Identity crisis: a theoretical analysis of ‘team identification’ research

ABSTRACT

Research question

Existing team identification research uses various definitions, conceptualisations, and theoretical frameworks. In this paper, we provide a theoretical analysis of previous research using the two dominant theoretical approaches: identity theory and the social identity approach. Our primary purpose is to provide a theoretical framework for the on-going study of ‘team’ identification in sport management research.

Findings

Scholars have used identity theory (role) and the social identity approach (group) in their quest to understand team identification, however, limited attention has been paid to the differences between the two frameworks. We focus on two aspects of role and group identification that epitomise divergence in terms of analytical focus and explanations for behaviour: the basis for identification and salience.

Implications

The manuscript concludes with three recommendations for future research. First, with the aim of making future research more specific, we recommend the use of fan (spectator) identification in studies using identity theory and team identification (organisation/brand) in studies exploring the influence of group identity. Second, we outline definitions for role (fan) and group (team) identification in sport research. Finally, we reflect on the measurement of team identification.

KEYWORDS:

• Team identification
• fan identification
• identity theory
• social identity approach
• consumer behaviour

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 In this paper, we use the term team identification, consistently, until the end of the theoretical framework. We acknowledge that Wann and Branscombe (1993), and others, use the terms fan/team/spectator/organisation identification as the noun prior to ‘identification’ with a sport team. In doing so, we acknowledge Swanson and Kent’s (2015) argument that (a) fan identification is an antiquated term and (b) a team identity is nested within a broader organisational structure. Our decision to use team identification consistently is due to a need for simplicity and clarity. In the implications section of this manuscript, we seek to extend Swanson and Kent’s (2015) argument on the nouns that pre-empt identification (e.g. fan/spectator and team/organisation) based on our review of identity theory and the social identity approach.

2 Identity theorists tend to describe their theoretical position as sociological social psychology (cf. Stryker, 2008). We reference sociology here as the symbolic interactionist approach that underpins identity theory draws unabashedly from this discipline (Hogg et al., 1995; Stets & Burke, 2000; Stryker, 2008).

3 Trail et al. (2000, pp. 165–166) provide the broadest definition of team identification, to date. It includes a person's orientation of self in relation to objects, people, or groups and, as such, provides a more expansive perspective on sport consumer identity processes than role or group identity.