1. Social Dominance, Implied Favoritism and Commitment to Team 1
The Effect of Social Dominance and Implied Favoritism
As it relates to Commitment to a Sports Team
Amber Henderson
University of North Florida

2. Social Dominance, Implied Favoritism and Commitment to Team 2
Abstract
In this study, I was exploring the relationships between perceived social dominance
(PSD), implied favoritism (IF) and how they relate to commitment to a sports team (CST). It was
predicted that participants in the PSD condition would report higher levels of CST and that
participants in the IF condition would report higher levels of CST. I used a 2 (PSD: dominant or
objective) × 2 (IF: favoritism or indifference) between-participants design to explore these ideas.
Students in the University of North Florida library were solicited and administered a survey (37
Males, 39 Females). A 2 x 2 Between Subjects Anova was used to analyze data. The means did
not differ for the participants in the SD condition or the implied favoritism condition. More
research could go into CST using questions that reliably indicate accurate levels. It would also be
interesting to see research related to this test the implied favoritism independent variable using
an online implied visual cue rather than an experimenter.
Keywords: Attitudes, dominance, favoritism, sports

3. Social Dominance, Implied Favoritism and Commitment to Team 3
Introduction
Imagine you are viewing your favorite sports competition and your team scores a point and
wins the game. If you have ever seen a sports team that was previously not doing well rise to
fame, you may be interested in finding out whether or not social dominance, or a sports team
doing well, impacts sports fans’ attitudes regarding that team. Sports fans enjoy watching games,
in part because when their team wins it makes them feel better to have been associated with that
team (Aiken, 2009). I wanted to compare participants who had been exposed to videos
portraying dominance to those who had not. Research shows that people strive to make group
connections because it improves their self-knowledge and helps them place themselves within
the social hierarchy of their environment (Fisher, 1998). Could social dominance play a role in
the social hierarchy in the form of sports teams? I also wanted to explore the role of visual cues
such as logos could increase a person’s identification as committed to a sports team even if they
may not have been previously.
There is evidence to suggest that people are more likely to affiliate themselves with a group
that they experience as theirs. In a study done for sports marketing research, participants were
more likely to have positive attitudes about a marketing message that they could identify with
(Lee, 2012). If a person in the setting of a University campus is wearing a sticker representing a
local sports team, a participant may be more likely to identify as committed to that sports team
because it is related to a school they are affiliated with in that specific context. Research done on
fan involvement and psychological commitment showed that “psychological commitment plays
an important role in the development of behavioral loyalty. It is, therefore, necessary to increase
team awareness and the interaction between fans and the team, using all the available social
media. (Tachis, 2015)” Social media is a more modern form of advertisement, however team

4. Social Dominance, Implied Favoritism and Commitment to Team 4
logos on shirts and jerseys are also a way to increase interaction between fans a team and to
increase participant’s identification of commitment.
Researchers wanted to see if visual cues would increase team commitment because,
theoretically the cue would passively suggest the team to a participant who may or may not be
aware of its presence (Close, 2015). Past research suggests that logo visibility has an impact on
reception. Their research also showed a potentially more effective impact of brand logos when
sports teams are viewed on the internet (Close, 2015). Because the research done by Close was
on sponsorship, the experimenters were trying to draw a relationship between brand
commitments, logo visibility when using sports teams to market. The findings can be applied to
the relationship between commitment to a sports team and implied favoritism because
researchers are trying to ascertain fan commitment to a sports team using a sports team logo,
which may produce similar results (Close, 2015).
Research about fans “Basking in reflected glory (BIRG)” indicates that people are able to
obtain similar levels of satisfaction when sports teams that they identify with do well, as they
would if they had done it themselves. This is referred to by Aiken as “vicarious achievement”
(Aiken, 2009).When a population perceives a team to be “doing well”, people tend to identify
more with that team and are more likely to be loyal to it (Aiken, 2009). This research points in
the direction of social dominance and its effect on attitude because when teams are scoring
points, it could make people feel like it is their own accomplishment and also make them more
likely to want to “accomplish” more by being associated with that team. Also, people tend to
positively associate themselves with teams that are part of the location they consider to be home.
I predicted perceived dominance and implied favoritism would both have positive main
effects with fan commitment to a team. Participants in the perceived dominance condition and

5. Social Dominance, Implied Favoritism and Commitment to Team 5
the implied favoritism condition were expected to rate higher levels of commitment to a team
because the visual cue would cause them to implicitly favor a team and the social dominance
video would cause participants to feel “vicarious achievement” and therefore feel positively
about team commitment. I predicted that there would also be an interaction between perceived
dominance and implied favoritism for the dependent variable of commitment to a team. Among
the dominant group, it was predicted that there would also be an increased commitment to a
team, and an equally high commitment to a team in the implied favoritism group.
In order to investigate the role of social dominance and implied social favoritism I chose to
test participant’s commitment to a sports team. Although I am collecting data using the
Jacksonville Armada marketing video and logo, I chose not to limit the research to the sport we
are using alone in order to make the data more generalizable. Researchers are attempting to test
social dominance by using a video of a team scoring goals and winning. I am further researching
whether the theory of social dominance influencing like/dislike for a subject is accurate or
whether there is no increase in preference. I am interested to find out if the participant’s attitudes
will be changed by the factor of social desirability. Incidental visual cues will be used for the
second independent variable by placing a team logo on the shirt of the researcher as our
experimental manipulation. The visual cue will not be pointed out, however whether the
participant notices or not, it will imply the experimenter favors the sports team in question.
Method
The experiment used a 2 (perceived dominance: dominant or objective) × 2 (implied
favoritism: favoritism or indifference) between-participants design. Participants included 80
University of North Florida students (37 males and 39 females), and were recruited by
solicitation in various public areas on campus. The participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 35 (M=

6. Social Dominance, Implied Favoritism and Commitment to Team 6
2.32, SD= 1.26). The racial composition of the participants was 60.5% Caucasian, 11.8% African
American13.2% Hispanic/Latino, 5.3% Asian, and 5.3% other. All participants were voluntary,
and no compensation was provided.
In order to conduct the experiment, I utilized a University of North Florida library
computer and 10 Jacksonville Armada logo stickers (3.5” x 2.5). Online surveys were used to
administer informed consent and a questionnaire as well as the debriefing documents which
participants were invited to have emailed to them after data collection. The prompts were the
same across conditions, and required the participant to watch a short video followed by
completing a questionnaire.
Implied Favoritism. For this independent variable, one level consisted of a control group
with no indications by the experimenter of implied favoritism for the Jacksonville Armada. The
second level of implied favoritism consisted of a sticker of the Jacksonville Armada logo present
on the experimenter’s shirt on the top left breast pocket.
Perceived Dominance. Each condition of the independent variable was shown a video
(perceived dominance or objective advertisement). The independent variable of perceived
dominance of the team was operationalized though showing a video of the Jacksonville Armada
scoring goals with intense battle-like music playing in the background, along with an enthusiastic
announcer and loud crowd roars (url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSEInRg8NBo, time
0:00-2:10) The objective video used was an advertisement for the Jacksonville Armada with
various members of the community passing a soccer ball, upbeat music, and details of ticket
pricing (url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX9qhOtlDWo , full video).
Commitment to a sports team. The Likert scale (Likert, 1932) used a 7 point scale
1(strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree). Example items included “I am likely to attend my

7. Social Dominance, Implied Favoritism and Commitment to Team 7
community sports teams’ games, even if that team has a losing record,” and “When sports teams
in my community succeed, I am more likely to attend games.” These items were averaged
together to create a Likert scale composite variable (α = .371).
Manipulation check. At the end, participants were asked how many goals were made
during the video, as well as if the participant perceived the Jacksonville Armada as a dominant
team. The manipulation check for implied favoritism consisted of additional survey questions
asking “Is the experimenter a fan of the Jacksonville Armada?” with responses of “Yes”, “No”,
and “I don’t know.” They were then asked “If yes or no, why?” with an opportunity for a
subjective answer. This was scored as “1” if the participant noticed the sticker, and “2” if they
did not notice the sticker. The subjective answer was also monitored for possible extraneous
variables.
Participants were respectfully recruited in the University of North Florida library. After
stating that they agreed to participate, they were taken to a computer where an informed consent
document was waiting. After giving consent, each participant watched a video on the computer.
The participants received one of two videos: a video of the Jacksonville Armada scoring goals,
or an objective Jacksonville Armada advertisement. Half of the participants were greeted by an
experimenter wearing a sticker of the Jacksonville Armada logo, while the other half of the
participants were greeted by an experimenter with no visible Jacksonville Armada logo. After
viewing the video, participants were asked to complete questions related to demographic
information, questions intended to assess commitment to a sports team and four manipulation
check questions. After completing all of these scales, they were debriefed online and thanked for
their participation.
Results

8. Social Dominance, Implied Favoritism and Commitment to Team 8
A chi-square test was conducted to verify the effectiveness of the implied favoritism
manipulation. The results showed that the presence of an Armada sticker manipulation was
effective. Participants correctly identified the presence of the Armada sticker, X2 (1,
N=76)=11.82, p < .001. A chi-square test was also conducted to verify the effectiveness of the
dominant video manipulation. Participants correctly identified that a goal was scored in the
dominant condition, X2 (1, 76)=57.63, p < .001. Participants were also more likely to indicate
that they perceived the team as dominant if they were in the dominant video condition, X2 (1,
76)=6.00, p = .05.
I predicted that both implied social favoritism and perceived social dominance conditions
would result in higher participant ratings on commitment to a sports team. A 2 (Perceived
Dominance: Dominant Video, Objective Video) x 2 (Implied Favoritism: Sticker, No Sticker)
between subjects ANOVA was used to investigate the role of social dominance and implied
social favoritism on participants commitment to a sports team.
I did not find a significant main effect on participants in the implied social favoritism
condition, therefore the means did not differ from each other significantly. When comparing
means however they responded with slightly higher levels of commitment to a team (M=4.16,
SD=1.12) than those in the control (M=3.98, SD=1.06), F(1,72)=3.40, p=.562, ηp
2=.01. There
was no main effect on social dominance. Although the means did not differ from each other
significantly, participants in the dominant video condition rated their commitment to a sports
team as higher (M=4.29, SD=1.06) compared to the objective video condition (M=3.86,
SD=1.07), (F (1, 72)=2.35, p=.129, ηp
2=.032. The results could not be qualified with an
interaction between perceived social dominance and implied social favoritism, F(1, 72)=.348,
p=.557, ηp
2=.01.

9. Social Dominance, Implied Favoritism and Commitment to Team 9
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the role of social dominance and implied
favoritism on commitment to a sports team. I predicted that participants in the social dominance
condition would report higher levels of commitment to a sports team, however I did not find any
evidence to support this claim. This could be related to my aim to research commitment to a
broad variety of sports teams rather than the Jacksonville Armada specifically. It was also
predicted that participants in the implied social favoritism condition would report higher levels
of commitment to a sports team but the data does not support my prediction.
Differences in the results and my predictions could be explained by little research going
into measureable sports team commitment. As a dependent variable, I developed the questions
using a Likert Agreeability scale, however, I did not research the validity of the specific
questions that I used as they relate to my dependent variable. If more research goes into sports
team commitment, more reliable and consistent questions could be formulated in order to
replicate the experiment. Other differences could be explained by a lack of sports team
enthusiasts in my sample. Sampling at sports games may have been a more effective approach at
reaching this specific population to develop generalizable data.
These results contribute to an area of attitude change and behavior as it relates to sports
marketing. Little research is out there that emphasizes commitment to a sports team and how it
relates to social dominance. Research on implied favoritism was lacking as well, but this could
be because of the keywords “implied favoritism” specifically. Discovering whether or not the
person wearing the logo has an impact on the results could is more effective than the website
data is collected on showing it is unknown A large body of research is dedicated to sports fan
culture but how sports’ teams’ use of logos impacts people’s perceptions implicitly is lacking.

10. Social Dominance, Implied Favoritism and Commitment to Team
10
Future research on this topic could explore commitment to a team using online surveys to find
whether or not experimenter implied favoritism is more or less important than the visual cue
itself.
Past research supports the idea that social dominance effects people’s perceptions of
teams. It will be interesting to follow further research about these ideas as they relate to the
marketability of sports teams and the level of community that people feel when they are involved
with them. Implied favoritism is an interesting future research topic that deserves more attention.
Although in this study I was particularly interested in trying to find an implicit relationship
between the visual cue and commitment level, explicit experimenter bias may lead to interesting
results.

11. Social Dominance, Implied Favoritism and Commitment to Team
11
Figure 1. Commitment to a Sports Team
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Dominant Video Objective Video
Committment
Video Condition
Sticker
No Sticker
Figure 1. Participant levels of commitment to a Sports team in the dominant and
objective video conditions with the implied favoritism condition indicated in the
legend.

12. Social Dominance, Implied Favoritism and Commitment to Team
12
References
Aiken, K. (2009). A Conjoint Approach Investigating Factors in Initial Team Preference
Formation. Sports Marketing Quarterly, 18, 81-91
Close, A. G., Lacey, R., & Cornwell, T. B. (2015). Visual Processing and Need for Cognition
Can Enhance Event-Sponsorship Outcomes. Journal of Advertising Research, 55(2), 206-215.
doi:10.2501/JAR-55-2-206-215
Fisher, R. (1998). Factors Leading to Group Identification: A Field Study of Winners and
Losers. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 23-40
Henderson, A. (2015). The Effect of Social Dominance and Implied Favoritism As it relates
to Commitment to a Sports Team.
Lee, J., & Ferreira, M. (2012). A role of team and organizational identification in the success
of cause-related sports marketing. Sports Management Review, 16, 161-172.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2012.09.001
Tachis, S., & Tzetzis, G. (2015). The Relationship Among Fans' Involvement, Psychological
Commitment, and Loyalty in Professional Team Sports. International Journal Of Sport
Management, Recreation & Tourism, 181-25.