Team sports and sports team fandom illustrate design features of evolved coalitional psychology, including components related to ingroup loyalty and intergroup competition. In psychological research, loyalty is behaviorally defined as staying within a group, even when one may benefit from leaving. Disloyalty is behaviorally defined as switching sides in a competition to obtain better outcomes. Three studies (Ns = 251, 938, 267) examined another form of disloyalty, simultaneously displaying allegiance to both the home team and its rival, as well as beliefs that true group loyalty is unilateral within a set of competitors. The study was framed in the context of a prominent university sports rivalry. Results suggest convergence between cognitive and affective pathways facilitating group loyalty, with both uniquely contributing mechanisms and relationships among these mechanisms. Identification with the home university, concern with moral issues related to group interests, concern with the rights, preferences, and treatment of individuals as autonomous social agents, and disgust sensitivity were associated with anger and disgust reactions to displays of mixed loyalty and beliefs that loyalty is unilateral among competitors. Concerns in binding and individualizing moral domains and team identity fusion were more consistently related to reactions and unilateral loyalty beliefs than were disgust domains. These constructs may facilitate group interests as part of our evolved coalitional psychology. Men consistently scored higher on beliefs in loyalty as unilateral and tended to score higher on constructs related to group interests. Women consistently scored higher on concern for the rights, preferences, and treatment of individuals.
Ingroup loyalty and inter-group competition are important aspects of behavior in humans and other social species. This study investigates the influence of ingroup/outgroup affiliation on compliance with small requests from strangers as well as conceptions of group loyalty as unilateral within a set of competitors. The study context is a prominent rivalry between two American football teams at flagship public universities in neighbouring states, with settings in the home territory of one university and a metropolitan area where loyalties are divided between the two teams. The observational component of the study (N = 513) demonstrated that pedestrians in the home city of one team were more likely to participate in a survey when the soliciting confederate was wearing apparel from the home university than when wearing apparel from the rival university. In the area where team loyalties were evenly divided, there was no difference in survey participation by university apparel condition and participation rates were higher overall. The survey component (N = 158) revealed that participants’ loyalties to these rival teams were inversely related, and few participants expressed a high degree of loyalty to both teams. On the other hand, a larger proportion of participants than expected believed that someone could support both teams in a rivalry. The most popular reason given for dual affiliation was having family members who attended each school, consistent with previous results indicating that kinship may be more important than group loyalty. Other responses indicated both appropriate and inappropriate reasons for mixed loyalty. These results were inconsistent with the participants’ own expressions of team loyalty, which supported the notion of team loyalty as unilateral within a set of rivals.
Intergroup competition was a powerful selection force shaping human coalitional psychology. Individuals presenting multiple loyalties among competing groups represent a threat for defection. Thus, there is likely to be a social norm that loyalty should be unilateral among competing groups. Four studies provided evidence supporting this notion, however some of the results have been challenged and suggested to be products of methodological confounds. Also, some participants reported being confused by some of the experimental content, thus providing inaccurate responses. The current study is a modified replication of the survey project (Study 3), controlling for the suggested methodological confounds and revising instructions to clarify participant tasks. The original effects were reproduced, increasing the confidence in the interpretation of results. In addition, data were gathered in an additional set of items that were original to this study. These items directly tested the relative mutual exclusivity of loyalties based on the relationships among teams. Results from these items provide further evidence for a social norm of unilateral group loyalty.
Four studies tested the existence of a social norm that one cannot simultaneously support two competing groups or teams. Our evolved coalitional psychology should be sensitive to individuals expressing mixed loyalties between rivals, as they represent substantial threats for defection. Study 1 manipulated confederate attire and demonstrated that public displays of mixed loyalty provoked more attention and reactions than displays of consistent loyalty (n = 1327). Informants (n = 31) in the same population interviewed for study 2 agreed with the norm and cited the norm violation as the cause of reactions. Study 3 provided a more systematic and comprehensive assessment of affective and cognitive reactions to mixed and matching loyalty displays with an on-line survey of participants (n = 325) in the respective states of the rival universities. Study 4 examined naturalistic reactions (n = 318) to social media advertisements suggesting mixed loyalty to the two rival teams featured in the first three studies. These diverse methodologies provided convergent confirmatory evidence for the proposed social norm.
This manuscript discusses coalitional behavior from an ethological perspective and tests a hypothesis regarding displays of group allegiance using observational methods. Tinbergen’s Four Questions (T4Q; Tinbergen, 1963) is a powerful explanatory framework for building a comprehensive understanding of behavior in humans and other species. Following T4Q, coalitional behavior is examined regarding evolutionary adaptiveness, phylogenetic history, proximate causation, and developmental ontogeny. Team sports are an intuitive domain for the illustration of patterns and principles in coalitional behavior. Athletic team loyalty is often communicated non-verbally though the display of apparel and paraphilia featuring university or team names and logos. Previous research documented increases in apparel displays after winning games. Toledo, Ohio is on the Michigan-Ohio border and was originally considered within Michigan Territory. The area contains a mixture of Ohio State University (OSU) and University of Michigan (UM) football fans and merchandise featuring each school is widely available. An observational study in the Fall 2013 collegiate football season found a ratio of approximately 3:2 for individuals displaying OSU and UM branded items. The hiring of Jim Harbaugh as Michigan’s new head coach in 2015 was expected to generate an increase in displays of UM branded items. Observations in the 2015 and 2016 seasons found equivalent rates of display for UM and OSU branded items, and a significant increase in displays of UM branded items from 2013.
Sports are an excellent venue for demonstrating evolutionary principles to audiences not familiar with academic research. Team sports and sports fandom feature dynamics of in-group loyalty and intergroup competition, influenced by our evolved coalitional psychology. We predicted that reactions to expressions signaling mutual team/group allegiance would vary as a function of the territorial context. Reactions should become more prevalent, positive, and enthusiastic as one moves from the home territory to a contested area, and from a contested area to a rival’s territory during active rival engagement. We also predicted that men would be more responsive than women based on sex differences in evolved coalitional psychology. The research team visited public places immediately prior to 2016–2017 collegiate football and basketball games. A male research confederate wore a sweatshirt displaying the logo of one of the competing university teams and vocalized the team’s most popular slogan when he saw a fan displaying similar logos. Observers followed 5 m behind, recording reactions (N = 597) and response positivity/enthusiasm. Reaction tone was most positive in the rival territory, least positive in the home territory, and intermediate in the periphery and contested territory. Rates of “no reaction” were lowest in the rival territory but were highest in the periphery. Men had higher reaction rates and more positive and enthusiastic reaction tones than women. Reactions generally followed predictions based on expected signal value. This project provides evidence that coalitional psychology influences dynamics related to university sports team rivalries and that context matters for expressions of alliance.
Sports team rivalries involve expressions of evolved psychology related to in-group loyalty and inter-group competition. ESPN ranked the University of Michigan–Ohio State University football rivalry as the greatest North American sports rivalry. Toledo, Ohio is geographically closer to Ann Arbor, MI (UM), than to Columbus, OH (OSU) and conventional wisdom holds that team loyalty is divided among local residents. Previous observational research of thousands of individuals in Toledo indicated that no one simultaneously wore apparel from the two competing teams. Inspired by these observations, a second study examined reactions to displays of mixed loyalty vs. consistent loyalty. When a research confederate wore clothing featuring both UM and OSU, he elicited more attention and reactions than when wearing equivalent outfits featuring just one of the universities. The current study examines factors explaining individual differences in attention to displays of allegiance to rival groups, whether consistent or mixed. We made several predictions for explaining variation in reaction rates based on evolved coalitional psychology. We predicted that men, young adults in the typical undergraduate age range (18-25), and those wearing university merchandise themselves will have higher reaction rates to the confederate than women, individuals in other age groups, and individuals not wearing university merchandise respectively. These hypotheses were generally supported by our observations (n = 1292). Controlling for experimental condition, reaction rates were higher overall for men, young adults, and those wearing university merchandise themselves. The highest reaction rates were by young adult men wearing university merchandise, to the mixed condition.
In-group loyalty and inter-group competition are important aspects of behavior in humans and other social species. Patterns of in-group loyalty and inter-group competition are expressed in the modern context of American college football, including territorial aspects. ESPN ranked the Michigan–Ohio State NCAA Division 1 football rivalry as the greatest North American sports rivalry. “The Game,” as many fans know it, is held at the end of the regular Big Ten Conference season. Toledo is a mid-sized city in Ohio, with its northern limits at the Ohio-Michigan border. Although in Ohio, Toledo is geographically closer to Ann Arbor, MI (home of the University of Michigan), than to Columbus, OH (home of the Ohio State University). Conventional wisdom holds that team loyalties are divided among local residents, sometimes even within the same household. Merchandise featuring each school is widely available in the Toledo area and stores typically display Ohio State and Michigan items adjacently. We used an ethological approach to assess the level of allegiance for each school among Toledo residents during the 2013 American college football season. Despite the closer geographic proximity to the University of Michigan, there were more displays of allegiance to the in-state university, Ohio State University.