“That’s it. i’m done with this team!”: public reactions to NFL teams’ racial activism as a function of social identity management

IF 1.4 Q2 COMMUNICATION
W. Seaton, Gregory A. Cranmer, Carla Y. White, Joseph Bober, Kaley Humphrey, Andrew Obeng
{"title":"“That’s it. i’m done with this team!”: public reactions to NFL teams’ racial activism as a function of social identity management","authors":"W. Seaton, Gregory A. Cranmer, Carla Y. White, Joseph Bober, Kaley Humphrey, Andrew Obeng","doi":"10.1080/01463373.2022.2099295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study utilizes social identity theory to explore fan responses to the NFL teams’ racial advocacy on Twitter at the start of the 2020 football season. A content analysis of 2,868 direct replies and their corresponding user profiles was conducted. Findings supported SIT’s propositions about in-group bias, with commenters being more supportive and less critical of the activist messaging from the official accounts of teams for whom they express fandom. In contrast to expectations, out-group fans were also more supportive, while non-expressive users were the most active and critical of activist messaging. A post-hoc analysis, subsequently, revealed support for the hierarchy of social identity postulate, with in-group fans with conservative political orientation being most likely to renounce their fandom for NFL teams. Collectively, this study speaks to the resistance toward racial advocacy in sport but also frames fan expression and identity as a means of understanding patterns within these conversations.","PeriodicalId":51521,"journal":{"name":"COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY","volume":"70 1","pages":"585 - 607"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2022.2099295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study utilizes social identity theory to explore fan responses to the NFL teams’ racial advocacy on Twitter at the start of the 2020 football season. A content analysis of 2,868 direct replies and their corresponding user profiles was conducted. Findings supported SIT’s propositions about in-group bias, with commenters being more supportive and less critical of the activist messaging from the official accounts of teams for whom they express fandom. In contrast to expectations, out-group fans were also more supportive, while non-expressive users were the most active and critical of activist messaging. A post-hoc analysis, subsequently, revealed support for the hierarchy of social identity postulate, with in-group fans with conservative political orientation being most likely to renounce their fandom for NFL teams. Collectively, this study speaks to the resistance toward racial advocacy in sport but also frames fan expression and identity as a means of understanding patterns within these conversations.
“就是这样。我受够了这支球队!”:公众对NFL球队作为社会身份管理功能的种族激进主义的反应
摘要本研究利用社会认同理论,探讨了球迷在2020年足球赛季开始时对NFL球队在推特上种族宣传的反应。对2868条直接回复及其相应的用户档案进行了内容分析。调查结果支持SIT关于群体内偏见的主张,评论者对他们表达粉丝的团队官方账户中的活动家信息更为支持,而不是批评。与预期相反,群外粉丝也更支持,而非表达型用户则是最积极、最批评激进信息的用户。随后,一项事后分析揭示了对社会身份等级假设的支持,政治取向保守的团体内球迷最有可能放弃他们对NFL球队的球迷身份。总的来说,这项研究谈到了体育运动中对种族倡导的抵制,但也将球迷的表达和身份界定为理解这些对话中模式的一种手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY
COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信