Belonging for violence: Personality, football fandom, and spectator aggression

Abstract

Spectator violence is an issue that affects many football matches in Sweden and other countries. Different models have tried to explain why individuals participate in sports fandom and associated behaviors. However, often these models ignore social and individual factors that may impact if and why individuals participate in spectator violence. Outgroup violence can be motivated by pro-social concerns for ingroup acceptance. We argue that outgroup violence among football supporters may be used as a marker of ingroup loyalty and attachment. A survey of 350 male Swedish football supporters was conducted to assess their levels of need to belong, rejection sensitivity, and willingness to engage in violence. A hierarchal regression analysis showed a significant interaction, such that individuals with a high need to belong and who are sensitive to rejection are more willing to engage in violence against an opposing team. The results provide important insights into the social dynamics of intergroup violence and spectator violence. We extend upon existing theory by adding this social personality perspective to show the importance of individual differences in belongingness needs as a driver for participation in spectator violence.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rnpy20
Nordic Psychology
ISSN: 1901-2276 (Print) 1904-0016 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rnpy20
Belonging for violence: Personality, football
fandom, and spectator aggression
Holly Knapton, Lisa Espinosa, Henk E. Meier, Emma A. Bäck & Hanna Bäck
To cite this article: Holly Knapton, Lisa Espinosa, Henk E. Meier, Emma A. Bäck & Hanna Bäck
(2018): Belonging for violence: Personality, football fandom, and spectator aggression, Nordic
Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/19012276.2018.1430611
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2018.1430611
Published online: 01 Feb 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 102
View Crossmark data

Nordic Psychology, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2018.1430611 ARTICLE
© 2018 The Editors of Nordic Psychology
Belonging for violence: Personality, football
fandom, and spectator aggression
HOLLY KNAPTON1, LISA ESPINOSA2, HENK E. MEIER3, EMMA A. BÄCK4 & HANNA BÄCK5
Correspondence address: Holly Knapton, Department of Psychology, Lund University, Box 213, Lund SE-22100, Sweden.
Email: Holly.Knapton@psy.lu.se
Abstract
Spectator violence is an issue that aects many football matches in Sweden and other countries.
Dierent models have tried to explain why individuals participate in sports fandom and associat-
ed behaviors. However, often these models ignore social and individual factors that may impact
if and why individuals participate in spectator violence. Outgroup violence can be motivated by
pro-social concerns for ingroup acceptance. We argue that outgroup violence among football
supporters may be used as a marker of ingroup loyalty and attachment. A survey of 350 male
Swedish football supporters was conducted to assess their levels of need to belong, rejection
sensitivity, and willingness to engage in violence. A hierarchal regression analysis showed a sig-
nicant interaction, such that individuals with a high need to belong and who are sensitive to
rejection are more willing to engage in violence against an opposing team. The results provide
important insights into the social dynamics of intergroup violence and spectator violence. We
extend upon existing theory by adding this social personality perspective to show the impor-
tance of individual dierences in belongingness needs as a driver for participation in spectator
violence.
Keywords:need to belong, rejection sensitivity, hooliganism, spectator violence
Introduction
Spectator violence in football is a problem that aects many societies worldwide (Dunning,
2000). Such violence has a detrimental impact on society with vandalism, injuries, and even
deaths occurring as a result of brutal clashes between teams. Although the statistics on whether
spectator violence is actually increasing or decreasing are mixed, it is clearly still an issue. For
example, in March 2014, in Sweden, one of the rst matches of the season of the highest Swedish
division (“Allsvenskan”) was shrouded by violence. A supporter for the away team (Djurgården)
was assaulted and killed on his way to the game by one of the home team’s (Helsingborg) sup-
porters. This triggered a day of violence and clashes between the teams’ supporters, which in the
end, led the match to be canceled along with vandalism and injuries. Unfortunately, spectator
violence is not a rare occurrence or isolated to one area, but is something that is reported from
every continent (Russell, 2004). As a result, it is important to consider the factors that may lead
1Department of Psychology, Lund University, Box 213, Lund SE-22100, Sweden
2Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Insitutet, Nobels väg 9, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden
3Department of Sports Science, Münster University, Horstmarer Landweg 62b, Room 111, Münster 48149, Germany
4Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Box 500, Gothenburg SE-40530, Sweden
5Department of Political Science, Lund University, Box 52, Lund SE-22100, Sweden

Holly Knapton et al.
Nordic Psychology 2018, Vol. XX(XX), 1–12 © 2018 The Editors of Nordic Psychology
2
to individuals participating in such violence. There has been an extensive amount of research
in this area; however, much of the research is conducted from a sociological perspective, from
archival data, or from examining group or situational factors (Russell, 2004). Some authors argue
that theoretical and methodological dierences have led to a failure to advance understanding
in this eld (Frosdick & Marsh, 2005). Although there is some research examining individual dif-
ferences, there are still gaps in the literature. In this paper, we aim to add to the area of research
that examines individual factors, specically personality traits related to the social domain and
combine it with the social psychological theory of collective behavior.
Theoretical framework
Football fandom and spectator violence
Football fandom is the term used to describe an individual’s aliation to a specic football club
(Porat, 2010). The role of a “fan” entails keeping up-to-date with the games that the football club
participates in, and regularly attending matches or at least spectating from a distance (e.g. in a
pub, or at home). It is common to distinguish between “fair weather” and “die-hard”-fans (Wann
& Branscombe, 1990) with the latter centering their daily lives and relationships around foot-
ball, for example, by planning their workweek around the times of their club’s football matches
(Shank & Beasley, 1998). It is plausible to suggest that die-hard fans are more likely to participate
in spectator violence, as they tend to be highly identied with a football club and strong iden-
tication is linked with spectator violence (Porat, 2010; Wann, Haynes, McLean, & Pullen, 2003;
Wann, Peterson, Cothran, & Dykes, 1999). Spectator violence refers to aggression that has the
intent of psychologically or physically injuring a player, or spectator from an opposing team or
causing damage or destruction to property (Coakley, 1998; Tenenbaum, Stewart, Singer, & Duda,
1997).
Spectator violence has been extensively researched. Much of the research has focused on bio-
logical models of aggression, examining demographics of individuals’ involved or social dynam-
ics. For example, biological models have explored the role of genetics, neurophysiology, and
hormones. In a laboratory study, a link between lower basal cortisol levels and aggression was
found (van der Meij et al., 2015). Demographic studies have linked age (younger individuals) and
unskilled workers with participation in groups associated with football violence (Roversi, 1991),
whilst studies into social dynamics have explored the role of identity and intergroup conict in
crowd behavior (Stott, Hutchison, & Drury, 2001). However, the eld has been surrounded by
ideological and methodological debates with some disciplines favoring an epidemiological or
survey approach whilst others an experimental and controlled perspective. As a result, this has
limited scientic progress due to refusal for a truly multi-disciplinary approach (Back, Crabbe, &
Solomos, 1999; Frosdick & Marsh, 2005).
This paper is particularly interested in the social motivations related to belongingness. An
extensive amount of research has examined how social identication and group membership
can impact involvement in football fandom and spectator violence. One explanation of why indi-
viduals participate as a fan and engage in activities associated with being a fan is provided by
the “prot hypothesis” (Jones, 2000; Stebbins, 1992). This hypothesis suggests that engagement
in serious leisure (e.g. football supporter) occurs when the rewards of engagement (e.g. win-
ning) outweigh the costs (e.g. eort, time, disappointments) of such engagement (Jones, 2000;
Stebbins, 1992). Sport psychologists have shown that self-esteem enhancement via “basking in
reected glory (BIRGing)” represents a major motive for being a fan (Wann & Branscombe, 1990;

Belonging for violence
Nordic Psychology 2018, Vol. XX(XX), 1–12 © 2018 The Editors of Nordic Psychology
3
Wann, Hamlet, Wilson, & Hodges, 1995). The phenomenon is well documented and refers to the
desire of sport fans to see their favorite team win because winning can relate to an internalized
positive self-denition or to an enhanced position in their social environment (Kahle, Kambara,
& Rose, 1996). BIRGing has demonstrated to be a key factor in match attendance (Campbell,
Aiken & Kent, 2004). In contrast, if an athlete or team fails, some fans might engage in “cutting
o reected failure” (CORFing), that is, they dissociate themselves from the athlete or the team
rather than lessen an internal self-image or weaken their position in the social environment
(Campbell et al., 2004). However, even though some fans engage in CORFing, it is often the case
that individuals still support and/or engage in activities surrounding their aliated team, even if
the team is continuously losing. Thus, it is argued that the prot hypothesis alone is not enough
to explain engagement, as costs often outweigh prots, and yet supporters continue to engage.
Jones (2000) examined possible reasons as to why individuals continue to engage in a “cost-
heavy” scenario and concluded that there are several compensatory behaviors that help main-
tain engagement. These behaviors surround the social identity of the individual and are sug-
gested to help add to the benets that outweigh the costs, and thus help maintain engagement
in fandom associated actions, even if an aliated club is continuing to lose.
The “prot hypothesis” regarding serious leisure is remarkably similar to the “calculus of par-
ticipation” that explains political participation (Olson, 1965). In the same manner as the prot
hypothesis, the calculus of participation explains participation as a balance of costs/benets. In
short, people participate in political actions even though the possibility that their own contribu-
tion has an eect on the outcome is virtually non-existent. Two solutions to this paradox have
been presented. The collective incentives model focuses on that people over-estimate their own
contribution’s eect on the outcome. The other model is the selective incentives model, which
revolves around the idea that there are benets that accrue to those who participate regard-
less of the outcome (Bäck, Teorell, & Westholm, 2011). These selective incentives often revolve
around social factors (e.g. identity, belonging). We suggest that such incentives could be added
to the prot hypothesis to explain continued engagement in serious leisure even when the cost
of engaging is high, for example, violent actions.
Recent research into collective action has examined how selective incentives related to belong-
ingness and identity may drive individuals to participate in political actions, even if extreme
(Knapton, Bäck, & Bäck, 2015). As a result, it may be possible that such selective incentives may
also impact participation in spectator violence.
In sum, by borrowing ideas from political psychology regarding the costs and benets of col-
lective action participation, we aim to extend upon the prot hypothesis of spectator violence.
Specically, we suggest that the benets derived from associating with a football team may not
depend on the outcome of the team, but rather on some social incentives that can be derived
regardless of the outcome, in a similar manner as has been proposed for political participation.
Psychological explanations for spectator violence: Identity, personality, and cognition
Identity. Many social psychological theories have intended to understand the dynamic behind
group membership and its consequences on members’ perception of themselves and others.
Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) social identity theory is perhaps the most prominent one. This theory
assumes that group membership constitutes a signicant source of self-esteem because it is an
important component of self-identity. Moreover, individuals identify themselves with groups,

Holly Knapton et al.
Nordic Psychology 2018, Vol. XX(XX), 1–12 © 2018 The Editors of Nordic Psychology
4
and because of the need to maintain positive self-esteem, they tend to favor their ingroup over
other groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The social identity theory has been the basis for many the-
ories developed to understand inter-group dynamics. For instance, the Social Identity Model of
Collective Action (SIMCA) adapts social identity theory to a collective action setting (van Zomer-
en, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). Social identity has also been linked to football fandom and spec-
tator violence (Porat, 2010; Wann et al., 1999, 2003). Social identication increases in intergroup
conicts (Stephan, Ybarra, & Morrison, 2009) such as sports matches. This increases conformity to
the ingroup and negative outgroup attitudes (Turner & Reynolds, 2011). Thus, when psycholog-
ical or situational factors make individuals’ social identity more salient, such as a situation where
that identity is under threat, individuals in the same group perceive and dene themselves as
being more similar and thus may conform more to the groups norms (Stephan et al., 2009).
Personality features: Rejection sensitivity and need to belong. Humans have an innate de-
sire to belong to social groups. As research on fan motivation has proven, the desire to experi-
ence group belonging represents a key fan motive (Trail & James, 2001; Wann, Schrader, & Wilsen,
1999). Accordingly, football supporters who aliate with a specic team have been shown to feel
connected to a larger social group, and have more social connections with others in the group
(Normansell & Wann, 2010; Wann, 2006). Social groups are important for humans and rejection
from a social group elicits strong discomfort (see Williams, 2007 for review). Thus, individuals
will try to avoid this discomfort by trying to avoid rejection, and one way to achieve this is by
behaving in line with the norms put forth by the group (Dijker & Koomen, 2007; Ouwerkerk, Kerr,
Gallucci, & Van Lange, 2005). Even though avoiding to deviate is a general feature of humans,
there are individual dierences, such that some individuals, more than others, readily perceive
and/or overreact to cues and episodes of rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Individuals high
on such “rejection sensitivity” may strongly react to threats of rejection, compared to individuals
low on rejection sensitivity, and become increasingly willing to obey to the group norms in order
not to be rejected from the group.
Connecting back to research in political psychology, rejection sensitivity has been identied
as an explanation of participation in political collective actions. Following a rejection episode,
individuals who are highly rejection sensitive are more likely to engage in political violence
with a new and accepting group both in general and against a specic outgroup (Knapton et
al., 2015). This is in line with previous research that suggests that highly rejection-sensitive indi-
viduals may become more conformist when their identity is threatened (Romero-Canyas et al.,
2010). Research indicates that individuals, who are highly rejection sensitive and are exposed to
a norm prescribing political action, are more likely to participate in demonstrations than those
low in rejection sensitivity (Bäck, Bäck, & Garcia-Albacete, 2013). As a result, it is plausible to sug-
gest that individuals who are high on rejection sensitivity may be more willing to participate in
spectator violence, as football supporter groups tend to be uniform in their love for their team
and thus are highly cohesive. This should imply that they also feel a social pressure not to deviate
from the group norms, even if they prescribe or involve violence. Hence, our rst hypothesis is:
H1: Individuals will be increasingly willing to engage in violent actions against an opposing
team as their level of rejection sensitivity increase.
In addition to individual dierences in rejection sensitivity, there is also variation in individuals’
need for belongingness, a trait called “Need to Belong” (Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, & Schreindorfer,
2007). Although all individuals desire belongingness, some individuals have a stronger need

Belonging for violence
Nordic Psychology 2018, Vol. XX(XX), 1–12 © 2018 The Editors of Nordic Psychology
5
than others. The need to belong captures these dierences and individuals with a high need to
belong strive for others’ acceptance and want to socialize within a group, and ultimately secure
belonging. The need to belong has been demonstrated to be a factor that impacts individuals’
identication to local football teams, with individuals high on need to belong demonstrating a
stronger identication to the team (Theodorakis, Wann, Nassis, & Luellen, 2012). Team identi-
cation has been linked with spectator violence and thus it is plausible that the need to belong
may impact willingness to participate in spectator violence. Furthermore, previous research into
collective action has found that the need to belong moderates the eect of rejection sensitivity
in individuals who are socially excluded (Bäck, Bäck, & Knapton, 2015). For individuals belonging
to a more socially excluded group, those who were high in both need to belong and rejection
sensitivity, were those who were most likely to engage in political actions with their group. Even
though we do not suggest that football supporters in general are a socially excluded group, die-
hard fans present a strongly niched group, who are bound together by having certain attitudes
that may not be shared by the vast majority of the population. This makes the group exclusive.
Thus, again it is plausible to suggest that the research that examines the social dimensions of
personality (need to belong and rejection sensitivity) in the political arena of collective action
may be benecial to consider in the area of spectator violence. Hence, we suggest that the eect
of rejection sensitivity on willingness to be involved in violent actions against an opposing team
is moderated by need to belong, such that:
H2: Individuals with a higher level of rejection sensitivity will be increasingly willing to engage
in violence against an opposing team, as their level of need to belong increases.
In sum, the aim of this paper is to examine the social incentives related to a fear of being rejected
from one’s group, and the need for belongingness, for participating in spectator violence and
how these incentives might motivate some individuals to engage in violence.
Method
In order to examine the eects of rejection sensitivity and need to belong on willingness to
engage in violence, an online survey was conducted. Participants were recruited from a Swedish
online football forum (www.svenskafans.se). One reason to investigate this in a Swedish setting
is that spectator violence is still considered a prominent issue, compared to countries like the
UK where such violence appears to be reducing (Mortimore, 2011). Further, recent high-prole
events (e.g. the death of a supporter) have triggered a debate into what causes, and how to pre-
vent football violence in Sweden. Thus, it seems necessary to explore what factors might inu-
ence violence in a Swedish context.
Participants and procedure
A sample of 350 male football supporters responded to the survey. Due to a lack of female
respondents, the few who did respond were removed from the analysis. The participants were
between the age of 17 and 72 (M=32.88, SD=10.85). A link to the survey was posted on several
teams’ fan pages on an online football forum. The survey was introduced as a study investigating
attitudes related to how it is being a football supporter. When a respondent clicked on the sur-
vey, they were rst presented with an instruction screen. This indicated that participants should
be a supporter and that the survey should take around 15min to complete. Participants were

Holly Knapton et al.
Nordic Psychology 2018, Vol. XX(XX), 1–12 © 2018 The Editors of Nordic Psychology
6
then advised that they had the right to stop the survey at any time, that all data collected would
be completely condential, and that by continuing they gave consent to participate.
Once the participants continued, they were presented with the rst page of questions. The
rst page of questions contained items from the short scale of rejection sensitivity (Downey &
Feldman, 1996). Once they completed the rejection sensitivity items, they continued to a second
page containing the items for the Need to Belong scale (Leary et al., 2007). Following this, the
next section asked questions to assess the willingness to be involved in the violence. Participants
were than thanked for their time and their response was stored.
Variable description
Rejection sensitivity
These eight items require the participant to imagine a scenario in which they might ask for, or
expect something, from another person, for example “You become unemployed and you ask
your closest friend if you can stay with them for a while.” Then, for each scenario, the partici-
pants rates (a) how worried or anxious they would be over the individual’s reaction, for example
“How worried or anxious would you be over whether or not your friend would want to help you”
(1= not worried to 6 =very worried), and (b) to what extent they expect the individual to help
them in the scenario, for example “I would expect that they would agree to help as much as they
can” (1=very unlikely to 6= very likely). The level of rejection concern (response to question a)
is multiplied by the reverse of the level of acceptance expectancy (response to question b) to
provide a rejection sensitivity score. The scores for each scenario are then added together and
averaged to give an overall rejection sensitivity index (Cronbach’s α=0.83).
Need to belong
This scale contains 10 items and example items are “If other people don’t seem to accept me, I
don’t let it bother me,” and “I do not like being alone.” Participants indicate the degree to which
each statement is characteristic of them on a ve-point scale from 1=not at all to 5=extremely.
Three items are reverse-coded, and the index is calculated as the mean of the 10 items (Cron-
bach’s α=0.76).
Willingness to be involved in violence
This measure consisted of four items and asked participants: To what degree do you think you
could get involved in violent acts against supporters from an opposing team? and To what extent
could you imagine yourself [Participating in a ight against an opposing team/ Participating in van-
dalism/ Harass or threaten opponents]? Participants were asked to indicate to what extent they
agreed on a seven-point response scale from not at all (1) to very much (7). The four items were
combined and averaged to create an index. A Cronbach’s α analysis indicated high internal reli-
ability, α=0.86
Results
Descriptive analyses
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all variables.

Belonging for violence
Nordic Psychology 2018, Vol. XX(XX), 1–12 © 2018 The Editors of Nordic Psychology
7
Main analyses
In order to test our hypotheses that rejection sensitivity should have a positive eect on willing-
ness to participate in spectator violence and that this should be moderated by need to belong,
we regressed age (control variable), RS, and NTB in the rst step onto willingness to participate in
violence against an opposing team. Age was used as a control variable since it has shown to be a
strong predictor of participation in collective action (García-Albacete, 2014), and has been shown
to be an important factor in spectator violence with research indicating only 3% of those engag-
ing in such behavior being aged over 30 (Roversi, 1991).1 The model was signicant, explaining
14.9% of the variance. In Model 1, age was a signicant predictor with younger respondents
being more willing to participate in violence, which is in line with previous research showing
that young people are more likely to take part in protest activities, such as demonstrations and
in spectator violence (see e.g. Roversi, 1991; Wennerhag, 2012). Further, RS was signicant with
respondents higher on RS being more willing to participate in violence against an opposing
team, thus supporting the rst hypothesis stating that individuals will be increasingly willing to
engage in violent actions against an opposing team as their level of rejection sensitivity increase.
In Model 2, we added the interaction between rejection sensitivity and need to belong. Model
2 explained 16% of the variance, and the change from Model 1 was signicant r2 (1.1%). As can
be seen in Table 2, the interaction was signicant. We evaluated the simple slopes of rejection
sensitivity on willingness to engage in violence at 1 standard deviation above and below the
mean of need to belong.
The results showed that for participants low on need to belong, the simple slope was non-sig-
nicant, B=.03, SE=.05, t=.58, p=.56, while for those high in need to belong the slope was
close to signicant, B=.10, SE=.06, t=1.74, p=.08. The interaction is plotted in Figure 1. Hence,
for individuals who have a high need to belong (1 SD above the mean), rejection sensitivity has
a close to signicant positive eect on willingness to engage in violence against an opposing
team.2
Hence, the second hypothesis stating that individuals with a higher level of rejection sensitivity
will be increasingly willing to engage in violence against an opposing team, as their level of need to
belong increases was supported.
General discussion
In this paper, we explore the social incentives explaining who is likely to engage in violence.
Specically, our research shows that the fear of being rejected increases willingness to engage
in violence. Further, this eect was qualied by an interaction with need to belong such that
this eect was limited to individuals with a high need to belong. However, it is important to
note twothings. Firstly, that there was no main eect of NTB indicating that desire for belong-
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all variables.
*p<.05 **p<.01.
Variable Mean (SD) 1 2
(1) Rejection sensitivity 5.577 (3.710)  
(2) Need to belong 4.038 (0.914) .182** 
(3) Willingness to engage 1.806 (1.23) .261** .046

Holly Knapton et al.
Nordic Psychology 2018, Vol. XX(XX), 1–12 © 2018 The Editors of Nordic Psychology
8
ingness only aects willingness to engage in violence in interaction with sensitivity to rejection.
Secondly, the simple slopes analysis evaluated at 1 SD above and below the mean was only mar-
ginally signicant for those at 1 SD above the mean of need to belong. Our ndings suggest that
group belongingness and the fear of being rejected from the group may drive individuals to
engage in violent actions, without there being much more concern to it than “tting in.” Hence,
violence must not be a result of outgroup hate so much as ingroup love (Knapton et al., 2015).
Dierent approaches have been taken to try to understand the mechanisms behind such spec-
tator violence in order to nd eective ways to reduce it. We suggest that social incentives, such
Table 2. Hierarchical regression model predicting willingness to engage in violence against an opposing
team with rejection sensitivity and need to belong.
Notes: Adj. R2 was signicantly dierent from zero, F (3, 315)=19.380, p<.001. The change in Adj. R2 from step 1 to step 2 was
signicant, F (4,315)=16.030, p<.001.
Variable B β SE t p Adj. R2
Step 1      .149
Age −.034 −.300 .006 −5.654 <.001 
RS .079 .241 .017 4.542 <.001 
NTB −.078 −.059 .071 −1.096 .274 
Step 2      .160
RS×NTB .039 .584 .017 2.280 .023 
Figure 1. Two-way interaction between rejection sensitivity and need to belong willingness to engage in
violence.

Belonging for violence
Nordic Psychology 2018, Vol. XX(XX), 1–12 © 2018 The Editors of Nordic Psychology
9
as the desire for belongingness and the fear of being rejected from one’s group, should be taken
into account in a similar manner as has been done when explaining participation in collective
actions in political psychology (Bäck et al., 2015; Knapton et al., 2015). In relation to the prot
hypotheses, we here extend upon the previous research and add a social dimension that is unre-
lated to the outcome. That is, regardless of the team’s actual success – or lack thereof – people
have a social environment to which they relate. In this case, it is the group of supporters of the
same team, which are strongly interconnected by their love for the team and hence have a spe-
cial shared reality.
Spectator violence is a societal problem, which detrimentally aects the economic viability of
the sport industry (Jewell, Simmons, & Szymanski, 2014). The events in Helsingborg leading to
the death of a supporter in 2014 have led to a loss of sponsors and ticket incomes as less support-
ers are now attending the games. A plausible interpretation of this is that the more moderate
supporters who are mainly interested in the game choose to stay at home to avoid the risk of
being involved in unwanted violence (Johansson, Andersson, & Nilsson, 2015). In addition, this
has massive costs both for the society in terms of property damages and costs of policing, but
also in human lives as some notable examples illustrate (Russell, 2004). Thus, this research adds
to the important literature that explores why such violence may occur and hopefully provides
insights into possible ways such violence can be reduced.
Limitations
Some limitations to the present research are worth mentioning. First, we did not measure actual
engagement in violence. Even though supporters may indicate that they are prepared to engage
in violence, it does not mean that they actually do. A measure of previous violent acts would have
been good to help alleviate this, even though a previous action is not a necessary precursor for
future actions. Nonetheless, that a supporter is willing to engage in violence is plausibly a strong
indicator of action readiness.
Finally, although this study tried to use a representative sample of the football fan commu-
nity, it is important to note a limitation in the recruitment procedure. The study was posted on
a fan community website and fans were asked to participate. As a result, the participants were
self-selecting and not a truly random sample. That being said, the large sample size and also the
similarity in the means of the examined personality variables to reported population averages do
suggest that this does not hinder the interpretation of the results.
Implications
This study examines how individual dierences in the perception of rejection and belonging can
impact willingness to participate in violence. In this research, there was no actual threat of rejec-
tion or exclusion. As a result, it would be interesting to replicate this research whilst introducing
a rejection cue. This is based on research that suggests that groups may use threats of rejection
to bring about compliance and that rejection cues can lead to conformity to group norms (Dijker
& Koomen, 2007; Koudenburg, Postmes, & Gordijn, 2013; Ouwerkerk et al., 2005). In line with this,
this research may help guide future counter-violence strategies, by indicating that authorities
must work with group fan bases in order to help adjust violence norms in the group. For example,
“Roligans” in Denmark have a social norm of being calm and jovial as part of the norm and thus
no violence would occur. (Smyth & Eriksen, 20093) This research indicates fans’ actions are based
on tting in and conforming to the norm; thus, if a football fan group has norms that indicate

Holly Knapton et al.
Nordic Psychology 2018, Vol. XX(XX), 1–12 © 2018 The Editors of Nordic Psychology
10
violence is not accepted, fans will not participate in violence as it shows deviance from the norm
and will consequently threaten their belonging.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. The analyses were also run without the control variable age. In step 1, RS remained a signicant predictor
(B=.086,t=4.793,p<.001), and NTB remained a non-signicant predictor (B=−.003,t=−.043,p=.9
66). In Model 2, the interaction between RS and NTB did not reach conventional signicance levels but
closely approached signicance (B=.033,t=1.822,p=.069).
2. We also tested the simple slopes without age as control variable. The results showed that the simple
slope for individuals low in NTB remained non-signicant, B=0.05, SE=0.06, t=0.73, p=.46, and the
slope for those high in NTB was slightly weaker, B=0.11, SE=0.07, t=1.48, p=.14.
REFERENCES
Back, L., Crabbe, T., & Solomos, J. (1999). Beyond the racist/hooligan couplet: Race, social theory and football
culture. The British Journal of Sociology, 50(3), 419–442.
Bäck, H., Teorell, J., & Westholm, A. (2011). Explaining modes of participation: A dynamic test of alternative
rational choice models. Scandinavian Political Studies, 34(1), 74–97.
Bäck, E., Bäck, H., & Garcia-Albacete, G. (2013). Protest activity, social incentives, and rejection sensitivity:
Results from a survey experiment about tuition fees. Contention: The multidisciplinary journal of social pro-
test, 1(1), 1–15.
Bäck, E. A., Bäck, H., & Knapton, H. M. (2015). Group belongingness and collective action: Eects of need to
belong and rejection sensitivity on willingness to participate in protests activities. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 56(5), 537–544.doi:10.1111/sjop.12225
Campbell, R. M., Jr, Aiken, D., & Kent, A. (2004). Beyond BIRGing and CORFing: Continuing the Exploration of
Fan Behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13(3).
Coakley, J. J. (1998). Sport in society: Issues and controversies. New York, NY: Mc-Graw Hill.
Dijker, A. J., & Koomen, W. (2007). Stigmatization, tolerance and repair: An integrative psychological analysis of
responses to deviance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. (1996). The implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343.
Dunning, E. (2000). Towards a sociological understanding of football hooliganism as a world phenomenon.
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 8, 141–162.
Frosdick, S., & Marsh, P. (2005). Football hooliganism. London: Routledge.
García-Albacete, G. (2014). Young people’s political participation in Western Europe: Continuity or generational
change. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.
Jewell, R. T., Simmons, R., & Szymanski, S. (2014). Bad for business? The eects of hooliganism on english
professional football clubs. Journal of Sports Economics, 15(5), 429–450.
Johansson, E., Andersson, J., & Nilsson, T. (2015). Den mörka fotbollshelgen – ett år senare. Sydsvenksan.
Retrieved from http://www.sydsvenskan.se/skane/den-morka-fotbollshelgen—ett-ar-senare/
Jones, I. (2000). A model of serious leisure identication: The case of football fandom. Leisure Studies, 19(4),
283–298.
Kahle, L. R., Kambara, K. M., & Rose, G. M. (1996). A functional model of fan attendance motivations for college
football. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5, 51–60.
Knapton, H. M., Bäck, H., & Bäck, E. A. (2015). The social activist: Conformity to the ingroup following rejection
as a predictor of political participation. Social Inuence, 10(2), 97–108.
Koudenburg, N., Postmes, T., & Gordijn, E. H. (2013). Resounding silences subtle norm regulation in everyday
interactions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 76(3), 224–241.

Belonging for violence
Nordic Psychology 2018, Vol. XX(XX), 1–12 © 2018 The Editors of Nordic Psychology
11
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2007). Individual dierences in the need to
belong: Mapping the nomological network. Unpublished.
Mortimore, G. (2011). Football hooliganism in Sweden-alive and kicking. The Local: Sweden’s News in English.
Retrieved from http://www.thelocal.se/20110506/33618
Normansell, D. M., & Wann, D. L. (2010). Sport team identication and social fear. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
110, 353–354.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Ouwerkerk, J. W., Kerr, N. L., Gallucci, M., & Van Lange, P. A. (2005). Avoiding the social death penalty: Ostra-
cism and cooperation in social dilemmas. The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bul-
lying, 321–332.
Porat, A. B. (2010). Football fandom: A bounded identication. Soccer & Society, 11(3), 277–290.
Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Reddy, K. S., Rodriguez, S., Cavanaugh, T. J., & Pelayo, R. (2010). Paying
to belong: When does rejection lead to ingratiation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99,
802–823.
Roversi, A. (1991). Football violence in Italy. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 26(4), 311–331.
Russell, G. W. (2004). Sport riots: A social–psychological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(4), 353–378.
Shank, M., & Beasley, F. (1998). Fan or fanatic: Rening a measure of sport involvement. Journal of sport behav-
ior, 21(4), 435–444.
Smyth, R., & Eriksen, L. (2009, May 17). The forgotten story of … Danish Dynamite, the Denmark side of the
mid-80s. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2009/oct/13/forgot-
ten-story-denmark-1980s
Stebbins, R. A. (1992). Costs and rewards in barbershop singing. Leisure Studies, 11(2), 123–133.
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O.,& Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory.In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of
prejudice (pp. 43–59) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stott, C., Hutchison, P., & Drury, J. (2001). ‘Hooligans’ abroad? Inter-group dynamics, social identity and par-
ticipation in collective ‘disorder’at the 1998 World Cup Finals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3),
359–384.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin
(Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tenenbaum, G., Stewart, E., Singer, R. N., & Duda, J. (1997). Aggression and violence in sport: An ISSP position
stand. Sport Psychologist, 11, 1–7.
Theodorakis, N. D., Wann, D. L., Nassis, P., & Luellen, T. B. (2012). The relationship between sport team identi-
cation and the need to belong. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 12(1–2), 25–38.
Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2001). The motivation scale for sport consumption: Assessment of the scale’s psycho-
metric properties. Journal of sport behavior, 24(1), 108.
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2011). Self-categorization theory. Handbook of Theories in Social Psychology, 2,
399–417.
van der Meij, L., Klauke, F., Moore, H. L., Ludwig, Y. S., Almela, M., & van Lange, P. A. (2015). Football fan aggres-
sion: The importance of low basal cortisol and a fair referee. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0120103.
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective
action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin,
134, 504–535.
Wann, D. L. (2006). Examining the potential causal relationship between sport team identication and psy-
chological well-being. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29(1), 79.
Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-weather fans: Eects of identication on BIRGing
and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 14(2), 103–117.
Wann, D. L., Hamlet, M. A., Wilson, T. M., & Hodges, J. A. (1995). Basking in reected glory, cutting o reected
failure, and cutting o future failure: The importance of group identication. Social Behavior and Personal-
ity, 23(4), 377–388.
Wann, D. L., Peterson, R. R., Cothran, C., & Dykes, M. (1999). Sport fan aggression and anonymity: The impor-
tance of team identication. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 27(6), 597–602.
Wann, D., Schrader, M., & Wilsen, A. (1999). Sport fan motivation: Questionnaire validation, comparisons by
sport, and relationship to athletic motivation. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(1), 114.
Wann, D. L., Haynes, G., McLean, B., & Pullen, P. (2003). Sport team identication and willingness to consider
anonymous acts of hostile aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 406–413.

Holly Knapton et al.
Nordic Psychology 2018, Vol. XX(XX), 1–12 © 2018 The Editors of Nordic Psychology
12
Wennerhag, M. (2012). Demonstrerandets normalisering? In L. Weibull, H. Oscarsson,& A. Bergström (Eds.),
I framtidens skugga. (pp. 79–94). Göteborgs universitet:SOM-institutet.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 425.