, for the individuals interviewed in the current study, it is the sum of all elements of team that contribute to the psychological connection formed, and thus, the elimination of numerous elements of the team would be necessary to shake an individuals’ psychological connection to the team.

Individuals construct the meaning of, and subsequently, come to view the team as fixed in that their psychological connection remains fairly stable over time. However, the meaning of team is simultaneously unfixed in that it is continually changing based on an individual’s unique experiences, as well as external contingencies (e.g., changes in coaching staff, conference, facility). For example, individuals discussed how Syracuse University leaving the Big East to join the ACC was a significant change for them and the way they view the Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball team, partly because of the rivalries lost in the move. However, despite these changes to the way individuals define team, their connection to Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball remains relatively stable.

Because the interviews conducted in this project were cross sectional, an investigation of the meaning of team—and potential fluidity of such meaning—over time was not obtainable.

However, when asked to consider whether their psychological connection to the Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball team would change if any given element of the team (as constructed by them) changed or went away, individuals indicated it would take a considerable number of changes to have a significant impact on their connection. For example, when George considered

122 what it would take for him to “lose” his connection to the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team, he noted:

If you don’t have the old rivalries, if you don’t have the dome, if you don’t have

somewhat of a good coach, the current and former players, um… Then I’m not sure what

I’d have, what my connection would be.

The entities that George described are all part of what he views as the Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball team he is connected to, however it is the summation of these entities that make his connection so strong.

Essentially, for George and other individuals, the entities thought to define “team” in team identification are all connected in a complex “web” (as illustrated in the concept mapping activity). This perhaps explains why scholars have previously found that team identification explains team-related consumer behaviors more than identification with other entities (see, e.g.,

Kwon et al., 2005). The tight linkage of the entities comprising team forms a summary unit— team—which means more to individuals than each of the entities alone. It seems any change to the structure of this web of entities does shift the meaning of the focal object (i.e., team) slightly, but the strength and complexity of the other links in the web allows psychological connection to team to remain relatively fixed and stable.

Discussion

Research Aim 1 was to understand how individuals define the team regarding their psychological connection to the entity. In conducting the research, I found how individuals define the “team” they are connected to (RQ1a), as well as how they appear to use the word team in terms of both performance and identification (RQ1b). In addition, I found that the meaning of

123 team is simultaneously fixed and unfixed (RQ1c). In the remainder of this chapter, I discuss the findings of the first research aim and potential implications for scholars and sport managers.

The “Team” in Team Identification

Although scholars have suggested “team” may indeed be complex in considerations of identification (Kolbe & James, 2003), they have repeatedly referenced “team” ambiguously in measuring identification (e.g., Heere & James, 2007a; Wann & Branscombe, 1993). Scholars have not endeavored to understand how consumers construct the meaning of team, and have measured individuals’ identification with other entities (e.g., university, state, players, coach) separate from the team (see, e.g., Trail et al., 2003). Although scholars have discussed team identity as representative of external identities (Heere & James, 2007b), they have not explicitly considered these external entities as part of the “team” individuals are psychologically connected to. Further, discussion of what “team” may represent has been conceptual in nature (Heere &

James, 2007b); scholars have not attempted to understand or define the meaning of team through empirical research with fans.

Using a qualitative, interpretive approach in the current study, I discovered that individuals include the coach, players, fans, facility/location, rivalry, and a history of success in their definition of the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team. It is important to note that my use of concept mapping as a method to understand the meaning of team may have allowed me to discover a more complex meaning of team than a simple question (i.e., “What is the team?”) may have elicited. Had individuals been asked to define team verbally (rather than through a mapping exercise), they might have thought of fewer discrete associations compared to the complexity found through mapping. As such, future researchers might attempt both approaches to comprehending team meaning to compare the complexity of team discovered.

124

In addition to discovering the meaning of team among individuals participating in the current study, I also found that “team” appears to have dual meaning, used to refer to the complex, discursive entity to which they are connected, but also to describe the performance of a group of players. Considering the research conducted to date on psychological connection to sport, the findings of the current study have several implications for scholars and practitioners.

Implications for Scholars

As the findings of the current study illustrate, the team to which individuals have a psychological connection—the “team” in team identification—is discursive and much more compound than scholars have previously alluded. Accordingly, scholars should consider the implications of this research on the psychological connection to sport literature, including: conceptualizing team and points of attachment; considerations of team and brand associations; and measuring team identification.

Conceptualizing team and points of attachment. Scholars have suggested that individuals may identify with the team as well as other points of attachment (Trail et al., 2003), however based on conversations with individuals in the current study, these other points of attachment are actually included within their conceptualization of the team they are connected to.

While scholars have found that identification with other entities (e.g., university, city) can influence team identification (Heere et al., 2011), the findings of the current study suggest that these other entities are indeed part of the team in team identification. Thus, scholars must recognize that in measuring identification with multiple yet related entities such as a sport team, its players, coach, and the city in which it is located, the team variable actually encapsulates the others, albeit in varied ways based on the individual. It is not my intention here to undo the team identification and points of attachment body of knowledge, but rather underline the need for

125 scholars to be aware of and acknowledge the blurred (or arguably, nonexistent) boundaries between “team” and points of attachment.

Team and brand associations. Separately, the findings of the current study allow me to emphasize that in considerations of identification, individuals’ strongest brand associations (see, e.g., Keller, 2003; Ross, 2006) with a sport team often are the team they identify with. The concept mapping activity used in the current study was essentially a tool to elucidate thoughts, or team brand associations. In discussing these associations (e.g., Jim Boeheim, players, the Carrier

Dome) with individuals, I found that they consider many of them part of the team they are connected to.

Scholars have suggested that team identification influences the strength and resilience of brand associations (e.g., Ross & James, 2007; Walsh & Ross, 2010); the findings of the current study provide a descriptive explanation to the relationship between team identification and brand associations, in that to some extent, eliciting team brand associations captures one’s idea of team.

As well, in addition to the value of team brand associations in considering sport brand equity and the consequences of such (see Ross, 2006), the findings of the current study suggest scholars might benefit from utilizing the brand knowledge literature to understand the complexity and discursive nature of individuals’ psychological connection to a sport entity.

Measuring team identification. In addition to the theoretical implications of the current study on team identification and more broadly, psychological connection to sport, I must emphasize the implications of this research on how we (i.e., scholars) measure team identification. Despite the “team” meaning discussed in this paper, if indeed individuals construct the meaning of team unique to their own experiences, when measuring team identification, we are measuring identification to a “team” that has varied meaning among

126 individuals. If as scholars we wish to have a rich understanding of what individuals are connected to in an effort to improve the consumer experience and/or business activities, we must acknowledge and embrace the meaning of team in team identification as complex and dynamic.

While we are certainly measuring individuals’ identification with something when we measure team identification, the findings of the current study indicate the focal “object” we are measuring identification with is constructed uniquely in the mind of the individual. This potentially problematizes our attempts to use team identification as an “attitudinal barometer”

(Lock et al., 2012) to predict various consumer attitudes and behaviors, as the “object” to which individuals may be identifying with is discursive and quite likely, unfixed.

It is imperative for scholars to acknowledge the complexity of team identification and our

tendency thus far to simplify (or homogenize) it in an effort to add to a voluminous literature on

individuals’ psychological connection to some ambiguous entity. Explicitly, although team

identification is perhaps one of the most important concepts studied in sport consumer behavior,

it is also one of the most complicated. To best understand sport consumers, we must not flee

from but rather welcome this complexity; this might entail, for example, inviting alternative

methods (i.e., non-survey) and welcoming conversation among scholars (as suggested by

Mahony, 2008). Such initiatives might allow us to comprehend the meaning of team

identification, supporting current efforts to contribute to our theoretical understanding of

individuals’ psychological connection to sport, and the implications of such on managerial

activities.

Micro and Macro Consumer Behavior

Sport marketing scholars most frequently examine individuals’ psychological connection

to, thoughts about, and sense of self derived from a sport team to understand the implications of

127 such for the organization(s) involved (e.g., consumption patterns). Indeed, extending beyond the borders of the sport management discipline, the same has been noted of the general field of consumer behavior.

In his presidential address at the 1987 Association for Consumer Research (ACR) North

American Conference, Russell Belk distinguished between micro and macro approaches to studying consumer behavior, noting that most consumer behavior scholars to date had focused on micro aspects of consumer behavior for the benefit of marketing activities. Belk emphasized that this narrow focus was keeping scholars (and more broadly, society) from scrutinizing macro aspects of consumption, urging them to consider macro consumer behavior in future research.

Whereas micro views of consumer behavior in marketing consider relatively minute

thoughts or behaviors (e.g., attitudes toward a brand, purchase decision making), macro views of

consumer behavior in marketing have a more societal focus, considering how consumption

influences the rest of life (Belk, 1987). For example, research questions pertaining to micro

consumer behavior might include:

• How do the marketing activities of a sport team influence individuals’ likelihood to

attend games?

• How does an individual’s identification with a sport team influence his or her attitude

toward a sponsor?

Contrarily, individuals interested in macro consumer behavior might ask:

• How do the marketing activities of a sport team influence local culture?

• How does an individual’s identification with a sport team influence his or her ability to

make tradeoffs between buying sponsor company products and saving money?

As Belk (1987) explained:

128

Macro consumer behavior concerns aspects of consumer behavior that are likely to have

little interest to the decision making of a marketer or an advertiser, but have great interest

to members of society and to their individual and collective well-being. (para. 6)

Not allowing a potential disinterest among marketing professionals discourage his vision for

more attention to macro consumer behavior questions, Belk (1987) argued for “the study of

consumer behavior for its own sake” (para. 16).

Considering the example questions posed above, it should seem apparent the value in

studying sport consumer behavior from both micro and macro perspectives. That is, it is not my

contention that one approach is necessarily superior to the other, but rather both approaches may

offer scholars of consumer behavior a more complete understanding of the influence of

marketing in sport.

Although consideration of macro consumer behavior questions is largely absent from the

marketing or consumer behavior literature within sport management, many CCT scholars have

advocated for the study of consumer behavior from this perspective. As Schroeder (2009) noted,

“If brands exist as cultural, ideological, and sociological objects, then understanding brands

requires tools developed to understand culture, ideology, and society, in conjunction with more

typical branding concepts, such as brand equity, strategy, and value” (p. 124).

In conducting phenomenological research with consumers, Fournier (1998) provided a

“coherent picture of the role of brand relationships in the consumer’s life world” (p. 348) by

acknowledging sociocultural contexts in which participants found themselves; this research

allowed Fournier to conceptualize consumers’ brand relationships, which has since proved to be

a seminal body of work for those interested in brand loyalty. As well, in his seminal work, Belk

(1988) discussed the potential for consumers to consider possessions (including branded

129 products) as part of their extended selves, thus illustrating the value of examining consumers and brands from macro perspectives.

Why does macro consumer behavior matter? Given the status quo of the (micro) consumer behavior literature in sport, it would be of little surprise if sport consumer behavior scholars did not agree with Belk’s advocating for “studying consumer behavior for its own sake.” Indeed, many of these scholars have been trained to conduct research that is appealing to marketers. Why would they be interested in conducting research that does not directly benefit or value sport marketing?

Despite CCT scholars’ emphasis on understanding consumption consequences from individual or societal levels (as opposed to organizational consequences), such macro consumer behavior perspectives can still be of value to marketers. Considering brands, for example, Holt

(2006) noted, “A brand becomes an economic asset for the ﬁrm when people come to count on the brand to contribute to social life, when it is embedded in society and culture” (p. 300).

Understanding the ways in which sport consumers bring brands (e.g., teams) into their lives—while not immediately actionable for marketers—could be of great use to organizations.

For example, if a group of consumers rely on a particular sport team to enhance everyday life in a particular geographic region, understanding how this influences local culture might be intriguing from a macro consumer behavior perspective. Simultaneously, marketers might find this type of research interesting as it could indicate the footprint of their mere presence in the area; such insight might guide future marketing and outreach activities to better connect with consumers. This hypothetical scenario illustrates the potential complementarity of micro and macro consumer behavior.

130

The well-being of sport consumers. As mentioned in a previous section of this chapter, scholars have described team identification as an attitudinal barometer, predicting various consumer behaviors (Lock et al., 2012). Thinking of team identification in this regard—from a micro consumer behavior perspective—has proven to be beneficial in learning more about consumers of sport and the influence of identification on various thoughts or behaviors.

However, the team identification literature need not be limited to micro consumer behavior perspectives; there is indeed value in extending the team identification literature into the study of macro consumer behavior.

An insightful example of the potential broadening of the application of team identification can be found in Wann’s (2006) work on team identification and social- psychological health. In the Team Identification-Social Psychological Health Model, Wann

(2006) considered how identifying with a sport team might influence sport consumers by discussing their social well-being.

Considering the objectives of micro consumer behavior scholars, such considerations might be of little interest, as topics such as well-being do not (immediately) tell sport marketers how to sell more tickets or team merchandise. However, in a societal, macro consumer behavior sense, consideration of the potential interdependency of well-being and sport consumption is likely a profound topic. Topics such as these—when trying to illustrate value to sport marketers or more broadly, sport organizations—require us (scholars and sport industry professionals) to think harder; they force us to think critically about our actions.

“Team” and micro/macro consumer behavior. For most sport consumer behavior scholars, considering how the meaning of team influences micro aspects of consumer behavior is relatively intuitive. Indeed, given the applied nature of most sport management research, a great

131 benefit of understanding how individuals construct the meaning of “team” would be to subsequently consider how this construction influences a sport organization (e.g., attitudes toward the organization, purchasing intentions). However, in addition to understanding the influence of “team” meaning on an organization, it is also important to acknowledge how this influences consumers (see Belk, 1987). As such, in this section, in an effort to discuss the potential of micro and macro consumer behavior research in sport, I reflect on conversations with individuals regarding their construction of “Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team,” and how elements of the team influence thoughts and behaviors toward the organization as well as the social well-being of fans.

Coach. In interviewing individuals, it was evident they consider Head Coach Jim

Boeheim part of the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team they identify with. However, considering the role of Boeheim (as part of the team) in influencing individuals’ attitudes toward

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball and purchasing behaviors, Boeheim does not drive such.

Although Boeheim has been Head Coach of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball for decades and has been immensely successful in this role, Syracuse fans are not tied to the “team” because of Boeheim in particular; their purchasing behaviors (i.e., attendance) do not depend on Boeheim being the current coach or not. In addition, fans are generally comforted in the assumption that long-time Assistant Coach Mike Hopkins will likely lead the Orange next.

While in other settings, the departure of a long-time head coach of such high stature might influence fan attitudes or behaviors, Boeheim’s most likely successor (Hopkins) is in some ways already part of the team. However, if Boeheim’s successor was not Hopkins, and instead an individual without ties to Central New York or Syracuse University, this would leave fans upset, because they have become comfortable with a “local boy” as the coach. Although Hopkins is not

132 from Central New York, the time he has spent in the region attending and working for Syracuse

University has in some ways made him a local.

From a macro consumer behavior perspective, Head Coach Jim Boeheim is not necessarily integral in the well-being of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans interviewed in this study. While fans take comfort in Boeheim being a local, the happiness they experience from being Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans is largely based on feelings of belonging to a group of individuals (i.e., fans), which is not contingent on a particular coach.

Players. From a micro consumer behavior perspective, individual players (as part of the

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team) have little influence on individuals’ thoughts and behaviors. Players are continually coming and going and only compete for Syracuse University for four years, at most. As such, individuals’ attitudes toward Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball (as an organization) or purchasing behaviors have little to do with one individual player. Essentially, a single Syracuse University Men’s Basketball player does not appear to drive consumer behaviors toward the organization (e.g., attitudes, purchasing intentions), because consumers consider players relatively temporary; they will always support the players, but the players will never be what dictate their behaviors.

From a macro consumer behavior perspective—specifically, the well-being of consumers—individual players (again, as part of the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team) do not directly contribute to the well-being of the individuals I interviewed in this project.

While it is evident these individuals do derive a sense of self from supporting the Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball team, it is not the players who contribute to this, but rather the entire “team” collectively, especially fans.

133

Fans. While the coach and players have little influence on individuals’ thoughts and behaviors pertaining to Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, fans are critically important in this aspect, because the community of fans is so central to the sense of belonging individuals feel as supporters of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball. While it is difficult for individuals to comprehend fan support dissipating, if such were to happen, many acknowledged that their interest in watching an attending Syracuse University Men’s Basketball games might lessen.

From a macro consumer behavior perspective, Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans—as part of the team—are critical in the social well-being realized among individuals through supporting the team. Similar to the influence of fans on micro consumer behaviors, the fact that fans directly contribute to feelings of belonging and a sense of community inherently drives the enduring feelings of happiness individuals feel in regard to their Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball fandom.

Facility. For individuals interviewed in this project, the Carrier Dome is considered part of the team they identify with, largely a result of it being the “home” of Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball for more than three decades. Considering the influence of the Carrier Dome (as part of the team) on individuals’ attitudes or behaviors toward the organization, it matters very little. Essentially, although the Carrier Dome means a lot to fans, and many individuals admitted they will be upset if and when Syracuse University replaces the Carrier Dome with a new basketball facility, they ultimately will still attend Syracuse University Men’s Basketball home games, regardless of where they are played. In addition, individuals are generally accepting of administrators’ desire to build a new facility, as they recognize replacing facilities every few decades has become the norm in the United States, as a means to stay current with technology and offer facilities comparable (or superior) to other organizations.

134

Although the Carrier Dome does not influence individuals’ attitudes toward Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball or purchasing intentions, it does influence their well-being.

Essentially, for more than three decades, the Carrier Dome has been the home of Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball, and as such, the home of thousands of fans. Thus, while they will continue to go to games regardless of where they are played, the facility they current play in (i.e., the Carrier Dome) has become a safe, comfortable place for them.

Geographic location. The geographic location (i.e., Syracuse or Central New York) of

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball and its influence on individuals’ thoughts or behaviors toward the organization is somewhat different than other elements comprising the team, as this is perhaps one element of the team that will never change. However, geographic location is also quite possibly one of the most important elements of the team in considering consumer thoughts and behaviors toward the organization.

Essentially, the very location of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball is what draws fans to attend games, support the organization through purchasing merchandise, and so on. This is especially true of Central New Yorkers, who use Syracuse University Men’s Basketball to bolster their identities as Central New Yorkers; however, it is equally true of students, as

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball serves as a way for students and alums to remain

connected to the university broadly.

From a macro consumer behavior perspective, the geographic location of Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball is a strong influence on the social well-being individuals realize

through supporting the team. Again, given that Syracuse University Men’s Basketball is one of

the most positive aspects of Central New York and Syracuse University among the individuals

interviewed in this project, it would make sense that geographic location—as part of the team—

135 would be influential in the well-being realized through supporting Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball.

Rivalry. Because the identity realized through supporting Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball is contingent on rivals, rivalry is influential on the attitudes and behaviors of the

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans interviewed in this project. Although individuals will support Syracuse University Men’s Basketball against almost any opponent, games against rivals are more exciting and thus, mean more to fans. As such, when Syracuse University left the Big

East to move to the ACC, it influenced some individuals’ motivation to attend games, as

“classic” games against teams like Georgetown and UConn were lost.

From a macro consumer behavior perspective, rivalry contributes to the social well-being of fans because of its critical importance in the construction of group identity. As mentioned, past and current rivalries contribute to how Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans perceive

themselves. For Syracuse fans, rival university fans are the “outgroup” to which they compare

themselves (and derive a sense of self); without these rivalries (and the affiliated individuals who

comprise the outgroup), Syracuse fans would not be able to perceive themselves as distinct, and

thus, likely would not realize social well-being from being a fan.

History/success. Similar to rivalry, history and success influence the attitudes and behaviors of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans because of the importance of history

and success in identity formation and maintenance. In conversing with individuals, on numerous

occasions words such as “legacy” and “tradition” were used to explain why they continue to

support Syracuse (e.g., through attendance, media consumption) year after year; essentially, the

summation of milestones and achievements experienced by individuals serves to encourage

attending and watching Syracuse University Men’s Basketball games.

136

Considering the influence of history and success on the social well-being of individuals, these elements of the team are essential in the realization of such. The history and success of

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball are the outward facing positive aspects of the program that allow for feelings of belongingness, and thus, the realization of group identity. As such, without the success of the program, and a history of such success, forming a positive social identity around Syracuse University Men’s Basketball would be difficult.

“Team” and macro consumer behavior: Suggestions for future research. Scholars have frequently used team identification as an attitudinal barometer for consumers (see Lock et al., 2012), and others have studied team identity to understand the sense of self individuals derive from supporting a sport team (e.g., Heere & James, 2007a, Heere & James, 2007b; Wann, 2006).

Acknowledging how individuals interviewed in this project construct the meaning of the

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team, my purpose in this chapter was to discuss specific elements of the team in regard to both micro and macro consumer behavior.

From a micro consumer behavior perspective, fans, geographic location, rivalry, and history/success are influential in attitudes and behaviors toward Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball. Based on conversations with individuals participating in this research, it seems these elements of the team are what drive their thoughts about Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, or Syracuse University Athletics (as an organization) and their interest in attending and watching games. Considering elements of the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team and the influence of such on the social well-being of fans, fans, facility, geographic location, rivalry, and history/success are influential.

Interestingly, the coach and players—perhaps the two most obvious elements of

“team”—have little influence on attitudes and purchasing behaviors of fans, or their social well-

137 being. While it is evident these roles need to be filled in order for Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball to compete, it does not matter much to fans who fills them. Fans will continue to think of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball positively and attend games, regardless of who the coach or players are. Similarly, the happiness fans feel as a result of supporting Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball is not contingent on specific players or coaches. Instead, the community of Syracuse fans, the location (Syracuse or Central New York), contests against rival universities, and the overall history and success of the program are what appear to drive attitudes and behaviors toward the organization, and the social well-being of fans associated with

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fandom.

Considering rivalry, history, and success, it is not surprising that these elements of the

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team are important from both micro and macro consumer behavior perspectives, especially in a highly commercialized (and to some extent, professionalized) intercollegiate sport environment. It has become commonplace for sport entities—in this case, college athletic departments and their stakeholders—to heavily promote games against conference rivals, as if the outcome of such a contest will determine the fate of each team. Further, broadcasters such as ESPN have intensified the spectacle of rivalry and competition through media events such as College Game Day and Rivalry Week. While these activities certainly increase fan excitement and interest, the hype generated also makes it seem as if there if ore on the line than there actually is, which might explain why rivalry and success are integral in the social well-being of fans.

In future research, scholars might conduct semi-structured interviews with participants

(using a discussion guide with probing questions) to be sure these other types of purchasing are discussed. Discussion of other types of purchasing behaviors (i.e., not ticket

138 purchasing/attendance) with fans should be particularly insightful for sport organizations; specifically, by understanding the extent to which elements of “team” (e.g., coach, players, fans, history/success) are influential on a range of purchasing behaviors, sport organizations could develop marketing plans accordingly.

In conducting interviews with participants, it was evident they consider rivalry part of the

“team” they are psychologically connected to, because their identity as fans is contingent on the

existence of such an outgroup. As such, I found that rivalry drives both purchasing behavior (i.e.,

attendance) and social well-being. In future research, scholars should consider the extent to

which rivalry influences other purchasing behaviors, particularly merchandise sales. Many sport

organizations (and affiliated merchandise companies) leverage rivalries by selling apparel

denoting a rivalry (e.g., a “Beat Georgetown” Syracuse t-shirt). As rivalries continue to be of

importance to fans, it would be helpful for sport organizations to understand whether fans are

driven to purchase team merchandise related to particular rivalries.

Finally, although I discussed participants’ micro and macro consumer behavior

collectively (among all 13 participants), in future research scholars should consider investigating

similarities and differences in micro and macro consumer behaviors based on various

demographic variables (e.g., life stage, duration of fandom, place of residence). By

understanding similarities and differences in the purchasing behaviors of fans, as well as how

fandom influences individuals’ social well-being, sport organizations will be better positioned to

segment and target groups of consumers in their marketing activities.

Implications for Practitioners

In addition to scholars’ use of team identification to contribute to theory within the

academy, the team identification concept is transferable to practical settings. Indeed, scholars

139 have illustrated that team identification can be predictive of attitudes and behaviors of interest to sport organizations (e.g., Kwon & Armstrong, 2002; Madrigal, 2001; Wann & Branscombe,

1993). Thus, the findings of this study have important implications for sport managers regarding the branding and targeted marketing activities of sport organizations.

Branding the “team.” From an organizational perspective, establishing a strong brand can allow a company to be competitive and/or distinct in the marketplace while simultaneously giving meaning to a product from a consumer perspective (Farquhar, 1989). Additionally, branding efforts have been illustrated to give personalities and human-like characteristics to products, allowing for the development of “relationships” between a brand and consumer (see, e.g., Fournier, 1998), which ideally lead to increased patronage or loyalty.

Given that consumers appear to construct the meaning of team around a variety of experiences, it seems evident these experiences should be captured in branding efforts to best connect with consumers and stimulate a sense of identification. Such a branding strategy is likely to be best realized if implemented into an organization’s entire marketing program, following a logic that all marketing activities of an organization can contribute to its overall brand meaning among consumers. If—as found in the current study—consumers consider the coach, current and past players, fans, rivals, facility, and history part of the “team” they identify with, these elements should be included in as many marketing activities as possible (e.g., promotional campaigns, sponsorships, social media marketing).

Considering the distinction made previously between team identification and team performance, it is critical for organizations to focus branding efforts on team identification as much as team performance. For example, a promotional video for a team might include performance elements (e.g., current players competing in a game), however it should also

140 include identification elements (e.g., the facility, fans, coaches, history) to stimulate feelings of identification and belongingness; while the former may seem most relevant, the latter is what appears to drive individuals’ connection to the team, and thus, attitudes and behaviors.

Targeted marketing. In addition to the implications of this research on the overall

marketing and branding strategies of sport organizations, the different ways in which individuals

may construct the meaning of team based on their own experiences are important for managers

to consider. In the current study, new and/or young fans appeared to have a less complex

definition of team, while older fans had the most complex definitions of team. Indeed,

individuals who have followed the team for a longer duration often drew the most complex

concept maps. It appears the longer one has been a fan of the team, the more robust one’s

definition of the “team” they identify with; new/young fans do not have as great a collection of

memories to call upon in constructing “team” in their minds. Thus, organizations might best

reach consumers by creating separate promotional campaigns and marketing materials for these

groups.20 Alternatively, for organizations without the capabilities to run multiple campaigns, stand-alone communications should include a mix of historical and current accomplishments to resonate with the broadest range of individuals.

20 In the current study the greatest difference in individuals’ conceptualization of team was based on duration of fandom, however this could be contextual (i.e., unique to the specific research setting); alternative segmentation variables (e.g., frequency of patronage, demographic variables) should be considered in other research settings. 141

CHAPTER SIX

WHAT IS THE “IDENTITY” IN TEAM IDENTIFICATION?

In the previous chapter, I discussed the meaning of the Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball team as constructed by the individuals interviewed in this project. In addition to acknowledging the complex meaning of team, it is important to address the meaning of identity as well. While scholars have studied team identification extensively since its conceptualization to understand how identification with (or an identity derived from) a sport entity influences behaviors, few have endeavored to comprehend how team-related identities are realized and maintained over time (for notable exceptions, see, e.g., Lock et al., 2012; Wann, 2006). As such, in this chapter, I address Research Aim 2, to understand both the stability and source(s) of identity associated with supporting the team. Specifically, I seek to answer the following research questions:

RQ2a: According to the fans or spectators I interview, is their identification with the

team constructed in a social and/or cultural sense?

RQ2b: To what extent are sociocultural and sociohistorical conditions influential in

identities realized through supporting the team?

Because this portion of the project was discovery-oriented in that the aim was to comprehend the sources of team-related group identities, I focus on the lived experiences of three participants. By engaging in multiple conversations with a small number of individuals, I was able to obtain a deeper understanding of how identities are formed and maintained in regard to Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, than a brief conversation with a larger number of individuals may have allowed (for similar approaches in consumer behavior, see, e.g., de Groot

& Robinson, 2008; Fournier, 1998; Olsen, 1999).

142

In selecting participants for this phase of the research, I deliberately selected individuals who were at different life stages in an effort to capture a range of experiences and perspectives:

Ashley, 21, an undergraduate student born and raised in Florida; Mark, 35, a lifelong resident of

Central New York and father of two young children; and George, 66, a Central New York native and recently retired. I interviewed Ashley, Mark, and George for 90 to 120 minutes each, over the course of two meetings each, between October 2014 and February 2015.

Similar to the initial interview in which the meaning of team was pursued (i.e., Research

Aim 1), concept maps were used to guide conversation with Ashley, Mark, and George in this phase of the research. With each participant, I began by reviewing what we had discussed in our initial conversation, before asking him/her to talk about each idea on his/her concept map and the extent to which its presence influences psychological connection to the team. Along the way, I attempted to understand how Ashley, Mark, and George have integrated the team (and specific elements of the team, as defined by them individually) into their self-concept.

The remainder of this chapter is divided in three sections. First, I tell the stories of

Ashley, Mark, and George individually to obtain a deep understanding of the identity they have realized through Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fandom. Second, I conduct a cross-case analysis to understand Syracuse University Men’s Basketball identity among Ashley, Mark, and

George. As I discuss the cases collectively, I acknowledge conceptualizations of group identity among social psychology (i.e., social identity theory) and cultural studies (i.e., cultural identity) scholars. Third, I provide a general discussion of identity and the implications of my examination of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball identity for scholars and practitioners.

143

Idiographic Analysis

In this section, I tell the unique stories of Ashley, Mark, and George to address the life- world of each individual, which inherently influences how the team has been integrated into his/her self-concept. In doing so, I rely heavily on verbatim responses. I conclude each participant case by briefly summarizing how his/her Syracuse University Men’s Basketball related identity is structured.

Case 1: Ashley

Ashley is 21 years old and lives in Florida, where she was born and raised. Ashley attended community college for two years, earning an associate degree before enrolling at a large public university, where she is currently pursuing a bachelor’s degree. Ashley’s father was born on Long Island, New York, and later moved with his family to Utica, New York (about one hour from Syracuse), where he was raised. Ashley’s father later bought the Central New York home he grew up in; this allowed Ashley to grow up spending summers and holidays with family and friends in Central New York. Ashley hopes to work in the sport industry upon graduating college, an aspiration largely influenced by her experiences as a fan of her own university’s athletic teams, the Buffalo Bills, and Syracuse University Athletics.

A link to New York. Ashley’s identity as a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan is largely influenced by and related to her identity as a New Yorker. Although Ashley was raised in

Florida, she attributes her sense of self as a New Yorker to her father. As she explained:

I sort of see myself as a daddy’s girl. So, thinking of myself as a New Yorker makes me

feel like we have a stronger connection. That’s kind of where my love of New York in

general started, it was from him. We could go up for at least a month every summer. And

then winter break for at least two weeks and have Christmas in the house up there. I call

144

New York my happy place. Like I swear, I get off the plane there and I’m just like,

“Ahhh!” Like I can take a deep breath.

As she explains, Ashley has come to view New York as an escape from her everyday life in

Florida, so much so that she is interested in pursuing a career there after college:

I just love New York so much. Maybe it’s because it’s always been like, my relaxing

spot. And so I’ve always said, when I go somewhere in the sports world, I’d love to end

up in Florida or New York, because that’s what I know best. What feels like home. New

York is definitely my second home.

Reflecting on and returning to New York allows Ashley to recall the positive experiences she has had in Central New York over the years. In turn, this collection of memories has informed not only the way she perceives her self today, but also the things she would like to do in the future.

The time Ashley was able to spend in New York as a child led her not only to spend time

with family and experience things her father experienced as a child (e.g., Christmas with snow), but also to develop friendships with families her father had known for decades.

Our good family friends, they have a cabin in the Adirondacks. So every summer we

would go up and stay with them on the lake. So, I just have great childhood memories

there. And then, as I got older, I would go to a summer camp up there, and I was a

counsellor there after I could no longer be a camper.

Indeed, Ashley’s first experience attending a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball game was shared with these same family friends, which she considers part of her Syracuse-related identity.

In fact, Ashley used the word “identity,” unprompted, in describing the relationship between family friends, attending games, and her Syracuse fandom.

145

Our friends, they’re actually a big part of my Syracuse, um, I guess, my Syracuse,

identity? They’re my dad’s good family friends. My very first game, we went with them.

We went to the Spaghetti Warehouse for dinner. And then I remember walking up the hill

with them to the game.

Ashley’s relationships with her family’s New York friends are tied to the memories she

has with them, including attending Syracuse University Men’s Basketball games. These

memories have contributed to her being a fan of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, and

deriving a sense of self from such. In fact, her recollections of spending time with family friends

often trailed into discussion of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, as the following excerpt

illustrates:

And um, I have my very first Syracuse sweatshirt, that I still wear, and it has a hole in it.

Our family friends that have the cabin up in the mountains, when we’d be up there, I’d

always wear it. Like when you go out on the boat you need a sweatshirt, and I’d always

wear that one. I bought it at Herb Phillipson’s in Utica, the same year I went to my first

game with them. It was like a t-shirt/sweatshirt deal for like $20. I outgrew the t-shirt but

I still live in the sweatshirt. It’s the only piece of clothing that I own that has a hole in it,

or that I’ve actually worn so much that’s it’s gotten a hole.

The sentimental nature of the sweatshirt illustrates how Ashley has come to view not only the

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team as a mechanism for her to remain connected to

Central New York, but nostalgic possessions (e.g., old apparel) as well. Ashley talked about how she has numerous other Syracuse-related apparel items, but insists on wearing this particular sweatshirt, partly because of the memories she has wearing it in New York.

146

Becoming a Syracuse fan. In discussing her Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fandom, Ashley explained that she became a fan as an adolescent, once she had attended a game at the Carrier Dome and could understand the personal and social value in being a fan. While her father was a fan, and indeed did influence her initial interest in Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball, Ashley considers herself to be a greater (or more avid) fan than him. As she explained:

I’ve been a fan since middle school. Since I was really old enough to grasp the, “Holy

cow, this team is a big deal,” sort of thing. My dad was never a die-hard Syracuse fan

himself, really. Um, but it was more of like another way to link me to New York, is the

way I saw it. And I would love to like, come back to Florida and have on my Syracuse

shirt and people would be like, “Oh, you’re a Syracuse fan?” And I’d be like, “Yeah!”

As Ashley explains, wearing Syracuse University apparel away from Central New York (i.e., in

Florida) allows her to “link” herself to New York. In addition, it allows her to differentiate herself from others in Florida, as she does not know many Syracuse fans besides her family and

Central New York friends. When she does see another Syracuse fan in Florida, this instantly provides her with a sensed connection to him/her. As Ashley explained:

If I see someone I don’t know wearing a Syracuse shirt, especially when I’m not in New

York, it’s like, “Yeah!” I can still kind of have a connection with people down here in

Florida. But see, I don’t even have that many friends that are Syracuse fans. So it’s more

random people than non-random that I have a connection with.

Ashley’s ability to connect with other Syracuse fans away from Central New York has led to her feel a sense of belongingness with other individuals that she does not know, those she describes as “random” people. Although these people are essentially strangers to Ashley, they

147 allow her to feel that she is not the only distant Syracuse fan, which allows her to justify being a

Syracuse fan who lives more than one-thousand miles from Central New York. Indeed, she has come to view her somewhat unique position as a distant Syracuse fan as a differentiator for herself.

I feel like being from Florida but still liking Syracuse gives me—not necessarily an

advantage, but it sort of sets me apart. I guess it does distinguish me. I guess it is a part of

me. I mean, I grew up in Florida. But Syracuse, because I’ve been there many times, and

my dads from there, and I’ve been to the games, and my brother has done [Syracuse

University basketball] camps there, our family—that’s part of our family.

Not surprisingly, in discussing with Ashley why she has become such a big Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball fan, she immediately pointed to location. As she noted, “I feel like the city of

Syracuse is such a big part of it. I think the location is so important, and the history that you have in that town. The location is a big, big part of it.” Combined with her genuine interest in sports,

Ashley considers location (i.e., Syracuse) central to what draws her to Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball.

Summary. Although Ashley does not necessarily credit her father or other family and friends for her becoming a “die-hard” Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan, in discussing her connection to Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, Ashley frequently discussed friends and family. Essentially, Syracuse University Men’s Basketball links her not only to the larger

Central New York region, but also to the relationships she has developed and experiences she has had in Central New York.

From a group identity perspective, Ashley’s identity as a Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball fan is entangled with her identity as a New Yorker. In a sense, her identity as a

148

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan is a tangential identity in relation to the sense of self she derives from thinking of herself as a New Yorker. Although Ashley lives in Florida, she is able to sustain a sense of self as a New Yorker through supporting Syracuse Athletics, specifically men’s basketball, because of the success they routinely have and thus, national media exposure.

Ashley’s Syracuse identity fulfils her need for a positive social self, in addition to the other group identities she possesses. Ashley derives a sense of self from what Wann (2006) referred to as environmental sources (i.e., ability to socialize with other Central New Yorkers or

Syracuse fans), which subsequently provide her with feelings of belongingness, thus strengthening the importance of this identity. Indeed, the interactions she has with others are always informing her identity as a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan. In this regard, the meaning of Ashley’s identity as a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan is partial, and continually changes based on her own life-world (see, e.g., Bhabha, 1996; Zerubavel, 1993).

The fact that Ashley lives in Florida allows her to utilize her Syracuse identity as a point of distinction from others. While Syracuse fans are prevalent in Central New York, there are far fewer Syracuse fans outside of New York; this is a positive differentiator for Ashley, in two ways. First, Ashley’s status as a Syracuse fan is unique relative to other Syracuse fans (i.e.,

Central New Yorkers or Syracuse University graduates), as she is a distant fan who never attended Syracuse University. Second, Ashley’s status as a Syracuse fan is unique relative to

Floridians who are not Syracuse fans. Essentially, Ashley has multiple “outgroups” to compare herself to and differentiate herself from in evaluating her group identity as a Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball fan, and this serves to further inform and strengthen her identity as a Syracuse fan.

149

Case 2: Mark

Mark is 35 years old and a lifelong resident of Central New York. He currently lives in a

Syracuse suburb with his wife and two children. Mark grew up in a small town about 20 miles from Syracuse, and attended college at a small public university less than an hour from Syracuse.

After college, he followed in his father’s footsteps and pursued a career in financial services.

Mark currently works in Syracuse for the same financial services company he started his career with more than ten years ago.

Socialization into Syracuse fandom. When Mark was a child, his father introduced him to Syracuse University Men’s Basketball. Mark’s father was a long-time Syracuse fan, so he began taking Mark to games when he was old enough to enjoy them. Today, Mark credits the first game he attended with his father at the Carrier Dome as setting the foundation of his fandom. As he explained:

The things that really draw me though, the things that make me come back, that I’m

drawn to, the memories of being a child, and it was a connection that I had with my dad.

Wichita State was my first game. My dad, he was a big fan. But he’s nowhere near the

fan that I am today. But it was the time that we spent together, so, that’s important.

Mark’s memory of attending his first Syracuse game is quite vivid, largely influenced by the fact that it stands out to him as something that allowed him to connect with his father.

On numerous occasions, in remembering attending his first game with his father, Mark immediately talked about a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball hat his dad purchased for him when he attended this game. As Mark noted, “I remember going to that with my dad, and at that game he bought me this cheesy paper hat. I still have it.” Mark proudly shared a picture of the hat numerous times, which he has saved in his smartphone. For Mark, this hat is very nostalgic,

150 as it is symbolic of the starting point of his Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fandom. In addition, the hat reminds Mark of the time he was able to spend with his father as a child, watching Syracuse University Men’s Basketball.

As Mark grew older, he came to better understand the sport of basketball and the rivalries that accompanied collegiate athletics. Subsequently, Mark started to enjoy not only the social aspects of attending or watching a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball game (i.e., the ability to spend time with his father), but also the excitement of watching the players compete. As a result, when Mark reflects on his attachment to Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, he often refers to the “legacy” of the program, and how much past players mean to him, relative to current or more recent players. As he explained:

I think part of it is, it’s the legacy. But I’m much more a fan of Derrick Coleman,

Sherman Douglas, Billy Owens, from when I was a kid. And I think it’s part of that

legacy I mentioned, those are the guys who were playing when I first became a fan.

As Mark reached his 20’s, he would regularly attend games at the Carrier Dome, as well as postseason play (e.g., Big East Tournament, NCAA Tournament). Frequently attending games allowed Mark to realize how thrilling it was to be a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan.

As he explained:

So, the energy, fun, competition, those are all things that drew me to Syracuse. The

excitement of it, and my heart pounding, I can’t—I love it. And again, all of these little

stories, trips to NYC, to the tournament, some of the best experiences I’ll ever have.

Still, even once he realized the excitement of watching Syracuse players compete, the social aspect of being a fan is what really allowed his connection to Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball to strengthen. Indeed, the fun and enjoyment Mark gets from being a Syracuse fan is

151 rooted in the relationships he has with others. His mentioning of the trip he took to New Orleans in 2003 to watch Syracuse play in the NCAA Final Four illustrates this:

Obviously, the New Orleans trip was with my best friends—there were 8 of us total. The

memories I have there, I can’t even describe it. It was such a cool experience, to

experience all of that stuff with them.

In addition to being able to socialize with friends at games, Mark also appreciates how being a

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan allows him to connect (albeit, temporarily) with strangers. As he noted:

Being able to turn and slap a high five to some dude I’ve never met before in my life, as

if we’re best friends, because he cheers for the same team that I cheer for? And he’s from

Connecticut and I’m from Syracuse and we meet in the Garden? That’s fun.

Friends and strangers combined, Mark truly appreciates the Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball fan base, not only because it helps to intensify his fandom, but also because he believes it is a critical component in what has attracted great basketball players to Syracuse

University over time. Speaking about Head Coach Jim Boeheim, Mark discussed how he feels the fans have an equally important role in making Syracuse University Men’s Basketball as exciting as it is, explaining:

I mean, what really makes Syracuse basketball, Syracuse basketball? Is it Jim Boeheim?

Is it the daunted 2-3 zone? Or is it the fact that 30,000 people show up five times a year

to cheer on the team. Because no other place in the country has that. That’s my thing—it

doesn’t matter who the coach is, 30,000 people are going to show up to watch a

basketball game. And when kids come here to look at the school and program, they see

30,000 people? That means something. It means a lot.

152

Evidently, Mark views the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan base as a point of differentiation among other college basketball programs. This distinctiveness allows Mark to feel a sense of pride not only in being a fan, but also in being a Central New Yorker. For him,

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball is one of the best things about being from and living in

Central New York. He explained:

You know, I travel quite a bit, and having friends all over the country, it’s a sense of

pride in my community. What I say to people, like my buddy who lives in Iowa, when I

say I’m from Syracuse, he immediately says, “Oh, Syracuse Basketball.” A lot of people

are very prideful of their teams, but, probably not as much as we are here in Syracuse. I

just don’t experience it, or hear people talking about it, the same as they do here. It’s

insane.

When asked why he thinks people immediately bring up Syracuse University Men’s Basketball as a topic of conversation when discovering he is from the area, Mark explained:

Because what else do we have here? What else do you proudly discuss in Syracuse?

Whenever I’m at a meeting for work or just someplace else, any time I say, “I’m Mark,

I’m from Syracuse.” Always, people will ask, oh, how’s the basketball team this year?

So, it’s a sense of pride in my community.

For Mark, Syracuse University Men’s Basketball is one of the most positive and celebrated aspects of Syracuse and more broadly, Central New York. Because the program has been so successful historically, forming an identity around his fandom allows Mark to perceive and project himself more positively in comparison to others (i.e., individuals who are not Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball fans, or not from Central New York).

153

Syracuse Basketball and the rest of life. Because Mark has formed a group identity from being a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan, it is no surprise that this identity has influenced other aspects of his life. Interestingly, Mark discussed how the success of Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball is somewhat influential on the extent to which he allows his “team identity” to intrude on other aspects of his life. Essentially, the more successful Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball is, the more salient Mark’s identity as a Syracuse fan is, and thus, other identities become less salient; this occurred during college, and has now started to happen again as he raises two children. As he explained:

I actually did detach a little when I went to college. They weren’t all that good then. They

were good, but not great. I was nowhere near as much of a fan then, as I am now. So I

think outside life things will always sort of come and go, influence what you’re doing. If

this year, they lose four or five games early on, I’m going to be less concerned about

going to the Syracuse/Virginia Tech basketball game on Tuesday night at 7:30. If they’re

number two in the country, I want to go to every game.

Notably, when Mark pushes aside his identity as a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan, whether a result of team performance or other life occurrences, its influence on his self does not go away. In such instances, Mark still derives a sense of self from being a fan, but he allows his other identities to influence his behaviors (e.g., spending time with his family instead of going to a game).

Mark’s identity as a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan is quite central to his life, regardless of whether he is attending games or not. Indeed, Mark’s identity as a Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball fan is so important to him that he struggles to comprehend the thought of his children not becoming fans. As he explained, “If my kids were to choose not to be

154

Syracuse basketball fans, I don’t know what I would do. Like I can’t even comprehend them not being Syracuse basketball fans.” When questioned on how he would react if his children chose not to be Syracuse fans, Mark answered:

Oh, they really have no choice. They can choose a religion that’s different than mine,

they can choose who they want to marry, they can choose if they want to go to college or

not. But they have no choice in this matter. They’re Syracuse fans. Done.

Perhaps a result of his own father introducing him to Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, and the fact that it has become such an important aspect of his own life, Mark cannot consider the thought of his own children choosing not to be Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans. As such, Mark has started taking his children to a couple games each season, and noted that his children have started to recognize their father’s intense fandom, as they ordinarily are excited with him on important game days.

Summary. As a Central New York native, Syracuse University Men’s Basketball has been part of Mark’s life since childhood. After being introduced to Syracuse basketball by his father as a child, Mark’s fandom intensified as he grew older, following the performance of the team more closely and attending games more frequently. Along the way, Mark developed close friendships with those he attended games with. Now a father and established in his career, Mark is beginning to introduce Syracuse basketball to his young children. In addition, he often uses his

Syracuse fandom as a point of pride when conversing with colleagues and friends who live outside of Central New York.

The emphasis Mark places on the relationships he has formed through consuming

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball illustrates what he refers to as a “sense of community” he

155 feels as a result of his fandom. In turn, this sense of community allows Mark to have a more positive sense of self as a result of fulfilling a psychological need for belonging.

Mark’s tendency to emphasize his Syracuse fandom when travelling for work is illustrative of how his identity as a Syracuse fan is realized through comparisons between himself (as a Syracuse fan) and acquaintances who are not Syracuse fans. In these moments,

Mark uses his affiliation with Syracuse University Men’s Basketball (as a fan) to self-promote his identity as a Central New Yorker. In essence, Mark’s identities as a Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball fan and Central New Yorker are relatively enmeshed in these instances, as the former serves to strengthen the legitimacy of the latter.

Finally, Mark routinely refers to being drawn to Syracuse University Men’s Basketball because of the legacy of the program, and the memories he has from his vast experiences over

his lifetime. In this sense, Mark’s identity as a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan could be thought of as an ongoing construction. Mark has considered himself a fan of—and has derived

a sense of self from—Syracuse University Men’s Basketball for years. However, the meaning of

this identity is continually changing based on his vantage point, informed by his own life

experiences, as well as the elements contributing to the “legacy” of Syracuse basketball (e.g., players, games against rivals, success).

Case 3: George

George is 66 years old and has lived in Central New York his entire life. He grew up in a

town in Oswego County, about 40 miles north of Syracuse. George attended college at a small public university in Central New York. After college, he took over his father’s small business,

owning and managing it for 25 years before closing its doors. George then worked in sales for 15

years, but recently retired. George currently lives with his wife in the same town he attended

156 college. George and his wife have five children, all of who have left Central New York to attend college and pursue career interests.

Becoming a Syracuse fan. George’s interest in sport traces back decades to his childhood, when he followed the Brooklyn Dodgers (baseball) and Syracuse Nationals

(basketball). Neither George’s father nor other family members had much influence on his interest in consuming sport; instead, it was his relationships with friends that ignited his interest in sport, particularly in following local teams. As he explained:

You know, being a fan starts, typically, you’re a fan because it’s the local sport team.

They used to have the Syracuse Nats. I realize some people like teams 2,000 miles away,

but I think for most fans, it’s the local team, wherever it is, when you’re a kid. You grow

up with other kids your age, and if you’re interested in sports, you talk about Syracuse

sports, or other local teams. So it’s the thing that evolves from being a childhood sports

fan.

For George, there was a social aspect to following local sport teams, as doing so allowed him to converse with other children at school and build friendships. As George progressed into his teenage years, he continued to support local sport teams and started to follow Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball. George explained the unique timing of the NBA Syracuse

Nationals leaving Syracuse (for Philadelphia) in the early 1960s and him becoming a Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball soon after, noting:

I can remember being a Nats fan, but then they left in 1962. So I needed to latch onto

something else. And that is, coincidentally, is when Syracuse basketball started to take

off. That’s when Dave Bing and Jim Boeheim came and they started to have good teams.

157

As George described, the success of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball allowed him and other Central New Yorkers to continue to follow a men’s basketball team after the professional team (i.e., Syracuse Nationals) left town. Although not explicitly discussed with George, it seems as though Syracuse University Men’s Basketball was able to fill a void after the “loss” of another team (the Nationals) in the community; further, this indicates that for George, he derives a sense of self from supporting local sport teams generally.

As he grew older, George began to attend Syracuse University Men’s Basketball games

with friends at Manley Field House and then, the Carrier Dome. As such, George views

following and attending games as a group event and an opportunity to socialize with others. He

explained:

I’ve never gone to a game by myself. So, no, going to a game is a social event—you like

to go with other people. It’s much more enjoyable when you’re there with someone you

know. Before I used to go with family, I’d go with friends, many years ago. It just makes

it more enjoyable, whether you go with family, friends, whoever. I guess it goes back to a

social thing. Inevitably, it always goes back to that, I guess.

Although George has always been interested in watching Syracuse University Men’s Basketball games and is comfortable doing so alone, he enjoys watching and discussing these games much more when he is in the company of others.

Sense of community. In addition to watching and attending games with friends and family, George feels the community of Syracuse fans across Central New York has contributed to his fandom. The sheer number of local residents who attend Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball games makes attending games more exciting for George. As he discussed:

158

It’s like a group mentality. If you go to the game at the dome and there are 7,000 people

and you’re looking up on the walk and there’s only 20 or so people in front of you, it’s

going to take away from it a little bit. I see 30,000 Central New Yorkers there? That’s

going to make myself being a fan even more intense, as opposed to a stadium with three

or four thousand people in it.

When George attends Syracuse University Men’s Basketball games at the Carrier Dome, he is able to feel part of a large group—a community—because of the thousands of others who attend as well. Even though George does not know most of the other fans who attend these games, their common interest in supporting Syracuse is enough to make him feel part of a group.

The sense of community George derives from being a Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball fan extends beyond attending games at the Carrier Dome. When George is not able to attend games, he watches them on television. In these instances, George feels proud to see the

Carrier Dome, filled with fans, on national television. He noted:

You get a little pride, you know, even when you’re watching on television, on national

television, and they say, “Live from the Dome! We’ve got 30,000 people here tonight!”

It’s like Central New York is better than any other place in country. We support our team

more than anybody, and the national press notices it.

While being at the Carrier Dome allows George to feel a sense of belongingness as a result of being surrounded by fellow Syracuse fans, watching these games on television influences his self in separate way. That is, seeing the “group” he is part of (i.e., fans at the Carrier Dome) on television allows him to view himself—as a Central New Yorker and Syracuse fan—as different and unique. Further, the fact that the Carrier Dome is the largest on-campus basketball venue in the nation and annually leads in attendance (Attendance, 2015) is an additional point of pride for

159

George. Indeed, George’s comment that Central New York is “better than any other place in the country” illustrates how he is able to make favorable comparisons between himself and others. In addition, George’s comment highlights the way he uses Syracuse University Men’s Basketball as a way to legitimize Central New York relative to other regions of the state and country.

The sense of pride George feels as a result of being a Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball fan stays with him when he leaves Central New York. In fact, George finds himself emphasizing his affiliation with Syracuse University more when he is travelling than when he is in Central New York. He explained, “I do wear more Syracuse attire when I’m away than I do when I’m living here in Syracuse. I want to put my Syracuse stuff on when I’m away to let people know I’m a Syracuse fan.” Wearing Syracuse University apparel when he travels allows

George to let others know that he is a Syracuse fan. The fact that he is motivated to do this more in areas outside of Central New York (i.e., where Syracuse fans are not prevalent) further illustrates how George uses his Syracuse fandom to differentiate himself from others while simultaneously taking pride in his Syracuse-related identity.

Importance of history and success. George is drawn to Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball because of the socializing it allows for among other fans and thus, feelings of belonging to a group. However, in discussing his Syracuse fandom, George was very adamant about the success of the program over time, and the critical role he feels this plays for him in being such an intense fan. A conversation with George about past players and postseason achievements illustrates this. As he explained:

If the team didn’t have those prior players, and if they didn’t have a history of winning

Big East titles and going to the Final Four a few times, I think the degree of me being a

160

fan might dissipate a little bit. If we didn’t have those past players—and what they did,

produce winning seasons, championships—would I be as much a fan? I’m not quite sure.

For George, the history and success of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball are essential to his fandom, not only because of what those achievements have meant as they were attained, but also in the way they have compounded into what he bases his fandom on today. Essentially, George’s identity as a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan has been shaped over the course of the multiple decades he has followed the program. As he explained:

I mean, for me, being a fan is a process of 30 to 40 years. The beginnings of being a fan

goes back to the 1960s for me, back when they were a football powerhouse. And for me,

Syracuse, that was the college team to root for. And then it shifted to basketball early in

the 1970s, and I’ve been a fan ever since. And you know, we can talk about the current

players and all. But you know, at the same time, those past players and stars, and past

victories, past experiences, do help you to, snowball, as a fan—always making that

snowball larger. It all contributes to me being the fan I am today.

As George explains, while he is able to live in the moment in supporting the current

efforts of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball players, the efforts of past players—and the

experiences he has had watching along the way—have contributed to his Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball fandom today. When George describes “snowballing” as a fan, he is

metaphorically explaining the process by which all of his experiences with Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball have accumulated to form his identity as a fan, in the same way that a snowball

is made of thousands of snowflakes. George’s mention of the way he “snowballs” as a fan

describes how he considers all of his experiences and memories of consuming Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball over the years to have contributed to his identity as a Syracuse fan

161 today. In addition, the inclusion of past success in how he views his fandom allows George to fall back on these occurrences when Syracuse is not performing as well as they have in the past; essentially, past success becomes a coping mechanism when positive social identity is threatened

(e.g., a poor season).

Considering the history of success that has contributed to George’s identity as a Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball fan, the formation of rivalries has played a crucial role for George.

He emphasized how before the formation of the Big East, Syracuse lacked opponents to compete with, noting, “Fifty years ago there was no real identity, because they were just playing random teams, there was no confederation, no conference they belonged to.” Now, as he explained:

It’s like every other game is an intense, tough game. It means a lot, it brings out more

from the players and fans. If Syracuse had the schedule they had 40 years ago, part of the

fandom I think would go away, because they wouldn’t be playing great teams. It’s hard to

imagine not having had a Big East or now an ACC, because that is what makes the

rivalries.

For George, having competitive conference rivalries with other universities not only makes being a fan more exciting, but serves to strengthen his fandom, and the sense of self he derives from being a fan. Essentially, these competitive rivalries allow George to enhance his sense of self

through the favorable comparisons he makes between himself (as a Syracuse fan) and fans of

rival teams.

Summary. George’s Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fandom is grounded in his

genuine interest in consuming sport and his pride as a lifelong Central New York resident.

George began supporting local sport teams alongside friends as a child, including Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball, and he began attending games in Syracuse as he grew older.

162

Attending Syracuse University Men’s Basketball games strengthened George’s fandom, as he began to realize the entire Central New York community—thousands of people—were

Syracuse fans as well. This realization allowed George to fulfil a need for belonging, as the act of collectively supporting a winning local sport team enhanced his sense of self as a Central New

Yorker.

George’s group identity as a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan has been constructed over the decades he has supported the team, through his various experiences attending, watching, and supporting the team. For George, Syracuse University Men’s Basketball becoming a top team nationally, and developing important rivalries with Big East and ACC conference universities, has allowed him to feel proud to be a Central New Yorker. George’s identity as a Central New Yorker is more meaningful and positive because Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball is something he can claim is unique to the region. Thus, George is able to evaluate his social self positively in comparison to others.

Cross-Case Analysis

Ashley, Mark, and George share a common interest in Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball, however their life experiences have allowed them to form unique viewpoints of such.

While Mark and George have spent their entire lives in Central New York, surrounded by other

Syracuse fans, Ashley has been a distant fan most of her life, following and supporting Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball from Florida. In addition, Ashley, Mark, and George are all at different stages of life, and thus, various factors influence the way they currently fit Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball into their lives. Nonetheless, Ashley, Mark, and George have each realized an enhanced sense of self as a result of being Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans.

163

Positive Social Self

Considering the influence Syracuse University Men’s Basketball has had on Ashley,

Mark, and George, the feeling of being part of a group of fans contributes to their self-esteem.

From a social identity theory perspective, Ashley, Mark, and George derive a positive sense of self from thinking of themselves as fans of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball. This positive social identity is partly a result of the success Syracuse University Men’s Basketball has had over time.

It is generally known among college basketball fans that Syracuse is a perennial contender in NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball, and is a team that has enjoyed much success historically. As a result, thinking of themselves as Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans allow Ashley, Mark, and George to align themselves with a relatively dominant group (in terms of sport contexts), which allows them to think of themselves more positively. Subsequently, they feel comfortable with, and indeed take much pride in, communicating their Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball team identity to others.

The role of possessions in identity construction. As mentioned, the identity Ashley,

Mark, and George have as Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans is rooted in the positive sense of self realized through affiliating themselves with the successful program. In addition to the history of the program and its influence on identity construction, the personal experiences of

Ashley, Mark, and George also play a critical role in how they construct and maintain identity.

Interestingly, although these personal experiences are held in memory, it is perhaps the physical possessions of Ashley and Mark that allow for these memories to remain accessible. For example, the worn Syracuse sweatshirt Ashley continues to wear reminds her of trips to Central

New York and her earliest years as a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan; this reinforces

164 her feelings of belongingness that ground her identity as a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan. As well, Mark still has and talks about the hat his father purchased for him as a child at his first Syracuse University Men’s Basketball game; to some extent, this hat is representative of his earliest memories as a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan, and the bond he shared with his father; these memories greatly contributed to the construction of his Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball identity, and the hat serves to remind him of this.

Who is the Other?

Both social psychology (e.g., Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and cultural studies (e.g., du Gay, Evans, & Redman, 2000; Grossberg, 1996) scholars have emphasized the central role that differentiation plays in the realization of group identity. Without an awareness of some relevant “outgroup” or “other” to compare oneself to, one cannot derive a sense of self from belonging to a particular group. Essentially, individuals cannot realize the positive nature of a group unless it is somehow distinct from another group.

Considering the group identity Ashley, Mark, and George have realized as Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball fans, distinct outgroup comparisons (e.g., rival fans) are not necessarily what drives identity maintenance on a daily basis, but rather a general feeling of otherness towards any individuals who are not Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans.

Indeed, the “other” Ashley, Mark, and George compare themselves is quite temporal.

When Syracuse competes against rivals, there is a greater sense of a distinct outgroup among fans (i.e., fans of the rival university). To some extent, these particular outgroups are what has grounded—or formed the foundation of—the identities realized by Ashley, Mark, and

George. Indeed, part of the reason being a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan is perceived positively is because of the success they have had competing against rivals over time.

165

Undeniably, when Syracuse University Men’s Basketball faces a long-time rival opponent such as the University of Connecticut, the comparison group for fans in that moment is very specific—University of Connecticut fans.

However, on a day-to-day basis, the sense of self realized by Ashley, Mark, and George via their Syracuse fandom is based much more on the positive aspects of Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball, rather than not being a fan of a rival university. Essentially, the “group” to which Ashley, Mark, and George compare themselves can be very specific (i.e., a particular university) or broad (i.e., non-Syracuse fans) depending on the contextual circumstances they find themselves in. The specificity or broadness of this makes sense when considering self- categorization theory (e..g, Turner, 1985; Hogg & Terry, 2000), and the extent to which the salience of superordinate and subgroup identities may fluctuate depending on contextual circumstances.

Entangled Identities

In conversing with Ashley, Mark, and George, it was apparent that despite their unique backgrounds, each of them derives a sense of self from Syracuse University Men’s Basketball and Central New York. Ashley, Mark, and George have incorporated Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball and Central New York into their lives in such a way that they are part of themselves

(i.e., extended self; see Belk, 1988). Notably, because they perceive Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball as a very positive aspect of Central New York, Ashley, Mark, and George mix the sense of self realized from both. Essentially, their identities as Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball fans and Central New Yorkers are entangled.

From a self-categorization theory perspective (see, e.g., Turner, 1985), a logical explanation for Ashley, Mark, and George’s entangled identities is that the identity that Ashley,

166

Mark, and George possess as Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans is nested within their identities as Central New Yorkers; being a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan is subgroup of being a Central New Yorker. However, because Ashley, Mark, and George perceive

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball as perhaps one of the most positive aspects of being a

Central New Yorker, a reverse ordering could be considered as well. That is, their Central New

York identity is nested within their identity as Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans as a result of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball being a symbolic representation of Central New

York.

Thus, in the cases of Ashley, Mark, and George, attempting to understand which group

identity—Central New Yorker or Syracuse University Men’s Basketball—is more encompassing

of the other is difficult, and perhaps impossible, because each is contingent on the other. Without

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, identifying oneself as a Central New Yorker would mean

less (and do less to enhance self-esteem). Likewise, without it being publically known that

Central New York is the home of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball, Syracuse University

Men’s Basketball would mean less to Ashley, Mark, and George (and do less to enhance self-

esteem).

Discussion

My purpose in this chapter was to discuss Research Aim 2 (i.e., to understand both the

stability and source(s) of identity associated with supporting the team). I used the cases of three

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans—Ashley, Mark, and George—to comprehend how

sport-related group identities are constructed, all while maintaining a heightened awareness of

the contextual circumstances these individuals find themselves in. In the remainder of this

chapter, I discuss the findings of Research Aim 2 and potential implications for scholars.

167

As suggested by cultural studies scholars (e.g., du Gay et al., 2000), a contextualized

approach to understanding identity (as a process and outcome) is necessary to appreciate the

sociohistorical and sociocultural conditions in which identities are constructed. Ashley, Mark,

and George have all experienced Syracuse University Men’s Basketball in different ways based

on their life-worlds. However, commonalities can be found in examining how Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball fandom has influenced how they perceive themselves.

Ashley, Mark, and George each derive a positive sense of self from being Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball fans, largely influenced by the ways they have experienced

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball with others over time. Indeed, their fandom is very much

socially motivated, as being a fan fulfills a need for belonging. In addition, identifying

themselves as Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans allows Ashley, Mark, and George to

distinguish between themselves and others who are not fans. Finally, the group identity Ashley,

Mark, and George each possess as Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans is largely

influenced and related to—in fact, somewhat enmeshed with—their identity as Central New

Yorkers.

Ashley, Mark, and George’s team-related identity is constructed in both a social and

cultural sense (RQ2a). Each of them were introduced to Syracuse University Men’s Basketball by and/or alongside others, and the development and continuation of their identity as fans is very much contingent on interaction with others. However, the identity realized by Ashley, Mark, and

George in being Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans is also culturally based, in that the foundation of such identity is based on common and individualized meanings. That is, their identity as fans is based on both tradition and creativity: tradition in the sense that they come to know Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fandom through the program’s history and its past

168 and current fans; and creativity in the sense that they each experience Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball in unique ways, thereby allowing them to construct their own individualized meaning of their team-related identity.

Considering RQ2a, analyzing the cases of Ashley, Mark, and George allowed me to discover that their identity as Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans has been informed— and is continually informed—by the sociocultural and sociohistorical conditions they experience.

Identities are not realized in isolation from others, nor are they realized without the influence of history and culture. In the case of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball and Ashley, Mark, and

George, the sense of self they derive from being Syracuse fans is actually based very little on the current moment they find themselves in. Instead, team identity is a product of experiences—a collection of personal memories, and past stories told by others. In addition, the team identity of

Ashley, Mark, and George is largely influenced by their identity as Central New Yorkers, because of the social capital Syracuse University Men’s Basketball appears to provide them in

terms of enhancing what it means to be a Central New Yorker (Heere & James, 2007b).

In this regard, the meaning of sport-related group identity should not be thought of as

fixed, but rather as an ongoing project of sorts. The meaning of a sport-related group identity is

always partly unsettled, continually changing, informed by an individual’s life-world and

external contingencies. This finding is line with cultural studies scholars who have emphasized

that identities are fluid, malleable, and socially constructed (e.g., Hall, 1996).

Certainly, from a behavioral perspective, the sense of self an individual derives from being a fan of a sport entity can be thought of as relatively stable, persistent, and resilient (see

Funk & James, 2001). For example, George continues to attend Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball games now that they play in the ACC despite much of his fandom—and identity—

169 having been grounded in competitions against Big East rivals. However, it is the history of his fandom—the history of his identity as a fan—that propels him to continue supporting Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball as a consumer.

Considering the potential implications for scholars in acknowledging the partiality or fluidity in the meaning of team-related fan identities, additional efforts to understand identity in a contextualized form are necessary. To date, a majority of scholars who have studied identity in relation to consumer behavior have focused on merely identifying group differences (e.g., “high” and “low” team identification) to subsequently understand differences in behavior among groups.

While such segmentation techniques can be effective in predicting and understanding the actions of consumers, they do little to tell us about the individuals in such groups, and the meaning of identity, which subsequently drives behaviors. By studying sport-related group identities among individuals within the very environments they are realized, scholars should be better suited to understand how sport-related group identities are formed and maintained, and how they change and influence behavior over time.

170

CHAPTER SEVEN

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Sport consumer behavior scholars have studied individuals’ psychological connection to

sport entities for decades, including concepts such as team identification. In studying team

identification, scholars have added to the psychological connection to sport literature by illustrating the relationship between team identification and various consumer thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors. However, they have not endeavored to empirically examine how consumers

construct the team in regard to their psychological connection to it. As such, my overarching purpose in this project was to understand the “team” in team identification, from the consumer’s perspective.

Using Syracuse University Men’s Basketball as a case to study, I conducted qualitative

research with Syracuse fans, taking a phenomenological approach to interviewing. I used concept

mapping to understand the meaning of “team” and how individuals derive a sense of self from

such an entity. As a Syracuse fan myself, I embraced subjectivity in the research act, leveraging

my familiarity with Syracuse University Men’s Basketball and Central New York; doing so

allowed me to establish a level of trust with individuals participating in the research, as I

understood and in many instances could relate to the experiences of participants. In addition, I

was sensitive to the research environment and participants’ backgrounds, as doing so allowed me

to understand how individuals’ unique life circumstances influence how they construct “team.”

In the final chapter of this dissertation, I summarize the research findings based on the

research aims of this project. Subsequently, I discuss the limitations of this research while

concurrently offering direction for future research.

171

Summary of Findings

Research Aim 1 Research Aim 1 was to understand the elements of “team” from the consumer’s perspective. I posed the following research questions:

RQ1a: According to the fans or spectators I interview, how do they define the team?

RQ1b: According to the fans or spectators I interview, is there a difference between the

meaning of team in terms of performance versus the meaning of team in terms of

the entity they are psychologically connected to?

RQ1c: According to the fans or spectators I interview, is the meaning of team fixed?

To obtain an understanding of how individuals think about team, each participant was asked to construct a concept map regarding “Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team” during their interview; they were instructed to draw a diagram of any thoughts that came to mind when thinking of the team, and to connect related thoughts with lines. The concept mapping exercise allowed me to capture the complexity in how individuals think about and construct the meaning of team. Because each concept map was unique, it quickly became evident that individuals think about “team” differently, based on their individual experiences. Using the concept maps as an interview guide of sorts, I discussed each item on an individual’s concept map to understand the extent to which he/she considered it a part of the team he/she is psychologically connected to.

Nonetheless, in analyzing conversations with individuals interviewed, I was able to discover common themes regarding the meaning of team.

Considering RQ1a, I discovered that most individuals interviewed consider the coach, current and former players, fans, facility, geographic location, rivalry, and a history of success part of the “team” they identify with. Additional elements of team among some individuals include athletic conference (i.e., Big East), cold weather, Carrier Dome traditions (i.e., dome

172 walk, dome dogs), and nickname (i.e., orange). Understanding how individuals define the “team” in team identification allows me to add to the psychological connection to sport literature by illustrating the complex way that individuals think about the sport entities they are psychologically connected to. Further, these results allowed me to add empirical support to scholars’ suggestions that team may be representative of multiple entities (Heere & James,

2007b).

In regard to RQ1b, I found that “team” varies based on its use in regard to psychological connection (i.e., identification) versus performance. Specifically, the meaning of team when used to discuss or think about the performance of athletes is relatively simple, consisting of players and possibly the coach. However, the meaning of team is much more complex and discursive when considering one’s psychological connection.

Finally, in considering RQ1c, I discovered that the “team” in team identification is continually changing based on an individual’s experiences and program changes, and thus, relatively unfixed. However, despite the unfixed nature of the meaning of team, the complex meaning of team allows individuals’ connection to a team to remain relatively stable over time.

Research Aim 2

In addition to my main purpose in this project to understand the “team” in team identification, I also sought to understand the meaning of identity in regard to individuals’ psychological connection to a team. As such, Research Aim 2 was to understand both the stability and source(s) of identity associated with supporting the team. Specifically, I asked the following research questions:

RQ2a: According to the fans or spectators I interview, is their identification with the

team constructed in a social and/or cultural sense?

173

RQ2b: To what extent are sociocultural and sociohistorical conditions influential in

identities realized through supporting the team?

To pursue Research Aim 2, I engaged in multiple conversations with three individuals

(Ashley, Mark, and George). I analyzed interviews with Ashley, Mark, and George at the idiographic level, which allowed me to acknowledge each participant’s life-world and how it influences the sense of self they derive from supporting Syracuse University Men’s Basketball.

Subsequently, I analyzed all three cases collectively to understand commonalities in their group identity related to Syracuse University Men’s’ Basketball. In summary, my conversations with

Ashley, Mark, and George allowed me to realize that the sense of self individuals derive from supporting Syracuse University Men’s Basketball is continually changing based on the life-world of the individuals and changes in the program; this allowed me to highlight the importance of context in studying fan identity.

Considering RQ2a, I found that Ashley, Mark, and George’s team-related identity is constructed in both a social and cultural sense. While each of them were introduced to Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball by and/or alongside others, and the development and continuation of their identity as fans is very much based on social interaction, their identity is also culturally based, in that the foundation of such identity is based on common and individualized meanings.

Considering RQ2b, analyzing the cases of Ashley, Mark, and George allowed me to discover that their identity as Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fans has been informed by the sociocultural and sociohistorical conditions they experience. Identities are not realized in isolation from others, nor are they realized without the influence of history and culture. The sense of self Ashley, Mark, and George derive from being Syracuse fans is based very little on the current moment they find themselves in, but rather a collection of experiences over time. In

174 addition, the team identity of Ashley, Mark, and George is largely influenced by their identity as

Central New Yorkers, because of the social capital Syracuse University Men’s Basketball appears to provide them in terms of enhancing what it means to be a Central New Yorker.

Limitations and Future Research Suggestions

The Meaning of “Team” Over Time

In conducting this research, I chose to focus on elucidating the thoughts and feelings of

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball spectators and fans. The interviews I conducted with

Syracuse University Men’s Basketball spectators and fans were cross sectional due to time and

financial constraints. As a result of conducting cross sectional research, I was not be able to

understand how individuals’ conceptualization of the team, and the sense of self they derive from

such, might fluctuate over time. Preliminary discussion with participants in the current study

suggests that the amalgamation of entities thought to comprise “team” indeed strengthen one’s

connection to the sport entity, as their identification is not riding on a single group of players, but

rather a variety of people, places, and objects based on one’s unique experiences over time.

As an avenue to continue this line of inquiry, future scholars should conduct longitudinal

research with individuals to understand the stability of one’s definition of team. Given that

“team” has complex, varied meaning, an important next step will be to understand how this

meaning might change over time, and if so, how such changes influence individuals’

identification. In addition, it will be important for scholars to consider not only how team

meaning may change over time, but also any factors or occurrences that cause such a change.

Considering the meaning of team over time could elucidate the lengths to which

individuals are willing to go in order to remain “connected” to a sport entity. Given the possibility the team may potentially consist of a variety of (fluid) elements in the mind of the

175 consumer that contribute to some greater object of identification, the team could be unique relative to other entities an individual may form a psychological connection to. The potential fluidity of the team could emphasize the power of sport to connect with some individuals on such heightened levels that, despite change and uncertainty, connections to sport entities still remain.

“Team” in Other Contexts

In conducting this research, I chose to focus on studying one particular case, Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball. As such, while my examination of team identification is insightful in that it allowed me to discover the meaning of team identification among some Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball fans, scholars should consider studying the meaning of team identification in other research contexts in the future. For example, scholars could conduct research with fans of a non-university team, or in an environment where several prominent sport teams exist, to understand similarities or differences compared to the research context in the current study. By doing so, scholars should be better positioned to understand whether the meaning of team identification transcends contextual boundaries.

Conclusion

Despite decades of research into team identification, scholars have not endeavored to understand how individuals construct the meaning of team. In addition, scholars have frequently studied team identification without acknowledging theoretical foundations of group identity, and even fewer have acknowledged perspectives of group identity from multiple disciplines. As such, my purpose in this dissertation was to engage with consumers to understand how they define the

“team” they are psychologically connected to, as well as the sources and meaning of group identity associated with supporting a sport entity.

176

Using Syracuse University Men’s Basketball as a case study, I conducted phenomenological interviews to find that the meaning of the Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball team is complex, and for many, includes the coach, current and past players, fans, rivals, facility and geographical location, and a history of success. I also found that individuals think of and use the word team in two ways, what can essentially be considered team identification and team performance. I also discovered that the team-related group identity of individuals is continually changing based on their experiences, and in the case of Syracuse

University Men’s Basketball fans, is entangled with their identity as Central New Yorkers.

Collectively, the research I conducted in this dissertation has allowed me to set free the ambiguity of “team” in team identification, emphasize the importance of studying sport-related group identities in a contextualized fashion, and highlight implications for scholars and practitioners considering the psychological connections individuals form through consuming sport.

177

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW DISCUSSION GUIDE

[BACKGROUND QUESTIONS]

- First, I’d like to learn a bit about where you grew up and your educational and professional

background. To begin, where are you from?

o (If from Central New York) Where in Central New York are you from?

° Probe: Where else have you lived? Do you still consider [hometown] your

“home”? Is your own family from Central New York?

o (If not from Central New York) Are you from another area of New York? Do you live in

Central New York now (where)?

° Probe: How did you navigate to Central New York?

- Are you a college graduate, and if so, what college/university did you attend?

o (If yes) Did you consider other schools in your search? How did you choose your

school? (Probe: regional considerations, financial constraints, academic offerings,

sport/extracurricular opportunities)

- What do/did/do you plan to do for your professional career?

o Is this what you planned/hoped to do? Why/why not?

- What do you like most/least about living in Central New York?

o Probe: What makes you “proud” to be a Central New Yorker? What makes you

“embarrassed” to be a Central New Yorker?

o If you could change anything about Central New York, what would it be, and why?

[GENERAL ATTITUDES TOWARD SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY]

178

- Next, I’d like to transition our conversation to Syracuse University. How do you feel about

Syracuse University:

o As a Syracuse/Central New York landmark

o As an academic institution

o As a fundamental element in the local economy

As a “differentiator” when comparing Syracuse/Central New York to other areas of New

York (or the United States)

[IDENTIFICATION WITH SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY MEN’S BASKETBALL]

- To begin our discussion of Syracuse basketball, I’m going to read you a few statements about

how strongly you identify yourself as a fan of Syracuse basketball. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1

is “Strongly Disagree” and 7 is “Strongly Agree”:

o I already consider myself a fan of the Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team.

o I would feel a loss if I had to give up being a fan of the Syracuse University Men’s

Basketball team.

o Other people recognize that I am a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan.

[MAPPING ACTIVITY]

- Next, I’d like to have you do a short “mapping” activity. I have a sheet of paper here and I’m

going to write “Syracuse University Men’s Basketball team” in the center. Take a few minutes to

draw or “map” what you think of when you think of “Syracuse University Men’s Basketball

team”. Draw lines to things you think of, and from those thoughts you can also write down what

comes to mind when you think of that (for example, if I write “chocolate” in the middle of the

paper, I might have a branch to “ice cream”, and from there, I might have a branch to

“summer”).

179

The concept maps will guide subsequent conversation with participants, with a focus on individuals’ psychological connection to the “team” they support, the sense of self they realize from the “team,”

and how the “team” influences their well-being and purchasing behaviors.

180

APPENDIX B

IRB APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

The Florida State University

Office of the Vice President For Research

Human Subjects Committee

Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742

(850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 11/6/2013

To: Elizabeth Delia

Dept.: SPORT MANAGEMENT

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research

Understanding the "team" in team identification

The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the proposal referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and one member of the Human Subjects Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited per per 45 CFR §

46.110(7) and has been approved by an expedited review process.

The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk

181 and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting research subjects.

If the project has not been completed by 11/4/2014 you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee.

You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

182

This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The

Assurance Number is FWA00000168/IRB number IRB00000446.

Cc: Jeffrey James, Advisor

HSC No. 2013.11501

183

APPENDIX C

IRB RE-APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

The Florida State University

Office of the Vice President For Research

Human Subjects Committee

Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742

(850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392

RE-APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 8/26/2014

To: Elizabeth Delia

Dept.: SPORT MANAGEMENT

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Re-approval of Use of Human subjects in Research

Understanding the "team" in team identification

Your request to continue the research project listed above involving human subjects has been approved by the Human Subjects Committee. If your project has not been completed by

8/20/2015, you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the committee.

184

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your renewal request, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this re-approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting of research subjects. You are reminded that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report in writing, any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor are reminded of their responsibility for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in their department. They are advised to review the protocols as often as necessary to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

Cc: Jeffrey James, Advisor

HSC No. 2014.13443

185

APPENDIX D

BEHAVIORAL CONSENT FORM

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a doctoral student in the Department of Sport Management at Florida State University

working on research to complete my Ph.D. I am aiming to better understand how people become

fans of Syracuse University men’s basketball and the factors that contribute to an individual’s idea of the sport team.

As a native Central New Yorker and Syracuse University fan myself, I appreciate being able to

converse with you on this topic. If you choose to participate, you will be offered a small gift or

gift card. However, you are welcome to decide the extent to which you wish to be involved in

this research. If you wish to participate in this research, I will ask that you partake in informal

conversations and interviews, allowing me to take notes. If you agree, I may also record these conversations on an audio recording device; if not, I will take notes by hand as we talk.

During our conversation, I will talk to you about how you came to be a Syracuse University men’s basketball fan, how this fandom has progressed over time, and what you believe are the important aspects of Syracuse University men’s basketball. Our conversation will likely flow from one topic to another, allowing you to speak openly and freely about your experiences and thoughts. Our conversation today will last no longer than 60 minutes; as well, we can always

186 continue our discussion at a later date. Further, you are free not to answer questions or to withdraw at anytime without prejudice or penalty.

Through this research, I am hoping to illustrate to the value of being a fan of the “team” to key decision makers in the sport industry, as well as the influence being a fan of the “team” has had on your own life. Upon completion of my research, my findings will be made available publically (via dissertation, journal article, and/or conference presentation). The benefit to you participating in the study is the potential to have your voice as a sport fan heard by sport industry professionals. Rest assured, your actual name will not be provided in these materials (i.e., you will remain anonymous). Your information will be protected to the extent allowed by law. There are no known risks associated with participation in this study.

If you have any questions, please contact Elizabeth Delia (primary investigator). Alternatively, you may contact Dr. Jeffrey D. James (faculty advisor). If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, please contact the chair of the Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board, through the Vice

President for the Office of Research at (850) 644-8673 (mailing address: Florida State University

Human Subjects Committee, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2742).

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Delia

187

Statement of Consent:

I have read the above information. I have asked questions and have received answers. I consent to participate in the study.

______

Signature Date

______

Signature of Investigator Date

188

APPENDIX E

PARTICIPANT CONCEPT MAPS

Ashley

Ashley is in her 20’s and currently resides in Florida, where she attends college. Ashley’s father was born and raised in Central New York, where her family still owns a home; she spends holidays and summers in Central New York. Ashley has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan since childhood.

189

Carter

Carter is in his 40’s and currently resides in Central New York. Born and raised in Central New York, lived in Boston and Atlanta before returning to Central New York. Today, Carter works in financial services. He has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan since childhood.

190

Cole

Cole is in his 30’s and currently lives in Hartford, Connecticut where he works in higher education. Cole was born and raised in Central New York and attended college at a small private college in upstate New York, where he was a student-athlete. Cole has been a Syracuse University his entire life.

191

George

George is in his 60’s and is a lifelong resident of Central New York. After graduating from a small public university, George owned a small business for 20 years but has since sold the business and worked in finance. George has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan for more than 40 years.

192

Jamie

Jamie is in her 30’s and is a lifelong resident of Central New York. Jamie attended a private liberal arts college in Central New York before pursuing a career in education. Jamie has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan since childhood. Jamie identifies herself as a fan.

193

Justin

Justin is in his 60’s and currently resides in a Syracuse suburb. Born and raised in Syracuse, Justin attended a private university in Canada before returning to Central New York to work at a university. Justin has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball his entire life.

194

Mark

Mark is in his 30’s and is a lifelong resident of Central New York. Mark received his bachelor’s degree in business from a small public university in Central New York, and has since pursued a career in finance. Mark has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan for as long as he can remember.

195

Nicole

Nicole is in her 30’s and currently lives in Syracuse. Born and raised in Central New York, Nicole attended a public university in Western New York. After pursuing a career in coaching, Nicole returned home to work in education. Nicole has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan her entire life.

196

Oliver

Oliver is in his 20’s and is a lifelong resident of Central New York. Oliver attended a small public university in Central New York, and has since pursued a career in sales. Although Oliver regularly attends Syracuse University Men’s Basketball games and is a fan, he is also a lifelong fan of Duke University.

197

Rachael

Rachael is in her 30’s and currently lives in Syracuse. Rachael attended a private university in New York. After leaving New York to pursue a career in the sports industry, Rachael returned to Central New York, where she was born and raised. She has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan her entire life.

198

Regina

Regina is in her 60’s and currently resides in Central New York. Born and raised in Western New York, Regina attended a small public university in Central New York before beginning a career in education. Regina has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball supporter for more than 20 years.

199

Simon

Simon is in his 30’s and currently lives in a suburb of Syracuse. Born and raised in Central New York, Simon attended a small private university in Western New York. Today, Simon owns and operates a small business. Simon has been a Syracuse University Men’s Basketball fan his entire life.

200

Wilson

Wilson is in his 20’s and is currently an undergraduate student at Syracuse University. Born and raised in California, Wilson was not a fan of Syracuse University Men’s Basketball until arriving at Syracuse University.

201

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review, 38(3), 103.

Amis, J. M. & Silk, M. L. (2008). The philosophy and politics of quality in qualitative organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 456-480.

Arnould, E. J. (2006). Consumer culture theory: Retrospect and prospect. European Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 605-607.

Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 868-882.

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325-374.

Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multi-dimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130 (1), 80-114.

Beissel, A. S., Giardina, M., & Newman, J. I. (2013). Men of steel: Social class, masculinity, and cultural citizenship in post-industrial Pittsburgh. Sport in Society, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2013.806032.

Belk, R. W. (1987). ACR Presidential Address: Happy Thought. In NA - Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 14, eds. M. Wallendorf and P. Anderson (pp. 1-4). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168.

Bennett, M. A. (2005). Syracuse University. In P. Eisenstadt & L. Moss (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of New York State (pp. 1523-1524). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Bhabha, H. K. (1996). Culture’s in-between. In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 53-60). London: Sage.

Bitoni, C. (1993). Cognitive mapping: A qualitative research method for social work. Social Work Research & Abstracts, 29, 9-16.

Boeheim (2014). Jim Boeheim, Men’s Basketball Head Coach. Retrieved July 29, 2014, from http://cuse.com/staff.aspx?staff=15

Bourdieu, P. (2000). The biographical illusion. In P. du Gay, J. Evans, & P. Redman (Eds.). Identity: A reader (pp. 297-303). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

202

Bowers, M. T., & Green, B. C. (2013). Reconstructing the community-based youth sport experience: How children derive meaning from unstructured and organized settings. Journal of Sport Management, 27, 422-438.

Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1991). The positive social and self concept consequences of sports team identification. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 15(2), 115-127.

Brinkmann, S. (2011). Interviewing and the production of the conversational self. In N.K. Denzin and M. D. Giardina (eds.), Qualitative inquiry and global crises, pp. 56-76.

Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2005). Confronting the ethics of qualitative research. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18(2), 157-181.

Bruhn, J.G. (2000). Interdisciplinary research: A philosophy, art form, artifact or antidote? Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 35, 58–66.

Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. (1981). Social psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: The thought-listing technique. In T. Merluzzi, C. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment (pp. 309-342). New York: Guilford Press.

Cacioppo, J. T., Von Hippel, W., & Ernst, J. M. (1997). Mapping cognitive structures and processes through verbal content: the thought-listing technique. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 928.

Cassillo, J. (2013). University of Buffalo: New York’s college team? Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://www.nunesmagician.com/2013/5/29/4376430/university-of-buffalo-new- yorks-college-team-bulls-syracuse-orange-court-su-daryl-gross

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.

Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of image management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406-415.

Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407.

Connors, D. J. (2005). Syracuse. In P. Eisenstadt & L. Moss (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of New York State (pp. 1517-1522). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Cornfield, B. (2013). Sports Illustrated ranks the top 25 mascots in college sports. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://gamedayr.com/sports/sports-illustrated-college-mascot-top-25- rankings/

203

Cuse (2014). Syracuse national champions. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://cuse.com/sports/2006/12/21/SUNationalChampions.aspx?#

Cuse Cares (2014). ‘Cuse cares community service videos. Retrieved July 30, 2014, from http://cuse.com/sports/2009/2/3/cuse_cares.aspx?

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, 51-59. de Groot, M., & Robinson, T. (2008). Sport fan attachment and the psychological continuum model: A case study of an Australian football league fan. Leisure/Loisir, 32(1), 117-138.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative research, 1(1), 23-46.

Destiny USA (2014). Entertainment. Retrieved July 29, 2014, from http://www.destinyusa.com/entertainment

Dimmock , J. A., & Grove , J. R. (2005). Relationship of fan identification to determinants of aggression. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17(1), 37-47.

Dimmock, J. A., Grove, J. R., & Eklund, R. C. (2005). Reconceptualizing team identification: New dimensions and their relationship to intergroup bias. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(2), 75-86.

Doherty, A. (2012). “It takes a village:” Interdisciplinary research for sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 1-10. du Gay, P., Evans, J., & Redman, P. (2000). General introduction. In P. du Gay, J. Evans, & P. Redman (Eds.). Identity: A reader (pp. 1-5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eisenstadt, P. (2005a). New York State: An introduction. In P. Eisenstadt & L. Moss (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of New York State (pp. xx-xxviii). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Eisenstadt, P. (2005b). Preface. In P. Eisenstadt & L. Moss (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of New York State (pp. xi-xii). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing research, 1(3), 24-33.

Featherstone, M. (1995). Undoing culture: Globalization, postmodernism and identity (Vol. 39). Sage. Heere, B., & James, J. D. (2007). Sports teams and their communities: Examining the influence of external group identities on team identity. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 319-337.

204

Fink, J. S., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. F. (2002). Environmental factors associated with spectator attendance and sport consumption behavior: gender and team differences. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(1), 8-19.

Fisher, D. M. (2005). Lacrosse. In P. Eisenstadt & L. Moss (Eds.). The Encyclopedia of New York State (pp. 853-854). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Fisher, R. J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading to group identification: A field study of winners and losers. Psychology & Marketing, 15(1), 23-40.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-373.

Frye, S. (2013). Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Notre Dame now officially members of the ACC. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1690248-syracuse- pittsburgh-and-notre-dame-now-officially-members-of-the-acc

Funk, D. C., & James, J. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understanding an individual's psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4, 119-150.

Funk, D. C., & James, J. D. (2006). Consumer loyalty: The meaning of Attachment in the development of sport team allegiance. Journal of Sport Management, 20(2), 189-217.

Galvin, E. L., Mason, M. A., & O’Brien, M. M. (2013). Syracuse University. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Giddens, A. (2000). The trajectory of the self. In P. du Gay, J. Evans, & P. Redman (Eds.). Identity: A reader (pp. 248-266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gladden, J., & Funk, D. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations in team sport: Empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 16(1), 54-81.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory (Vol. 2). Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Grace, D., & O’Cass, A. (2002). Brand associations: Looking through the eye of the beholder. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 5, 96-111.

Greenwell, T. C., Fink, J. S., & Pastore, D. L. (2002). Assessing the influence of the physical sports facility on customer satisfaction within the context of the service experience. Sport Management Review, 5(2), 129-148.

205

Gross, D. (2014). Dr. Daryl Gross, Director of Athletics. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://cuse.com/staff.aspx?staff=106

Grossberg, L. (1996). Identity and cultural studies: is that all there is? In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 87-107). London: Sage.

Hall, S. (1996). Introduction: Who needs 'identity'? In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1-17). London: Sage.

Hall, S., & Du Gay, P. (Eds.). (1996). Questions of Cultural Identity: Sage Publications. London: Sage.

Hanna, P. (2012). Using internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A research note. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 239-242.

Hannagan, C. (2012). New Process Gear stops production this week after 124 years. Retrieved July 22, 2014, from http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/08/new_process_gear_closes_this_w.html

Haslam , S. A., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., McGarty, C., & Reynolds, K. J. (1997). The group as a basis for emergent stereotype consensus. European Review of Social Psychology, 8(1), 203-239.

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(1), 45-65.

Heere, B., & James, J. D. (2007a). Stepping outside the lines: Developing a multi-dimensional team identity scale based on social identity theory. Sport Management Review, 10, 65-91.

Heere, B., & James, J. D. (2007b). Sports teams and their communities: Examining the influence of external group identities on team identity. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 319-337.

Heere, B., James, J. D., Yoshida, M., & Scremin, G. (2011). The effect of associated group identities on team identity. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 606-621.

Heere, B., Walker, M., Yoshida, M., Ko, Y. J., Jordan, J. S., & James, J. D. (2011). Brand community development through associated communities: Grounding community measurement within social identity theory. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 407-422.

Herbert, G. (2014). Syracuse University’s Otto the Orange named number one mascot in 2014 NCAA Tournament. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball/index.ssf/2014/03/syracuse_basketball_otto_ mascots_2014_ncaa_tournament.html

206

History (2014). History of the Carrier Dome. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://cuse.com/sports/2009/2/3/GEN_0203090820.aspx

Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2003). The marketing advantages of strong brands. Journal of Brand Management, 10(6), 421-445.

Hogg, M.A., & Abrams, D. (1988). The social identity approach: Context and content. Social Identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes, pp. 6- 30. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255- 269.

Holt, A. (2010). Using the telephone for narrative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 10(1), 113-121.

Holt, D. B. (1995). How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices. Journal of consumer research, 1-16.

Holt, D. B. (1997). Poststructuralist lifestyle analysis: Conceptualizing the social patterning of consumption in postmodernity. Journal of Consumer research, 326-350.

Holt, D. B. (2006). Toward a sociology of branding. Journal of Consumer Culture, 6, 299-302.

Howe, C. A. (2010). “Gimme an S!” A history of the block letter “S”. Syracuse University Archives, Syracuse, NY. Retrieved online, July 28, 2014, from http://archives.syr.edu/exhibits/block_s.html

Inoue, Y., Mahan III, J. E., & Kent, A. (2013). Enhancing the benefits of professional sport philanthropy: The roles of corporate ability and communication strategies. Sport Management Review, 16(3), 314-325.

International League (2014). International League: Attendance. Retrieved July 29, 2014, from http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?t=l_att&lid=117&sid=l117

James, J. D., & Delia, E. B. (2015). The study of team identification: What have we been doing for 20+ years? Manuscript submitted for publication.

John, D. R., Loken, B., Kim, K., & Monga, A. B. (2006). Brand concept maps: a methodology for identifying brand association networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 549- 563.

Joiner, C. (1998). Concept mapping in marketing: A research tool for uncovering consumers’ knowledge structure associations. Advances in Consumer Research, 25(1), 311-317.

207

Joy, A., & Sherry Jr, J. F. (2003). Speaking of art as embodied imagination: A multisensory approach to understanding aesthetic experience. Journal of consumer research, 30(2), 259-282.

Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57. 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (2003a). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 595-600.

Keller, K.L. (2003b). Understanding brands, branding, and brand equity. Interactive Marketing, 5, 7–20.

Kolbe, R. H., & James, J. D. (2003). The internalization process among team followers: Implications for team loyalty. International Journal of Sport Management, 4(1), 25-43.

Kramer, L. (2014a). New York Jets’ 2014 training camp schedule at SUNY Cortland. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://blog.syracuse.com/sports/2014/07/new_york_jets_2014_training_camp_schedule_a t_suny_cortland.html#incart_river

Kramer, L. (2014b). Syracuse Crunch has best attendance mark in 17 years. Retrieved July 29, 2014, from http://www.syracuse.com/crunch/index.ssf/2014/04/syracuse_crunchs_2013- 14_attendance_reflects_carryover_in_winning_excitement_fro.html

Kvale, S. (2006). Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(3), 480- 500.

Kwon, H. H., & Armstrong, K. L. (2002). Factors influencing impulse buying of sport team licensed merchandise. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(3), 151-163.

Kwon, H. H., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. S. (2005). Are multiple points of attachment necessary to predict cognitive, affective, conative, or behavioral loyalty? Sport Management Review, 8(3), 255-270.

Lawrence, J. (2014). Syracuse-Duke tickets Saturday are most expensive in college basketball this season. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jesselawrence/2014/02/20/syracuse-duke-tickets-saturday- are-most-expensive-in-college-basketball-this-season/

Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 443-453.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

208

Lock, D., Taylor, T., Funk, D., & Darcy, S. (2012). Exploring the development of team identification. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 283-294.

Love, A., & Andrew, D. P. (2012). The intersection of sport management and sociology of sport research: A social network perspective. Sport Management Review, 15(2), 244-256.

Madrigal, R. (2001). Social identity effects in a belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy: Implications for corporate sponsorship. Psychology and Marketing, 18(2), 145-165.

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.

Mahony, D. F. (2008). No one can whistle a symphony: Working together for sport management’s future. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 1–10.

Marc, D. (2005). Basketball. In P. Eisenstadt & L. Moss (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of New York State (pp. 159-160). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

McCarthy, C. (1998). The uses of culture: Education and the limits of ethnic affiliation. New York: Routledge.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

McMurphy, B. (2013). Media deal ok’d to solidify ACC. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9200081/acc-media-rights-deal-lock- schools-okd-presidents

Melo (2014). Melo. Retrieved July 30, 2014, from http://cuse.com/facilities/melo-center.aspx

NCAA (2013). 2012-2013 NCAA men’s basketball records. Retrieved July 29, 2014, from http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/2013/2013%2001%20Div.%20I%2010- 16.pdf

NYS Department of Transportation (2012). Regional offices and counties. Retrieved July 21, 2014, from https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices

NYS Labor (2014a). Job trends: Central New York. Retrieved July 22, 2014, from http://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/cen/cnyindex.asp

NYS Labor (2014b). New York’s Largest Private Sector Employers. Retrieved July 22, 2014, from http://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/nys/Largest-Private-Sector-Employers-NYS.shtm

209

Olsen, B. (1999). Exploring women’s brand relationships and enduring themes at mid-life. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 615-620.

Onorato, R. S., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Fluidity in the self‐concept: the shift from personal to social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 257-278.

Otto’s Army (2014). Otto’s Army: The official student section of the Syracuse University Orange. Retrieved July 29, 2014, from http://www.carrierdome.com/students/ottos- army.aspx

Polgreen, L. (2003). Carrier layoffs spotlight Syracuse's battle to rise from dependence on manufacturing. Retrieved July 22, 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/08/nyregion/carrier-layoffs-spotlight-syracuse-s-battle- rise-dependence-manufacturing.html

Poliquin, B. (2013). Readers weigh in on Syracuse football uniforms, game times and brutality. Retrieved December 31, 2013, from http://www.syracuse.com/poliquin/index.ssf/2013/09/readers_syracuse_football_uniform s.html

Quinn, K. C. (2011). Syracuse University accepts invitation to join Atlantic Coast Conference. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://www.syr.edu/news/articles/2011/acc-09-11.html

Ramsey, D. L. (2005). Syracuse Nationals. In P. Eisenstadt & L. Moss (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of New York State (p. 1522). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Reicher , S. D., Haslam, S. A., Spears, R., & Reynolds, K. J. (2012). A social mind: The context of John Turner’s work and its influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 344-385.

Reysen, S., Snider, J. S., & Branscombe, N. R. (2012). Corporate renaming of stadiums, team identification, and threat to distinctiveness. Journal of Sport Management, 26(4), 350- 357.

Rivette, B. S. (2005). Onondaga County. In P. Eisenstadt & L. Moss (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of New York State (pp. 1145-1149). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Robins, K. (2005). Identity. In T. Bennett, L. Grossberg, & M. Morris (Eds.), New keywords: A revised vocabulary of culture and society (pp. 172-175). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Robinson, M. J., & Trail, G. T. (2005). Relationships among spectator gender, motives, points of attachment, and sport preference. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 58-80.

210

Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88-106.

Ross, S. D. (2006). A conceptual framework for understanding spectator-based brand equity. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 22-38.

Ross, S. D. (2007). Segmenting sport fans using brand associations: A cluster analysis. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16, 15-24.

Ross, S. D., Bang, H., & Lee, S. (2007). Assessing brand associations for intercollegiate ice hockey. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16, 106-114.

Ross, S. D., James, J. D., & Vargas, P. (2006). Development of a scale to measure team brand associations in professional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 260-279.

Scarborough (2012). College basketball fans eagerly await 2012-2013 season tip-off. Retrieved July 26, 2014, from http://dialog.scarborough.com/index.php/college-basketball-fans- eagerly-await-2012-2013-season-tip-off/#sthash.ouX3b9Eq.dpuf

Schouten, J. W. (1991). Selves in transition: Symbolic consumption in personal rites of passage and identity reconstruction. Journal of Consumer Research, 412-425.

Schroeder, J. E. (2009). The cultural codes of branding. Marketing Theory, 9, 123-126.

Shankar, A., Elliott, R., & Fitchett, J. A. (2009). Identity, consumption and narratives of socialization. Marketing Theory, 9(1), 75-94.

Shobe, H. (2008). Place, identity and football: Catalonia, Catalanisme and Football Club Barcelona, 1899-1975. National Identities, 10, 329-343.

Silk, M., & Amis, J. (2000). Institutional pressure and the production of televised sport. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 267-292.

Sloan, L.R. (1989). The motives of sports fans. In J.H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (2nd ed.), pp. 175-240. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Snyder, B. (2005). Syracuse University men’s basketball. In P. Eisenstadt & L. Moss (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of New York State (pp. 1524-1525). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Sparkes, A. C. (1994). Research paradigms in physical education: Some brief comments on differences that make a difference. British Journal of Physical Education Research Supplement, 14, 11-16.

211

Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224-337.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

SU Facts (2014). Facts: Syracuse University 2013-14. Retrieved July 25, 2014, from http://www.syr.edu/about/pdf/SU_FACTS_2014.pdf

Syracuse Crunch (2014). American Hockey League (AHL) affiliate: Syracuse Crunch. Retrieved July 29, 2014, from http://lightning.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=83523

Syracuse University Mascots (2010). Syracuse University history: Syracuse University mascots. Syracuse University Archives, Syracuse, NY. Retrieved online, July 28, 2014, from http://archives.syr.edu/history/mascots.html

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65- 93.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1-39.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149-178.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

The Big East (2014). The Big East conference. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://www.bigeast.com/ot/about.html

The Fair (2013). New York State Fair daily attendance. Retrieved July 29, 2014, from http://www.nysfair.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NYSF-Daily-Attendance-Recap- 1972-2013.pdf

Thompson, C. J., & Arsel, Z. (2004). The Starbucks brandscape and consumers’ (anticorporate) experiences of glocalization. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 631-642.

Thompson, C. J., Locander, W. B., & Pollio, H. R. (1989). Putting consumer experience back into consumer research: The philosophy and method of existential- phenomenology. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 133-146.

212

Tobin, D. (2014). Abandon or renovate Carrier Dome? Two years to decide, chancellor says. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/abandon_or_renovate_carrier_dome_t wo_years_to_decide_chancellor_says.html

Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2001). The motivation scale for sport consumption: Assessment of the scales psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(1), 108-127.

Trail, G. T., Kim, Y. K., Kwon, H. H., Harrolle, M. G., Braunstein-Minkove, J. R., & Dick, R. (2012). The effects of vicarious achievement on BIRGing and CORFing: Testing moderating and mediating effects of team identification. Sport Management Review, 15, 345-354.

Trail, G. T., Robinson, M. J., Dick, R. J., & Gillentine, A. J. (2003). Motives and points of attachment: fans versus spectators in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 217-227.

Turner, J. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (pp. 77–121). London: JAI Press.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

U.S. Bureau (2014). Unemployment rate – not seasonally adjusted. Retrieved July 22, 2014, from https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployme nt_rate&idim=city:CT3673000000000:CT3663000000000&fdim_y=seasonality:U&hl=e n&dl=en

U.S. Census (2010). State and county quick facts: New York. Retrieved July 29, 2014, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html

Wallendorf, M., & Belk, R. W. (1989). Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic consumer research. In E. C. Hirschman (Ed.), SV - Interpretive Consumer Research (69-84). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Walsh, P., & Ross, S.D. (2010). Examining brand extensions and their potential to dilute team brand associations. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, 196-206.

Wann, D. L. (2006). Understanding the positive social psychological benefits of sport team identification: The team identification-social psychological health model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(4), 272-296.

213

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(2), 103-117.

Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1-17.

Wann, D., Melnick, M., Russell, G., & Pease, D. (2001). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators. New York: Routledge Press.

Wann, D. L., Tucker, K. B., & Schrader, M. P. (1996). An exploratory examination of the factors influencing the origination, continuation, and cessation of identification with sports teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82(3), 995-1001.

Waters, M. (2013). Why doesn’t Syracuse honor the entire 2003 NCAA championship team? Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball/index.ssf/2013/02/why_doesnt_syracuse_hon or_the.html

Wheeldon, J. (2011). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Using mind maps to facilitate participant recall in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 16, 509-522.

Why Orange (2014). Syracuse University history: Why orange? Syracuse University Archives, Syracuse, NY. Retrieved online, July 28, 2014, from http://archives.syr.edu/history/orange.html

Wiedeman, R. (2012). Winning over New York. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://www.newyorker.com/the-sporting-scene/winning-over-new-york

Williams, R. (1976). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana/Croom Helm.

Williams, R. (1985). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. (Revised edition.) New York: Oxford University Press.

Williams, R. (2011). Culture is ordinary (1958). In I. Szeman & T. Kaposy (Eds.). Cultural theory: An anthology (pp. 52-59). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.

Writing (2014). “Writing the next chapter.” Onondaga Historical Association Museum & Research Center. 321 Montgomery Street, Syracuse, NY 13202. 8 July 2014.

Zerubavel, E. (1993). The fine line: Making distinctions in everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zerubavel, E. (1996). Lumping and splitting: Notes on social classification. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 421-433). Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers.

214

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Elizabeth Burke Delia was born in Oswego, New York on May 29, 1985. After graduating from

Oswego High School in 2003, she attended the State University of New York at New Paltz. At

New Paltz, she earned a Bachelor of Sciences in Marketing in 2006 and a Master of Business of

Administration in 2007, while competing as a NCAA Division III swimmer. Prior to arriving in

Tallahassee to begin her doctoral studies, she completed a postgraduate internship with the

NCAA and gained professional market research experience at Madison Square Garden, KJT

Group, and KS&R. Beginning September 2015, she will be an Assistant Professor of Sport

Management in the Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

215