1655's MICHIGAN STATE U99 F“ “55 \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ l\llll\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ll This is to certify that the dissertation entitled An Analysis of Motivations for Selective Social Contexts in Television Sports Viewing presented by Larry Alan Collette has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Mass Media degree in may”; Major professor Date‘Ji’fléld’ 7; /?62— MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution O~12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE in , (a .vvo Mia)?” 16 2003 No a a MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution c:\circ\datedue.pm3—D.‘ AN ANALYSIS OF MOTIVATIONS FOR SELECTIVE SOCIAL CONTEXTS IN TELEVISION SPORTS VIEWING BY Larry Alan Collette A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Mass Media Ph.D. Program College of Communication Arts & Sciences 1992 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF MOTIVATIONS FOR SELECTIVE SOCIAL CONTEXTS IN TELEVISION SPORTS VIEWING BY Larry Alan Collette A vast amount of research has noted a compelling social element to the media-use activity in our society. Yet, the immediate social context of media use, while acknowledged for its potential importance, has gone virtually neglected by most studies. Clearly, people can anticipate and seek.out or avoid social contexts in which certain message exposure is expected to occur. This premise is consiStent with the paradigm which suggests that people "size up" social situations and have particular goals in mind prior to engaging in them. While selective exposure is most often taken to be linked with attending media content, the decisions to access content may also coexist with the considerations of how, where, and with whom. Television sports is often cited for its unique ability to cluster people and focus their attention on a particular event. This study examines the activity and motivations surrounding the selective social contexts involved in television sports coviewing. Data were obtained from a survey of 247 adults in a medium-sized midwestern community. The hypothesis testing used an expectancy-value framework.to test eight separate motivation variables suggested by a variety of literature. The exploratory portion of the study dealt with sports preference and previewing preparation behaviors associated with social viewing situations. The exploratory findings generally revealed that: 1) social viewing was more common in the case of big event sports, 2) certain preparatory behaviors were more frequent than others, and 3) definite sports preferences in social viewing emerged and differed across males and females. The hypothesis testing offered empirical support that general and major event sports social viewing were to varying degrees relatedi toitmotivations»'that involve: affiliation, social immersion, information exchange, basking in the reflected glory, social drinking, arousal/sensation seeking, and fun/pleasure. Anxiety reduction was found to be related to major event sports coviewing. This study has explored the potential antecedents that give rise to a certain type of social audience. Its main contributions are in defining the scope.of this phenomenon.and providing some theoretical basis for understanding the underlying motivations which lead to the creation of these social audience contexts. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee for their continual support and encouragement in pursuing this area of scholarship. Charles Atkin, my dissertation and guidance committee Chair, was always helpful and constructive in his commentary and advice. And most importantly, from the very beginning was supportive, both.in.spirit and.in practice, of this idea of studying sports and electronic media. My gratitude to Tony Atwater for his fine contributions in areas leading to the conceptualization of this total work. Much appreciation to Doug Noverr for his extraordinary attention to detail, frequent reassurances, and his efforts in keeping me well informed about current issues. Thank you to Annelies Knoppers who helped broaden my own perspectives in this field and brought an openness to a variety of perspectives. I also wish to thank others for their kind influence on y days at Michigan State University. Thomas Baldwin, former irector of the.Mass Media Ph.D. program, who first invited me 'nto this pursuit and gave me needed encouragement. Barry itman, Chair of the Department of Telecommunication, who was lways available to provide friendly advice and offered a onderful model of quality as both a researcher and teacher. I want to thank several of my classmates and colleagues iv who I will always consider myself fortunate for knowing as friends. Indra DeSilva was helpful in so many ways. He's the person everyone should. have along’ to jprovide that 'very important gift of laughter and to climb over snow banks with on the way to the computer center. My gratitude to David Atkin and Carolyn Lin who helped my survival especially in those early days. My appreciation also goes to Gloria Viscasillas and Norma Green whose cheerful conversations and humor I will always remember and treasure. A special thank you to my wife Deborah, who was the one of us that never expressed any doubt. Her enduring patience, energy, understanding, and support really made this whole adventure possible. Thank you to my daughter, Laura, who was brand new to the world when I began.my doctoral program” Some years later, when the time came for the final defense of this dissertation, she told me “Daddy if they ask you anything you can't answer, you can just call me." So how could I possibly go wrong? LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SHAPTER 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . viii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Rationale for Research Problem . . . . . . . . 4 General Research Approach . . . . . . . . . . . 10 PART I: LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . 11 Interpretation of Social Situations . . . . . . 11 Considering Situational Contexts of Media Use. .17 Television Viewing Contexts . . . . . . . . . . 24 Social Context's Influence on Content Selection 26 The Scope of Sports Spectatorship . . . . . . . 27 Individual and Social Basis of Spectatorship . 30 Societal Perspectives on Sports Spectatorship . 34 Individual Perspectives on Sports Spectatorship 35 The Intra-Audience Effect . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Four Important Studies of Social Context and Sports Viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 PART II: A FUNCTIONAL VIEW OF SOCIAL CONTEXT AND MEDIA USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 A Functional Theory of Situations . . . . . . . 58 Expectancy-Value Perspectives . . . . . . . . . 59 A Theoretical Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 The Research Model Employed . . . . . . . . . . 62 Variables Selected for Study . . . . . . . . . 63 A Conceptual Outline . . . . . . . . . . . 63 The Variables and Related Hypotheses . . . . . 65 The Social Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 The Hedonic Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Exploratory Research Questions . . . . . . . . 88 vi 3. METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Selection of Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Data Collection Procedure and Sample . . . . . 91 The Training of Data Gatherers. . . . . . . . . 92 The Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Motivation Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 The Value Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 BIRGing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Anxiety Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Information Exchange Scales . . . . . . . . . . 99 Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Information Exchange. . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 Social Immersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Arousal/Excitement Seeking . . . . . . . . . 101 Fun/Pleasure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Social Drinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Scale Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 The Expectancy Measure . . . . . . . . . . 104 The Creation of the Expectancy-Value Composite Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Statistics Used in the study . . . . . . . . 106 4. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Sample Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Overall Television Viewing Behaviors . . . . 115 Frequency of Social Viewing . . . . . . . . 117 Preparations for Social Television Sports Viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119 Sports Preferences in Social Viewing. . . . . .126 The Dimensions of Social Viewing Preference. . 129 Gender Differences in Social Viewing Sports Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 The Multiple Regression Equations . . . . . . 146 5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Hypothesis Discussion . . . . . . ... . . . . 160 Concluding Comments and Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 APPENDIX : SURVEY INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 210 vii LIST OF TABLES Sample Profile, Years of Age . . . . . . . . . 114 Weekday (Monday-Friday) Television Viewing Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Weekend (Saturday and Sunday) Television Viewing Hours 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 116 Weekday (Monday-Friday) Sports Television Viewing Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Weekend (Saturday and Sunday) Sports Television Viewing Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Frequency of Selective Social Television Use 118 Frequency of General Sports Social Viewing . 118 Frequency of Major Event Sports Social Viewing 119 Frequency of Pre-Social Viewing Behaviors . . 120 Correlation Matrix of Preparations, Sports Interest and Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Rank Order of Sports Preferred for Social Viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127 Sports Type Factor Loadings . . . . . . . . . 128 Social Sports Viewing Preferences by Gender . 133 Values Associated With Independent Variables 134 Correlation Matrix of Motivations (E x V) Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135 Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Independent Variables With General Social Sports V1ew1ng 137 Simple Regression Independent Variables on General Social Sports Viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 viii able L3 Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Independent Variables With Major Event Social Sports Viewing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 Simple Regression Independent Variables on Special Event Social Sports Viewing . . . . . . . . . 139 Stepwise Multiple Regression General Sports Social VieWing O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 148 Stepwise Multiple Regression Major Event Sports Social Viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Stepwise Multiple Regression General Sports Social Viewingr-Males. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151 Stepwise Multiple Regression Major Event Sports Social Viewing--Males . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 Stepwise Multiple Regression General Sports Social Viewing--Females. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154 Stepwise Multiple Regression Major Event Sports Social Viewing--Females . . . . . . . . . . . .155 ix LIST OF FIGURES Relational Model of Media and Social Context . 7 Hylton's Model of Observable Audience Response 40 Conceptual Outline of Social Viewing Process in Television Sports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION i When NBC first televised the World Series in 1947, 3.5 .illion of the total 3.9 million viewers watched the event in roups gathered around television sets perched. in local averns (Hagan, 1989). This extreme level of social viewing as necessitated more than anything by the lack of in-home aceivers during television's infancy. There does seem to be logical connection between the availability of sets and the Toreased privatization of the television experience and .teration of social aspects of viewing (Comstock, 1980). ‘Yet 'en today, as over 98 percent of U. S. households have one or »re televisions and a good deal of coviewing has shifted from matter of necessity to one of choice, sports maintains its ility to cluster people and focus their attention on a rticular televised event. Perhaps the social attraction of television sports swing was best demonstrated by a remarkable occurrence in ring of 1990. More people gathered at the Detroit Pistons' ne arena (and paid) to watch a "fuzzy" CBS telecast of the cluding game of the N.B.A. Championship Series, an away e for the Pistons, than were at the real event in Portland 2 (Musial and Bruni, 1990). For most of those fans, the social xperience--augmented to a degree by the arena atmosphere—- eems likely to have provided sufficient motivation for their ttendance.1 Borrowing the economist's terms, these fans erceived a degree of "utility" from the experience which ffset the inconvenience (effort) and costs (entry fee and ime expenditure) to View an event identical to the one vailable free on their home screens. While the notion of a social utility" of television viewing has been suggested by esearchers (McQuail, Blumler, and Brown, 1972; Atkin, 1985), he exact nature of the more immediate personal incentives and 'ewards which accompany this style of media consumption remain ostly speculation. Although the behavioral commitment isplayed here may seem extreme, more to the point, such ctivity escapes any reasonable analogy with other patterns of elevision use. Certainly, the vast majority of sports viewing takes Lace on far less of a grand scale. Yet, this interesting >cial phenomenon calls to mind the possible roles people -sign to televised sports and the social experience attached its viewing. Summarizing early works within the "uses and atifications" framework, Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch (1974) ggested that an important source from which audience atification may be derived is "the social context that ifies the situation of exposure to different media." This ms particularly apt here, as it seems likely that televised 3 orts, considered in light of all forms of television ntent, may represent one of the least privatized television tivities. Indeed, despite their program ratings and pularity, it seems more difficult to imagine people in llective groupings (outside of households) gathering gularly to watch situation comedies or dramatic ogramming.2 By way of contrast, a 1988 R.H. Brushkin sociates report on "Monday Night Football" (prepared for pital Cities/ ABC Inc.) found.that.on.average, approximately people per screen gathered to view a game in the 418 public tablishments surveyed (Brushkin, 1988). While some out-of—home locales undoubtedly invite such ouped viewing, televised sports--the product itself--is mmonly credited with stimulating similar coviewing behaviors -home as well (Rothenbuhler, 1988). Research has suggested a existence of a social dimension to television sports wing that perhaps goes beyond that of other television wing (Gantz, 1981; Creedon and Becker, 1986; Wenner and tz, 1988; Wenner and Gantz, 1989, Walker, 1990). Related this, sports television viewing is an often-planned ivity and sometimes connected with these plans is this ial element. This social aspect makes sports unique among 1 television viewing, as social interaction during viewing been found to be a fairly low motivation for viewing vision in general (Rubin, 1983). This research focuses on the social component as it elates to audience decisions to use TV sports in a social ontext. The term social context is used here in its micro- ociological application, referring to the immediate situation oinciding with actual media exposure. With rare exception, e possible goals or motivations giving rise to these "local diences" for social television viewing have been merely luded to or speculated upon. The present research ntributes to a further understanding of the social context media use, expands the limited body of evidence on TV sport aectatorship, and advances some important linkages to ieoretical foundations that have thus far gone lacking. rawing upon survey methodology, this research explores some 7 the potential motivations underlying the selective social .dience use of televised sport. tionale for Research Problem A number of studies have suggested the existence of a pelling social element to the use of television in general 11, 1980; Lemish, 1982; Lull, 1990) and TV sports in ticular (Sapolsky and Zillman, 1979; Gantz, 1981; Zillman Bryant, 1986; Wenner and.Gantz, 1988A; Rothenbuhler, 1988; ker, 1990; Gantz and Wenner, 1991). While these and other dies have borne some very valuable fruit, often their roaches have been descriptive in nature or have otherwise 5 ealt with the subject in.a partial manner. For example, many tudies have concentrated on the social context of general elevision 'viewing as it ‘takes (place within ‘traditional mestic or family units. This circumstance has occurred at e expense of the systematic study of other possible social gregates related to social viewing. While the domestic unit a viewing cluster is fairly ubiquitous and provides a tural basis for examining social context and television ewing (Alexander, 1990; Morely, 1989), the existence of her social context possibilities is commonly acknowledged. th this is mind, the present research study is not limited i the domestic or family situation in its study of social Intexts. Nevertheless, prior investigations have provided an portant research base, and their contributions can enable r attention to turn away from the "what and how" and focus the particular "whys" of social audiences. The very tivations presumed to undergird the social contexts of some evision use are now deserving this greater attention. se motivations are the focus of the present research. Mass communication researchers--working within divergent adigms--have regarded the social context of media as a entially important and all too often neglected sideration in studies of media use (Friedson, 1953; delsohn, 1966; Dunand, Berkowitz, and Leyens, 1984; lman, 1986; Chaffee, 1986; Andersen, 1987; Morley, 1989). 6 Indeed, it seems remarkable that so little research has treated the social audience as either a factor antecedent to viewing or one having some consequence during the actual viewing experience. A basic premise provides a useful starting point: it is expected that people have the ability to anticipate and potentially seek out (or avoid) social contexts in which some message exposure is to occur. Thus, the choice in selective exposure to certain media content.may not simply be limited to "exposure versus-no exposure" as has been suggested (Zillman and Bryant, 1985), but rather, may sometimes coexist along with the considerations of "how, where and with whom." This selectivity seems entirely consistent with the fundamental view that people will often "size up" situations and have some oal(s) in mind prior to engaging in them (Argyle, Furnham, nd Graham, 1981). Specific content, though given far greater research ttention in mass communication (e.g. the work of Palmgreen nd associates) conceivably represents only one piece of the ecisional puzzle as people will gauge certain TV viewing hoices. In this light, the context of viewing may carry a unction of its very own, and one said to coexist with the edia content being sought. This represents a slight eparture from the traditional "uses and grats" view of mass edia as a functional alternative for need gratification. ather, we can consider some content to act as gratification 7 ablers which provide a direct means for meeting needs via e situations in which it may be encountered. Thus, on a agmatic level, content coexists as both reason and means for proaching the social contexts believed to fulfill some dividualized goals. As such, the focus will presumably ift.directly to the.goals connected to these social contexts d a viewer's desired rewards. FIGURE 1 Relational Model of Media and Social Context MEDIA CONTENTv”‘\\\\\v EDIA USER GRATIFICATIONS SOUGHT \5 USE SITUATION / Mendelsohn and Spetnagel (1980) contended that "audiences .rned that there was an extremely important social component theigratification.dynamic that.went considerably beyond the ividualized response to a pleasurable stimulus." They cribed this social component as being three pronged in t: 1. It is socially normative. 2. It. involves social interactions. Eta: example, ending a particular entertainment can be so much a social 8 event that an entertainment stimulus may be used as an occasion for carrying out courtship, sealing a business deal, or exhibiting one's desirable social status. This may occur ix: addition. to simply' deriving subjective jpleasure from eXposure to the entertainment's offerings. 3. It is repeated at regular intervals, as a social habit. Sports consumption via television appears potentially more social than other program forms. In addition, by virtue of the medium's characteristics, television remains flexible in its consumption patterns--alone, with others and all the variations therein, out-of—home, in-home. TV sports also provides the opportunity for certain behaviors and social patterns that appear highly conventionalized and remain Totably distinct among all television viewing (Gantz, 1981). Dhese considerations help to make sports an ideal vehicle for esearCh focusing on social context. Sports in the United States is fairly ubiquitous and has een said to contribute much to our culture and the social abric of our society (Michener, 1976; Guttmann, 1988). till, sports spectatorship remains a remarkably neglected esearch topic and TV sports spectatorship even more so Duncan and Brummett, 1989). Again, the immediate social spects of TV sports viewing are notably slighted even among 3e limited research exploring the topicu Indicative of this, alker (1990) identified three (of what appeared to be four) 9 orts viewing motivations similar to Gantz (1981) as: tching to Thrill in Victory, Watching to Learn, and Watching Pass Time. The fourth possible factor, left-without a bel, was seemingly dismissed as simply "the other factor cluded gratifications involving group viewing with friends d family." Standing alone the gratifications linked to his other factor" do appear vague, divorced from useful eories, and very uncertain in their relationship or affect the other gratifications sought. But rather, if we nsider social context as a sometimes intentional act with a riety of underlying motivations of its own, we can offer a r more thorough picture of that viewing process. For ample, a dimension labeled "Watching to Learn" can easily ll under the broader rubric of information exchange, a acess that is facilitated.withinithe social context.(Hylton, 72; Hocking, 1982) and seems very much a part of most sports ewing environs (Gantz, 1981). In other words, people can [do learn from TV coviewers, and.may likewise contribute to learning of others (Haefner and Wartella, 1987). In some es people may even be motivated to seek out situations in ch to do so. This communication carries even greater lications that will be discussed later. 10 ineral Research Approach It would take an indeterminate number of studies to derstand the fUll scope, the creation, interactions, and 'entual effects (both persisting and short term) of the cial audience in TV sports use. Contributing toward that nger range goal, this project concentrates on the formation the social audience itself. Levy and Windahl (1984), erating along temporal lines, identified the three periods audience activity in television use as: Pre-viewing, During ewing, and Post viewing; ‘The "Pre-viewing" period.marks the terval in which personal content choices and other use- lated matters are considered. The major purpose of the oject is to focus upon this early period in relation to TV arts and its social audience. Understanding the personal motivations--said to be :icipatory in nature—~as people approach media situations resents a vital first step towards analyzing the social ience. Social scientists have labeled these as the pectancies" which any person brings to a given situation. se expectancies represent a vital linkage to the .ivations to act. This exploratory effort examines ential motivations that will be related to this social wing style. CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW terpretation of Social Situations Virtually any situation can be defined by its three emental components: what is going on, where it is taking ice, and who is there (Pervin, 1976). Other definitions re described components of a situation as "some part or pect of the total situation, such as physical iracteristics or, more important, people who are present an the situation is in progress" (Potkay and Allen, 1986). ase "people-related" aspects often become associated with 2 fixed characteristics of situations and help to guide iividual expectations. Newcomb (1950) in his classic WM argued t group membership specifies interactional contexts and vides shared frames of reference among members. These berships are of course decidedly social in nature and are endent on the social or situational linkages which have n formed. Magnusson (1984) suggested that "order and ilarity" exist in the environment and can be expressed in us of either physical properties, social and cultural 11 12 orms, roles and rules, which are attached. to specific nvironments or settings. Keeping this in mind, it seems aasonable to consider the social context.of TV viewing in the ery terms used to describe any social situation. Argyle, 1rnham, and Graham (1981) offered a comprehensive outline of 1e structure of social situations and described the >mponents of those social situations: 1. Goals/Purposes--these may change, be in conflict with one another, but will govern social behavior. 2. Social Rules--shared beliefs and conventions which regulate and coordinate social behavior. 3. Social Roles--these roles help accomplish situational goals. 4. Repertoire of Elements--the range of acceptable behaviors within a situation. 5. Sequences of Behavior--actions that must occur, some sequencing may be ritualized while others reflect the order in which sub-tasks must occur. 6. Situational Concepts--shared concepts that. will define the social construction of the situation. 7. Environmental Setting--the physical objects of the social situation. 8 . Skills and Techniques—-specific skills a participant needs in order to function effectively in the social situation. 50 of an er lit *7—f 13 This list of components seems entirely applicable to social viewing situations, even those situations which.may be f a relatively short-lived variety. Social roles, social ules, and sequences of behaviors may be said to exist in the udience situation just as they might in any social situation ncountered. Stokols and Shumaker (1979) described a 'transactional" perspective of people and places in which the ociocultural and physical milieu in which people are actively nvolved becomes critical to examining human behavior. In fheir analytic scheme, the setting, a collection of .nterrelated elements in which individuals might share iatterns of activity and experience, is defined by the ihYSiCdl milieu (place) and its occupants (individuals, .ggregates, and groups). The occupants help define a articular setting which in turn contributes to defining the roader concept of a situation. As locales are occupied on a ecurring basis, they become imbued with more widely ecognized sociocultural meanings. Feshbach (1978) proposed 1at individual differences formed here may lead to Lfferences in response consistency at the person-situation avel. The person-situation level represents the immediate .tuation athand for the individual and offers him/her the iportunity to respond. Stokols and Shumaker viewed the understanding of ttings, thus the conceptualized situation, as a group of llectively held images or’a "social field" which.evolves via ri—— 14 ustained interactions. Television viewing situations Dnstitute such a social field. Here the major components of Te situation or setting have a functional, motivational, and raluative meaning to potential actors. For example, a Super >wl party at home, the Saturday afternoon sports bar, viewing .one, and viewing in the company of others, will all deliver .fferential meanings for the participant. These social .elds may be regarded as distinct. Wicker (1979) discussed .e concept of "behavior—environment congruence" and described Te actual environment as a necessary source of action. rtain occasions or locales seem to invite or necessitate rtain types of human behavior. Attendance at church and tendance at a .basketball game are interpreted. by 'the iividual to demand quite different responses. Wicker posits at "congruence," or the tendency for behavior to be Tsistent with norms established for a particular situation, the sum result of several psychological mechanisms—-operant irning, environmental perception, social exchange, and :ervational learning. Observational learning is certainly a familiar concept to s communication researchers. This process provides much of basis for social learning theory, the theoretical spective frequently used in explanations of TV content's luence on overt behavior. Yet, if we shift our research ention away from the screen (what's on) and into the ving situation itself (with whom and where), this p6 51.] be 15 erspective can also help explain the acquisition of knowledge urrounding viewing situations. The modeling and learning of ehavioral enactments found in social contexts seem likely to 1p shape personal definitions of standards of conduct in ose contexts. Likewise, socially sanctioned behaviors may learned, and responses may be facilitated as coviewers tice and are influenced by one another; Restraints against rtain.responses may'be equally defined.through this process. e sum result is that people become accustomed to the tuation and anticipate in advance the range of likely :tivity involved, thus reinforcing the social field. These "people-related" aspects then become associated th the fixed characteristics of the situation and may help further guide an individual's expectations“ Cantor, schel, and Schwartz (1982) suggested that knowledge about a rticular social setting (context) is categorized and sentially stored for later use as a retrievable prototype. is prototype is made up of a combined set of distinctive itures that can be associated with similar settings in a :egory. Importantly, it was found that people most often :cribe settings in terms of the actions and behaviors of iple within each categorical setting. Hence, the conception a setting is to a large extent tied to and developed by the opled" activity associated with it. From this, we might expect that individuals develop a cipe knowledge" of appropriate or inappropriate actions th wh dr OI *1—1 l6 mat can cut across situational differences (e.g. actions Tile watching a football games versus those while watching a :amatic program, at home versus public viewing, with friends : with strangers). Mischel (1973), who preferred to view 1dividuals not as passive responders to situations but rather : "active shapers" of situations, termed this form of :quired knowledge as "expectancies." His cognitive social earning theory posits that past histories of personal rewards .d punishment within a given situation and observation of hers will determine present behaviors. By failing to aracterize a situation accurately--its components and ents--the individual runs the risk of not knowing when to do atever is required of that situation. A person has to know at to expect when certain stimuli emerge from the situation i when specific behaviors are to be performed. Aligned asely with this process is a "self regulatory" plan which a rson develops as situations are being sized up. In an important way, the notion of expectancies links ,1 with a point raised by Hastorf and Cantril (1954) in ir seminal social psychology work dealing with sports ctatorship. They referred to "the significances we bring the occasion" as determining how we will behave towards it. ocial situation does not become an experiential "event" il some significance is attributed to it. Any fairly plex social occurrence, such as a football game or the acts aciated with watching it, consist of a host of happenings, 17 "a matrix of events" that can reactivate significances "brought to the occasion." Happenings around us would remain meaningless without the order arising from the sharing of these sequential significances. Importantly, individuals can fail to experience occurrences when they do not reactivate past significances or "recipes." This can happen even when a person is exposed to the identical situation or occurrence as is another person. Thus, expectancies are to a degree subjected to individual shaping. :gnsideringsituational Contexts of Media Use The common goal of communication scholars-~although their ipproaches may differ--has been to produce some science-like :nowledge concerning the role which media play in human iffairs. For some researchers, one troubling aspect of a good .eal of media research has been an over—reliance on simple two ariable stimulus-reSponse models (McLeod, Fitzpatrick, Glynn, nd Fallis, 1982). Similarly, others in the behavioral ciences have faulted the simplicity of stimulus—response odels given the recognized complexity of behaviors within aturalistic settings (Smith, 1972). In mass communication esearch, this predicament has continued despite some :knowledged inadequacies of these model-driven attempts. One asult has been a particularly one-sided emphasis on the asponse aspect in research and the neglect of a variety of .ements closely related to the stimulus, prominent among them 18 .ng the situation. At the same time, it has been suggested .t any environmental influence on an individual's behavior to a great extent mediated by these situations or contexts ,gnusson, 1981). The possibility exists that these .ediate situational components may even in some way be ecedent to the consequences attributed to media exposure. 5 so-called "third variable," situation, may be important helpful in understanding both television use and its sumed effect. In the classic "actors-behaving-in-context" research roach, context is defined as the physical, social, and poral features of the situation in which a behavior takes :e (Runkel and McGrath, 1972). Likewise, context, as a lational element, can be thought of as any stimuli having ability to mediate the influence of a primary stimulus, that of a television message. When considering media the audience condition or social context in which message isure occurs clearly represents a feature of the media ,ation which is encountered. Therefore, it seems quite onable to expect that social context carries at least some ntial as a mediating influence under such circumstances. Social context has largely been ignored by media archers primarily for methodological reasons (Dunand, owitz, and Leyens, 1984). Most often individuals, Dwing direct exposure to a message source, are aggregated if comprising the sum of separate but equivalent l9 oeriences (Leyens, Herman, and Dunand, 1982). One nsequence of this aggregation has been the lack of derstanding of the immediate social experience connected th media use. This has continued despite the fact we know at audience members do interact in a myriad of ways, often the very moments of message exposure. As would be true of y group, the interaction of two or more people carries tential for each person to influence and/or be influenced by ch other person (Shaw, 1976). We have little reason to :pect that individuals--acting as audiences members-~are any ss subjected to these potential group influences. All of ich causes us to consider not only that influence, but also e possible appeal of the social audience in the first place. can consider the social or audience context in which a ssage is encountered to fall under this general rubric of tuational factors, those likely to ultimately affect a rson's perceptions of and reaction to a message stimulus. further exploration of these situational factors seems rticularly appropriate when considering the ways in which lience members approach and use the more "social forms" of lia, in this case television sports. Although audience members approach media with a wide ge of purposes and through a vast number of avenues, ated situational factors have largely been overlooked as ia are encountered. In light of this, the potential role :ocial context as a factor leading to media exposure seems 20 particular interest to mass media research for several isons: 1. First, within such. a context, two jpotentially npeting or complementary stimulus or communication channels a engaged within the same locale, one mass mediated and the aer interpersonal. We might think of television viewing tuations as comprising a "microenvironment" in which tential for human interaction is fairly high. Indeed, some search has noted the ability of television content to ovide the needed stimulus and the very basis for a great al of interaction within grouped viewing situations (Lull, 80). This would seem to be ripe with implications for both ase communication processes. 2. Next, in one of the earliest works addressing the :ial psychology of Sports spectating, George Elliot Howard 912) wrote: "Each social personality-—the child, the >lescent, the adult--may view a spectacle alone or as one in ass or agglomeration of such personalities; and his psychic ierience, the effect upon him, will not be the same in the :ond situation as in the first." Indeed, the exact nature any event or occurrence has been said to be changed any e two or more people engage in the same activity (Zajonc, 5). In addition to individual issues, now a number of ial factors become increasingly relevant as the context gas. The mere presence of others in television sports ring environments has some interesting implications that 21 call for needed exploration. 3. Finally, and most vital to the intent of the present research, the social context in which a mass mediated communication is experienced may well contribute to an individual's willingness to be exposed in the first place. .At the very least, social context might add another layer of complexity to these media consumption decisions. For example, at the extreme, sports viewing by the person with little interest in sports may be compelled by any number of socially related factors (normative pressures, role expectations, affiliation, the desire to feel included, social comparison) rather than by a basic urge to View the exhibited sport. Thus, situational factors may well have displaced matters related to content choice and created a readiness to view an otherwise unappealing program. We might expect the gratifications delivered to be less a consideration of the content material itself and to be more closely linked to the social aspects of using that material. In this case, we might say a person's "selected exposure" becomes situationally driven rather than entirely content driven. Almost forty years ago” IElliot Friedson (1953) discussed the "character of the audience experience" in mass communication use and the "local audiences" responsible for audience behavior. The individual, as a member of this local audience, interacts with others both.during and after an.event and finds him/herself subjected to a variety of expectations 22 and predispositions traceable to the audience situation. Friedson saw this social aspect as ultimately having an effect on the mass communication content audience members selected and their subsequent reactions to what had been selected. Audience member experiences are augmented by this sharing of impressions. The individual through his/her participation in an "interpersonal grid" of spectators may apply meaning to the mass communication message and anticipate the significance of future encounters. Elihu Katz (1960) pointed to the need for examining the role of informal group ties and relationships in media effects and wrote of similar concerns: "Society, the audience--was conceived of as aggregates of age, sex, social class, and the like, but little thought was given to the relationships implied thereby to more informal relationships." In much the same vein, others have expressed the need to xamine the interpersonal context in which media are actually sed, prior to making generalizations about communication ffects (Chaffe, 1986). Wright (1986) echoed this concern hen he emphasized the immediate social experience linked with ome media exposure, "Research reminds us that the members of .n audience often are, at the very moment of exposure, iarticipating in a group experience." Zillman and Bryant 1986) pointed to the amount of speculation surrounding udience influences in consuming entertainment messages. They escribed the research exploring social conditions of cor thc the e15 fii ci th of "1 ct 23 consumption and enjoyment as having met with some success, though being far from complete. McDonald (1986) focused upon the probability of television viewing as a fUnction of who else was watching. Highlighting this social aspect, his findings demonstrated the important role that peer coviewers play in the intention to watch television programs. In stressing a qualitative approach, Anderson (1987) cited "the circumstances of reception" as being critical to the television viewer's interpreting "the meaning properties" of content. He asserted that meaning can only be constructed "in the interaction between characteristics of content and the character of the reception as interpreted by the individual." Anderson termed it "incredible" to expect that viewers could arrive at the same functional meaning while watching even identical content under different viewing conditions. Lindlof and Traudt (1983) emphasized the "act" of TV use while arguing that "scholars have attempted to describe the causes and consequences of television viewing without an adequate understanding of what it is and how it gets done." When individuals as an audience are exposed to media stimuli, they do so with.a perceived social reality founded on both past and present social experience (DeFleur and Ball- Rockeach, 1989). The present, in its absolute sense, marks the range of social experience coinciding with the actual media exposure. Feshbach (1978) defined two basic levels of psychological-environmenta1 influences on the individual as 24 either situational or sociocultural. Conceptually the sociocultural level is the broader of the two and provides individuals the basic "social and physical context which provide situations their meaning and their continuity." Feshbach contends that factors operating at this level may eventually contribute to the individual differences found in response consistency at the person-situation level. Yet, it is the situational level that provides "the immediate social and physical environmental stimuli to which the organism responds and adapts." Cast in these terms, the situational level again encompasses the full range of stimuli available during media exposure, the message and its contextual setting. Pelevision Viewing Contexts Perhaps one of the more pleasing aspects of TV viewing as leisure activity is its adaptability to a variety of udience conditions. This flexibility separates it from a atrix of competitive leisure alternatives. While leisure ursuits such as reading and certain hobbies exclude dditional people from co-participation and still others games, sports, etc.) require added people, television‘viewing eems mostly indifferent to numbers. Unlike leisure tivities which require a sharing of attention, equipment or terials, as long as the same channel is desired, TV viewing does little to deplete the amount of ‘viewing ailable to the others in a locale. At the same time, 25 watching television in complete solitude remains an equally viable option. Yet, even in face of this flexibility, the potential effect of a social audience--e.g. for increased viewing enjoyment-~has not escaped the television executive's attention. 'Fhis helps eXplain. the counterfeit, audience provided so readily by the laughtrack.on situation comedies or by the microphones strategically placed in the sports arena crowd. In a sense, even the lone viewer is joined with responsive "coviewers" with such devices. Obvious experiential differences aside, canned laughers are much more predictable, even these clever quasi—audiences may in some fashion offer clues to potential forms of immediate social audience influence. For example, Cialdini (1984) asserts that these devices are employed by program producers as a "weapon of influence" to offer "social proof" of appropriate responses and behaviors. According to Cialdini, "we view a behavior as more correct in a given situation to the degree we see others performing it....as a ruLe we will make fewer mistakes by acting in accord with social evidence than contrary to it." Thus, the social audience--even the highly artificial one-~may have some facilitative or informational effect for the television iewer. Similarly, Harold Mendelsohn (1966) referred to this ossible audience effect in writing: "In an entertainment audience the cues for releasing emotional reaction are reciprocal, and consequently they enhance the enjoyment process. We need not feel embarrassed about a sudden surfacing of our deepest 26 feelings in situations where we see the same process occurring all about us." Lull (1980) noted television's social role as a companion and promoter of interaction. In the case of married couples, Gantz (1985) found that television viewing was perceived as a shared activity that generally does not disrupt normal activity. Interestingly, males and females were found to differ significantly Ihl their overall program preferences; specifically, husbands expressed a greater preference for sports and wives agreed their husbands liked sports more than they did. Regarding the routine of television viewing, most couples still felt that coviewing, even without added interaction, helped to reinforce feelings of "togetherness." This implies the "social activity" of television watching has some underlying value even in the face of divergent program tastes. Bob Shanks' (1975) analogy of television being the "cool fire" around which people gather, in a fashion similar to our primitive ancestors around their communal fire, seems particularly apt here. ocial Context's Influence on Content Selection Because program selection is the necessary precursor to ctual exposure, social context and its bearing on program iewing choice seem a worthwhile starting point. Studies rawing distinctions between alone and in-group viewing ituations and their impact on viewing decisions are clearly 27 inderrepresented in the literature. Webster and Wakslag (1982) hypothesized that grouped viewing played a role in the nediation of program choice patterns. While the results yielded only partial support for the original hypothesis, it was found that those who viewed alone did appear more inclined to watch or avoid certain program types. Those viewing in groups of changeable compositions tended to display less loyalty to program types. Regrettably for our purposes, sports was not among the limited number of program types used in this analysis; so conclusions about group influence on decisions to view sports cannot be drawn. McDonald (1986) suggested that viewing patterns and habits are developed through the act of viewing with others. This research indicated that peer coviewing may be nstrumental in explaining viewer patterns. That some program hoices are acquired tastes influenced by acts of coviewing is erhaps not all that surprising a finding. More importantly, his lends empirical support to Friedson's assertion that ersonal preferences, which eventually translate into stablished media use patterns, may in large part be ngineered by social situations in which media are ncountered. The number of ways in which television has altered ganized sports has been the subject of numerous authors 28 (Greendorfer, 1981; Altheide and Snow, 1983; Rader, 1984; Hughes and Coakley, 1984; Powers, 1984; Duncan and Brummett, 1987; Klatell and Marcus, 1988). Beyond these structural changes, it has been suggested that sport's vast popularity is (to a degree) the end result of the hype created by the historic television networks, long the dominant provider of sports. In a limited sense this seems true, as ensuring the popularity of sports programming is sine qua non to generating the large audiences needed to offset their high program costs. Yet, we still may suspect that spectator interest (hence viewer support) emanates to a large degree from the individual him/herself and that sport's television popularity is still very much tied to the controls of the viewer. For example, "just hype" explanations do little to explain the depressed sports television market of the mid-19805 and the general ratings decline that accompanied it. More than any period in recent sports history, this period gave ample evidence to the ffect of viewer sovereignty (Steinbreder and Nielsen, 1986) . n general, we can still expect the attraction of sports to be ultifaceted and open to a wide array of individual references. Therefore, the "just hype" explanations of sport elevision's popularity fall short of truly identifying its ttraction. Still, other research perspectives have cast erious doubts on the general notion that television has orrupted sports for participants and fans. For example, handler (1988) suggests that this corruption had its birth 29 long before television came on the scene and may be part of larger societal changes. Two national surveys lend support to the notion that sports events on television constitute a major share of viewing for some people. Time Life sponsored a national mail survey of 2,043 persons to examine interests in sports. The data of this study were weighted for sex and also adjusted to more accurately reflect national census data at the time» The Sports Illustrated Sports Poll '86 found that around 84% of those surveyed watched at least some sports during an average week. Men watched more TV sports than women. Yet, other demographics appeared to have little relationship to amounts viewed, as sports viewing was fairly similar across age, income, and education groupings. Around eight percent of all those surveyed could be considered heavy viewers, viewing 20 or more hours of TV sports per weekg ‘Nearly 75 percent reported watching baseball and professional football in the past year. A preference for televised sport over in-person attendance at sporting event was expressed by 35 percent of the sample. Older persons ended to favor mediated sport over in-person attendance to a reater degree than did younger people. Also, a greater ercentage of men (68%) viewed women's sports than did women The Miller Lite Report on American Attitudes Toward orts (1983) reported results based on a national telephone 30 survey conducted.over four weeks in October of 1982. The firm of Research and Forecasts Incorporated conducted this national survey. The sample drawn from the general population numbered 1,093. Again.the data were adjusted.to bring them in line with national population averages. It was found that 73 percent. of respondents reported. watching some sports on television at least once a week. Similar numbers reported watching or listening to sports news during the same week, .At the same time, only two percent of those surveyed reported never watching any televised sports. There did emerge what appeared to be a core of fairly avid sports fans that would translate to roughly 19 percent of the population 14 years of age and older. This measure of "fanship" was operationalized by use of sports interest and participation items. Sports fans were most likely to be male, to be relatively educated, and to live in urban areas. Football was found to be the most favored. sport ‘with, baseball, basketball, gymnastics, and boxing the next most popular sports. Around one-half of the sample thought some sports were given too little coverage at the expense of other types of sport, football cited as the most frequent offender here. Individual and Social Basis of Spectatorship Most explanations offered for sports spectatorship are cast in terms of either socially or psychologically related functions. Yet, a great many can be classed as supposition 31 rather than the result of tested proposition. Perhaps most surprising is the discovery that sports spectatorship, despite its pervasiveness, has been relatively neglected.as a research topic. Prominent among these limited works are those in the social psychology and sport sociology literature. For example, Shamir and Ruskin (1984) examined the "modes of leisure" and motivational structure and relationships between sports spectatorship and sports participation. While this and other works present an active demarcation between participation and spectatorship, far less attention has been focused on the in-person as compared to mediated sports spectatorship distinctions. Intuitively, we might suspect that motivations for television viewing of sports to be quite similar or at least somewhat related to those underlying general sports spectatorship. Yet, the attractive powers of "sportsfanship" do remain less than clear. For example, Roberts' (1976) account of sports and the sports fan in contemporary America while providing useful descriptive accounts, does little to define the roots of the fanship phenomenon which is detailed. At a basic level it can be contended that sports and television, even as separate entities, share the common ground association of being "play activities" for the consumer. Both vicarious sports participation and media consumption provide people with outlets for subjective play from which a certain amount of self-satisfaction is expected to be had. Stephenson (1967, 32 1988) endorsed the idea that people approach mass communication as a play activity (distinct from work) and this helps to develop a society's culture. Similarly, Lodato (1979) suggested that sports makes its most important contribution to our culture through its ability to provide outlets for vicarious conflict resolution. Howard's (1912) colorfully written "Social Psychology of the Spectator" cast early doubts on any honorable motivations connected to spectatorship. In this classic though polemic essay, action is seen as preferable to watching, and.the "mob- mind" of the spectators is equated with the "elemental gaming and struggle instincts of the human animal." For Howard, the primary controversy revolves around misplaced energies. Though not opposing all "athletic spectacle," he could find little social value in spectatorship and even took the fan's "rooting" to task as an "artificial clamor" that is both futile and immoral. Using a much more controlled approach, Sage (1979) delineated and examined the various functions of primary and secondary involvement with sports. Several major categories emerged from this, some functions arising from within the individual and others residing outside in more socially oriented concerns. The primary reasons for involvement with sport seemed to center around: instinct, developmental-cognitive, mastery, social integration, socialization, social control, and personal-expressive issues. In a later work, Sage (1990) provides a more comprehensive 33 view of the sociological perspectives of sports. This macro- level analysis elaborates the dual social images, one pluralistic and the other hegemonic, in which sports operates within our society. Importantly, Sage also details the dimensions of a commodified sports industry in which organization and profit maximization can play a key role. This commercialization process as a result seems to have emphasized the role of spectator; in such an atmosphere the media and sports relationship has flourished. A number of works in sports sociology have attempted an explanation of sports' prominent role within our culture and society and are worth noting. While limited in terms of offering explanations of spectorship per se, they do provide valuable context to the studies of sport and the implications that arise. Kenyon's (1986) cogent summary of the dimensions of sports sociology and his discussion of the need for social theory adds substance to the value of studying sport in society. In doing so, he offers an important summary of the areas of prior inquiry that have marked the field and offers useful insights for greater empirical study. McPherson, urtis, and Loy (1989) provide a somewhat broad, though insightful, examination of "the social significance of sport." n.doing so, they describe sports as a multifaceted social and ultural product with definable patterns and processes which ncourage examination. Importantly, the authors describe the rocess in which personal attributes, significant others, and 34 socialization situations interact and help to determine an individual's socialization into sports. 'Thus, a model of this process offering some basis for understanding people's interest in sports (or lack thereof) is elaborated upon in this work. Similarly, other researchers have described this socialization process as a product of’a variety of individual differences and their related influences (Nixon, 1981). Societal Perspectives on Sports Spectatorship In a far more philosophical vein, several authors have attempted to ascribe possible meaning to the sports experience itself (Slusher, 1967; Thomas 1983; Osterhoudt, 1991) . A number of writers have noted the "social glue" often associated with sport that mayresult from or give rise to spectatorship. Wilkerson and Dodder (1985) viewed sports as an integrating force which activates a collective conscience in modern societies. Victory in sports for the spectator is a "personal investment" taking on a meaning that supersedes the mere playing of a game. In an abstract sense, it becomes the dramatization of such issues as the struggle between good and evil. Guttmann (1986) in concentrating on contemporary spectators discussed the concept of "representational sport" in which individual identification with athletes and collective memberships in the community combine. He saw this as an apparently "irresistible impulse to allegorize" the contest and to force some sort of collective meaning on the 35 outcome. Sports offers the means for embodiment of this collectivity as athletes are regarded as a representation of some larger attribute: community, race, nation, or ideology. Novak (1976) also described the ritual of sports in terms of its social function. He saw sport as a binding agent through which the "myths of our society" are propagated. Order, fair play, and the fruits of effort are all dramatized and are inherent in the structure of the game itself. In essence, traditional values are displayed and people are drawn together in some manner for the purposes of watching this display. In a similar vein, Michael Real (1977) wrote of televised sports as a "mythic spectacle" in which ritualized mass activity is carried out which "structurally reveals specific cultural values proper to American institutions and ideology." Individual Perspectives on Sports Spectatorship Other research has focused more precisely on individuals as a unit of analysis in spectatorship. Zillman (1979) presented an introspective account of "sportsfanship." Applying a dispositional theory which takes into account personal likes and dislikes, he suggested that optimal enjoyment results when intensely liked athletes or teams efeat an intensely disliked opponent“ Zillman found evidence hat this dispositional mediation influenced both appreciation nd disappointment connected to sport. 36 Prisuta (1977) examined sports programming as it might relate to issues of socialization. He found that heavy viewers of televised sports were more authoritarian, more nationalistic, and in general more conservative. The suggestion is that televised sports viewing may be a strong predictor (though perhaps not cause) of one's personal value system. In a similar regard, other research has attempted to link sports involvement with a variety of other personal attributes. Spreitzer and Snyder (1989) focused on perceived deficits in the "quality of one's life" as a factor in an individual's sports involvement, both active and more passive forms. This research rationale proposed that deprivations along three lines--"life satisfaction," "job satisfaction," or "self-esteem"--might spur increased compensation via sport. While there appeared to be little overall evidence of this, another finding is of interest here. In the case of men, those with low self-reported "life satisfaction" scores were ore likely to be involved in watching sports on television (p<.05). Redekop (1984) identified "the competitive nature of port" as the central appeal for males and as a major factor 'n the differential in male and female sports participation. urvey results indicated that males attended more sports vents, participated actively more often, and were involved in atching sports on television more often. Interestingly, this articipation often takes place outside of the context of the imm' vie' exp aft of cor cm Pa: "a th in of 37 immediate family. In a unique study, Lee and Zeiss (1980) viewed the role of sports spectator as "a bundle of expectations concerning the behavioral, cognitive, and affective 'duties' of role occupants." They tested the notion of "commitment" as a conceptual tool for examining sports consumption, drawing a distinction between the "highly committed" individuals and the "less committed" individual. Past patterns of behavioral involvement tend to influence the "attractiveness or pull of the social atmosphere" accompanying the act of game attendance. They suggest that less committed individuals see a game as an event for which the "anticipation of the large size of the group and the time needed for eating and.drinking" may be important” On the other hand, the highly committed spectator does not emphasize special occasion aspects of game attendance, seems more likely to forego pre and post game social activities, and his/her acts of sport consumption may be more spontaneous. Lee and Zeiss offered this interesting food for thought regarding commitment to sports spectating: "Perhaps, the initial decision to consume baseball is spontaneously made, motivated by the simple enjoyment of the game. Gradually, however, the satisfaction associated with the consumption of baseball might increasingly be derived from secondary sources, such as one's reputation as an "expert" spectator or membership in some larger group of loyal fans. It is at this moment, when self concept and sport consumption intertwine, that commitment becomes substantial. Circumstances have "conspired" against the individual, making voluntary actions-- attending games, watching or listening to broadcasts—- appear necessary or essential." F—_ 38 The social viewing of televised sports would certainly present an important opportunity for the committed fan to exercise his perceived expert status. Importantly, this can occur even in the midst of the "less committed" for whom the social occasion prevails in importance to that of the game. Perhaps, there is some real utility connected to this aspect from which all grouped viewers derive a measure of satisfaction. The less committed individuals gain additional information and those more committed to sports can confirm their status as opinion leaders in their field of choice. We might even speculate that social networks may develop and be perpetuated based on this style of viewing. Mitchell (1969) defined a social network as "a set of specific linkages among a defined set of persons, with the additional property that the characteristics of these linkages as a whole may be used to interpret the behavior of the persons involved." We may View these networks as simply a means of informational flow that shape and transmit cultural properties and values. The importance placed on this transmission of culture is likely to be determined by the society itself. The Intra—Audience Effect Gumpert (1987) drew a sharp distinction between in-home elevised sport and live, stadium accessed sport. He escribed the in-home viewing of sports as an outcome of echniques (multiple cameras, split screen images, multiple 39 sound sources) responsible for getting the viewer "intimately involved with the game." On the other hand, the person in a stadium "filled with the contagious excitement generated by contestants, the ritual, by the thousands of other fans rooting, jeering" enjoys a less technical yet more exciting and fulfilling social experience. In a very similar regard, Hocking (1982) cited the inadequacy of television in carrying the "stadium event." Hocking argued convincingly that an important component of the stadium event is the crowd.behavior and "the reactions spectators have to other spectators is a major factor contributing to the excitement, the arousal, and ultimately the entertainment value that result from sports spectatorship." He saw these "intra—audience" effects as one of the prime enticements of spectator sports; suggesting that as people gather to view televised sports it (in effect) mulates some of the feedback or interaction possibilities of he in-person, live sports crowd. The excitement and arousal ointed to by Hocking may be equally possible within certain rouped television viewing conditions. The idea of an intra-audience effect places a unique ocus on social context, for without such a context these ffects simply could not occur. conceptually, an audience eedback loop is created which provides members with.a'variety f stimuli originated by other audience members. These stimuli From other receivers can in turn influence the interpretation if source messages. res pre to Phi ori 40 research, was first described by Hylton (1972). Hylton presented a communication model in which receivers react both to source stimuli: verbal (the speaker's message content), physical (the speaker seen), vocal (the speaker being heard, e.g. rate, loudness) and to these same exact stimuli as originated by other receivers. FIGURE 2 Hylton's Model of Observable Audience Response 1 \ 1 W . _ “i Verbal Verbal \ Other \ Stimuli Stimuli ‘ iReoeivers ’ o '{l a Source__%_ Physical// Phy51oal <+__TReoeiver Stimuli Stimuli 1_ T ‘ / Vocal Vocal / Other Stimuli Stimuli / Receivers l_ 1 i J and con OAF Hy] of P0: ea: di: in me ha W6 41 Testing' this notion, Hylton. measured. the effect. on audience member attitudes toward a communicator and his/her communication under conditions of positive, free, and negative OAR. A directional audience effect was found. Results led Hylton to suggest that people were moved more by perceptions of rewarding rather than by negative audience member feedback. Positive response cues seemed a stronger influence. It may be easier for people to like something when others do so than to dislike something because others do. Yet, there is also evidence that under conditions of uncertainty even negative feedback can be an important influence. For example, Burzyski and Bayer (1977) found that negative comments made by confederates upon leaving a theater had an impact on the appreciation of a motion picture.by those aiting in line to enter. In extreme cases, some patrons aiting in line returned to the ticket booth to ask for efunds. Here we see the "local audience" exerting its 'nfluence on individual expectations and predispositions, as riedson (1953) suggested it might. The effect of OAR was field tested by Hocking, argreiter, and Hylton (1977) during two separate social atherings in a bar. It was found that subjects exposed to ositive audience responses evaluated the bar's entertainment ore positively and stayed longer than did those exposed to egative responses. Hocking and associates offered an xplanation of intra-audience effect in terms of two ini The inc to re: gr: 19! in: in: re: 51' on. ma' gr pr an no im re th be 42 influences: social normative effect and informational effect. The social normative effect was said to occur‘ when an individual audience member modified his/her response in order to conform to the expectations of others. Indeed, classic research in social psychology has demonstrated this impact of group norms on individual attitudes and perceptions (Asch, 1958). Hocking and his associates suggested that informational influences are evidenced when individuals accept information offered by others as credible, being a true reflection of reality. The researchers also caution that no situation is likely to result in an influence that is solely one type of these two intra-audience effects. Social norms may emerge in grouped television use and tend to reinforce group cohesiveness. Intra-audience feedback can provide the primary mechanism by which these norms are learned, displayed, nd enforced. At the same time the salience of these group orms is heightened. These norms have an interesting 'mplication for the person who finds him/herself the solitary ooter for a favorite team in the midst of a group favoring he oppositionn The safe route and uncomfortable feelings may e reduced by such acquiescence. Obviously, the viewer atching alone need not confront this issue. Yet, strongly eld team loyalties may not be so easily swayed, as they are ften rooted in very personal dispositions (Zillman, 1979). evertheless, the willingness to display any "socially mproper" reactions and support one's favorite team may be diluted. even be That‘ groupings; toward a t of the cor holds tha audiences least tho provide 5 existing 3 in the grc in the be! For ‘ normative acute ef; Sporting POSture o intra-aud the "Sha addition, provide t sPorts t} At 1 with a po testing : 43 diluted. As a consequence, social contexts of this type may even be avoided in an effort to maintain self-esteem. That people may choose to view sports in more homogeneous groupings, thus assuring acceptance of their disposition toward a team, seems reasonable. ‘We may explain this in terms of the convergence theory found in sociology. This position holds that self-selection processes are responsible for audiences or crowds being made up of similar individuals or at least those of a like mind. As a result, such groupings provide avenues for the simultaneous release of already existing predispositions (Turner and Killian, 1972) . Engaging in the group activity then provides the "excuse" for engaging in the behaviors a person wishes to display. For the fan whose dispositions may be less defined, the normative influence of intra-audience feedback may have a more acute effect on the appreciation or :non-appreciation of sporting performances. These viewers may even adopt the posture of the group which would become crystallized.via these intra-audience effects. These perceptions then become part of the "shared references" to ‘which. Newcomb referred, In addition, in the "conventionalized" crowd of spectators, norms provide the template for ritual—like behaviors associated with sports that are perpetuated from event to event. At the same time, the informational effect meshes well ith.a point raised previously about an expert's role, reality esting in sports, and TV audience interactions. Television sports aud: valued in: member's r: closely li Four Impor Four sports vie two provic on genera Explorati< Televisioi "Watching other stui Sports Vii Celebrati Contest u Sapolsky exPloratc exercise in Some C Gani emerge t1 Viewing familn . likely tc 44 sports audience interchanges may consist of bits of trivia or valued insights that help to establish or reinforce the member's role as an expert. For the committed fan this may be closely linked with issues of personal identity. Four Important Studies of Social Context and Sports Viewing Four studies stand out in their examination of television sports viewing and social aspects connected to it. Of these, two provide some useful information while focusing primarily on general sports viewing factors: the 1981 Gantz study "An Exploration of Viewing Motives and Behaviors Associated With Television Sports" and a 1988 study by Wenner and Gantz "Watching Sports on'Television: Motivations and.Effectsw" 'Fwo other studies focus more specifically on the social context of sports viewing: a 1988 study by Rothenbuhler "The Living Room Celebration of the Olympic Games" and "Enjoyment of a Sports ontest Under Different Viewing Conditions" a 1978 study by apolsky and Zillman. The first three studies are largely xploratory efforts, while the later study is theory based xercise in hypothesis testing. These will be considered here 'n some depth. Gantz (1981) found differences in certain behaviors did merge that seemed to have a connection with differences in iewing context, either alone or with others (friends or amily). For example, those watching with others were more ikely to dispute an official's call, applaud or yell, yell in pleasure I communicat aspects of others wit? these fini interactic It wa TV sports communicat that those listeners "drinking be more e alone. n situation Provided ileum and used markets, bEhaviora (affectix alone or "fanship to Outlets; and fami 45 pleasure or displeasure. In short, a whole host of communicative activity seemed influenced by the situational aspects of exposure. Clearly, the potential for responsive others within the setting seems to have contributed greatly to these findings. Yet, the exact nature of the types of interactions remains far less certain. It was also found that people most interested.in*watching TV sports were significantly more likely to engage in these communicative activities while viewing. This might suggest that those less interested in watching TV sports make "good listeners." Gantz also suggested that motivations such as "drinking," "letting off steam," and "getting psyched" may all be more enjoyable when in the company of others than while alone. No information on other variables traceable to the situation (group size, locale, etc.) during 'viewing ‘was provided within the study. Wenner and Gantz (1988) expanded on this research base nd used a telephone survey in sampling two igeographic arkets, Los Angeles and Indianapolis. In addition 'to ehavioral items, included were measures of "how you felt" (affective items) in conjunction with sports viewing either lone or with friends or familyu A factor analysis found that 'fanship," the liking of a particular sport or sports, seemed o outweigh "social companionship," a way to be with friends nd family, as a motivation for overall television sports iewingu .Also, college football fans and.tennis fans appeared more moved talk abou Behaviors pacing the influenced Communicat about act coviewing. "reading 1 "putting nervous." Gett social cc negative : bY viewin state. T] Who said ; neciative that vim seemed tc exPressic beliEVe unidirect The Viewng : exdmines 46 more moved to view by the prospects of having "something to talk about" than were fans of other types of sports. Behaviors such as doing house chores, having a beer or drink, pacing the floor, having a snack, and drinking seemed to be influenced by the presence of coviewing companions. Communicative behaviors such as "yelling out" and "talking about action" were once again found to be influenced by coviewing. Yet, left unaffected were such aspects as "reading something," "being happy with a good performance," "putting off chores," "eating more junk food" and "feeling nervous." Getting angry with poor performances was influenced by social context. Interestingly, being’ upset. or‘ angered, negative reaction states, were influenced to a greater degree by viewing situation than was being happy, a more positive states This runs counter to the OAR effect posited.by'Hylton, who said it might be easier share more positive reactions than negative reactions when others do. Wenner and Gantz suggested that viewing with friends (as opposed to family or alone) seemed to encourage this greater anger; they saw this as a expression of "communal ire." Still, we have no reason to believe that facilitative effects are likely to be unidirectional in most instances. The authors do suggest that the bounds for influence of viewing situations on affect may be limited. Yet, the study examines only this singular situational aspect, viewing alone versus vie night 51199 social con amount or within thi effect" we more and : the celeb] them. On tr activitie: Games on tradition Special cc and value be large, their sch the)! Shou and talk eVents in This PUblic p} (Within t qrouDed 0 than thos the 01m; 47 versus viewing with others. No information is provided that might suggest how other elements such as group structure or social composition may haveinfluenced findings. Also, the amount or types of interactions specific to sports viewing within the group are left a mystery. However, a "friends effect" was suggested as gustatory behaviors such as drinking more and food may be consumed. This again is suggestive of the celebratory nature of sports when people gather to watch them. On this same theme, Rothenbuhler examined the celebratory activities that accompanied watching the 1984 Summer Olympic Sames on television. Citing' works in the sociological tradition, iRothenbuhler’ expected. the Olympics to :mark. a special occasion.to*which.people looked forward, talked.about, and valued much like a holiday. In doing so, audiences would >e large, people should watch large amounts, and rearrange :heir schedules to accommodate this viewing. Importantly, hey should watch "in social gatherings marked.by food, drink, nd talk in groups that resemble those gathered for other vents in the culture." This study considered only viewing in households, not in ublic places, eg. sports bars. Data from a coincidental within the Olympic's time frame) national survey found that rouped.Olympics viewing situations were more "talkative" ones han those of typical television fare. Households watching ae Olympics were more likely than those not viewing to have within th activities planning, exist whei might simj the same ‘ Whil day) Roth were more close att those wat have with suggests outset mc Fol] that spg activity! the stui Connectei Silggesti. these Si Wenner a] Sporting Similar behavior differen 48 within them larger groups of people engaged together in activities. Yet, even for those viewing alone, differences in planning, eating and drinking, and paying close attention did exist when compared to those viewing regular TV alone. This might simply indicate that the Olympics are not regarded in the same way that more standard television fare would be. While controlling for confounding variables (e.g. time of day) Rothenbuhler found those who were watching the Olympics were more likely to be in groups, to plan their viewing, pay close attention, and to celebrate with food and drink. Also, those watching the Olympics in a group were more likely to have with them visitors with whom they spend holidays. This suggests that these celebratory groups might have been at the outset more cohesive and familiar in composition. Following the common threads in these studies we know that sports inspires more planning, more communicative activity, and more ingestion of food and drink. Yet, none of the studies offered a complete picture of motivations connected to these social contexts. Also missing is the suggestion as to how the group influence might operate in these situations. Related to this aspect, the Gantz and enner and earlier Gantz studies were not tied to any specific sporting event. Yet, the fact remains that consistent and imilar findings were uncovered in terms of communication ehaviors, planning, and the like. Sports is regarded ifferently by some viewers and approached in a different manner tha In a Sapolsky assumptior enjoyable" deserving A. According exhibited more inte absence 0 much of rationale Placed o remained Within tr Socj Performa, other pe 1924). w USqul a Clam-fie: 49 manner than other forms of TV content. In a unique study related to the purpose of this study, Sapolsky and Zillman (1978) sought to test "the common" assumption that watching a sports contest alone is "less enjoyable" than when watching it with others. This study is deserving of particular attention here because: A. It subdivides the social viewing situation by at least one important aspect, physical, being divided by size. B. It suggests a theoretical framework relevant to coviewer influences. According to the researchers, the enjoyment or disappointment exhibited by others should "prove contagious, resulting in more intense affective reactions than would occur in the bsence of the suggestive crowd behavior." The authors base uch of this later assumption on the social facilitation ationale proposed by Zajonc. Though the emphasis here was laced on affective response, these affective responses emained vitally linked with the behavioral responses of those ithin the social viewing context. Social psychologists have long noted that some erformance effects seem to result simply from the presence of ther people within a situation (Triplett, 1897; Allport, 924). Work in this field, social facilitation, presents some seful applications for sports television. Zajonc (1965) larified the processes involved in social facilitation when he genera coactors, Zajonc by] was a dire evidence ' in experi Other re: different suggested drive wh facilitat levels of as well ( Sapo (N=83) as basketbal States. r or anywh COutrolle their "en the resea dyads, Sm (five to Over both team “Qt prOdl 50 he generalized that "the presence of others, as spectators or coactors, enhances the emission of dominant responses." Zajonc hypothesized that an increase in drive or arousal level was a direct result of the "mere presence" of others. Further evidence that a mere presence effect does exist.has been found in experiments (Schmitt, Gilovich, Goore, and Joseph, 1986). Other research here has been stimulated on a variety of different theoretical fronts. For example, Sanders (1981) suggested that distraction plays a role in increasing the drive which eventually surfaces as enhanced (socially facilitated) performance. Others have proposed that increased levels of self-attention can play a key role in this process as well (Mullen and Baumeister, 1987). Sapolsky and Zillman using a relatively small sample (N=83) asked subjects to watch the televised 1976 Olympic basketball gold medal game between Yugoslavia and the United States; 'These people viewed "as they pleased," either at home or anywhere, and thus ensured a natural, though less controlled viewing situation. Subjects were asked to rate their "enjoyment" of scoring plays and were later grouped by the researchers based on social contexts of viewing: alone, in dyads, small groups (two to four people) or in a larger group (five to one hundred people). Overall, it was found that when the baskets scored by both teams were combined, the social conditions of viewing did not produce a significant difference in enjoyment ratings. Once agai3 associate< coviewers exert an baskets wi context d. Viewers w significa For those slightly researche cheering regardles control 9 negativel 9rOUp nor Small grc small gr: grouPed ‘ gathered Yet, (which m, Variable this Stu apprecia. wlthout < 51 Once again this suggests that a positive state (or feeling associated with sports) was not influenced by presence of coviewers. The social conditions of viewing also did not exert an appreciable influence on the enjoyment of the U.S. baskets when considered by themselves. Yet, ,social context did seem to affect the enjoyment of Yugoslav baskets. Viewers watching in a.large group enjoyed Yugoslav baskets significantly more than those people.in«dyads or small groups. For those watching in solitude Yugoslavian baskets were only slightly more enjoyable than for other conditions. The researchers explained this result with the assumption that cheering for a foreign team may be socially unacceptable regardless of the skill or finesse involved. The social control exerted by those.people familiar to the subjects might negatively sanction such cheering. Thus, they expected the group norm to influence these affective responses. Those in small groups tended to View with friends (dyads 96% friend, small grouped 98% friend) while those in large groups were grouped with friends to a far lesser extent, 18% of those gathered being friends, the rest being strangers. Yet, this finding remains problematic as team support (which may exist in a variety of forms) and the self-reported variable of enjoyment.may not be as readily interchangeable as this study implied. It seems entirely possible to still appreciate (to enjoy to some degree) a sports performance without cheering against your own team. Thus, enjoyment as a dependent variety 0 regard th sense of Most disposed the closi "afford" game was the conse II”. over was cont meet woul Even duri may have COUld ha interacti Stil el‘lOYment therefore Partially making be larger gr the game peOple ad 52 dependent measure seems to be multifaceted and carries a variety of meanings to a respondent. The sports purist may regard the well executed play, regardless of results, with a sense of enjoyment. Most importantly, even in the case of someone highly disposed to a favorite team, when winning seems assured, e.g. the closing minutes or a lopsided game, even the fan can "afford" to be generous. Interestingly, the Olympic final game was just such a lopsided contest. Hocking (1982) noted the consequences of this in his comments on the study: "... no information was given about audience members overt reactions to various scoring plays, and the game was very one sided. If the game had been closely contested and if the baskets scored by one team had been meet with cheering and applause, this response probably would have affected the other audience members." Even during a dull game, some viewing situations themselves may have been more energized than others, and this in turn :ould have influenced results. Yet, measures of this interaction were not provided in the study. I Still other explanations for the differential in enjoyment of Yugoslav baskets may exist“ Perhaps those in the .arger groups simply wished to "salvage the occasion" and :herefore did derive more enjoyment from Yugoslav baskets, iartially in hopes of a more tightly contested game, thus aking being in the "crowd" seem more enjoyable. For the arger grouped audience, also distracted by social aspects, he game may have failed to reach a threshold of arousal and eople adjusted their perceptions to now root for the underdog in hopes C Sapo] others shc mere pres produce sc producing presence. impossibli even runs spectator condition exist in violate untenable Clea reactions Called ". term) mic facilitat exPlain resPohse inCrease differen. the dom; anticipa- appeared 53 in hopes of reaching that threshold. Sapolsky and Zillman suggest that the "mere presence" of others should be enough to facilitate affect. The notion of mere presence predicts that the presence of others will produce social facilitation even when coactors are.not seen as producing any drive inducing information beyond their presence. In the case of sports, this notion is not only impossible to reliably measure as a potential influence but even runs counter to the conventions associated with sports spectatorship. In other words, a perfectly static audience condition—-without drive inducing information—- would only exist in the experimental lab and even then would so grossly violate expectations that external validity might be untenable. Clearly, the dominant response might be a variety of reactions to any game, only one of which is this measure :alled "enjoyment." Also the dominant response (Zajonc's :erm) might be situationally tied to the group itself and be facilitated within. each distinct group, this may’ better explain the variance found. In one group, a flat level response brought on by the lackluster game, rather than this .ncreased level of enjoyment may be found. In another, a ;ifferent level in enjoyment of Yugoslav baskets may have been he dominant response. In other words, the researchers nticipated that situational differences would exist and they ppeared to do just that. Because enjoyment of all baskets did not groups, t the domir An i pointed - First, t] repeatedi covered « interrup‘ sporting an entir and the was diSl Audience This cc experime cost of aSSOCiai In Soviet game in Sapoisk diSposi Safe, d diSposj Subject 54 did not seem to be increased across all the experimental groups, they perhaps wrongfully discounted what may have been the dominant responses within the groups. An important problem with the game stimulus needs to be pointed out, for it likely had an impact on the results. First, the game was given somewhat sporadic coverage as ABC repeatedly cut away from it once it began to be one-sided and covered other simultaneously occurring events. The expected interruption of game flow by commercials is one thing, but sporting contests being interspliced with other sports may be an entirely different matter. Therefore continuity was lost and the building drama inherent in usual sports programming was disrupted in a way atypical of other sports contests. Audience reactions may have been severely affected by this. This could be eliminated by use of a more controlled experimental stimulus, a tape of a game, but at the certain cost of external validity. This illuminates the problems associated.with the use of a single event as a research focus. In addition, the much anticipated showdown between the Soviet Union and the United States, after the controversial ame in Munich in 1972, never materialized at these Games. apolsky and Zillman assumed that viewers would hold a strong ispositional bias in favor of the United States. This seems afe, despite the lack of some pretest measure assessing these ispositions, as we have no reason to doubt that student ubjects were disposed in such a way. Still, it seems an opportuni‘ dispositi' subjects. Cantril, 1 we bring" out that greatly a: Yugoslavs viewer's concrete confronta build up Sapc and the a Oppositic enjoyment However, the rese Situatior familiar: Willingn, noI'mativ; may be t nature alternat audienCe 55 opportunity was missed to consider the strengths of these dispositions relative to the levels of enjoyment noted by subjects. This would have, in the words of Hastorf and Cantril, provided at least some measure of the "significances we bring" to an occasion. Recall that Zillman (1979) pointed out that dispositional biases that are clearly defined will greatly affect appreciation and non-appreciation. Because the Yugoslavs "squeaked" into the final round unexpectedly, viewer's disposition toward them was likely to be far less concrete than they would be in a Soviet versus U.S. confrontation. This is especially true given the four year build up and media attention afforded this rematch. Sapolsky and Zillman contended that the absence of others and.the anonymity of a larger crowd can make "pulling for" the opposition. seem safer. This might explain the increased enjoyment of Yugoslav baskets by those in the larger group. owever, this "pulling" still runs counter to the norms that he researchers expected to be Operating in the group ituation. The researchers imply that this lack of amiliarity among audience members can account for the illingness to deviate from what was earlier assumed.to be the ormative reaction. Perhaps, this may be true. But also it ay be that the large groups were of such a non-cohesive ature that the effect of norms was lessened. Or lternatively these norms may' not have ibeen salient to udience members for some reason, though this seems unlikely. Does 1 made salie This hardly this seemi: measuremen placing th with a pen unrecorded may be eas especially such a gr< size itsel seen this an event, Desp for what Social c circumsta little at Consumptj gl‘len t1 Virtuall1 Vein rem: 56 Does this mean that this norm did not exist or was never made salient in the manner typical of most sports crowds? This hardly seems reasonable. Perhaps another explanation for this seeming lack of a normative response can.be traced to the measurement used in the study; Clearly, the subjects were not placing themselves at much risk by recording their enjoyment with a pencil. Cheering or overt reactions, which were left unrecorded, are likely to be entirely different matters. It may be easier to think or feel it, rather than to exhibit it, especially when these are contrary reactions in the face of such a group norm. In addition to familiarity issues, group size itself may have played some kind of role here, as we have seen this physical aspect has some influence on perceptions of an event. Despite these problems, this study is important not only for what it found but for what it attempted to achieve. Social context did appear to be influence in some :ircumstances, less so in others. Nevertheless, surprising Little attention has been given to social context and the :onsumption of televised sports“ So little attention has been given that baseline measures with any reliability are rirtually absent and a host of questions in an exploratory rein remain to be answered. Lassie Some for a f‘ identifyi process c gratifica our know people's lines, ar labeled a In literatui "audience distinct the socia differen‘ remains research realizat ranging recent j Kitchen, We Stressin inv01Ved SOClal p 57 A Functional View of Social Context and Media Use Some years ago, Joseph Klapper (1963) emphasized the need for a functional approach to media research aimed at identifying the key elements in the media situation—-the process of use, content, and the medium-~that provide user gratifications. Such continued analysis promised to enhance our knowledge of the possible roles mass media play in people's lives. Through time, work proliferated along these lines, and one result has been a sizeable amount of research labeled audience "uses and gratifications." In their classic summarization of this research literature, Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch (1974) concluded that "audience gratifications can be derived from at least three distinct sources: media content, exposure to:media.per se, and the social context that typifies the situation of exposure to different media." Nevertheless, this social context still remains among the least studied areas in mass communication research. This circumstance seems curious given the common realization that media activity is so often a social activity, ranging from attending movies (Friedson, 1953) to the more ecent. phenomenon of the "home ‘video" party (Yorke and itchen, 1985). We can easily interpret. Klapper's recommendation. as tressing a need to attend more carefully to the components 'nvolved in the actual media use situation. Indeed, prominent social psychologists from Lewin (1935) to Mischel (1973) have written 0 forms of 1 that med. variety receiver/ was Soci Jean Ann advanced influent; the press allow th individu. outlined situatio roles, ; situatio techniqu is the 0 To Situatic based on Furnham, in large making j 58 written of the potential role that situations can play in all forms of human activity: It seems quite reasonable to suggest that media-use situations can in themselves carry a wide variety of implications and importance for the receiver/consumer of mediated communication. A Functional Theory of Situations Social scientists Michael Argyle, Adrian Furnham, and Jean Ann Graham (1981), in their book Social Situations, advanced a "Functional Theory of Situations" that is influential both in spirit and as a theoretical framework to the present study; Their paradigm held.that social situations allow the attainment of certain goals which in turn satisfy individual needs and drives. In doing so, these researchers outlined the structure and elemental components of all social situations as having: goals and purpose, social rules, social roles, a repertoire of elements, sequences of behaviors, situational concepts, environmental setting, and skills and techniques. The component stage labeled "goals and purpose" is the one essential to the purposes of the present study. To a large extent, persons will either enter or avoid situations depending on their interest in the goals offered or based on personal ability to cope with the situation” ,Argyle, Furnham, and Graham (1981) adapted "exchange theory," derived in large part from economics, to help explain the individual's making judgments of the future rewards or:satisfactions sought in social social re must get calculate subjectiv account 1 payoff fc Expectanc In conceptua theories. maximize of an out 1954). aPPlicati economic other Soc t0 the pr behaviora model put Subj eCtiV1 deSired 01 Variation, 59 in social situations. According to their formulation, for a social relationship (hence context) to be sustained each party must get enough out of it and each. will produce acts calculated to benefit themselves. Within such a framework a subjective "payoff matrix" is said to exist which takes into account the possible social acts, each having a potential payoff for the social participants. Expectancy-Value Perspectives In an important way, the Argyle and colleagues' conceptual matrix is quite similar to expectancy-value theories. These theories suggest that people attempt to maximize subjective utility by taking into account the value of an outcome amid a probability of its occurrence (Edwards, 1954). Edwards provided a convincing rationale for the application of subjective probabilities--once again based on economic concepts-~to the behavioral decision analyses of other social sciences. This approach is particularly useful :0 the present study because it deals directly with specific >ehavioral choices. The major theoretical constructs in the odel put forth by Edwards are as follows: ubjective Probability of X the Utility of = Behavior esired outcome desired outcome Choice riations on this theoretical focus have found their'way into range of social science research (Vroom, 1964; Fishbein and Azjen, 15 Rayburn, offered a strength value of exposure, all thes expectam positive behavior. viewing most oft Specific (9.9. in In theory e consider some vaI 90al~see Valuable as Well 1984), researcl “We 01 COnSumm 6O Azjen, 1975; Ajzen, Icek, and Fishbein, 1980; Palmgreen and Rayburn, 1982). For instance, Galloway and Meeks (1981) offered an expectancy model of media exposure in which the strength of expectancy associated with.gratifications and the value of the gratification are thought to be equated with exposure. At their core, two concepts remain as central to all these studies: outcome values (evaluation) and outcome expectancies. Outcome values are simply the degree of positive or negative feeling a person holds toward a behavioral option (e.g. viewing alone, viewing with others, viewing in-home, viewing out of home). Outcome eXpectancies most often refer to the judgments of the probabilities that specific goals can be satisfied by selection of that option (e.g. informational goals within those contexts). In its social psychology applications, expectancy-value theory emphasizes a person's orientations toward goals in considering motivations. Both the expectancy of reward and some value attached to that reward are necessary to spark goal-seeking behavior. Such theory has been found to be valuable as it can account for both pleasure-based behaviors as*well as aversion-based.behaviors (Green, Beatty, and Arkin, 1984). Similar issues have appeared in mass communications research as evidenced in Palmgreen and Rayburn (1985), who wrote of "positive" gratifications (reasons for seeking media consumption) and the so-called "negative" gratifications which are synonymous with avoidance (reasons for avoiding media consumpt Furnham, or avoid being 0: theoreti social c are avai as rewar A.Ih§9£1 Arq quite s audience also inn SYmmetrj as we situati Communi and Gr instrum "gratif compens the Use Study repl'eSe themSe] 61 consumption). Couched in terms of social situationsv ,Argyle, Furnham, and Grahannposited.that.people will either enter into or avoid situations based upon their desire for the goals being offered or abilities to cope. It is the general theoretical position of this research that people will desire social contexts for media use to the extent these situations are available and can offer a perceived utility that is seen as rewarding to them. A Theoretical Bridge Argyle and associates' goals—oriented approach appears quite similar to the conceptualization. of people. (hence audience members) as intentional and active seekers that is also implicit in the uses and gratifications framework. This symmetry of perspectives offers a useful theoretical bridge, as we might expect that (a) people can actively pursue situations in which (b) they intend.to actively pursue desired communication content. Thus, to apply the terms of the "Uses and Grats" researchers, social context itself may be instrumental to some "gratifications sought" and/or "gratifications obtainedn" Rather than adopting the ompensatory stance that is often characteristic of much of he uses and gratifications research (Blumler, 1979), this tudy suggests that ‘viewing situations rather' than epresenting a substitute source of satisfaction, are in hemselves a source of satisfaction. AIG? that ceri some si‘ because possibil a cultur the ext personal which re More co afford a once aC4 the_3es Th in thi Predict other In the Cor t0 ente Concept Where 1 allClien. partic 62 Argyle, Furnham, and Graham insist that "people learn that.certain needs can be satisfied in certain situations, and some situations have developed as cultural institutions because they satisfy needs." This raises the distinct possibility that socially accessed TV sports has developed as a cultural institution in its own right. 'We must ask.why? .At the extreme, perhaps gathering' to ‘view sports addresses personal needs or goals in a socially ascribed manner for which reasonable substitutes are rare or even non-existent. More conservatively, these social contexts quite possibly afford a range of individually perceived benefits that; are at once accessible and thought to fulfill certain goals. The Research Model Employed The present research employs the following model rooted in this expectancy-value tradition. Rather than being predictive of exposure itself (e.g. in terms of content or other medium.specific applications) this model concentrates on the context in which that exposure takes place. The tendency to enter into a social context for sports television use is conceptualized as equal to: ;£. Ei x Vi=SV 1:1 Where the sum of E (strength of expectancy associated with.the audience situation) multiplied by V (personal evaluation of a articular' motivation) is equal to SV (selective social viewing) . with a motivatio Variables Due overlap i works in situation A review subdividi these mot and sport The socie Graham (1 suitable Mes: A cc Sports (3 how this Variables are the m. it Sihould eXlleCtecl 63 viewing). Thus, the eXpectation of a desired outcome together with a demand level associated with an individualized motivation will lead to these contexts for social consumption. Variables Selected for Study Due to the exploratory nature of this research and its overlap into several disciplines, it was necessary to consider works in the areas of sports spectatorship, media use, social situations, human motivation, and general social psychology. A review of the literature suggested numerous ways of subdividing the landscape of human motivations. Yet, casting these motivations in terms quite specific to social situations and sports consumption helped to delimit this to a degree. The social situation goals created by Argyle, Furnham, and Graham (1981) provided an invaluable basis for generating a uitable motivations scheme applied here. A conceptual outline of the social viewing of televised ports (SEE FIGURE 3) suggests a larger theoretical model of OW' this overall process might appearx The individual ariables arrayed on the left of the chart labeled MOTIVATIONS re the main focus of the current research” At the same time, t should be kept in mind that an individual's motivations are pected to be closely aligned with the anticipation of utcomes occurring in later stages of the process. For example, informat be cont: audience the sam« opportun by the : research chapter. Concept] Affiliat: H 5' U3 >< H (D “< LQ RGin Eductior InformatJ XChange L11 (I) O O 5.4- n) 5...: ImmerSior :pa '1 O t: (I) D) 5.4 / ehSatiOn '17 Social (3 '1’ I—J- S :x' H- :3 64 example, as expectancy-value theories might suggest, an information seeking motivation of the Pre-viewing Period could be contingent on the probability of informational intra- audience effects occurring in the During Viewing period. At the same time, this outline illustrates future. research opportunities which can be built upon the groundwork offered by the initial research undertaken here. These and other research possibilities will be discussed within the final chapter. FIGURE 3 Conceptual Outline of Social Viewing Process in TV Sports (Affiliation BIRGing Anx1e y Eeduction '— Information Exchange ~‘ES l_, Intentionality/ Lfi lSocial 1,) Social Social ‘5"L,;3 Preparation 1 Convergence Viewin Immersion "‘ " Arousal/ Sensation Seeking/;a Pleasure/Fun Social Drinkin For selectix purpose concept\ the com individl employer attribu social status: World 5 routine differs advanta Sport Suggest the eve Sports depend, VieWin< They W: the st. A motiva follow 65 The Variables and Related Hypotheses For present purposes, Social Viewing is defined as the selective joining together of two or more people for the purpose of watching sports. As such, Social Viewing is conceptualized as an intentional activity which results from the combination of personal motivations emanating from the individual viewer. Two different dependent measures are employed in this study which allow for the potential variation attributable to the scope of sporting events leading to their social use. Cflearly, the ubiquitous promotion and special status enjoyed.by certain sporting events (The Super Bowl, The World Series, The Olympic Games) separate them from more routine, everyday television sports fare. As such, two different measures of Social Viewing are utilized here, taking advantage of expected dimensional differences in major event sport viewing and routine sports viewing. Others have suggested that it is reasonable to expect that the scope of the event will have some impact on the social viewership of sports (Real, 1976; Rader, 1984; Rothenbuhler, 1988). The two dependent variables employed are: General Social Sports Viewing (DV1) and Major Event Social Sports Viewing (DV2). They will be reported as separate measures within the body of the study. A brief rationale for inclusion of the specific motivations as independent variables is provided within the following section. The related hypotheses to be tested are also pre subdivid Independ 1. The Soc Affilia been g. (SChach this mo Situatj interac relatic Simila] Social and an: Sports 66 also presented for review. The motivations and hypotheses are subdivided here into their logical domains: Independent Variables--Motivations 1. Social Domain a. Affiliation b. BIRGing c. Anxiety Reduction d. Information Exchange e. Social Immersion 2. Hedonic Domain f. Arousal/Sensation Seeking g. Fun/Pleasure h. Social Drinking The Social Domain Affiliation-- The human need or desire for affiliation has been given fairly broad recognition by social scientists (Schachter, 1959). Argyle, Furnham, and Graham (1981) placed this motivation high among those needs satisfied within social situations. Included by Argyle and associates were such interactant pursuits as making new friends, sustaining social relationships, and.getting to know'peopleibetteru Lull (1982) similarly lists affiliation among the important "relational" social uses of television. Furthermore, social integration and analogous terms are commonly referred to as a benefit of sports involvement in the sports sociology literature (Sage, 1979). general 1 communic For the "par some cor person a easily Lichensi compare< only "n lonelin« enterta At tendenc situati indepen McGuire (1981) . t0 act eVentua Argyle motiva« social T acCess 67 1979). MCGuire (1974) included affiliation in his sixteen general paradigms of human motivation having relevance to mass communication use. For this purpose, affiliative motivation is distinct from the "para-social" affiliative motivation said to be served.by some content (e.g. Horton and Wohl, 1956). These real in- person as opposed to para-social distinctions appear to be easily drawn by media users. Illustrative of this, Lichenstein and. Rosenfeld (1983) found that friends (as compared to radio, TV, print media, recorded music) were the only "medium" viewed primarily as a means for overcoming loneliness and learning about oneself, as well as for entertainment. At a most basic level, affiliation may be defined as the tendency, desire, willingness, or need to engage in social situations. In the present study, it will be considered as an independent variable, thus as a motivation, as suggested by McGuire (1974); Lull (1982); and Argyle, Furnham, and Graham (1981). This seems entirely justified as affiliation appears to act as an autonomous drive, quite apart from any of its eventual consequences (Argyle, Furnham, and Graham, 1981). Argyle, Furnham, and Graham offer’ that the "affiliative motivation is aroused by anticipation, of parties and other social events." That sports viewing can be or often is a socially accessed type of TV content seems a relatively safe assumptl routine sports E Associai Cities/1 screen establi: home 10 itself- behavio Th propert Gantz certair inflm and Gar that ce Duncan "socioj affili; W. linkag Place. avenue PrOgra 68 assumption. Evidence of this in everyday life is fairly routine and seems particularly commonplace where big event sports are concerned. Recall, the earlier cited R.H. Buskin Associates report on "Monday Night Football" for Capital Cities/ABC that found on average, around nine people per screen gathered to View a game in the 418 public establishments surveyed (Brushkin, 1988). While some out-of- home locales certainly promote grouped viewing--the product itself--is commonly credited with stimulating similar behaviors in-home as well (Rothenbuhler, 1988). These findings speak directly to the affiliative properties that seem to surround some sports consumption. Gantz (1981) hinted of this property in suggesting that certain sports viewing activities "may be more enjoyable when in the company of others than when alone." Similarly, Wenner and Gantz (1988A) wrote of the "social companionship factor" that centers on sports viewing as a means to be with friends. Duncan and Brummett (1989) cast this in terms of the "sociological characteristics" of TV viewers that include an affiliative preference for viewing sports with others. We must pause to consider reasons for this apparent linkage of TV sports with affiliative motivation in the first place. In other words, what makes sports a potentially better avenue for meeting affiliative goals than might other TV program forms? The answers seem likely to stem from conventions thought to underlie both spectatorship in our society TV is us Fir glue" p1 use in « likely l by the itself. rooted nature maturat have be traditi unifier Mc 399d, i has eve Tight 5 been c From a tradit be arg itself this s entert eStabl 69 society and those developing through time in the ways in which TV is used. First, on.a macro-level much.has been made of the "social glue" provided by sports and the social character of sports use in our society (Novak, 1976). This social character is likely to be reinforced by not only our routine discourse but by the pervasiveness and availability of the sports product itself. Secondly, sports as a basis for affiliation seems rooted in the long historical traditions surrounding its nature as an event. On the purely pragmatic level, the maturation of major modern sport (as we know it) would never have been possible without spectatorship in mass. Yet, the tradition of sports being regarded as a primary gather or unifier of people is actually an ancient one (Guttmann, 1986). Most importantly, while sports spectatorship itself is aged, it is only more recently that its isolated consumption has even been made possible by technology. As Guttmann (1988) might.suggest, the performance rituals surrounding sports have been carried away from the arena and into the living room. From a technological determinist's point of View (in the tradition of Edmund Carpenter or Marshall McCluhan), it could be argued that the medium has altered the sports experience itself by making its private use now possible. To an extent this seems certain, yet the convention of sports as a social entertainment, thus an affiliative occasion, has a very long established pedigree. Men aspect, socially socially functior remains posited needs, a It cou] develop functio Hla: Th th BIRGin1 identi extens Satisf Borden That p is gen mOt lVE 7O Mendelsohn and Spetnagel (1980) point out this historic aspect, "because the pursuit of entertainment required a socially interactive milieu and occurred regularly under socially prescribed conditions, it became ritualized and functional within dominant segments of society, and so it remains today." Recall that Argyle, Furnham, and Graham posited that people learn that certain.situations meet certain needs, and these situations develop as cultural institutions. It could be suggested that social sports TV viewing has developed as a cultural institution because it provides a functional avenue to meet some affiliative needs. Hla: The desire for affiliation will be positively related to the use of social context in general television sports viewing. Hlb: The desire for affiliation will be positively related to the use of social context in major event television sports viewing. BIRGing-- Basking' in the IReflected. Glory (BIRGing), the identification with a sports team or competitor can offer an extension of self that is entirely voluntarily and provides a satisfaction unavailable through other avenues (Cialdini, Borden, Thorne, Walker, Freeman, and Sloan, 1976; Lee, 1985). That.people wish to be held and hold themselves in.high esteem is generally taken to be true. The existence of the goal or motivation of "maintaining a satisfactory level of self— esteem/SE was suppt In deal of associat prestige through (1981) i being pr consists AIRLicar populatf "feel s< you cou they "f This re listed. "feelin ranked Viewing do enjc Mc express provid, (Ciald; and Q 71 esteem/self-respect" via participation in social situations was supported by Argyle, Furnham, and Graham, (1981). In a sports oriented vein, Sloan (1979) cites a good deal of literature pointing to the individual's need to associate with a positive other or group of others. Personal prestige and self-esteem are enhanced by this association through sports winners with relatively little risk. Gantz (1981) identified a factor called "to thrill in victory" as being primary among all sports viewing motivations. This is consistent with findings offered by the Miller Lite Report on American Attitudes Toward Sports (1983) in a general population survey (n=1,227). Choosing from such responses as "feel sorry for the loser," "feel superior," and "feel as if you couldn't care less," 82% of those surveyed responded they "feel happy" when a team or athlete they support wins. This response ranked highest among seven potential responses listed. Wenner and Gantz (1988) similarly reported that "feeling happy when your favorite player or team does well" ranked as the tOp affective response subjects had to sports viewing. Research has shown that teams with winning records do enjoy higher Nielsen ratings (Pacey and Wickham, 1985). Most importantly, it appears that it is ‘the, overt expression, the "trumpeting" of one's association that provides the most compelling' personal benefit. to jpeople (Cialdini, 1984). The emphasis moves away from the internal and onto the external as people openly display this allegian some 501 social accomplf esteem a 32:: Th! of H2b: Th us vi H2c: Pe gr Anxietj this g have i presen culmin advers "drumn (Bryar we may hinge: Ontcol Via 0‘ 72 allegiance. Obviously, this can only be accomplished within some sort of social milieu. It seems quite reasonable that social viewing can provide a very immediate means to accomplish this, to BIRG and thereby enhance feeling of self— esteem and social acceptance. H2a: The BIRGing motivation will be positively related to use of social context in general television sports viewing. HZb: The BIRGing motivation will be positively related to the use of social contest in major event television sports viewing. 32c: Persons with higher’ BIRG :motivation. will express a greater preference for social context when victory for their team is expected. Anxiety Reduction--Argyle, Furnham, and Graham (1981) included this goal for entry into social situations and it seems to have particular relevance here. The nature of sport as presented by television dictates that all television sports culminate will either victory or defeat for each side. These adversarial aspects of televised sports are frequently "drummed up" to heighten both the drama and audience interest (Bryant, Brown, Comisky, and Zillman, 1982) . Along with this, we may imply a differential state of anxiety for viewers that hinges on subjective judgments of the likely outcome. These outcome expectancies may be derived from past experience or via other sources (friends, experts, media, odds-makers). Rel sources source b: the secc consider contrast uncertai (to a de anxiety, particul Anxiety persons "people People another In Preferr anticip Conclud only mi ecIllival losing. This u one am: 73 Related to sports, there seems to be two important sources of anxiety that need consideration here: the first source being the anxiety generated by genuine uncertainty, and the second, the anxiety born of pessimism. Let us first consider uncertainty as a source of anxiety. In sharp contrast to formulaic TV programs, sports carries an uncertainty not only in its outcome but one that is sustained (to a degree) as the event unfolds. This implies a degree of anxiety, as this uncertainty may have an unsettling effect particularly for the highly invested or involved sports fan. Anxiety is most often regarded as a negative drive state which persons seek. to reduce. Schachter (1959) suggested ‘that "people serve an anxiety reducing function for one another." People can offer comfort, support, and reassurance to one another that is beneficial in these anxious states. In discussing an experiment.in which he found that people preferred to wait (affiliate) with people who were also anticipating' a :painful experience, Schachter (1959) also concluded that "Misery doesn't love just any company, it loves only miserable company." Cast in terms of sports, the rough equivalent of this misery would be loss or the prospect of losing. This represents another possible source of anxiety. This might suggest that people may wish to commiserate with one another when personal favorites might lose and this could erhaps give rise to social viewing. Has: The re] tel 33b: The rel teI Informa communi suggest l. 2. Atkin . content content televis and p] Situat: commun; Wenner Intere: males , even w this t locale 0f int 74 33a: The desire for anxiety reduction will be positively related to the use of social context in general television sports viewing. 33b: The desire for anxiety reduction will be positively related to the use of social context in major event television sports viewing. Information Exchange--All social groups can be thought of as communication groups. Two distinct informational goals were suggested as important by Argyle, Furnham, and Graham (1981): 1. Obtaining information 2. Conveying information Atkin (1985) identified the communicative utility of media content in terms of its instrumental uses. Utilization of content for conversational purposes was most important among television content, sports being among the highest. A common and plausible assumption is that most sports audience situations are filled with a variety of interpersonal communication occurring amid mass communication (Gantz, 1981; Wenner and Gantz, 1988A; and Rothenbuhler, 1988). Interestingly, Melton and Galician (1988) reported that 69% of males and 49% of the females surveyed reported that they "talk even when alone" during sports broadcasts. When you add to this the possibility of communicative partners in the same locale, sports would seem to likely to inspire a high degree of interaction. Haei did not either c directiol evaluati: older ch deemed 01 perhaps content In the equivale provocat proximai provide evaluat "expert might b these p 9rOUped interac Elabora Ir deSCri} as; me) anothe; inform, 75 Haefner and Wartella (1987) found that sibling coviewing did not appear to enhance a young child's understanding of either child or adult programs. Yet, comments, specific directions, and actions of older siblings did influence the evaluations of program characters. We might conclude that the ‘ older children, by virtue of age and experience, had been deemed on-site "experts" by these younger coviewers. This is perhaps indicative of the subtle interpersonal mediation of content that occurs in grouped television viewing settings. In the case of sports viewing, this experts role might be equivalent to one taken by the commentator or even more provocatively, perhaps one provided by someone within the proximate viewing environment. This added communication can provide an avenue for reality testing in sports, as evaluations of athletic performance are interjected by some "expert" viewers and interpreted by others. Other exchanges might be of a more trivial nature. It seems reasonable that these periodic interchanges may be one of the attractions of grouped viewing of sports. Yet, the complexity of interactions producing these and similar mediations needs more elaboration. In a slightly broader sense, Argyle, Furnham and Graham describe incentives giving rise to conveyance of information as: making a favorable impression, being accepted, persuading another, and establishing one's competence. Receiving information may be motivated by desire to learn and for its offering \ desire to responses suppliers (1954) as on realii opinions, social cc comparisc "reality facts, am We c of its c reward t valued at (1983) , SeParati from tho Often re Caused 1, its eXpr Rot among th to excel Status. somethi: 76 offering what Cialdini (1984) called the "social proof" people desire to help them gauge the appropriateness of their own responses and behaviors. Coviewers can. be looked to as suppliers of this kind of information. Similarly, Festinger (1954) asserted that people need to feel they have a "handle on reality" and an accurate appraisal of themselves, their opinions, and abilities. The information exchange within a social context can contribute to fulfillment of such social- comparison goals. Coviewing provides an immediate avenue for "reality testing" of on—field performances as assessments, facts, and trivia are freely exchanged among coviewers. We can think of information as having an intrinsic reward of its own (discovery, learning, finding) and an extrinsic reward that reinforces and enables the display of certain valued attributes (competence, recognition, status). McQuail (1983) wrote "there is a recognized informal hierarchy separating those more expert on certain content or subject from those less expert. This kind of social differentiation >ften reflects features of the rest of social life and is not :aused by the media, though the media offers the occasion for .ts expression and reinforcement." Rotter and Hochreich (1975) included "recognition/status" mong the socially learned needs, one being marked by the need 5 excel, need to be competent, and the need to attain social :atus. In some circumstances, sports knowledge may represent >mething beyond the simple "coin oflexchange" as expertise is seen as lines, L bundle o affectiv well in‘ Furnham, associat secondar seemingl a circun reinforc status. interest the ince Advancir related For it garnerir likely t 34a: The re] tel 34b: The rel teI 77 seen as conferring greater personal benefit. Along these lines, Lee and Zeiss (1980) viewed the sports spectator as a bundle of expectations concerning behavioral, cognitive, and affective "duties" of role occupants. This fits remarkably well into the social roles scheme set forth by Argyle, Furnham, and Graham. For the committed fan, the satisfaction associated. with sports becomes increasingly' derived from secondary sources, such as being an expert. Forces have seemingly "conspired” against the committed.fan.t0are often reinforced through the exchange of mutually rewarding favors, gifts, and services. In some respects these resemble economic transactions, yet the "terms of repayment" are left to the good will and generosity of recipients (Pin and Turndorf, 1985). Hence, those people most likely to be invited to watch sports are also those who also likely to extend invitations. Of those surveyed, 70% reported they "get an invitation to a friend's place to watch the game" sometimes, usually, or always. C01" C01 D01 TA 0D TA 81 H 125 Table 5 Correlation Matrix of Preparations, Sports Interest, and Age Correlations:READ DONTSEE TALK ODDS TAVERN READ 1.0000 .2841** .5784** .5524** .2665** DONTSEE .2841** 1.0000 .3646** .2468** .4028** TALK .5784** .3646** 1.0000 .4860** .3752** ODDS .5524** .2468** .4860** 1.0000 .2849** TAVERN .2665** .4028** .3752** .2849** 1.0000 STOCKUP .2397** .3561** .2988** .2613** .5782** INVITE .3194** .3855** .4271** .3848** .4996** FRNPLACE .3963** .3057** .3885** .3512** .5010** AGE .0336 -.2194** -.0974 -.0456 -.4414** INTEREST .5049** .2256** .5933** .3657** .2850** Correlations: STOCKUP INVITE FRNPLACE AGE INTEREST READ .2397** .3194** .3963** .0336 .5049** DONTSEE .3561** .3855** .3057** -.2194** .2256** TALK .2988** .4271** .3885** -.0974 .5933** ODDS .2613** .3848** .3512** -.0456 .3657** TAVERN .5782** .4996** .5010** -.4414** .2850** STOCKUP 1.0000 .6419** .5236** -.3626** .1868* INVITE .6419** 1.0000 .5763** -.2606** .3418** FRNPLACE .5236** .5763** 1.0000 -.2543** .2917** AGE -.3626** -.2606** -.2543** 1.0000 -.1780* INTEREST .1868* .3418** .2917** -.1780* 1.0000 n of cases: 247 1-tailed Signif: * - .01 ** — .001 126 Sports Preferences in Social Viewing RQ2. What sports are considered best suited for social viewing? A word of caution is necessary prior to discussing the sports preferred for social viewing. Sports, by its very nature, is somewhat "market specific" in that certain sports are expected to be featured.and.popular within certain regions (Yergin, 1986). The cultural traditions, climate, availability of local professional and collegiate sports, and historic competitive traditions will all have some influence on the acquired taste for sports. How all this translates to preferences in the social context of TV sports viewing is expected to be problematic at best“ It seems quite reasonable to expect a single area—specific sample-~such as the one here- -to be at least somewhat sensitive to these factors. This shortcoming is acknowledged, as a large national sample would be needed to fully remedy this effect. Yet, despite these potential influences, for comparison purposes, some understanding of those sports preferred for social viewing can still be gained. In addition, some suggestion as to the underlying dimensions of the presentations styles of these sports which might lead to these preferences can also be explored. As evidenced in Table 6, the sport ranked first for social viewing was college football, no doubt influenced by the fact that the survey was conducted within a university tow prc bae raI tee Pr' 127 town with a historic football tradition. Next preferred was professional football, followed by professional and collegiate basketball, hockey and the first non-team sport, boxing. The rank ordering reflects a general preference for male dominated team sports, which calls particular attention to sports preferences by gender (see Table 8). Table 6 Rank Order of Sports Preferred for Social Viewing Mean Col Football 4.52 Pro Football 4.33 Pro Basketball 4.30 Col Basketball 4.24 Hockey 3.58 Boxing 3.36 Baseball 3.18 Horse 2.78 Tennis 2.61 Motor Sports 2.49 Track & Field 2.46 Gymnastics 2.42 Wrestling 2.39 Ice Skating 2.39 Golf 2.33 **Where 5=Excellent 4=Good 3=Neutral 2=Poor 1=Very Poor n=247 G0 Pr C0 PI 128 Table 7 Sports Type Factor Loadings Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Golf -.094 .036 -.O35 .799 .051 Pro Football .722 .009 .014 .077 .293 Col Football .805 -.066 .067 -.155 -.003 Pro Basketb .796 .036 .126 .001 -.022 Col Basketb .725 .048 .363 .021 -.326 Baseball .544 .005 -.102 .320 .368 Hockey .306 .047 .633 .119 -.134 Tennis .163 .346 .253 .599 -.189 Motor -.090 .128 .308 .501 .250 Wrestling .047 .157 .149 .035 .836 Boxing .079 -.O76 .770 -.083 .299 Horse Racing .035 .354 .431 .192 -.006 Gymnastics .008 .901 .058 .096 -.049 Ice Skating .076 .741 .072 .090 .034 Track&Field -.042 .739 .073 .051 .237 thl Thl 3P hi an 129 The Dimensionsiof Social Viewing Preference Four factors emerged, and only those factors with above the commonly accepted 1.0 eigenvalue or above were evaluated. These factors accounted for 63.9 percent of the variance. Specific attention was paid to variables (sports) that loaded highest on a factor, had a minimum .50 factor loading score, and did not appear to load heavily on another factor. One sport failed to meet the minimum criteria in its factor loading, and was excluded, horse racing. Another sport, wrestling, alone loaded on an isolated factor and was thus excluded (SEE TABLE 7). This is perhaps indicative of a reluctance to categorize wrestling as sport in the traditional sense and its being viewed more as a staged promotion, Giving added credence to this is the failure of wrestling to load on Factor 3, aggressive sport, one likened to boxing. This might be explained by audience perceptions of violence as having a staged element. Also, Papazian (1984) points out that professional wrestling traditionally appeals to a demographically lower SES viewer, whose psychographic characteristics depart from the usual TV sports viewer. Thus, wrestling would be regarded as suitable material for social viewing in ways not shared by other sports and their fans. Wrestling as a staged event is heavily edited into episodic formats and appears across a wide variety of programming day parts. In addition, because of the exploratory nature of this part of the study, a fairly liberal exclusion/inclusion pa] or. 10. It fa an Fc 130 part of the study, a fairly liberal exclusion/inclusion criteria was used in the case of baseball which met the loading criteria but also loaded over half on another factor. Its inclusion is consistent with the discussion of the use of factor analysis in early efforts by authors such as McCroskey and Young, (1979); Nunnally (1978); Williams, (1978). Four possible dimensions emerged from this analysis that can be labeled: 1. Popular, High Profile Team Sport 2. Individual, Stylized, Female Favored Sport 3. Aggressive, Lower Profile Sport 4. Upscale Demographic Sport As can be seen in the case of factor one, football, basketball, and baseball all loaded together. These are typically the most watched sports (Schlosberg, 1987) in our culture and generate the bulk of sports television audiences and revenues (Klatell and Marcus, 1988). These sports also have premiere events, some in the form of championships which annually showcase the sport.on a national level. Importantly, all have enjoyed increased exposure on prime time and are not delegated only to weekend day parts as are other sports. Thus, these isports represent the most frequently exposed events as well. The audiences for these popular sports may reasonably be expected to be fairly heterogeneous in composition. Factor 2 includes gymnastics, ice skating, and track and fie det spe "In 50 re C0 131 field, none of which centers on the movement of a ball to determine an eventual outcome. Rather, the emphasis of the sport may be said to be placed on the performance of the "human machine." Each sport emphasizes a degree of grace, speed, and precision, over raw strength in determining a result. These sports are generally perceived as individual competitor (hence, non-team) sports and.are typically day time weekend time—slotted.on television, with the rare exception of the Olympic Games. These presentations are also less likely to be live and are quite often presented in edited versions. These sports also have demonstrated appeal to the female audience (see the following section for discussion of gender differences in social viewing sports preferences). Factor 3 includes boxing and hockey, which have at their core an element of physical contact/aggression. Also, each sport lacks a national contract with a broadcast outlet, and as a result their patterns of coverage are irregular in their scheduled appearance. This seems especially true when compared to traditional "day of the week" trademarks carried by certain sports: Monday Night Football, NBA games on Sundays, or MLB on Saturdays. .Also, these sports are increasingly becoming cable sports phenomena, as NHL hockey and championship fights are now more commonly carried on cable outlets. Factor 4 includes golf, tennis, and motor racing, which on their face are widely diverse sports in terms of content. Yet, these weekend sports are traditionally known to draw demc cas: empi con Ind ont 001 th SP 132 demographics with higher SES (Schlosberg, 1987). In their case, broadcast television coverage tends to place particular emphasis and highlight on the larger "name brand" events connected with these sports: Wimbledon, The Masters, and the Indianapolis 500. Still other presentations have filtered onto cable and increased the scope of available events for the consumer. These sports tend to be more process oriented in their coverage and the pacing differs from that of typical sport. Gender Differences in Social Viewing SnortsgPrgference In the case of several sports, gender differences did emerge in male and female preferences when it comes to social viewing. Messner (1990) discussed at great length the social normative influences. and. expectations that. contribute ‘to differences found in the manner in which men and women approach sports. Most research holds that males view proportionately more and different sports than to females (Miller Lite, 1983) and that favorite sports differ by gender (Schlosberg, 1987). Yet, here we are dealing with expressed preference rather than actual behavior. Similarly, Gantz and Wenner (1988B, 1991) found that men and women differ in the "ways they approached, observed, and responded to televised sports." As can be seen in Table 8, significant differences did appear in the preference for Golf, Boxing, Gymnastics, and Ice Skating. In the case of Golf and Boxing, males rated them mi in ar 133 significantly better (p <.001). In the case of Gymnastics and Ice Skating, females rated them significantly better than did males (p <.001). Both ice skating and gymnastics are individualized sports requiring a large degree of grace and artistry in which female performers are often highlighted to a greater degree than males. That some sports are conceptualized as being female rather than male oriented has been borne out.by empirical study (Matteo, 1986). At the same time, females also rated professional basketball and college basketball, baseball, and tennis higher than did males, though the differences failed to reach statistical significance. Table 8 Social Sports Viewing Preferences by Gender Mean Response T-Value Sig. 1.411253%: Golf 2.43 2.13 2.16 .032* Pro Football 4.39 4.21 1.77 .078 College Football 4.52 4.50 .22 .829 Pro Basketball 4.28 4.35 -.70 .486 College Basketball 4.22 4.27 -.40 .690 Baseball 3.16 3.22 -.40 .688 Hockey 3.66 3.44 1.46 .147 Tennis 2.55 2.72 —l.24 .216 Motor Sports 2.49 2.50 -.02 .983 Wrestling 2.43 2.30 .76 .446 Boxing 3.61 2.85 4.59 .000** Horse Racing 2.71 2.92 -1.46 .146 Gymnastics 2.22 2.83 -4.11 .000** Ice Skating 2.15 2.86 -4.74 .000** T-Test, two tailed probability test of significance Male n=143 Female n=104. *sig p <.05, **sig p <.001 Me: me st C0 Ta V6 134 Hypothesis Testing The means and standard deviations for the separate Value Measures and Expectancy Measures are seen in Table 9. The means for the Expectancy-Value ‘measures employed in the statistical procedures are likewise displayed in Table 9. The correlations between the independent measures are presented in Table 10. Table 9 Values Associated With Independent Variables Value Expectancy Combined Mean SD Mean SD Ex-V Measure Variable Affiliation 17.42 3.94 3.65 .97 64.61 BIRGing 16.89 3.02 3.47 .94 58.78 Anxiety 15.62 2.07 2.74 .93 43.32 Reduction Social 16.48 2.74 3.29 .87 55.11 Immersion Information 16.24 3.36 3.78 EXl .83 59.76 Exchange 3.61 EX2 .99 52.90 Expert 8.82 2.68 3.61 .99 31.84 Arousal/ 22.27 3.15 3.70 .83 83.31 Excitement Fun/Pleasure 13.72 2.35 3.33 .91 46.75 Social 15.19 4.19 3.78 1.00 59.83 Drinking 58! 135 The correlations between the independent variables are seen in the matrix displayed below in Table 10. Table 10 Correlation Matrix of Motivations (E x V) Variables AFFIL BIRG INFOR TENS AROS IMERS FUN DRINK AFFIL 1.000 .256 .337 .225 .214 .358 .280 .219 BIRG .256 1.000 .422 .356 .224 .431 .418 .274 INFOR .337 .422 1.000 .239 .342 .430 .280 .219 TENS .225 .356 .239 1.000 .227 .228 .259 .222 AROS .214 .224 .342 .227 1.000 .362 .341 .300 IMERS .358 .431 .430 .228 .362 1.000 .460 .368 FUN .280 .418 .280 .259 .341 .460 1.000 .483 DRINK .219 .374 .219 .222 .300 .368 .483 1.000 all sig. p <.001. The initial step in the hypothesis testing involved the bivariate correlation of the Social Viewing measures (DV1, DV2) with the expectancy-value measures of the motivations previously identified. The specific motivations were: Affiliation, BIRGing, Anxiety Reduction, Arousal/Excitement Seeking, Information Exchange, Social Immersion, Fun/Pleasure, and Social Drinking. Bivariate Pearson correlation coe tee wii tei rn 136 coefficients.and.simple:regression‘techniquesvwere‘utilizedrto test the hypothesis that these motivations were associated with, and indeed contribute to, the exposure to sports television in social contexts. Hypothesis 1a: The desire for affiliation will be positively related to the use of social context in general television sports viewing. The covariate relationship between the two variables was found to be significant (p <.001) and in the direction hypothesized (see Table 11); therefore, the hypothesis was supported. The Pearson correlation was .213, indicating that those with greater affiliative motivation tend to View sports in social contexts more often. Simple regression produced similar results as can be seen in Table 12. 137 Table 11 Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Independent Variables With General Social Sports Viewing (DV1) Affiliation (Affil) .213 BIRGing (Birg) .277 Anxiety Reduction (Tens) .097* Arousal/Excitement (Aros) .219 Seeking Information Exchange (Info) .522 Expert (Xprt) .492 Social Immersion (Immer) .339 Fun/Pleasure (Fun) .553 Social Drinking (Drink) .391 *NS, p <.001 Hypothesis lb The desire for affiliation will be positively related to the use of social context in 'major event television sports viewing. The hypothesis was also supported as the relationship between the two variables was found to be significant (p <.001). The Pearson correlation coefficient was .210 and was in the hypothesized direction (See Table 13). This indicates that those with greater affiliative motivation tend to use social contexts more for major event sport V1eW1ng. Simple regression produced similar results. 138 Hypothesis 2a Birging will be positively related to the use of social context in general sports viewing. The hypothesis was supported as the correlation coefficient was .277 (p <.001), again in the direction hypothesized. Simple regression confirmed the finding. This suggests that Basking in the Reflected Glory is positively related to the use of sport TV in social settings. 25219.12 Simple Regression Independent Variables on General Social Sports Viewing (DV1) Affil Birg Tens Info Immer R .213 .277 .097* .522 .339 R2 .045 .077 .009 .272 .115 F 11.597 20.357 2.327 91.543 31.573 df 246 246 246 246 246 p .000 .000 .128 .000 .000 Aros Fun Drink Xprt R .219 .553 .391 .492 R2 .027 .306 .153 .242 F 12.275 106.774 44.083 78.141 df 246 246 246 246 p .000 .000 .000 .000 n=247, *p >.05 139 Table 13 Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Independent Variables With Major Event Social Sports Viewing (DV2) Affiliation (Affil) .209** BIRGing (Birg) .210** Anxiety Reduction (Tens) .162* Information Exchange (Info) .365** Expert (Xprt) .371** Social Immersion (Immer) .324** Arousal/Excitement .165* Seeking (Aros) Fun/Pleasure (Fun) .441** Social Drinking (Drink) .448** *p <.01, **p <.001. $5219.14 Simple Regression Independent Variables on Major Event Social Sports Viewing Affil Birg Tens Info Immer Aros Fun Drink R .209** .210** .162* .365** .324** .165* .441** .448** R2 .043 .044 .026 .133 .105 .027 .194 .201 F 11.194 10.980 6.619 37.762 28.531 6.853 58.762 28.531 df 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 P .000 .000 .010 .000 .000 .009 .000 .000 *p <.01 **p <.001 C06 The of 8V 140 Hypothesis 2b The BIRGing motivation will be positively related to the use of social context in major event television sports viewing. The hypothesis was supported as the Pearson correlation coefficient was .210 (p <.001), in.the‘direction hypothesized. The simple regression produced similar results. Higher levels of BIRGing are related to the use of social context in major event types of sports. Hypothesis 2c Higher levels of BIRG motivation will be negatively related to social viewing when defeat is expected. This hypothesis was supported, as BIRGing and likelihood of social viewing when a favorite team was expected to lose were negatively related (r= -.207). This is consistent with the hypothesized direction. The correlation coefficient was significant (p <.001) and simple regression analysis produced a similar result. This result indicates that people with higher levels of BIRG motivation will express a greater preference for social viewing when their team is expected to win. my; coe si¢ re re 141 Hypo—alibi The desire for anxiety reduction will be positively related to the use of social context in general television sports viewing. This hypothesis was Lot supported as the correlation coefficient (r=.097) failed to prove statistically significant. The simple regression analysis produced similar results leading to the conclusion that desire for anxiety reduction was not directly related to social viewing of general sports. Hypothesis 3b The desire for anxiety reduction will be positively related to the use of social context in major event television sports. In this case the hypothesis was supported. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r=.162), though very modest, was found to be significant (p <.01). The simple regression produced similar results. The desire to reduce anxiety appears positively related.to some major events sports viewing in a social context. Hypothesis 4a The desire for information exchange will be positively related to the use of social context in general television sport viewing. coe two sin CO] ac Lil 142 The hypothesis was supported as the correlation coefficient measuring the covariate relationship between the two variables was .522 and was significant (p <.001). The simple regression provided similar evidence that receiving and conveying information is positively related to social viewing activity. Hypothesis 4b The desire for information exchange will be positively related to the use of social context in major event television sports viewing. The hypothesis was again supported as the relationship between information exchange and major events social viewing was found to be significant (p <.001) (r=.365). The regression analysis produced similar results. In the case of major event sports, the desire to obtain and convey information was positively related to its use in a social context. Hypothesis 4c Higher levels of self-reported sports expertise will be positively related to the use of social context in general television sports viewing. The hypothesis was supported as the relationship between expertise and general sports viewing was positive with an correlation coefficient of .492 (p <.001). Simple regression C011 1111 143 confirmed this finding. H othesis 5a The desire for social immersion. will be positively related to the use of social context in general television sports viewing. The correlation between the social immersion measure and the general sports viewing measure was .339. This relationship proved to be significant and in the direction hypothesized (p <.001). Therefore, the hypothesis was supported here. The simple regression bore similar results. There does appear to be a relationship between general social sports viewing and the desire for social immersion. Hypothesis 5b The desire for social immersion 'will be positively related to the use of social context in major event sports television viewing. Again, the hypothesis was supported as the Pearson correlation was .324 and proved significant (p <.001). The regression equation provided similar results. Social immersion does appear positively related to the use of social context in general television TV sports viewing 11195 cm di‘ yi SE 144 Expo—WM The desire for arousal/sensation seeking will be positively related to the use of social context in general television sports viewing. The hypothesis was supported as the Pearson correlation coefficient was .219 and significant (p <.001) and in the direction which was hypothesized. The regression analysis yielded the same result. The desire for arousal/sensation seeking appears positively related to social television sports viewing. Hypothesis 6b The desire for arousal/sensation seeking will be positively related to the use of social context in major event sports viewing. The research hypothesis was supported as the correlation between the two variables was found to be significant (p <.01) with a correlation coefficient of .165. The direction found was consistent with that anticipated by the hypothesis. The simple regression provided similar support. The desire for arousal/sensation seeking was founded to be positively related to the use of social context in major event sports. my 00 si IE IS: 145 Hypo—trim The desire for fun/pleasure will be positively related.to the use of social context in general television sports viewing. The hypothesis was supported as the correlation coefficient was .553, in the hypothesized direction, and significant (p <.001). The simple regression bore the same results“ The desire for fun/pleasure is positively related to the use of social context. in. general television. sports viewing. Hypothesis 7b The desire for fun/pleasure will be positively related to the use of social context in major event television sports viewing. This hypothesis was also supported as the Pearson correlation was .441 and the hypothesized direction was found (p <.001). The results of the simple regression supplied the same outcome. The desire for Fun/Pleasure are positively related to the social viewing of major event sports. Hypothesis 8a The desire for social drinking will be positively related to the use of social context:in.general television sports viewing. The hypothesis was supported as a Pearson correlation C081 MP The drf C0? 146 coefficient of .391 was found in the bivariate relationship (p <.001). The results were in the direction which was hypothesized. The simple regression provided similar support. There is a positive relationship between the desire for social drinking and the use of general television sports in a social context. Hypothesis 8b The.desire for social drinking will be positively related to the use of social context in major event television sports viewing. The hypothesis was also supported as a correlation of .448 was found. and. proved. significant. (p ‘<.001) in. the direction hypothesized. The simple regression gave similar support. The desire for social drinking was found to be positively related to the use of social context in major event television sports. The Multiple Regression Egpations A stepwise multiple regression procedure was undertaken to offer a more comprehensive explanation of the dependent measures suggested in the previous sub-section. This is of particular benefit here because few phenomena can be said to be the product of a single cause and the potential distorting affect of the other independent variables is reduced (Lewis- Beck, 1980). Spor eigl asp: inc ide cor 1118i 147 The first multiple regression equation used General Sports Social Viewing (DV1) as the.dependent variable with the eight motivations as the independent measures. An important aspect of the stepwise procedure is that variables are included in order of importance; this allows for the identification of the motivations variables that in combination explain the most variance in the dependent measure. The variables which were included in the final equation were Fun, Information Exchange, and Social Drinking. As can be seen in the Table 15.1, the stepwise multiple regression yielded this three variable model with the coefficient of multiple determination, R2=.39, (F=49.733). This indicates that Fun, Information Exchange, and Social Drinking account for 39% of the variance in social sports viewing (p <.05). Of course, taken together these variables suggest.a more powerful linear explanation than did.the simple bivariate regression models. The exclusion of the other motivations variables suggests that in overall linear combination their ability for prediction was reduced by the influence of the additional variables being considered. Still, this should not negate the potential for the individually considered motivations to provide significant predictive value in the case of social viewing. 148 Table 15.1 Stepwise Multiple Regression General Sports Social Viewing Variable Beta T Sig T Fun .332 5.162 .000 Info .296 4.918 .000 Drink .129 2.121 .027 Tens -.099 -1.869 .062 BIRG -.O64 -1.074 .283 Immer .016 .272 .785 Affil -.005 -.107 .915 Multiple R2 .622 R2 .387 Adj. R2 .379 SE .781 F 49.733 n=247 The second stepwise multiple regression procedure used Major event Social Sports Viewing (DV2) as the dependent measure with the eight motivation variables as independent variables (SEE TABLE 15.2). The final predictive model in the stepwise procedure provided a two variable linear regression model, Social Drinking and Fun motivations. This model yielded an R2 of .27, (F=43.031) explaining 27% of the variance in major event sports social viewing. Again, this suggests that additional variables are needed in a complete 149 explanation of this phenomenon» IFuture research may be needed to address this aspect. Table 15.2 Stepwise Multiple Regression Major Event Sports Social Viewing Variable Beta I Sig T Drink .311 4.928 .000 Fun .287 4.537 .000 Info .121 1.863 .063 Immer .090 1.568 .118 Affil .068 1.711 .242 BIRG -.040 -.649 .517 Tens .027 .470 .638 Multiple R2 .515 R2 .265 Adj. R2 .259 SE .974 F 43.031 n=247 An additional series of stepwise regression procedures were conducted to assess differences in motivations as they may appear by gender. It seems reasonable to anticipate that motivations among males and females could potentially be different as they approach social contexts for television sports. As such, this represents an exploration of these possible differences. However, it must be kept in mind that vari var: mal asp are for th th 150 variables in addition to gender may well contribute to any variation found. Though a body of literature suggests that males and females differ in orientations to a variety of aspects of sport (e.g. Messner, 1990), these generalizations are too broad to be drawn intola succinct theoretical patterns for the present purpose; as such no a priori assumptions as to the nature of these difference are adopted here. Therefore, this effort should be regarded as exploratory and will afford a more complete picture of the sample population in terms of the motivation variables under study. The results of the stepwise multiple regression procedures can be seen in Table 16.1 through 16.4. Each of the separate equations produced a two variable model. Again, the linear combination of all of the variables is considered here. In the case of males and General Sports Social Viewing (DV1), Fun and Information Exchange were entered in the final equation; this model explained 38% (F@=.38) of the variance. In the case of Major Event Sports Social Viewing (DV2), the final multiple regression equation included Social Drinking and Fun/Pleasure (R2=.28). While both regression models suggest that additional variables are necessary to gain a complete picture of social viewing, it is worth noting that the scope of the event again seems to create a consistent differential in the motivations involved. This effect holds true when all the variables are considered part of an overall motivations scheme. 151 Table 16.1 Stepwise Multiple Regression General Sports Social Viewing--Males Variable Beta 1 Fun .439 5.911 Info .249 3.347 Tens -.O79 -l.l93 Aros .061 .889 BIRG -.063 -.858 Immer .056 .766 Drink .045 .618 Affil .032 .479 Multiple R2 .606 R2 .368 Adj. R2 .360 SE .811 F 45.164 §1g_1 .000 .001 .234 .369 .392 .444 .537 .632 152 Table 16.2 Stepwise Multiple Regression Major Event Sports Social Viewing--Males Variable Beta 1 Sig_1 Drink .466 6.611 .000 Fun .327 4.231 .000 Info .139 1.762 .081 Immer .114 1.467 .144 Affil .085 1.223 .223 BIRG -.078 -1.044 .298 Aros .044 .597 .551 Tens -.016 -.234 .815 Multiple R2 .530 R2 .281 Adj. R? .272 SE .983 F 30.615 153 In the case of females, the final regression equations revealed only a slightly different motivation structure than that of the males in the sample. The variables Information Exchange and Social Drinking in linear combination were found to account for 32% (R@=.32) of the variance in DV1. Interestingly, this suggests that social drinking as a motivation. for entering into social contexts for' sports viewing may be more important in the case of females. In considering major event sports, DV2, consistent with the regression. model derived. for' males, Social Drinking and Fun/Pleasure appeared.in the final stepwise equation. Yet, the order of the variables entry, which was actually reversed, suggests a slight difference in their value as predictive measures. Overall, these findings seem to indicate a basic symmetry in.the motivations among females and.males within.the sample, although these slight differences were detected here. 1} 154 Table 16.3 Stepwise Multiple Regression General Sports Social Viewing--Females Variable Beta T Sig_i Info .439 4.622 .000 Drink .275 2.900 .004 Fun .207 1.868 .065 Tens -.112 -1.188 .238 Aros -.078 -.813 .418 Immer .057 .533 .595 BIRG -.O37 -.356 .724 Affil .023 .231 .817 Multiple R?- . 573 R2 .329 Adj. R7- . 312 SE .704 F 19.372 155 Table 16.4 Stepwise Multiple Regression Major Event Sports Social Viewing-~Females Variables Bepa I Sig_1 Fun .275 2.488 .015 Drink .257 2.234 .022 Aros -.168 -l.578 .118 Tens .109 1.054 .294 Info .072 .625 .533 Immer .070 .608 .544 BIRG .045 .400 .690 Affil .038 .355 .723 Multiple R2 .448 R2 .201 Adj. R2 .181 SE .964 F 9.960 will b to the discu: of ti consi theor sugge prep; will disc unde Bee: the con be CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION In this chapter results reported in the previous chapter will.be discussed and.their implications elaborated upon” ZDue to the exploratory nature of the present research this summary discussion will include new perspectives on the social aspects of this type of television behavior. At the same time, consideration as to how these findings mesh with existing theories and directions for ‘the future inquiry ‘will be suggested. A brief discussion of the scope of and preparations for selective social viewing of television sports will precede the discussion of the research hypotheses. The discussion will then focus upon the motivations thought to underlie selective social viewing of television sports. Because this represents the main portion of this work, each of the research hypotheses will be discussed individually. The conclusions which may be drawn from the empirical tests will be discussed in terms of appropriate theoretical foundations. 156 giggle} To sports descrit behavie televi: requir situat outsic issue motiv showr sport hypo‘ crea expe of Spe< con ass cul se; Ch: so th 157 germ. To begin with, the use of social contexts in general sports viewing, though not exceedingly rare, cannot be described as a frequent or routine television viewing behavior. This seems reasonable enough as a great deal of television consumption.is likely to occur absent of the effort required in selective social use. Thus, these social viewing situations and activity are perhaps more commonly taken to be outside the stream of the ordinary television use. Still, the issue of frequency does not diminish the interest in the motivations which underlie this phenomenon. Social sports viewing, as might be expected, has been shown to be a good deal more frequent during major event sports. This gives additional weight to the special occasion hypothesis which suggests that larger, unique events lead to creation of social contexts for television viewing. The expected dimensional differences did appear and are reflective of the distinctions drawn between fairly routine and specialized sports offerings in our culture. This is consistent with Rothenbuhler (1988) and Real's (1977) assertions that certain mediated sporting events represent cultural occasions taking on additional qualities which separate them from everyday life. These events are characterized by their ceremonial elements and carry a ritual social aspect that extends into the general population. In this respect, we can view social contexts for the use of televisc element compone deliver the par based well partic their sport' subse about part: was expl age aCCl Spo car Che 98! Sa'. 0V be 158 televised sport as established collections of the interrelated elements characteristic of a social field. As such, the major components of the situations linked to a social field will deliver a functional, motivational, and evaluative meaning to the participants. Thus, people can be expected to participate based on their prior experience in these social fields, as well as their needs and expectations surrounding these particular' occasions. Importantly, despite «differences in their rates of occurrence, both.routine sports and major event sports share many of the same motivational factors in their subsequent use in social contexts. The.demography'of social sportS'viewing'reveals.something about its participants. First, the likelihood of participating in social televiSion sport viewing situations was found to be inversely related to age. This might be explained.by the lifestyle differences that.are connected with age as social activity might become either more or less accessible. Clearly, leisure time pursuits, such as social sports use, can be impacted by factors such as family and career as responsibilities mount. Also, the lifestyle characteristics known to have a bearing on media use in general (Donohew, Palmgreen, and Rayburn, 1987) may by the same token affect the'manner in which.media.is to be accessed. Overall interest in sports as might be suspected was found to be strongly related to its use in social contexts. In addition, sports interest (consistent with findings reported in the two fa freque1 A in get sports findir socie‘ diffe fansh here. more do w moti Howe sele thes Thal rep exa gen the of ac 159 in the literature) also was found to decline with age. These two factors working in tandem might tend to reduce the frequency of this selective coviewing. Again, consistent with the study of sports spectatorship in general, males tend to gravitate more toward social TV sports than did females. Perhaps this is not a surprising finding given the conventions surrounding sports in modern society that are slow to change (Messner, 1990). Yet, this difference may' be more attributable. to Ibasic levels of fanship, rather than entirely to the social aspects examined here. Even so, Gantz and Wenner (1991) found that women are more likely to watch sports because itlgives them something to do with friends and family. In this respect the viewing motivations do truly seem to indeed be more social in nature. However, this may be an artifact of a lesser degree of selective and greater default types of content viewing within these contexts. The football game might be on during the Thanksgiving gathering, but other content might still represent reasonable substitutes. Future research should examine how these motivations may appear differently across genders. The type and frequency of preparatory behaviors suggest that social situations demand a degree of effort on the part of participants; the most common.of which is the communicative activity surrounding the contest itself. Consistent with the "special occasion" hypothesis of social sports viewing, the maj or it seen 0' creatie Also, : sugges Perhap arrane viewi: indie viewi high] team appe than good dif: the Iii] 11v; 160 majority'did,report.getting’together“with.people.otherwise‘not seen often. This implies a level of selectivity in the creation of the social aggregates involved in sports viewing. Also, in-home viewing was more frequent than viewing in a bar, suggesting a preference for private rather than public locale. Perhaps most interesting is the high degree of reciprocal arrangement in the invitation process to social contexts and viewing activity‘ that ‘was discovered” ‘This appears to indicate a degree of self-stabilizing in the structure of the viewing groups as familiarity is maintained. The sports most highly favored for use in social context were the faster-paced team sports: football and basketball. Gender differences did appear here, with females rating several sports differently than.did.males. Of course, these perceptions as to what.makes good material for social viewing may be hindered by regional differences that make generalizability difficult. Attention will now turn to the systematic discussion of the research hypotheses. Hypothesis Discussion Hypothesis 1a The desire for affiliation will be positively related to the use of social context in general television sports viewing. The correlation between routine, general more regularly occurring sports viewing, and the use of social context was statist conclue the us Viewin F of me invol‘ unive consi sport Guttt char indi said anyt aff cor pui SO] 161 statistically' significant, though :modestu Thus, we. can conclude that the affiliative motivation appears related to the use of social context in routine sports television viewing. For some people, sports can represent.an.accessible:means of meeting affiliative goals or needs. The conventions involved are already established and provide a fairly universally understood repertoire of social exchange. This is consistent with the aggregation said to be characteristic of sports in society, though displayed here on the micro-level. Guttmann (1986) portrayed this as part of the "collective character" of spectating' that represents the amalgam. of individualized actions and experience. Hence, Sports can be said to fulfil an important social function as much as it does anything else. Yet, implicit here is that people with a greater affiliative tendency will be more likely to use social context" This notion seems quite reasonable, as any selective pursuit in which others are expected.tijarticipate calls upon some sort of affiliate goal in order to stimulate interest (Mehrabian, 1976). Recall that Argyle, Furnham, and Graham (1981) highlighted the extent to which this motivation is satisfied within social settings. Affiliation appears to act as an autonomous drive which can be met in a number of ways, one of which is sharing the sports viewing experience with other people. partic affili examp] avoid: be pa' socia perce acoo: havi attr sell act It sit 162 What seems to be the inverse of this construct may hold particular interest for future research surrounding affiliation and its relationship to social audiences. For example, some salient measure of social anxiety might tap an avoidance of these very same situations. Such a measure could be particularly revealing especially in light of avoidance of social viewing despite a desire for what might otherwise be perceived as competing positive aspects. This is in accordance with Lewinian conceptualizations of some situations having negative and.positive valence and.thus varying in.their attraction for potential actors. The study of both the approach and avoidance in the selection of social settings may help to further define the actual processes involved in the selection of social viewing. It might well be that certain kinds of sports viewing situations are compatible with individualized affiliative goals and others are not. In other words, there are likely to be differing goals linked to the actual characteristics of differing situations. In the present study, because respondents were asked to generalize across their entire experience such specificity was not attainable here. However, in the future we may wish to examine the conditions under which affiliative motivations may be aroused. Hypothe I’D socia‘ World in t1 more has] pass is spee ear EYE 163 Hypothesis 1b The desire for affiliation will be positively related to the use of social context in major event television sports viewing. The desire for affiliation was found.to be related to the social use of major event sports such as the Super Bowl or the World Series. This variable acts much in the same way it did in the case of routine sports viewing. As society becomes more complex, one of the enduring, remarkable consistencies has been sports. The larger sporting events tend to mark the passage of time and allow for participation in an event that is fairly unique. Thus, the elements surrounding these specialized events represent social occasions sharing the earmarks of secular holidays. Hypothesis 2a BIRGing will be positively related to the use of social context in general sports viewing. Basking in the Reflected Glory was determined to be related to the use of social situation in viewing televised sports. The need to associate with positive others has long been suggested. as a. means for’ building self-esteem. and creation of self image. At the same time, it has been argued the full fruition of the BIRG phenomenon can only take shape if those alliances are recognized by others. Clearly, the presence of others permits a more immediate achievement of 164 this recognition goal, one achievable simultaneous with exposure. .A social context represents an immediate opportunity and forum for the overt expression of one's association with a team. Yet, the degree to which this association is either shared or acknowledged by coviewers represents another issue. While a great deal of attention has been given the more delayed effects of BIRGing (e.g the work of Cialdini and associates), this study suggests that in the immediate social milieu itself provides some attraction for its BIRGing possibilities. What can be concluded is that BIRGing exists as a possible motivation for some people to participate in social contexts in sports television viewing. Still, the degree to which people actively seek out situations in which to do so is slightly more problematic and is addressed more fully in hypothesis 2c. The possibility exists that overall BIRG potential may also be simply a side effect which is conveniently afforded in some situations. An interesting aspect for future research would be the degree to which the esteem said to be delivered in BIRGing is perceived by the coviewing participants. No studies addressing this aspect of this phenomenon are known to exist” If BIRGing is expected to radiate outward, then this reception by others seems vital. At the same time, it does seem apparent that the highly invested fan might have more at stake in these situations. Social contexts do offer that person, with their coviewers 165 beside them, the possible opportunity to bask in.the reflected glory of others. Hypothesis 2b BIRGing will be positively related to the use of social context in major event sports television viewing. As was the case in hypothesis 2a, the BIRG motivations was found to be related to social viewing, in this case major event sports. We have two aspects that must be considered here. On one hand the teams involved represent the elites (e.g. the case of the World Series or Super Bowl) in which the two highest achieving teams compete head to head. While offering prime targets for BIRGing, these teams may also not represent those which are well known or normally supported by viewers. Recall that Zillman suggested that dispositions toward a team are developed and not so readily swayed. The attachment necessary for the BIRG phenomenon seems at least somewhat.dependent.on.disposition. 'Therefore, we might ask if a attachment is recognized as highly superficial, does this reduce the BIRGing impact? In other words, do those who only back. winners derive satisfaction from this association, regardless of any logical links to the particular team(s)? It might be that other types of satisfaction, apart from.BIRGing, are had in this manner that are not so dependent on perceptions of other people. The degree to which personal investment is necessary to the basking process remains unclear 166 and marks a gap in the research literature. Still, even in situations where these team attachments by the viewer seem relatively low, we can still expect that people might to varying degree form favorites based on some logic. This represents one of the ‘primary attractions of sports in general: to seemingly risk.something“when.in reality little or nothing is personally at stake. Arguably, it might even be difficult for those in social viewing situations to .be entirely objective and uninvolved because this might reduce the thrill associated with the game. Hypothesis 2c Higher levels of BIRG motivation will be negatively related to the social viewing of sports when defeat is expected. The direction of this response indicates the nature of the BIRG/social viewing process and can be viewed as substantiating the premise suggested by Cialdini (1976) and colleagues. Specifically, that social viewing of sports appears is likely among those for whom BIRG motivation is high when victory for their team is anticipated. The expectation of victory seems to yield greater reward in social viewing situations for these people. For it is here that an affirmation of one's association or allegiance to the winning team can be most clearly established. On the other hand, the possibilities of BIRGing when a loss is expected are obviously 167 limited. Some suggestion of the mental algebra that comes into play seems necessary here. It has been found that types of outcome and proximity of the goal (win, near win, and loss) have an effect on relative self-image and desirability of a goal (Johnson, 1987). Thus, the BIRGing situation which may be entered into represents a double-edged sword when it comes to either enhancing or jeopardizing self-image. Still, the exact nature of this mental process remains less than certain, as does its exact relation to social viewing. This seems true because an element of risk will always exist for these persons simply due to the uncertainties connected to sports. Still, Zillman, Bryant, and Sapolsky (1979) characterized this as a relatively low-risk proposition and posited that spectators can avoid the "personal sting" of defeat by shifting emphasis away from themselves and onto the team in the event of loss. This position was supported by Cialdini's work on the BIRG phenomenon when it was found that subjects quite easily substituted the word "they" for "we" once their favorite teams lost. In future research, an attempt to understand the threshold of this relative risk may shed additional light on basking in the reflected glory and it variable occurrence. For now, we can conclude that people with higher BIRG motivation are more likely to participate in social contexts for sports viewing when prospects for victory seem more 168 certain. Importantly, BIRG behavior is guided by individual choice (Sloan, 1979). Even if a person legitimately feels "part of the team," then the freedom to associate is not absolute, but the fan may still adjust their degree of association. One way to accomplish this adjustment may be to either enter into or conversely avoid these social viewing situations. Hypothesis 3a The desire for anxiety reduction will be positively related to the use of social context in general television sports viewing. The desire for reduction of anxiety did not represent a motivation for the social viewing of general, routine sports. The tension produced by anxiety is almost universally regarded as a negative drive state from which people will seek relief. The expectation was that sports with its inherent uncertainty can produce a potential anxious state in people and thus spur social activity as a means for venting tension" This does not appear to be the general case here. We can conclude that having other people around during sports viewing—-despite its excitement and inherent uncertainty-~does not appear to represent a motivation associated with social context in sports use. “Yet, prior to entirely dismissing this motivation and its possible relationship to social contexts, more elaboration is needed. 169 While this finding runs counter to the suggestions of Schachter and others that under conditions of uncertainty or amid tension, the presence of others is welcomed or desired, there are other considerations that arise. One alternative explanation for this research finding might be that conditions of uncertainty surrounding sports are very much part and parcel of regular sports activity to which people are fairly accustomed. This notion of a substantially increased tension level brought about as a result may be in part flawed. Thus, the perceived negative aspects of sports tension or uncertainty may not be extreme enough to produce that kind of anxiety for'most.peopleu This seems especially true given the sports fans propensity toward extraordinary wishful thinking even in the face of contrary information (Babad, 1987). At the least, this tension may be very dissimilar to that operationalized in experimental conditions where, for example, personal well-being seems truly to be at stake. Perhaps more important as an explanation for this finding is the vast fluctuation in the anxiety producing potential of sports itself. While research in the area of stress and anxiety in sports participation itself has been undertaken (Spielberger, 1989), similar indicators in sports television use have been lacking. The potential anxiety producing characteristic is very much dependent on and regulated.by'what seem to be at stake. Thus, we can anticipate that stressors, the perception, and the emotional reactions can widely vary 170 within situations of sports viewing. Personal favorites (teams, performers) are far' more likely' to elicit. much different degrees of anxiety-related tension than say, the garden variety game of the week. Clearly, the appraisal of potential threat will differ in such a case. We can safely assume that all sports events are not regarded as equal in their importance by the viewer. Whereas every contest is not a "nail biter," every contest is not "the important game" either. Therefore, requiring respondents to generalize across their sports experiences paints too broad of a stroke given this possible range. A great deal of routine sports viewing may be nothing more than that, simply routine. This gets into the area of dispositional factors which may hold promise for the future research in this field. These factors may be better addressed in a quasi-experimental design in which subjects are presented with a number of scenarios (e.g. differing degrees of involvement) and then asked to estimate their probable subjective experience. Using such a methodology'would.permit.greater control over both the tension producing and potential reduction possibilities of differing situations. Also, because anxiety is a negative drive state, extreme levels of tension would possibly represent a situation to be avoided entirely. If television sports viewing truly represented that kind of extreme tension producing stimulus, it.might very well be avoided.entirely7 most audience research 171 suggests otherwise and reveals sports to be widely consumed. We might also speculate that in the case of sports the presence of others in a viewing situation can induce its own form of tension. Rather than providing a respite from anxiety, the coviewer may introduce some additional form of tension by his or her mere presence. Future research should examine the particulars of group composition and its bearing on the tension levels that might occur within the social context. For example, we might speculate that tension may affected if viewing takes place with groups that either do or do not share one's disposition toward competitors. A situation thought to be obnoxious would likely be avoided altogether. Hypothesis 3b The desire for tension reduction will be positively related to the use of social context in major event television sports. The desire to reduce tension was weakly correlated with using social situations in major event sports. This perhaps indicates a weak relationship that does exist that in some manner takes into account the scope or importance of the event. Hence, the added dimension of "the big game" may elicit a differential in tension and. may influence ‘the desirability of the social context for viewing. As was the case in hypothesis 3a, greater specificity would help in 172 understanding this parameters of this relationship. A refined methodology that seeks to measure the source and amount of potential anxiety would better define it as a predictive measure . Hypothesis 4a The desire for information exchange will be positively related to the use of social context in general television sports television viewing. The interactive or communicative activity which accompanies the social viewing situation represents a very important motivation. This was made obvious by the strong correlation between social viewing and information exchange and by its subsequent inclusion in the multiple regression model. Communicative behavior has been repeatedly verified as an important part of the viewing situation surrounding televised sports. Argyle and associates (1981) in outlining the components of social situations described the repertoire of elements as a range of acceptable behaviors which are expected. The information exchanged in sports settings is very much a part of this accepted repertoire. The relationship between television use and informational needs has been documented in a good deal of prior research, particularly those in the uses and gratifications vein (Levy and Windahl, 1984; Palmgreen et al 1980; Wenner, 1982; Frank and.Greenberg, 1980). Yet, the informational utility provided 173 by coviewers in the face of media use has been given far less study. Here, it has been demonstrated that this motivation links well with the type of audience setting utilized. The information exchange possible in the social sports audience appears to be one of its most prized aspects. These exchanges, which might logically follow the ebbs and flows of a contest, are arguably unique among social audiences and media use. While perceived as interruptions of some other kinds of content, in the case of sports they appear wholly compatible and part of the general repertoire. Advancing this to»the next level, future studies may wish t0>explore the specific kinds of information exchanged.in such settings. Adopting alternative techniques (focus groups, ethnographic study) and the development of analytical frameworks may aid in tracing both the type and extent of this information exchange. These interactions may range from exchanging bits of trivia to critical analysis thought valuable in understanding the complexity of a sport. Hypothesis 4b The desire for information exchange will be positively related to the use of social context in major event television sports viewing. The desire to exchange information was found related to the use of social context in major event sports television. Yet, the reduced strength of the association between 174 information exchange as compared.with routine sports suggests that major events may diminish the importance of this motivation. Again, the types of information exchanged remain unknown here. Still, we might speculate that big events perhaps create greater interest and the viewer may already be exposed to or even seek greater information prior to the contest. Therefore, any perception of a deficit in information surrounding the contest may be reduced before viewing. Given the amount of hype that traditionally precedes the larger events, this seems reasonable. The goal structure which has been connected to the occasion may itself be altered as a result of these outside influences. Also, the exchanging of information (or even the ability to do so) may be affected by the fact that personal favorites are often not on display in these major events sports. Hypothesis 4c Higher levels of self-reported sports expertise will be positively related to the use of social context in general television sports viewing. The strong association between expertise and the use of social context for viewing televised sports provides a more complete picture of information exchangeland'the social sports situation. .As was hypothesized, those considering themselves to have greater expertise are more apt to enter into the social sports viewing situation. Again, the motivations ff 175 surrounding the display of such knowledge can be viewed as reaffirmation.of this expertise:that.has some.ego enhancing or perhaps altruistic basis. As Lee and Zeiss (1980) expressed, the behavioral commitment of those who occupy the role of committed sports fan includes a number of "responsibilities." As self concept and sports consumption become intertwined, an added measure of satisfaction is had from the reputation as a expert. A fairly easy and accessible means for asserting this expertise and giving substance to claims of expertise is through social context in the use of television sports. It is this type of reward which might be had merely by engaging in the social situation. Hypothesis 5a The desire for social immersion. will be jpositively related to the use of social context in general television sports viewing. The relationship between desire for social immersion and social context indicates it to be a fairly strong motivation. The potential appeal of social immersion and the live action sports has been given some attention in the literature (Mann, 1979). Yet, immersion into the media audience has been given far lesser attention, ‘What has been demonstrated here is that this motivation may act similarly as an enticement of social contexts in TV use. While real identification may still remain, as a person is not anonymous in the conventional 176 sense, even the perceptual immersion in a group carries the potential to occlude a person's self-awareness (Diener, 1980) . This submergence creates an atmosphere in which self-attention is seemingly reduced by the combined elements of that social situation. Importantly, the norms of the situation tend to indicate that behaviors unique to this social field are acceptable, where they otherwise might not be accepted. This notion meshes well with prior findings that suggest that such expressive activity is influenced by the presence of the group and helps to create an atmosphere that tolerates actions unique to sports viewing (Gantz, 1981). What might be likened to a form of social contagion may be provided by these contexts. While far short of the "riotous, mindless crowd" LeBon wrote about, the immersion into a group can in itself fulfill a similar goal. In light of this finding, Blumer's (1961) typology of crowds provides a useful template for discussion here. While the notion of "crowd" causes some uneasiness.in its connection with media audiences, it is still valuable in considering the TV sports audiences IMoreover, this uneasiness is likely to be the result of a dearth of research that has focused on the character of the crowd and its presumed connection to some social pathology that is largely irrelevant here (Turner and Killian, 1972). Blumer's expressive crowd is described in terms of primitive religious ritual in which a sort of collective ecstacy may develop. One might easily substitute 177 sports for this religious character. The crowd is thought to be "introverted," but once ordinary self-control lessens, the expression of excited feelings becomes an end in itself. The excitement of the crowd is said to emerge in a variety of ways: shouting, weeping, leaping, and the like. The social stimulation amid approval and sanction lends itself to these forms of collectively carried expression. According to Blumer, the tendency of the group is to project feelings upon objects "which are sensed to have some intimate connection with it." This intimate connection may be likened to the feeling projected on a variety of sports images within our culture. Social sports viewing behaviors, as are all conventions, are grounded by the expectations of group norms. These conventions must develop, proliferate and be understood by the participants. This is synchronous with Argyle, Furnham, and Graham's (1981) suggestion of the social rules--shared beliefs and conventions which regulate and coordinate behavior. Immersion in the group and the possibilities of "acting out" in certain ways appear to be important elements of these social contexts. These ritual aspects are likely to be enhanced by the immersion into the group which allows their display. 178 Hypothesis 5b The desire for social immersion. will be jpositively related to the use of social context in major event sports television viewing. The relationship between the social immersion motivations and the use of social context in major event sports use is quite similar to that found.in.hypothesis 5a, 'The strength of this relationship indicates that social immersion operates similarly despite potential differences in the scope of the event. As such, we can expect that much of the above discussion of sports and social immersion is very much.germane to major events. Hypothesis 6a The desire for arousal/excitement seeking will be positively related to the use of social context in general television sports viewing. The relationship between the desire for arousal/excitement seeking and social context in the case of routine sports can be described as modest. The excitement generated by the presence coviewers does seem to represent a motivational element contributing to social contexts. Hocking's (1982) suggestion that audience arousal can act as enhancement of the experience:of sports spectatorship seems to extend to social television viewing of sports as well. The experiential differences are obvious in regards to the locale 179 and the nature of viewing, yet the arousal provided by the "crowd" can hold similar appeal. Still, the modest correlation indicates that other factors might of greater importance here. The measure of arousal in communication research has been one with a varied history, in both its measurement and conceptualization (Christ, 1985). There does seem to be particular value in its application to audience situations that may be encountered. The work of Dunand, Berkowitz, and Leyens (1983) suggested the arousal properties of the coviewers have an important impact on the media user. The affect producing stimulus of the audience intertwines with that of the content. This is also reminiscent of Zajonc's contention that the mere presence of others leads to arousal even in the absence of any' drive inducing information. Because we are dealing with two sources of potential excitation, that generated by the social context and the arousal stimulus provided by the television content, the potential does appear for one to influence the other. This additional arousal provides at least some motivation for the social contexts connected with this viewing. The resulting excitation which is provided should supply an experience that is consonant with viewer expectations and.is seen as rewarding for its arousal properties. 180 Hypothesis 6b The desire for arousal/excitement seeking will be positively related to the use of social context in major event television sports viewing. The desire for arousal/excitement seeking and its association with major event viewing was again found to be weak. While its has been argued that the responses of others can bring greater excitement to a situation, this aspect seems limited in it appeal in the case of major events. Again, much of the previous discussion would seem to apply here. Hypothesis 7a The desire for fun/pleasure will be positively related to the use of social context in general sports television viewing. The desire for fun/pleasure was the strongest correlate of social context and sports viewing. This predictive variable also appeared as an important factor in the final stepwise regression model. It is quite reasonable, as pointed out by Stephenson (1988), that people seek out and respond to media much in the same way as they do other forms of play activity. As such, this activity is regarded as clearly distinct from work. and is commonly entered into despite offering little or no material gain. To a large degree this is synchronous with conceptualizations of certain activity as being autotelic experiences, where reward is intrinsic to the 181 activity itself. In this instance, the pleasurable activity of getting together with friends is further combined with another potentially enjoyable activity in the viewing of sports. The assumption that certain pursuits are enjoyable in their own right is useful to the consideration for virtually all leisure pursuits. As Argyle, Furnham, and Graham suggested, entry into some social situations can fulfill as basic a goal as the simple fun or pleasure derived from that leisure. This value then becomes associated with the goals that eventually lead to entry into the social situation. The activity, in this case, the social viewing of sports provides the situational vehicle for the pursuit of this kind of enjoyment. This must appear in accordance with values and expectancies surrounding these situations; as otherwise, the expenditure of time and effort would likely be diverted to other potential pursuits. This element of fun is perhaps on its face the simplest and most easily retrievable (not relying on a great deal of introspection) response in searching the motivations for social viewing. Certainly, the solicitation of direct responses would likely yield "top of the head" indications of fun as primary reason for engaging in most any leisure activity. Still, on a greater level of abstraction, it has been demonstrated here that the value placed on this aspect (joined with the expectancy of its occurrence) does contribute 182 to participation in that specific media activity. Hypothesis 7b The desire for fun/pleasure will be positively related to the use of social context in major event sports television viewing. The desire for fun.and.pleasurewwith its logical linkages to sports has been strongly established in the case of major events sports as well. Much in the same manner of general sports, the expectancy-value measure correlated highly with the dependent measure. The celebratory quality of the larger event sports, with their related pageantry seems to provide additional fun or pleasurable elements that can be even more pleasurable by sharing these with others. Hypothesis 8a The desire for social drinking will be positively related to the use of social context.in.general television sports viewing. The strength of the relationship between the social drinking motivation and the social context of general sports viewing characterizes the association of alcohol and sports spectating that is culturally defined in our society}5 Thus, the repertoire of elements and. the situational concepts contribute to perceptions of this activity as being socially normative. Where we might regard a group who routinely 183 gathers to watch television dramas with beers in one hand and pretzels in the other as an aberration, the social sports viewer is seen in a much different light. The collective watching of sporting events appears to maximize the opportunity to drink. with others. other research has systematically demonstrated the important role that social contexts play in the perceived appropriateness of consuming alcoholic beverages (Klein and Pittman, 1990). The finding here speaks to the situational aspects of alcohol use that seem firmly coupled with the ecology of television sports viewing situations (e.g. Gantz, 1981). Further evidence has suggested that a variety of environmental and personal characteristics contribute to both the selection and frequency of drinking in various settings (Harford and Grant, 1987). For example, having friends who drink is strongly related to the frequency of drinking in peer contexts. At the same time, the actual effect of alcohol on one's subjective state has been suggested to be dependent on a number of interacting factors which includes the situational context in which it occurs (Sher, 1985) . These drinking behaviors may.be viewed as very much part of the expectation for the occasion and in some sense as a type of "requirement" of these social viewing contexts. One area calling for additional research is assessment of the possible influences of co-drinking models in these sports viewing contexts. It might be suggested that the influence of drinking companions 184 may in someway affect drinking rates or even have an influence on the perceived risks associated with alcohol consumption. Here a myriad of variables may present itself for further review. Factors such as group size, specific locale, and group composition seem likely to play an important role in determining the type and bounds of this activity. other research may also wish to look at the issue of tension reduction and the possible interactive role that drinking plays in its association with sports and the social audience. Though it was found that gathering with others to view sports was not in and of itself a means for reducing tension, this does not preclude the possibility that drinking can somehow provide similar relief. Yet, for now, we can conclude that desire for social drinking is very much an element connected with social sports viewing and suggests an important role in selective participation in these viewing situations. Hypothesis 8b The desire for social drinking will be positively related to the use of social context in major event sports television viewing. The strong correlation between the social drinking motivation and major event sports is consistent with the findings reported elsewhere (Rothenbuhler, 1988) . Again, this reiterates the potential atmosphere or celebratory aspects 185 underlying these major event gatherings. Recall, that the final stepwise regression model highlighted the overall importance 0 this motivation in its association with social contexts. The consumption of alcoholic beverages may seem very much connected to activity expected and in keeping the notion of this aspect as a major event. Beyond this celebration hypothesis, an additional factor is worthy of consideration in the case of social drinking and major events social contexts. Specifically, the temporal aspects of possible social contexts and drinking. Most big events sports occur on weekends, a period traditionally thought of as leisure time in which one can unwind and engage in a variety of planned activity. Although some attempts have been made to identify the temporal patterning of alcohol use (Orcutt and Harvey, 1991), we can also make some limited assertions based on the data at hand. Perhaps, the increased strength of correlation of major events sports to social drinking, when compared to routine sports, may be in part explained by this temporal aspect. More research is clearly needed in this area. Concluding Comments and Recommendations for Future Research The purpose of this study was to explore some of the possible motivations giving rise to the selective social contexts created for the viewing of televised sports. It represents an initial step toward a line of programmatic 186 research that has thus far gone little investigated in the literature. In doing this, the research has laid some potential groundwork for future efforts. At the same time, it has provided.a glimpse of what promises to be a fairly complex consideration, the formation of social contexts in media use and all that it involves. Rather, than identifying the exact (and certainly multifaceted) specific mechanisms employed in the formation of these situations, the present research has provided a baseline understanding of a variety of possible motivations leading to them. These motivations can be said to have a role in activating this kind of media—use behavior. Some of the relationships discovered between these motivations and social viewing must be characterized at best as modest based on present findings“ Still, other“motivations do appear to be important.in considering those selective social contexts in television sports viewing. This research's primary value has been in drawing together these motivations from theoretically divergent sources with some degree of unity. The unity has been provided by the use of the eXpectancy-value framework in assessing the relative strength (or lack of it) of what seem to be likely‘motivationsw The extension of this research into areas of greater precision, made difficult in a broad exploratory effort such as this, seems a worthwhile next stage. Future researchers may wish to shift to the specifics of 187 "what" actually takes place in grouped viewing situations, both in an overt and subtle sense. First, there needs to be established what regularities do exist in this situations and can perhaps be viewed as characteristic of certain types of media use groupings themselves. Next, the focus may be allowed to shift to the very mechanisms at work within the actual social audience. For example, building upon the work of Hylton (1971) and. others, the :notions. of observable audience response or intra audience effects, the particulars of these responses and their subsequent effects call for much greater examination. Because we already have evidencezthat the information and interactive activity seem enhanced by some social viewing, the further exploration of these kinds of interactions seems very warranted. Here the potential for some sort of coding scheme similar to Bales' (1950) interaction process.analysis presents itself. Such specificity would allOW'a focus on the normative and informational influences thought to be evidenced in social settings. In addition, the element of distraction that is introduced by the social audience may be an area needing study. Anderson, Lorch, Smith, Bradford, and Ievin (1981) found that children's attention to the television screen seemed influenced by the pmesence of coviewing peers. It seems reasonable to expect this might be the case in adult viewing too, especially where interpersonal communication 188 (only possible in the company of others) can punctuate a good deal of television viewing. We might suspect that both the opportunities for away-from-screen distractions and their related attention levels will vary accordingly. At a very fundamental level, developing some useful typology of social audiences may be an equally achievable goal. For example, Blumer's (1961) suggestions of crowd.types may provide a reasonably analogous framework that can be emulated. Beyond having simple ‘value as labels, these distinctionswmay force more serious consideration of the types of social audiences made possible by divergent media and their content. Just as individuals may be typed in some manner in their media use (e.g. ritual and instrumental television viewers), it seems possible to apply useful description to collective media. use groupings. It 'would. be ihelpful to describe these groupings on a more active continuum rather than on relational or demographic breakdowns that are so often done (e.g the so-called natural audience). Here the audience group should be thought of as the appropriate unit. of analysis. In a primary sense, any audience can be seen as a social system seeking some sort of mediated communication. The range of possible characteristics to be considered and thus potentially useful may be: internal structures of audience groupings, reciprocal influences of coactors, amount and kinds of interactions, objectives, size, activity performed, and perception of perceived cohesion. Certainly, 189 the social science literature is rich with these and other themes that offer interesting possibilities. In conclusion, the overall empirical findings and theoretical implications of this research suggest that specific motivations for the social viewing of sports do exist and are identifiable. These motivations can be seen as distinct from those which are more commonly thought of as attached to the actual content itself. Thus, it has been demonstrated that some perceived gratifications offered by media use, may be had by the situations of exposure and the manner in which these media are used. The expected utility of these situations for the individual is very much connected to the value and expectations a person has for them as a social situation. On a cautionary note, one of the more striking difficulties in any study of motivations using self-reported data is that the estimation of "real" motives remains inherently problematic. That is, difficulty may arise because people might be apt to provide socially learned responses, rather than true motives in the first place. Still, research methodologies that might circumvent this potential hazard are difficult to imagine and would likely present equally difficult operational barriers of their own. Ultimately, what we are likely to be left with are those personal estimations of values and expectancies that are construed to act as motivations. The use. of expectancy-value measures of 190 "reasoned action" provide useful indications of these motivations and one having a solid basis provided by their research history; These measures do provide rigor'to research which deals in the processing of subjective probabilities and evaluations of occurrences. Hence, the convergence of the related beliefs, attitudes and intentions surrounding social contexts in.televised sports are taken.to be measurable. ‘Yet, even these measures may come up short in dealing with issues such as an expected ambiguity of some social situations. For example, social experience seems to dictate that social situations, hence specific contexts, can and do vary along a vast number of potential dimensions. It must also be recognized that the list of motivations employed here may be incomplete. Argyle, Furnham, and Graham suggested that three general goals seem to overarch all goals for participating in all social situations: establishing one's well being, social acceptance, and accomplishing a specific taSk. This expansive framework suggests that a variety of specific or interrelated goals are very likely to exist. As such, this does not preclude the possibility that untested motivational variables may be important. In addition, the possible interrelated nature of goals themselves brings into question the degree to which one motivational variable may be working through another. In other words, the possibilities for interaction effects among these motivational variables do exist (Jaccard, Turrisi, and 191 Wan, 1990). For example, there may a case of indirect casual relationship in which one variable (X) exerts an influence on another variable (Y), but only because of a common cause of a third (2). The identification of that third variable then becomes a needed focus for future research on these motivations. There may indeed be a reciprocal or bidirectional relationship when we are speaking in terms of some of these motivations. There might even exist a form of moderated causal relationship in which a third variable moderates the relationship between two variables X and Y. For example, tension reduction may work through the social drinking variable in some manner as may social immersion through fun. What has been explored here are potential antecedents giving rise to the social contexts of television sports viewing. At this preliminary stage some aspects related to the scope of the phenomenon and its preparatory stage have also been identified. Most importantly, some much needed light has been shed on the range of underlying motivations behind this phenomenon. Though the type of audience studied here centered on sports use, similar approaches may examine other types of social audiences. In the future, the expansion of media delivery systems and potential for the newly created.audiences structures suggests an even greater need to study types of audience situations encountered in media use. REFERENCES REFERENCES Albom, M. (1989, June 14). Piston sweep Lakers for first title. Detroit Free Press, sec. a. pg. 1. Alexander, A. (1990) . Television and family interaction. In J. Bryant (Ed.) , Television and the American family (pp. 211-226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Allport, F.H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Altheide, D. & Snow, R. (1983). Sports in America: the television effect. In F. Rissover & D. Birch (Eds.), Mass media and the popular arts (pp. 309-316) . New York: McGraw-Hill. Anderson, D.R., Lorch, E.P., Smith, R., Bradford, R. & Levin, S.R. (1981). Effects of peer presence on preschool children's television viewing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 17, 446-453. Anderson, J. A. (1987) . Commentary on qualitative research and mediated communication in the family." In T.R. Lindlof (Ed.) , Natural audiences: Qualitative research of media uses and effects (pp. 161-174) . Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing. Argyle, M., Furnham, A. & Graham, J: (1981). Social situations. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer51ty Press. Asch, S.F. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon modification and distortion of judgments. In E.E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley (Eds.) , Readings in social psychology (pp.174-183) . New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Atkin, C.K. (1985). Informational utility and selective exposure to entertainment media. In D. Zillman & J. Bryant (Eds.) . Selective exposure to communication. pp.63-92. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Atkin, C.K. , Hocking, J. , & Block, M. (1984) . Teenage drinking: does advertising make a difference? Journal of mm. 2. 157-167. 192 193 Babbie, E. (1983). The practice ostocial research. (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Babad, E. (1987) . Wishful thinking and objectivity among sports fans. Social Behavior, 2, 231-40. Babrow, A.S. (1987). Student motives for watching soap operas. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 3, 309-321. Bales, R. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bantz, C. (1982). Exploring uses and gratifications: a comparison of reported uses of television and reported uses of favorite program type. Communication Research, 9, 352-379. Blalock, H. (1982). Conceptualization and measurement in the social scienceg. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Blumer, H. (1961). The crowd, the public, and the mass. In W. Schram (Ed.). The process and effects of pass communication (pp. 363-79). Urbana, IL: UniverSity of Illinois Press. Blumler, J.G. (1979). The role of ‘theory in ‘uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6, 9-36. Brushkin, R.H. (1988). Monday night football out-of-home viewership. Report prepared for Capital Cities/ABC Inc. New York. Bryant, J. & Zillman, D. (1984). Using television to alleviate boredom and stress: selective exposure as a function of induced. excitation states. .Journal of Broadcasting, 28, 1-20. Bryant, J., Brown, D., Comisky, P.W., & Zillman, D. (1982). Sports and spectators: commentary and appreCiation. Journal of Communication, 32, 109-19. Burzyski, M. H. & Bayer, D. J. (1977). The effect;of positive and negative prior information on motion picture appreciation. Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 215- 218. Cantor, N. Mischel, W. & Schwartz, J. (1982). A prototype analysis (If psychological Situations. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 45—77. 194 Chaffee, S. (1986). Mass media and interpersonal channels: competitive, convergent, or complementary. In G. Gumpert & R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inteeredia interpersonal communication in a media world. (3rd ed.). (pp.62-80). New York: Oxford University Press. ' Chandler, J. (1988) . Television and national sport: The United States and Britain. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Christ, W. (1985). The construct of arousal in communication research. Human Communication Research, 11, 575-592. Cialdini, R.B. (1984). Influence: How and why people agree on things. New York: William Morrow. Cialdini, R.B., Borden, J.R., Thornre, A., . Walker, M.R.,Freeman, S., & Sloan, L.R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: three field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-75. Comstock, G. (1980). Television in America. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Creedon, P.J. & Becker, L. (1986). Television sports viewing and leisure behavior. Paper presented to the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago, IL, November 1986. Cronbadh, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. CsiksZentmihalyi, M. (1975) . Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Defleur, M. & Ball-Rokeach, S. (1989). Theories of mass communication. (6th ed.). New York: Longman. Demmert, H.G. (1973). The economics of professional team sports. Lexington, MA: LeXington Books. Diener, E. (1980). De-individuation: the absence of self- awareness and self-regulation in group members. In P.B. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group influence (pp.209- 242). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ' ' d intergroup Dion K.L. (1979). Intergroup. conflict an 'cohesiveness. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 211—224). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. 195 Donohew, L., Palmgreen, P. & Rayburn II, J.D. (1987). Social and psychological origins of media use: a lifestyle analysis. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 3, 255-278. Drabman, R.S. & Thomas, M.H. (1977). Children's imitation of aggressive and prosocial behavior when viewing alone and in pairs. Journal of Communication, 27, 199-205. Duncan, M.C. & Brummet, B. (1987). The:mediation.of spectator sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 58, 168-177. Dunand, M., Berkowitz, L., & Leyens, J.P. (1984). Audience effects when viewing aggressive movies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 69-76. Evans, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin. 5, 380-415. Eysenck, H.J. & Willett, R.A. (1964). Situation-produced ‘motivationi In. H.J. Eysenck; (Edi), iExperiments in motivation (pp. 3-11). New York: MacMillan Company. Feshbach, S. (1978) The environment of personality. American Psychologist, 33, 447-455. Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389. Fishbein, J. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief. attitude. intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Friedson, E. (1953). Communication research and the concept of mass. American Sociological ReView, 18, 313-17. Gantz, W. (1981). An exploration of viewing motives and behaviors associated with TV sports. Journal of Broadcasting 25, 263-275. Glass, G. and Hopkins, K. (1984). Statistical methodsOin education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Graham, J. .Argyle, M. & Furnham, .A. (1980). The. goal structure of situations. European Journal of SoCial Psychology, 10, 345-366. 196 Green, R., Beatty, W., & Arkin, R. (1984). Human motivation: Physiological. behavioral. and social approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Greenberg, B.S. (1974). Gratifications of television viewing and their correlates for British children. In J.G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 71-92). Beverly Hills: CA: Sage. Greendorfer, S.L. (1981). Sport and the mass media. In G. Luschen & G. Sage (Eds.), The handbook of social science of sport (pp.160-179). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing. Gruber, J.J. (1981). Comparison of relationships among team cohesion scores and measures of team success in male ‘varsity basketball teams. International Review of Sport Sociology,16, 43-56. Gumpert, G. (1987). Talking tombstoneg and other tales of the media age. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 57. Guttmann, A. (1986). Sports spectators. New York: Columbia University Press. Guttmann, A. (1988). A whole new ballgame. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Haefner, M.J. & Wartella, E.A. (1987). Effects of sibling coviewing on children's interpretations of television programs. Journal of Broadcasting, 31, 153-68. Hagan, T. (1989, May 6). The bulova watch ad cost '59-- Madonna, $5 million--how the numbers have shot up in TV over the years. TV Guide, p. 30. Hammer, J. (1989, December 11). Betting billions on TV sports. Newsweek, pp. 66-68. Harford, T.C. & Grant, B.F. (1987). Psychological factors in adolescent drinking contexts. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 48, 551-557. Hastorf, A.H. & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: a case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 129-134. Hicks, D.J. (1968). Effects of co-observer's sanctions and adult presence on imitative aggression. ‘ Child Develgpment, 38, 303-308. J". 197 Hocking, J. (1982). Sports and spectators: Intra-audience effects. Journal of Communication, 32, 100-108. Hocking, J. Margreiter, D., & Hylton, C. (1977). Intra- audience effects: a field test. Human Communication Research, 3, 243-249. Horton, D. & Wohl, R.R. (1956). Mass communication and para- social interaction: observations on intimacy at distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229. Howard, G.E. (1912). Social psychology of the spectatoru The American Journal of Sociology, 18, 33-50. Hughes, R. & Coakley, J. (1984). Mass society and the commercialization of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 4, 57-63. Hylton, C. (1971). Intra-audience effects: observable audience response. Journal of Communication, 21, 253-65. Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C.K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newburry Park, CA: Sage. Johnson, J.T. (1987). A.miss by an inch.vs. a miss by'a mile: a study of the perceived desirability of the "near win." Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 325-333. Johnson, W. (1988, August 8). "Sports and suds." Sports Illustrated, pp. 69-82. Johnson, W. & Taaffe, W. (1988, December 26). A whole new game. Sports Illustrated, pp. 34-42. Katovich, M.A. & Reese, W.A. (1987). The regular: full time identities and memberships in an urban bar. Journal of Contemporapy Ethnography, 16, 308-343. Katz, E. (1960). Communication research traditions and the image of society: convergence of two research traditions. American Journal of Sociology, 65, 436. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G. & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of'mass communication by the individual. In.J.G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The use of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19- 32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kenyon, G. (1986). The significance of social theory in the development of Sports sociology. In C.R. Rees & A.W. Miracle (Eds.), Sport and social theory (pp.3-22). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 198 Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Klapper, J. (1963). Mass communication research: an old road resurveyed. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, 515-527. Klatell, D. & Marcus, N. (1988). Sports for sale: Television, money, and the fans. New York: Oxford. Klein, H. & Pittman, D.J. (1990). Social occasions and the perceived. appropriateness of consuming' different alcoholic beverages. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51, 59-67. Kurtz, A. & Mayo, S. (1979). Statistical methods in education and psychology. New York: Springer-Verlag. Lalonde, R.N. Moghaddam, F.M., & Taylor, D.M. (1987). The process of group differentiation in a dynamic intergroup setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 273-287. LeBon, G. (1903). The crowd. (4th ed.). London: Unwin. Lee, M.J. (1985). Self-esteem and social identity in basketball fans: a closer look at basking-in-the- reflected.glory; .Journal.of S ort Behavior, 8, 210-223. Lee, B.A. & Zeiss, C.A. (1980). Behavioral commitment to the role of sports consumer: an exploratory analysis. Sociology and Social Research, 64, 405-419. Lemish, D. (1982). The rules of viewing television in public places. Journal of Broadcasting, 26, pp. 757-781. Leonard, K.E. & Taylor, S.P. (1983). Exposure to pornography, permissive and non-permissive cues, male aggression toward females. Motivation and Emotion, 7, 291-299. Leventhal, IL. & Cupchik, G. (1975). The informational and facilitative effects of audience upon expression and the evaluation of humorous stimuli. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 363-380. Levy, M.R. & Windahl, S. (1984). Audience activity and gratifications: a conceptual clarification and exploration.92mmenigatign_geeearsh, 11. 51-78. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lewis-Beck, M.S. (1980) . Applied regression: An introduction. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage Publications. 199 Leyens, J.P., Herman, Gt & Dunand, M. (1982) Towards a renewed paradigm in movie violence research. In P. Striner (Ed.), Confronting social issues: Some applications of social psychology vol. 1. New York: Academic Press. Lichenstein, A. & Rosenfeld, L. B. (1983). Uses and misuses of gratifications research: an exploration of media functions. Communication Research, 10, 97-109. Lindlof, T. & Traudt, T. (1983). Mediated communication in families. In M.S. Mandler (Ed.), Television in transition: Issues and debates in current research (pp. 261-262). New York: Praeger. Lodato, F. (1979). A view of sports: vicarious conflict resolution, that's what it's all about. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 10, 52-63. Lott, A. & Lott, B. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: a review of relationships with antecedent and consequence variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309. Lull, J. (1980). The social uses of television. Human Communication Research, 6, 197-209. Lull, J. (1982). A rules approach to the study of television and society. Human Communication Research, 6, 197-209. Lull, J. (1988). Constructing rituals of extension through family viewing of television. In Author (Ed.), World families watch television (pp.237-259 Newbury Park: Sage. Lull, J. (1990). Families social _uses of television as extensions of the household. 131 J. Bryant (Ed.), Teleyigion and the American family (pp. 59-72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McCroskey, J.C. & Young, T.J. (1979). The use and abuse of factor analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research, 5, 375-382. McDonald, D.G. (1986). Generational aspects of television coviewing. Journal of Broadcasting, 30, 75-85. McGuire, W.J. (1974) . Psychological motives and communication gratification. In J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of” mass communications: Current. ‘perspectives. on gratifications research (pp.167-196) . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 200 McLeod, J.M., Fitzpatrick, M.A., Glynn, C.J., & Fallis, S.F. (1982) Television and social relations: influences and consequences for interpersonal behavior. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties. Vol. 2, (pp. 272-286). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. McManus, J. (1990, September 3). Fall scrimmage gets tough. Advertising Age, 81, $8. McPherson, B.D., Curtis, J.E. & Loy, J.W. (1989). The social significance of sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. McQuail, D., Blumler, J.G., & Brown, J.R. (1972). The television audience: a revised perspective. In D. McQuail (Ed.) . Sociology of Mass Communication (pp.135-165) . Harmondsworth: Penguin. Magnussun, D. (1981). Wanted: a psychology of situations. In Author (Ed.). Toward a psychology of situations (pp.9- 32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Magnussun, D. (1984). The situation in an interactional paradigm of personality research. In V. Sarris & A. Parducci (Eds.), Perspectives in psychological eyperimentation: Toward the Lear 2r000 (pp. 211-234). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Mann, L. (1979). Sports crowds viewed from.the perspective of collective behavior. In J. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social and.Psychological Viewpoints (pp. 337-368). New York: Erlbaum. Matteo, S. (1986). The effect of sex and gender-schematic processing on sports participation. Sex Roles, 15, 417- 432. Mehrabian, A. (1976). Public place and private spaces: The psychology of work..play1 and living environments. New York: Basic Books. Mehrabian, A. & Ksionsky, S. (1974). A.theory of affiliation. Toronto: D.C Heath. Melton, G.W. & Galician, M.L. (1988). A comparison of gratifications sought and obtained through broadcast smorts media. Paper presented to the Popular Culture Association, annual convention, New Orleans. 201 Mendelsohn, H. (1966). Mass entertainment. New Haven, CT: College and University Press. Mendelsohn, H. & Spetnagel, H.T. (1980). Entertainment as a sociological enterprise. In P.H. Tannenbaum (Ed.), Ipp entertainment functions of televipipn (pp.13-30). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Messner, M.A. (1990). Men studying masculinity: some epistemological issues in.sport sociology. Sociology of’ Sports Journal, 7, 136-153. Michener, J. (1976). Sports in America. New York: Random House. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283. Miller lite ppeport. on .American attitudes toward. sports. (1983).Miller Brewing Company, Milwaukee. Mitchell, J.C. (1969). Social networks in urban situations. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Morely, D. (1989). Changing paradigms in audience studies. In E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner, & E.M. Warth (Eds.), Remote control: Television. audiences! and cultural power(pp. 16-43). London: Routledge. Mudrack, P. (1989). Defining group cohesiveness: a legacy of confusion? Small Group Behavior, 20, 37-49. Mullen, B. & Baumeister, R.F. (1987). Group effects on self- attention. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes and intergroup relations (pp.189-206). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Musial, R. & Bruni, F. (1990, June 15). Palacevision: next best thing to being there. Detroit Free Press. Sec. D, p.80 Naughton, K. (1991, January 15). War could harm super bowl advertisers. The Detroit News. Sec.E, Pg.1. Newcomb, T.M. (1950). Social pSYChology. New York: Dryden Press. 202 Nixon, H.L. (1981). An exploratory study of the effects of encouragement and pressure on the sports socialization of males and females. In S. L. Greendorfer & A. Yiannakis (Eds. ), Sociology of sport: Diverse perspectives (pp. 83- 94). West Point, NY: Leisure Press. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Novak, M. (1976). The joy of sports: End zones, bases, baskets, and the consecration of the American spirit. New York: Basic Books. O'Hare, T.M. (1990). Drinking in college: consumption patterns, problems, sex differences and legal drinking age. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51, 536-541. Orcutt, J.D. & Harvey, L.K. (1991). The temporal patterning of tension reduction: stress and alcohol use on weekdays and weekends. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 415-424. Osterhoudt, R.G. (1991). The philosophy_ of sport: An overview. Champaign, IL: Stipes. Pacey, P. & Wickham, E. (1985). College football telecasts: where are they going? Economic Ingpiry, Summer, 348-87. Palmgreen, P. & Rayburn, J.D. (1982). Gratifications sought and media exposure: an expectancy value model. Communication Research, 4, 561-80. Palmgreen, P. & Rayburn, J .D. (1985) . An expectancy-value approach to media gratifications. In K.E. Rosengren, L.A. Wenner, and P. Palmgreen (Eds). Media gratificatipps research (pp. 61-72). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Papazian, E. (1984, October). Medialogy: don't groan when you can grunt. Marketipg_and Media Decisions, pp.106—108. Parente, D. (1977). The interdependence of sports and television. Journal of Communication, 22, 128-142. Pedhazur, E.J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. Second edition. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Pervin, L.A. (1976). A free response description approach of person-situation interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34, 465-474. 203 Peterson, J.A. & Martens, R. (1973). Success and residence affiliation as determinants of team cohesiveness. Research Quarterly, 43, 62-76. Pin, J.P. & Turndorf, J. (1985). The pleasure of your company: A social-psychological analysis of modern sociability. New York: Praeger. Postman, N., Nystrom, C., Strate, L. & Weingartner, C. (1988) . Myphs, men and beer: An analysis of beer commercials on broadcast television, 1987. Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Potkay, C.R. and Allen, B.P. (1986). Personality: Theory, research. and applications. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Powers, R. (1984). Supertube: The rise of television sports. New York: Coward-McCann. Prisuta, R. (1977). The role of televised sports in the socialization of political values of adolescents. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University. Rader, B. (1984). In its owm imfage: How television has transformed sports. New York: The Free Press. Real, M. (1977). The super bowl: mythic spectacle. In Author (Ed.), Mass-mediated culture (pp. 90-117). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Reid, L.N. (1979). Viewing rules as mediating factors of children's responses to commercials. Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 15-26. Roberts, M. (1976). Fans!. Washington, DC: New Republic. Rogers, E.M. & Kincaid, D.L. (1981). Communication networks: toward a new paradigm for research. NY: Academic Press. Rosengren, K., Wenner, L. & Palmgreen, P. (1985). Media gratifications: Current perspectives. Beverly Hills: Sage. Rothenbuhler, E. (1988). The living room celebration of the Olympic Games. Journal of Communication, 38, 61-81. Rotter, J.B. & Hochreich, D.J. (1975). Personality. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. 204 Rubin, A.M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: the interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37-51. Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing." Journal of Communication, 34, 67-77. Rubin, A.M. & Perse, E.M. (1988). Audience activity and soap opera involvement: a uses and effects investigation. Human Communication Research, 14, 246-268. Runkel, P.J. & McGrath, J.E. (1972). Studying human behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Sanders, G.S. (1981). Driven by distraction: an integrative review of social facilitation theory and research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 227-251. Sage, G. (1979). Sport and social sciences. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 445, 1- 14. Sage, G. (1990). Power and ideology in American sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Sapolsky, B.S. & Zillman (1978). Enjoyment of a televised sports contest 'under’ different social conditions lof viewing. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 29-30. Schachter, S. (1959). The ppsyehology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford Press. Scheir, M. Fenigstein, A. & Buss, A. (1974). Self awareness and physical aggression" Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 264-273. Schlosberg, J. (1987, February). Who watches television sports? American Demographics, pp. 45-49. Schmitt, B.H., Gilovich, T., Goore, N. & Joseph, L. (1986). Mere presence and social facilitation: One more time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology; 22, 242-248. Shamir, B. & Hillel, R. (1984). Sports participation versus sports spectatorship: two modes of leisure behavior. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 9-21. Shanks, B. (1976). The cool fire: HOW‘ to make it in television. New York: Norton. Shaw, M.R. (1976). Groups dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. 205 Sher, K.J. (1985). Subjective effects of alcohol: the influence of setting and individual differences in alcohol expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46, 137-46. Sherif, M; (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper and Brothers. Sloan, LHR. (1979). The function and impact of sports for fans: A revieW'of theory and.contemporary research. In.J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games and play: Social and psychological vieypoints (pp. 219-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Slusher, H.S. (1967). Man, sport and existence: A critical analysis. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger. Smith, M.B. (1972) Is experimental social psychology advancing? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 86-96. Spreitzer, E. & Snyder, E.S. (1989). Sports involvement and quality of life dimensions. Journal of Sport Behavior, 12, 3-11. Spielberger, C.D. (1989). Stress and anxiety in sports. In D. Hackfort & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Anxiety and sports pp. 3-18. New York: Hemisphere. Sports Illustrated Sports Poll '86. Time Inc., New York. Steinbreder, H.J. & Nielsen, J. (1986, April 28). Hard times for television sports. Fortune, p. 9. Stephenson, W. (1967). The play theopy;of:mass communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stephenson, W. (1988). The_play theomygof mass communication. (2nd. ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Stokols, D. & Shumaker, S.A. (1981). People in places: a transactional View of settings. In J.H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition.ysecial behavior and the enviromment (pp. 441- 87). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sykes, R.E. (1983). Initial reaction between strangers and acquaintances: a multivariate analysis of factors affecting choice of communication partners. Human Communication Research, 10, 27-53. 206 Tannenbaum, P.H. (1985). "Play it again sam": repeated exposure to television programs. In D. Zillman & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective eyposure to communication (pp. 225-241). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlaum. Thomas, C.E. (1983). Sport in a philosophic context. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger. Thompson, C., Royce S., & Bankart, P. (1987). Individual and group ratings of appropriateness of behavior. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 255-260. Tolman, E.C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and man. New York: Century Company. Triplett, N. (1897) The dynamogenic factors in.pacemaking and competition. American.Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-553. Turner, R.H. & Killian, L.M. (1972). Collective behavior. (2nd. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Vroom, V. (1967). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley and Sons. Walker, J. (1990). Time out: Viewing gratifications and reactions to the 1987 NFL player's strike. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 335-350. Wallack, L., Cassady, D., & Grube, J. (1990). TV beer commercials and children: Exposure, attention, beliefs, and expectations about drinking as an adult. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Walladk, L., Grube, J.W., Madden, P.A., & Reed, W. (1990). Portrayals of alcohol on prime time. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51, 428-37. Wallack, L., Breed, W. & Cruz, J. (1987). Alcohol on prime time television. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 48, 33- 38. Webster, J.G- & Wakslag, J. J. (1982). The impact of group viewing on patterns of television program choice. Journal of Broadcasting, 26, 445-455. Weisberg, H.F. & Bowen, B.D. (1977). An introduction to survey research and data analysis. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. 207 Wenner, L.A. & Gantz, W. (1988A). Watching sports on television: motivations and effects. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, annual convention, New Orleans. Wenner, L.A. & Gantz, W. (1988B). Men. women. marriage and sports: audience eyperience and effects. Paper presented to the International Association for Mass Communication Research, annual convention, Barcelona, Spain. Wenner, L.A. & Gantz, W. (1989). The audience experience with sports on television. In L.A. Wenner (Ed.), Media, sports, and society (pp. 241—269). Newbury Park: Sage. White, M. (1977). "Counternormative behavior as influenced.by de-individuation conditions and reference group salience." Journal of Social Ps cholo , 13, 75-90. Wicker, A.W. (1979) . An introduction to ecological psychology. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Wilkerson, M. & Dodder, R. (1985). Toward a model of collective conscience and sport in modern societies. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 16, 224-231. Wright, C. (1986). Mass communication: A sociological Perspective. New York: Random House. Yorke, D.A. & Kitchen, P.J. (1985). Channel flickers and video Speeders. Journal of AdvertisincLResearch, 25, 21- 27. Yergin, M.C. (1986, July). Who goes to the game? American Demographics, pp. 42-43. Zajonc, R. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269- 275. Zillman, D. (1982). Television viewing and arousal. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the Eighties (Vol. 21L_ technical reviews. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Zillman, D. & Bryant, J. (1985). Selective-exposure phenomena. In D. Zillman & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication (pp.1-10). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 208 Zillman, D. & Bryant, J. (1986). Exploring the entertainment experience. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Perspectives on_media effects (pp. 303-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Zillman, D., Bryant, J., & Sapolsky, B. (1979). of watching sports contests. In J. Goldstein (Ed.) , Sports, game . and splay: Social and psychological vieyrpoints (pp.297-335) . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. The.enjoyment Zimbardo, P. (1969). The human choice: Individuation reason and order versus de-individuation impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Zoglin, R. (1990, March 26). The great TV takeover. Time, pp. 66-68. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal ievel of arousal. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. 209 NOTES 1. Some of the 21,000 people gathered at the Palace in Auburn Hills were reported to have even paid scalper prices for their tickets to View the "big, fuzzy screen." Similar social viewing also occurred during the previous year's championships against the Los Angeles Lakers (Albom, 1989). As Allen Guttmann noted is the case in actual sports spectatorship, some attenders may have been motivated by considerations quite separate from sport, e.g. wanting to see or be seen in the venue, being "dragged by spouses to an afternoon of tedium," and "hooligans" embracing the chance to act up. Sports Spectators. Allen Guttmann. Columbia University Press, New York, 1986. p.176. But even for these people, the "social opportunity" afforded them was clearly a direct result of the sports telecast. 2. It is not assumed that all grouped.viewing is unique to sports. We might expect other programs, soap operas for example, to attract some grouped viewers. James A. Anderson does refer to an unpublished research project in which a researcher focused on a group of college students gathering each weekday afternoon.t0‘watch "Leave It To Beaver." (See Anderson, p. 165). Babrow (1987) found that social interaction ranked third among expected outcomes of exposure to soap operas in a student population surveyed. Similarly, Rubin and Perse (1988) identified.a factor in soap opera viewing motives that included such social utility functions as: so I can watch with other members of the family or friends who are watching and because its is something to do when friends come over. Still, we very may expect sports to be among the most socially accessed program type in terms of audience numbers. And perhaps most importantly it seems likely that.motivations for and behaviors in the social context of viewing will strike a different pattern. 3. The cultural linkages between sports are made obvious not only by the sponsorship of television sports by beer companies but perhaps in more subtle ways as well. For example, one need only to watch post game locker room celebrations by the professional athletes showering themselves in champagne to get some feeling for this. 210 APPENDIX Survey Instrument Dear Sir/Ms: This survey is being conducted as part of a project at Michigan State University. The subject is television sports. No one will try to sell you anything and.this information will not be used for commercial purposes. The survey should take you around 10 minutes to completes ‘Yourjparticipation.in this project is entirely voluntary. Let me assure you that your efforts are very much appreciated and will provide important information. The information in the survey is completely confidential and you will remain anonymous. If you should have any questions regarding this survey you may call me at home, 487-6544. Thank you for your participation! Sincerely, Larry Collette Department of Telecommunication Mass Media Ph.D. Program 211 PART A--I This first series of questions deals with your TV viewing habits and televised sports. PLEASE FILL IN THE BLANK: 1. How many hours of television do you watch on a typical weekday (Monday-Friday)? How many hours of television do you watch on a typical weekend day (Saturday or Sunday)? How many hours of TV sports do you watch on a typical weekday (Monday-Friday)? How many hours of TV sports do you watch on a typical weekend day (Saturday or Sunday)? PLEASE RESPOND BY CIRCLING THE ANSWER THAT BEST FITS YOU: 5. How often do you get together with friends to watch sports on television? VERY OFTEN OFTEN SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER VO 0 S R N How often do you get together with friends to watch television programs other than sports? VO 0 S R N How often do you get together with friends to watch special event sports such as the Super Bowl, the World Series, a College Bowl Game, the Olympics, a Championship Basketball game? VO 0 S R N Do you have cable television in your home? YES NO 212 PART A-II Some people believe that certain sports are better than others to watch with a group. How would you rate the following sports for TV viewing with friends? PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE. EXCELLENT GOOD NEUTRAL POOR VERY POOR 1. Golf E G N P VP 2. Pro Football E G N P VP 3. College Football E G N P VP 4. Pro Basketball E G N P VP 5. College Basketball E G N P VP 6. Baseball E G N P VP 7. Hockey E G N P VP 8. Tennis E G N P VP 9. Motor Sports E G N P VP 10. Pro Wrestling E G N P VP ll. Boxing E G N P VP 12 .Horse Racing E G N P VP 13. Gymnastics E G N P VP 14. Ice Skating E G N P VP 15. Track 8 Field E G N P VP PLEASE GO ON TO PART B PART B 213 The following statements deal with the way people might prepare to watch television sports. Which of the following best describes the ways you might prepare for watching a sporting event on TV with friends? PLEASE 1. I CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE: read about the players and the upcoming game. ALWAYS USUALLY SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER A U S R N 2. I get together with people to watch the game whom I otherwise don't get to see very much. A U S R N 3. I talk about the upcoming game with people. A U S R N 4. I check the odds to see who is favored to win. A U S R N 5. I make plans to go to a bar or tavern to watch the game. A U S R N 6 I stock up on beer or liquor at home. A U S R N 7. I invite people over to watch the game or event with me. A U S R N 8. I get an invitation to a friend's place to watch the game. A U S R N 214 PLEASE GO ON TO PART C PART C The following questions concern how you feel while you watch sporting events on television. PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE: 1. How involved with the game or event do you typically get when you watch sports on TV? VERY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL A LITTLE NOT VERY INVOLVED INVOLVED INVOLVED INVOLVED How distracted from watching a game do you feel when you are watching it with other people around you? VERY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL A LITTLE NOT VERY DISTRACTED IDISTRACTED DISTRACTED DISTRACTED How nervous or uneasy'do you get when.you watch.a typical sports event on TV? VERY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL A LITTLE RELATIVELY UNEASY UNEASY UNEASY CALM How nervous or uneasy’do you feel when.you watch.a sports event in which your favorite team participates? VERY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL A LITTLE RELATIVELY UNEASY UNEASY UNEASY CALM How nervous or uneasy do you feel when.you watch.a sports event in which your favorite team is expected to lose? VERY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL A LITTLE RELATIVELY UNEASY UNEASY UNEASY CALM How likely is it that you would still watch a game with your friends when you expect your favorite team to lose? VERY LIKELY NEUTRAL UNLIKELY VERY LIKELY UNLIKELY PLEASE GO ON TO PART D 215 PART D The next series of statements deal with the ways people may choose to spend their leisure time whether or not it involves sports. - PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: 1. Spending an evening reading an interesting book is a better way to spend time than going to a movie with friends. STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE SA A N D SD When introduced to someone new, it is important to make an effort to be liked. SA A N D SD I would join a club because its a good way to meet other people. SA A N D SD Any experience is more significant when it is shared with a friend. SA A N D SD Given a choice, I prefer individual activities like doing crosswords puzzles to grouped ones such as playing cards. SA A N D SD How likely is it that watching television sports with other people will give you a chance to SOClallze, get to know people better, or meet new friends? VERY LIKELY NEUTRAL UNLIKELY UNLIKELY LIKELY PLEASE GO ON TO PART E 216 PART E The next series of statements deal with how you might feel about being a sports fan. 1. When a. sports team wins it seems like they have done something special for people who support them. STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE SA A N D SD When my favorite team wins I feel especially proud of being connected with that team. SA A N D SD If my team loses a big game I feel less like letting other people know I am a fan of that team. SA A N D SD It is more fun to wear a sweatshirt or teeshirt of a winning team rather than a losing team. SA A N D SD Someone might be thought of as a "loser" if they are a fan of a team that seldom wins. SA A N D SD People‘who usually support winning teams are showing they have good judgment. SA A N D SD How likely is it that watching sports with other people will allow you to show how closely you assoc1ate w1th your favorite team? VERY LIKELY NEUTRAL UNLIKELY VERY LIKELY UNLIKELY PLEASE GO ON TO PART F 217 PART F The next series of statements deal with reactions to events that can be both pleasurable and unnerving. In general, when I find myself in a tense situation I would rather have other people there with me. STRONGIN' AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE SA A N D SD Having someone to talk with can make any nervous situation--1ike waiting to see a dentist or taking an exam--seem easier to face. SA A N D SD In general, it is better to enter a new or unfamiliar situation alone rather than in the company of other people. SA A N D SD Having my friends nearby can help me to feel calmer during a particularly exciting sports event on TV. SA A N D SD When I expect a real "nail biter" of a contest I would rather watch.a game on TV by myself than With.my friends. SA A N D SD How likely is it that watching sports with your friends will help you feel less anxious about a game or its outcome? VERY LIKELY NEUTRAL UNLIKELY VERY LIKELY UNLIKELY PLEASE GO ON TO PART G 218 PART G The following statements deal with information related to sports. 1. I consider myself very knowledgeable when it comes to sports. STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE SA A N D SD Generally, I find.that.I can learn more about sports from other people than they do from me. SA A N D SD My insights on sports are usually welcomed and valuable to other people. SA A N D SD Offering information to other people about the game or athletes adds to my own enjoyment in watching Sports on TV. SA A N D SD I would rather be in a room full of sports "experts" watching a game than with people who don't seem to know much about sports. SA A N D SD The information I get from other people while watching sports is an important part of my VleW1ng experience. SA A N D SD I enjoy comparing my opinions and knowledge of sports with those of other people even when I may be wrong. SA A N D SD How likely is it that watching TV sports with friends can help you get the information you might want about sports or a particular game? VERY LIKELY NEUTRAL UNLIKELY VERY LIKELY UNLIKELY 219 How likely is it that watching TV sports with friends 9. will give you a chance to show your knowledge of sports? ‘VERY LIKELY NEUTRAL UNLIKELY VERY LIKELY UNLIKELY PART H The following section deals with feelings people might have about being in a group. 1. I like being in social situations where I don't have to pay particular attention to the way I look or behave. STRONGLY 'AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE SA A N D SD In many social situations, it seems easier to have:a good time when a person is able to feel anonymous. SA A N D SD A person can do things when they "blend" in a crowd that might be embarrassing when they are more ea511y Singled out. SA A N D SD It is important to go out and "act up" once in awhile without having to worry about what other people may think. SA A N D SD When it comes to watching sporting events on television, the bigger the crowd...the better. SA A N D SD ports on TV with those who I would much rather watch s teams or people that are share my feel ings for the playing. SA A N D SD In general, I am very interested in sports. SA A N D SD 220 9. How likely is it that you can feel less inhibited or more spontaneous when watching sports on TV with your friends? VERY LIKELY NEUTRAL UNLIKELY VERY LIKELY UNLIKELY PART I The following section deals with other ways people might feel when they watch TV sports or do other activities. 1. I usually don't enjoy watching a movie or a play where I can predict the ending in advance. STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE SA A N D SD .Although its sometimes ‘necessaryy I ‘usually' dislike routine kinds of work. SA A N D SD I prefer a quiet party with good conversation to more a "wild" and uninhibited party. SA A N . D SD There are some movies that I enjoy seeing for a second, third, or fourth time. SA A N D SD The excitement generated by other people at a concert or event can feel contagious and add to my good time. SA A N D SD Getting energized or psyched up during a sports event is an important.part of the experience of watching it on'FV. SA A N D SD For me, even a dull or uninteresting sport or game can seem more thrilling when my friends are watching it Wlth me. SA A N D SD 10. 11. 12. 13. 221 When you watch television sports with your friends, how likely is the experience to be more exciting than if you watched the same event by yourself? VERY LIKELY NEUTRAL UNLIKELY VERY LIKELY UNLIKELY The main reason I would go to parties or attend social occasions is simply to have fun. STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE SA A N D SD It is important to have as much fun as you can even if people won't regard you as a serious person. SA A N D SD I consider watching sports with my friends to be about equal to a enjoyable evening out for me. SA A N D SD People usually consider me to be a "fun loving" type of person. SA A N D SD How likely is it that watching sports with friends will provide you the amount and kind of enjoyment you might want? VERY LIKELY NEUTRAL UNLIKELY VERY LIKELY UNLIKELY PLEASE GO TO PART J 222 PART J The following section contains statements.dealing“with.alcohol consumption. 1. I enjoy getting together with friends to have a few beers or drinks. - STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE SA A N D SD I probably get offered beer or drinks more often than I should when doing something with my friends. SA A N D SD Having a few "social" drinks with friends is a good reason to get together to watch sports on TV. SA A N D SD It is okay for people to drink more than they would otherwise while watching sports with other people. SA A N D SD I would be disappointed if I were invited over to someone's home to watch "The Super Bowl" and no beer or mixed drinks were served. SA A N D SD How likely is it that beer or other alcoholic beverages will be consumed when you watch TV sports with your friends? VERY LIKELY NEUTRAL UNLIKELY VERY LIKELY UNLIKELY PLEASE GO TO THE FINAL SECTION 223 The following' information is gathered only for‘ research purposes and helps to interpret the overall results of our survey. PLEASE MARK THE RESPONSES THAT APPLY To YOU: 1. Male Female 2. My Age is 3. The highest level of education I have completed is: Less than high school High School Some College College Graduate Post.Graduate 4. My yearly income is: Under $15,000 per year $15,001 to $25,000 per year $25,001 to $35,000 per year $35,001 to $45,000 per year $45,001 to $55,000 per year $55,001 and above 5. Which of the following best describes your occupation? Manager/Professional/Teacher Technical/Administrative/Sales/Clerical Service Production/Craft/Repair Homemaker Operator/Fabricator/Laborer Student Not presently employed Retired Other. Please fill in: 6. Marital status: Single Married Widowed Divorced Separated 7. What is your ethnic background? White African American Hispanic Asian Native American other Thank you very much for taking time to complete this questionnaire. {£31.41 1!