1. Social Acceptability of Sport Fan Aggression Based on Gender and Age Jeannie Curry Amy Manning Noelle Smith Martha Young

2. Previous Research  Aggression and gender stereotypes –Research shows that aggressive behavior is reinforced in boys and passive behavior reinforced for girls (Birns, 1976). –Significant number of aggressive sport fans are male (Messner, 1988). –Sports are a domain largely assigned to boys (Ostrow, Jones & Spiker, 1981).

3. Previous Research  Aggression and Age Stereotypes –Studies have shown that individuals attribute positive characteristics to others in their own age group (Palmore, 1982). –Additionally, older and younger individuals attribute negative characteristics across age groups (Palmore, 1982).

4. Independent variables  1 st Independent variable is gender –2 levels: male and female  2 nd Independent variable is age –2 levels: 22 and 55  Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.

5. Dependent variable  Dependent variable was participants’ social acceptability rating of the aggressive sport fan.  Measured on the 7-point Likert-type scale, with 1 being least socially acceptable and 7 being the most socially acceptable.

6. Hypothesis  We predicted that women would perceive male sport fan aggression to be more socially acceptable than that of the female fans, and that participants would find younger sport fans’ aggressive behavior to be more socially acceptable than that of the older sport fans.

7. Rationale  Aggression among males and young adults is more socially acceptable than female and older adult aggression (Palmore, 1982).  Studies show that stereotypes of gender supercede stereotypes of age (Baker, 1985).  Thus, we predicted that the aggressive behavior of younger male sport fans will be rated as the most socially acceptable and older females as the least.

8. Method  Participants –102 experiments were completed by traditionally aged college students at Mount Holyoke College –Participants were randomly assigned to read either the “22 year-old female” article (25 Ps) the “55 year-old female” article (25 Ps) the “22 year-old male” article (25 Ps) the “55 year-old male” article (27 Ps)

9. Materials  Consent Form  Mock article written depicting sport fan aggression at a sporting event.  12 item questionnaire including a 7-point Likert-type scale measuring social acceptability: 1= least acceptable and 7= most acceptable –Operational definition Social Acceptability Sport Fan Aggression  Debriefing statement

10. Procedure  Consent Form  Our study was randomly distributed in outside dinning halls.  Participants were asked to read the article and answer the following 12 questions according to their rating of the social acceptability of the individual’s actions.  Debriefing Statement

11. Results  Our dependent variable was participants ratings of social acceptability based on a 7-point Likert-type scale.  We predicted that women would perceive male sport fan aggression to be more socially acceptable than that of the female fans, and that they would find younger sport fans’ aggressive behavior to be more socially acceptable than that of the older sport fans.

12. Results  We ran a two way, independent groups ANOVA.  Gender x Age  Dependent Measure: Participants score out of 21 possible points.

13. Main Effect 1  We had no main effect for gender. –Male M=6.346 SD=2.707 –Female M=6.100 SD=2.929

14. Main Effect 2  We had no main effect for age. –22-year old M=6.52 SD=2.929 –55-year old M=5.94 SD=2.681

15. Interaction  We had no significant interaction. –Age x Gender M=6.226 SD=2.807

16. Results

19. Discussion  These findings were not consistent with previous research or our hypothesis. –Men exhibit direct aggression in sports more often than women because it is more socially acceptable to do so. (Becherini, 1997) –Younger adults are more likely to attribute positive traits to adults of the same age and consider their behavior more socially acceptable than older adults (Hummert, 1990).

20. Discussion  Our findings were also not consistent with our pilot study.  Problems - Running participants - Changes in scale - Changes in article

21. Discussion  Future Direction –More control during experiment –Stronger measure –More clarity within article Perhaps video clip Less focus on the sport, more on behavior