Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmcs20

Download by: [Clemson University] Date: 10 March 2016, At: 10:40

Mass Communication and Society

ISSN: 1520-5436 (Print) 1532-7825 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmcs20

When Athlete Activism Clashes With Group Values:Social Identity Threat Management via SocialMedia

Jimmy Sanderson, Evan Frederick & Mike Stocz

To cite this article: Jimmy Sanderson, Evan Frederick & Mike Stocz (2016) When AthleteActivism Clashes With Group Values: Social Identity Threat Management via Social Media, MassCommunication and Society, 19:3, 301-322, DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2015.1128549

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1128549

Published online: 10 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

When Athlete Activism Clashes With GroupValues: Social Identity Threat Management

via Social Media

Jimmy SandersonClemson Online

Clemson University

Evan Frederick and Mike StoczDepartment of Health, Exercise, & Sport Sciences

University of New Mexico

On November 30, 2014, five African American St. Louis Rams players lockedhands and displayed a “hands-up” gesture during player introductions inresponse to racial tensions in Ferguson, Missouri, emanating from the MichaelBrown case. This act generated significant media attention and prompted dis-cussions via Facebook and Twitter. Two notable venues on social media forthese conversations were the “Boycott the St. Louis Rams” Facebook page andthe Twitter hashtag #BoycottRams. A thematic analysis of 1,019 user-generatedFacebook comments and 452 tweets was conducted through the lens of socialidentity threat management. Six primary themes emerged: (a) renouncing fan-dom, (b) punishment commentary, (c) racial commentary, (d) general criticism,

Jimmy Sanderson (Ph.D., Arizona State University, 2012) is Director of MarketingCommunications, and Faculty Relations at Clemson Online, Clemson University. His researchinterests include the intersection of sport and social media and health and safety issues in sport.

Evan Frederick (Ph.D., Indiana University, 2012) is an Assistant Professor in the Department ofHealth, Exercise, & Sport Sciences at the University of New Mexico. His research interests includethe intersection of sport and social media.

Mike Stocz (M.A. Ithaca College, 2012) is a Ph.D student in the Department of Health, Exercise,and Sport Sciences at the University of New Mexico. His research interests include new media,hooliganism, and social media user responses to events in and around sport.

Correspondence should be addressed to Jimmy Sanderson, Communication Studies, ClemsonUniversity, 500 Old Lebanon Road, Pendleton, SC 29670. E-mail: jsande6@clemson.edu

Mass Communication and Society, 19:301–322, 2016Copyright © Mass Communication & Society Divisionof the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass CommunicationISSN: 1520-5436 print / 1532-7825 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15205436.2015.1128549

301

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

(e) attacking other group members, and (f) presenting the “facts” of the case.The results suggest that social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter serveas forums where group members discuss and debate challenges to group valuesand promote action steps that can mitigate social identity threats. This form ofprotest holds implications for minority athletes’ activism efforts and sportorganization administrators.

On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African American, was shotand killed by Darren Wilson, a White police officer, in Ferguson, Missouri. OnNovember 24, 2014, a grand jury decided to not indict Wilson for his involve-ment in the incident. Shortly after the verdict, protests broke out in Ferguson,with escalated tensions between protestors and police officers bringing nationalmedia attention to the city (Cave, 2014). The St. Louis County PoliceDepartment made over 25 arrests, and Missouri governor Jay Nixon orderedadditional members of the Missouri National Guard to Ferguson to quell theseprotests (Basu, Ford, & Yan, 2014). The Wilson verdict and its aftermath was yetanother incident highlighting a history of racial tensions between Fergusoncitizens, who are predominately African American, and a police force that islargely composed of White men (Peters & Kesling, 2014).

The Sunday following the verdict (November 30, 2014), five African Americanplayers from the National Football League (NFL) franchise St. Louis Rams(Stedman Bailey, Tavon Austin, Jared Cook, Chris Givens, and Kenny Britt)entered the stadium during player introductions locked arm in arm, with theirhands up in the air. This action was meant to symbolize the “hands up don’t shoot”pose that was being employed by protestors in Ferguson and across the country tochallenge police brutality and violence (Geary, 2014). Whereas some peoplecelebrated the athletes’ advocacy, others were outraged. Following the game, theSt. Louis Police Officers Association condemned the players’ actions and calledfor disciplinary measures to be taken by the NFL against the Rams (Fantz, 2014).

Although traditional media outlets quickly converged on the advocacytaken by these players, social media platforms such as Facebook andTwitter offered fans and other audience members an outlet to also engagein discussions about this incident and to shape narratives surrounding it. Theday of the gesture (November 30), a group was founded on Facebook entitledBoycott the St. Louis Rams. Within a week of its creation, the group hadnearly 25,000 likes, hundreds of posts, and thousands of comments, all ofwhich stemmed from athletes engaging in advocacy about social justice. Inaddition, a hashtag emerged (#BoycottRams) as an outlet on Twitter for fansto react to the players’ gesture. When an athlete takes a position on a socialissue that fans oppose, it may constitute a social identity threat, as fans

302 SANDERSON, FREDERICK, STOCZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

perceive that group membership is compromised (Branscombe, Ellemers,Spears, & Doosje, 1999). This may be particularly salient when the identitythreat arises from the actions of minority athletes, given the large percentageof White fans in sport, especially the NFL (Gabler, 2014), and notions thatsport is a haven free from social issues (van Sterkenburg & Knoppers, 2004).

During and since the Brown incident, minority athletes appear to be taking amore overt role in social justice issues, particularly those focused on AfricanAmericans subjected to police brutality (e.g., NBA players wearing “I Can’tBreathe” T-shirts in response to Eric Garner’s death in New York City; Adande,2014). Consequently, when minority athletes comment or demonstrate aboutsocial issues, examining audience response is important, as the actions of fansand others may affect future advocacy efforts. In that vein, this study examinesresistance to activism as expressed through the Boycott St. Louis RamsFacebook page and the Twitter hashtag #BoycottRams. Specifically, we contendthat the conversations in these outlets functioned as social identity threat man-agement, as fans and other invested individuals grappled with both their ownvalues and those expressed by the Rams players. We illuminate how the dis-course enacted on these platforms inform larger conversations of social justiceissues, social identity threat management, and the role of athletes and sportwithin them.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Minority Athletes and Advocacy

Professional athletes can be very influential with fans and other members ofthe public, which accounts for their visible endorsement activity (Miller &Laczniak, 2011) and perceptions that they serve as social role models(Buford, 2009). Indeed, Melnick and Jackson (2002) suggested that theinfluence of sport heroes extends past simple admiration, impacting “beliefs,values, self-appraisals and behaviors” (p. 429). Given their visibility andnotoriety, athletes often have the power to become “agents of social change”(Pelak, 2005, p. 59) and can use that status to become actively involved insocial movements (Edwards, 1969).

Nevertheless, when athletes speak out on social issues, it often creates con-troversy, particularly for minority athletes. For example, African American sporticons in the 1960s such as Muhammad Ali, Arthur Ashe, Tommie Smith, andJohn Carlos were heavily criticized for their advocacy efforts in response toracial injustices (Agyemang, Singer, & DeLorme, 2010). In more recent years,African American athletes in particular have been strongly criticized for theirlack of advocacy (Agyemang, 2012; Powell, 2008; Rhoden, 2006). To some

SOCIAL IDENTITY THREAT MANAGEMENT 303

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

extent, this criticism has emanated from Michael Jordan’s infamous comment,“Republicans buy sneakers too” (Granderson, 2012), as well as athletes beingcognizant of the financial repercussions for speaking out (Khan, 2010).Contemporary African American athletes such as LeBron James and KobeBryant also have commented, “Sports and politics just don’t match” and “It’sjust time to play basketball” (Wetzel, 2008), suggesting a resistance to using theirstatus to support certain causes or social justice issues. However, that may bechanging, as Kobe Bryant did tweet after the grand jury failed to indict DarrenWilson, “The system enables young black men to be killed behind the mask oflaw #Ferguson #tippingpoint #change” (Mandell, 2014).

Minority Athletes and Barriers to Advocacy

Cunningham and Regan (2012) offered several reasons why contemporaryathletes, particularly minority athletes, are less likely to speak up aboutsocial and political issues. First, they argued that social issues such as racismare perceived to be less prevalent than they once were. Second, they notedthat athletes tend to focus on their athletic achievements as opposed topolitical and social advocacy; third, the authors posited that athletes mayfear financial consequences caused by speaking out on polarizing topics(Cunningham & Regan, 2012). Considering the large amounts of moneythat athletes generate through endorsement deals and the inherent desirefor a positive and uncontroversial image by sponsors, this climate of acti-vism is not altogether surprising (Cunningham & Regan, 2012). For someathletes, the stakes of losing endorsements because of advocacy or divisiveopinions are simply too high. For example, former NFL running backRashard Mendenhall lost his endorsement deal with apparel companyChampion after sending several tweets questioning public celebrations overOsama bin Laden’s death (McCarthy, 2011). Such consequences lend cre-dence to Khan’s (2010) observation, “So goes the story of the demise of theactivist athlete: today’s black athletes lack the proper racialized experiencesto be activists; they have been etherized by wealth” (p. 435). Khan (2012)went on to suggest that for minority athletes, the culture of sport precludesactivism, as engaging in social justice and other issues can bring financialramifications that damage the ideal that sport is a way out of poverty andeconomic hardship.

Nonetheless, several recent events and societal problems have promptedminority athletes to speak up. One of these occasions was the GeorgeZimmerman verdict in 2013. A jury found Zimmerman not guilty after shoot-ing an unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin, while on neighborhood watch inSanford, Florida. The case, and ultimately the verdict, quickly sparked nationalcontroversy, and minority athletes took an active role in discussing the case,

304 SANDERSON, FREDERICK, STOCZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

particularly via Twitter. Miami Heat player Dwyane Wade posted a photo ofhimself wearing a hooded sweatshirt or “hoodie” (what Martin was wearing thenight he was killed; “Miami Heat Don Hoodies,” 2012) on his Facebook andTwitter pages. Shortly thereafter, teammate LeBron James posted a picture onTwitter of the entire Heat team wearing hoodies (Demby, 2012). These com-ments and actions were highly covered by the media (Alper, 2013) andprompted news stories about athletes using social media for social justiceadvocacy (Riches, 2015).

Social Media and Protest

Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter offer individuals the abilityto disseminate political views (Ragas & Kiousis, 2008; Small, 2011) and tointroduce divergent perspectives about news stories and social issues (Maireder& Ausserhofer, 2014). The connectivity offered by social media platforms alsoenables people to find community around issues of interest (Bruns, 2012;Willnat, Wong, Tamam, & Aw, 2013) and to converse, contest, and debatethese topics to a point where critical mass (Marwell & Oliver, 1993) can bereached. As this process unfolds, social media fosters the formation of individualand collective identities that kindle protest behavior (Dalton, Sickle, & Weldon,2009). The interactive features that social media provides, such as continualupdating and message exchanging, also foster protest as participants are able toobtain and retransmit information quickly. These functions can then promptmobilization and collective action (Earl, Hurwitz, Mesinas, Tolan, & Ariotti,2013; Valenzuela, Arriagada, & Scherman, 2012).

For example, Al-Rawi (2014) examined how Iraqi citizens used Facebook andYouTube to protest the regime of Nouri Maliki. He noted that these platformsserved as linking mechanisms where groups could come together to unite in theirefforts to effect change. Kang (2009) chronicled a boycott of retail grocer WholeFoods on Facebook and observed that Facebook offered an empowering venuefor people to participate in discussions without having to conform to dominantnorms. As individuals gather to discuss issues on social media, and as theseconversations coalesce into protest, collective action can soon follow. Forinstance, Weber (2013) examined a case involving supporters and critics offast-food chain Chick-fil-A after company president Dan Cathy publiclyannounced support for defining the family in heteronormative, Biblical terms.In response, both advocates and opponents used Facebook to rally supporters totheir cause and to dispute the criticisms being launched by those on the other sideof the issue. This messaging eventually led to customers traveling to Chick-fil-Astores to visibly demonstrate their support for or against biblical notions ofmarriage.

SOCIAL IDENTITY THREAT MANAGEMENT 305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

Social media platforms allow individuals to engage in social leveling prac-tices, wherein groups come together to contest an identified force (Kassing &Sanderson, 2015). Whereas some may view these outcomes as a positive featureof social media, Kassing and Sanderson (2015) argued that individuals will oftenexhibit aggressive behavior when interacting with like-minded individuals,which promotes negative behaviors and experiences for participants. As oneexample, consider the posting of racially insensitive commentary. A recent reportindicated that 10,000 tweets containing racial slurs were being posted to Twittereach day (Rajan, 2014). Within a sport context, research has revealed that socialmedia permits athletes and fans to engage in heated and often misinformeddiscussions (Kassing & Sanderson, 2015; Schmittel & Sanderson, 2015).Therefore, for all its positive potential, social media platforms do have somesignificant drawbacks when it comes to discussing and protesting social justiceissues, such as racism and intolerance. Within sport, the reaction to advocacyefforts may trigger protest as a response mechanism for fans to rectify a socialidentity threat, which may subsequently affect how minority athletes enactactvisim in the future.

Social Identity Threats

Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) posits that individuals have bothpersonal and social identities and contends that one’s social identity is linked todemographic classifications or organizational memberships (Turner, 1982). Withrespect to group affiliation, people tend to gravitate toward social groups withattributes that align with their self-concept (Fink, Parker, Martin, & Huggins,2009). Thus, group membership becomes a salient source of self-esteem that iselevated by negatively labeling divergent, or “out”-groups (Turner, 1975).Through both exchanges with out-group members and in-group events, groupmembers may encounter identity threats that jeopardize their perceived socialstanding. Threats vary in severity based on the degree to which social identity isdevalued, negatively stereotyped, or discriminated against (Major & O’Brien,2005). Branscombe et al. (1999) classified social identity threats as either (a)value threats—messages or actions that undermine the value of group member-ship and that attack shared group values, norms, and practices, or (b) distinc-tiveness threats—perceptual changes that undermine a group’s uniqueness orpositions them as remarkably similar to out-groups. As social identity is stronglytied to group belonging, when social identity threats occur, members feel vulner-able (Cohen & Garcia, 2005).

Social identity threat management processes are derived from group identifi-cation and commitment. Highly identified group members are more likely todisplay elevated in-group favoritism after receiving negative feedback (Cadinu &Cerchioni, 2001), including the display of overt behavioral responses such as

306 SANDERSON, FREDERICK, STOCZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

derogating the out-group (Branscombe & Wann, 1994) and promoting strongergroup affiliation (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002). With respect to groupdistinctiveness threats, highly identified group members employ high self-stereo-typing (Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1999) and induce conflict between the in-group and out-group (Ellemers et al., 2002). For highly committed group mem-bers, uniqueness is essential. Therefore, these individuals willingly accept nega-tive reactions from in-group members as a justifiable action to maintain groupdistinctiveness.

For sport fans, social identity threats are often associated with winning andlosing. For example, when an athlete drops a touchdown pass in a football gameand the team loses, fans may attack the player to preserve their identity that isassociated with the team (Sanderson & Truax, 2014). However, fans also experi-ence identity threats arising from events that are not related to competition (Finket al., 2009). Whereas fan identity certainly can be affected by personneltransactions and incidents away from competition, it also seems plausible thatidentity is impacted when athletes take a stand on political and social issues. Toinvestigate the ways that Rams fans managed a social identity threat arising fromthe hands-up gesture enacted by Rams players, we examined postings to theBoycott the St. Louis Rams Facebook page and tweets using the #BoycottRamshashtag.

METHOD

Data Collection

Facebook data were obtained from posts and comments on the Boycott the St.Louis Rams Facebook page. The decision was made to focus on Facebookcontent on November 30, as this was the same day as the hands-up incidentand would arguably receive the most media coverage and participant discussion.The data from November 30 were not collected until December 6. Waiting 1week to collect the data allowed for more comments to populate around theoriginal posts made on November 30. Specifically, eight posts and 1,019 com-ments were collected and analyzed. The posts and comments were captured viascreen grabs and pasted into a Microsoft Word file for analysis.

Tweets using the hashtag #BoycottRams also were collected for November30, 2014. The Radian6 software program was used to cull tweets. Radian6 is asocial media tracking software program that allows users to search publiclyavailable social media posts within specific time parameters for user-definedsearch terms. Utilizing the Radian6 software, the initial search for“#BoycottRams” for November 30, 2014, resulted in 455 tweets.

SOCIAL IDENTITY THREAT MANAGEMENT 307

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

Data Analysis

To investigate how participants on Facebook and Twitter managed the socialidentity threat arising from the Rams players’ hands-up gesture, a thematicanalysis of the comments and tweets was conducted using constant comparativemethodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Each comment or tweet served as theunit of analysis. First, three researchers independently immersed themselves inthe data through an initial active reading of the data. Braun and Clarke (2006)observed that this reading involves researchers searching for meanings andpatterns, rather than just casually reading through the data. It also enables theresearchers to make notes about what is interesting in the data and to generateinitial categories. Braun and Clarke observed that this process can be driven byeither data or theory, and we took a data-driven approach, allowing categories toemerge as data analysis unfolded rather than a priori (Kassing & Sanderson,2009; Sanderson, 2013). Through this process, it was discovered that threetweets contained content unrelated to the study (e.g., only mentioning otherusers), and these were removed from the analysis, leaving a final sample of452 tweets.

Next, each researcher developed themes by microanalyzing the comments andtweets and classifying themes into emergent categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1998)based on how participants were managing the social identity threat. Comments ortweets that appeared to fit into more than one theme were placed into thethematic category that was considered to capture the most dominant theme ofthe comment or tweet. Development, clarification, and refinement of themescontinued until new observations did not add substantively to existing themes.This allowed the researchers to independently gain insight into the usefulness ofthe developed thematic categories (Suter, Bergen, Daas, & Durham, 2006).Categories were summarized and compared to ascertain similarity, and theresearchers reduced the categories as much as possible while still preservingmeaning.

Then, using a process that has been employed in other qualitative sport andsocial media research (Kassing & Sanderson, 2009; Sanderson & Truax, 2014),the researchers met and reviewed the themes and discussed any differences in thecategories until reaching a consensus (Browning & Sanderson, 2012). Throughthis iterative process, the researchers agreed upon the final category for eachcomment and tweet in the data

308 SANDERSON, FREDERICK, STOCZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

The analysis revealed several social identity threat management themes, someof which dominated the conversation more than others. The most prominentthemes within the analysis included (a) renouncing fandom, (b) punishmentcommentary, (c) racial commentary, (d) general criticism, (e) attacking othergroup members, and (f) presenting the “facts” of the case. Comments categor-ized within these six themes accounted for over 75% of the entire conversa-tion on Facebook and 100% of the conversation on Twitter. Therefore, thisarticle focuses on these dominant themes. A complete representation of all thethemes that emerged from the data analysis for Facebook are presented inTable 11 and for Twitter in Table 2. All comments are provided verbatim. Inaddition, all personal user Twitter handles have been labeled with the mark[user].

TABLE 1Facebook Participant Themes

Theme Count % of Total Cumulative %

Renouncing fandom 249 24.44% 24.44%Punishment commentary 186 18.25% 42.69%Racial commentary 123 12.07% 54.76%General criticism 109 10.69% 65.45%Attacking other group members 63 6.18% 71.63%Presenting the “facts” of the case 62 6.08% 77.71%Separation 50 4.91% 82.62%Ferguson commentary 47 4.61% 87.23%Patriotism 47 4.61% 91.84%General support 30 2.94% 94.78%Law enforcement support 29 2.85% 97.63%Total 995

TABLE 2Twitter Participant Themes

Theme Count % of Total Cumulative %

Renouncing fandom 6 1.33% 1.33%Punishment commentary 202 44.69% 46.02%Racial commentary 65 14.38% 60.40%General criticism 72 5.75% 76.33%Attacking other group members 26 6.18% 82.08%Presenting the “facts” of the case 81 17.92% 100.0%Total 452

SOCIAL IDENTITY THREAT MANAGEMENT 309

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

Renouncing Fandom (Facebook n = 249; Twitter n = 6)

Shortly after the Boycott page’s launch, individuals converged on the domain toexpress how the hands-up gesture by the Rams players had negatively impactedtheir fandom and connection to the team. Many individuals felt that there was nocoming back from what they viewed to be an egregious offense. Therefore,renouncing fandom was perhaps viewed as a necessary threat management stepto distance themselves from actions and viewpoints with which they disagreed.For example, distancing was illustrated through comments such as “They can’tgo back to LA fast enough . . . that’s where they belong” and

I gathered all of my RAMS stuff together and will be shredding my PSL’s andmailing it all to the front office. They can pack it up and take it to LA with them.Don’t let the door hit you in the ass when you leave.

Although distancing was much less frequent on Twitter, one person commen-ted, “I will be rooting for the Redskins and the Cardinals over the next fewweeks. #BoycottRams.” This tweet was retweeted by four other individuals. Thereactions here align with Partridge, Wann, and Elison’s (2010) observation thatindividuals often distance themselves from a team when they are unsuccessful, orCutting Off from Reflected Failure (Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986). Althoughthe actions of the players had nothing to do with success on the field, it appearedthat fans (or former fans) viewed the actions of the Rams players as indicative offailure to live up to subjective shared standards and values.

Although many renounced their fandom by simply demanding that the Ramsleave St. Louis, others were more reflective on how significantly their fandomhad been affected by this incident:

I’ve bn a Rams fan since I was little and their antics that they did coming on to thefield makes me not even want to watch them anymore. I think it was verydisrespectful they mite as well be out there with the protesters they’ve lost thisfan that would of bn a lifetime fan very disappointed.

Other comments such as “I always wanted to see a rams game. Marked itoff my bucket list. Never will I support such a group as the rams” revealedthat individuals were not only disenchanted by the actions of the Ramsplayers but also saddened that this incident constituted an unforgivableoffense.

310 SANDERSON, FREDERICK, STOCZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

Punishment Commentary (Facebook n = 186; Twitter n = 202)

In addition to renouncing fandom, people also took the opportunity to levy whatthey believed to be appropriate punishment for the organization or its players. Indoing so, these individuals informed the organization regarding what could bedone to manage the threat and restore balance. For instance, comments such as,“They should be fined!!! Then fired!!! All the money should go to rebuildFerguson” and “Suspend and get rid of every damn one of those clowns” wereindicative of these emotionally charged sentiments on Facebook. On Twitter,some people noted, “The players for the St. Louis Rams with their hands in theair should be benched for being stupid” and “RT @BoycottTheRams The@STLouisRams are letting their players go. Players are fined for forms ofcelebration. Why not this? #BoycottRams.” Whereas some called for swift andstern punishment against the players, others discussed appropriate punishmentfor the team as whole with comments such as, “Pull their sponsors.” Along withplayer and team punishment, users also discussed the arbitrary nature of theNFL’s standards and practices related to punishments for player behavior withcomments such as, “Hell they fine them for a lot less (like dancing/celebrating inthe end zone after a very rare touchdown).”

On Twitter, punishment commentary extended beyond general calls for boy-cott—“RT @[user] I think in light of the St. Louis Rams entrance, they should beboycotted”—to include calls for fans to put pressure on sponsors and “punish”the players and the organization through this endeavor. For example, “Anotheradvertiser who needs to hear #BoycottRams is @drpepper. Dr. Pepper/Seven-UpInc. can be reached at 1-800-696-589” and “RT @[user] @EdwardJones isanother Rams advertiser who needs to feel the #BoycottRams heat. Call themat 314-515-2000.” One person informed Rams sponsors that “@SOSUSA2016@drpepper #BoycottRams they support lawless ferguson rioters. We are a nationof laws. #Liberty #USA, #LawandOrder #STLPD.” Others called for a collectiveboycott on merchandise and other Rams-related spending: “we must hit them inthe wallet. Boycott all Rams game and merchandise” as “only thing that effectsthese ppl are money & the loss of it. Let tickets plummet [user] [user].”

In addition to calling for consequences for the organization and its players,some participants took a more active role in the dictation of proper punishment.On Facebook, for example, “I will call them first thing Monday morning. Theyneed to issue our city a formal apology. This does not represent their fan base.I’m embarrassed over this!!!” and “By making this statement in uniform, they’rebasically speaking on behalf of the Rams organization. I plan on calling oremailing the GM tomorrow to have my thoughts about it heard.” SeveralTwitter participants promoted the Boycott Rams Facebook page by conveying,“Mad at the @STLouisRams? Join this FB page [link to page].” Such expres-sions reflected people taking tangible actions beyond just posting their disgust.

SOCIAL IDENTITY THREAT MANAGEMENT 311

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

Thus, as noted by Valenzuela et al. (2012), the Facebook group perhaps culti-vated the seeds for mobilization and collective action as participants shared thesteps that others could take to ensure that the organization was aware of theirdispleasure. Indeed, by posting telephone numbers and social media accounts ofsponsors, these individuals provided a course of action that others could take tomanage the social identity threat.

Racial Commentary (Facebook n = 123; Twitter n = 65)

Given the racial composition of the players involved and the racial overtones inthe Brown case at large, the presence of racial commentary was not surprising.Some individuals on Facebook were overtly racist in their remarks, declaringcomments such as “Thugs standing up for other thugs!”2 “Hood rats”; and“When is the last time you saw whites burning and looting their own neighbor-hood?” On Twitter, these comments included, “@[user] @nfl & @STLouisRamssupport thug displays. No different than flashing gang signs. #BoycottRams#STLRams #RamsThugs” and “@[user] For those fans who go to the@STLouisRams game, then u r showing support for thugs & Ferguson destruc-tion #BoycottRams.” This commentary, however, was not one-sided, as somefans offered counterarguments. Illustrative examples of these counterargumentson Facebook included “All black people thugs now?” “The thug players . . .wow. . .”; “White people are so F ignorant”; and

Oh their thugs now but as long as they are entertaining you white folks their finebut the minute they show what they feel for what is going on in their surroundingsthey become thugs to. White folks get a grip.

On Twitter, rebuttals were typified by this comment: “RT @[user] Hey y’allwho been tweeting me: Still think ‘thugs’ isn’t a racial term? #Ferguson#BoycottRams @[user] ok [link to news article].”

Although much of the racial commentary focused on the perceived differencesbetween Whites and African Americans, other users integrated social issues suchas welfare and education into the discussion. Examples on Facebook included“Like a lot of black women too busy partying to raise their child but loves herbaby when money is involved”; “Ya are jobs pay their welfare”; and “hoodbehavior is all they ever knew . . . they can play football but just try to put asentence together. . .” On Twitter, one of the more noteworthy comments

2We note that terms such as “thug” and “hood rat” should not be presumed to apply to AfricanAmercians or other minority groups. Although the intent of the commenters here was to do so, as theterm is unfortunately often decoded to apply to African Americans, particularly in the context ofsport. See Wagner (2014).

312 SANDERSON, FREDERICK, STOCZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

reflected the notion of reverse racism: “I bet if white @STLouisRams playerscame out with Darren Wilson bracelets on, they would have been fined @nfl#BoycottRams.” The racially charged comments that attacked the actions of theRams players and their supporters reflect the transition from in-group to out-group and the subsequent negative labeling (Turner, 1975) that accompaniesinteractions from in-group to out-group. Therefore, although athletes can act as“agents of social change” (Pelak, 2005, p. 59), many participants criticized theseathletes for standing up for a racial issue by enacting racism and demonstratingthat sport is in fact not free from racism and other forms of social injustices (vanSterkenburg & Knoppers, 2004). Thus, for some, the threat was managed byoffering derogatory generalizations to reflect why the players engaged in advo-cacy, further perpetuating problematic racial stereotypes. Nevertheless, there wasresistance to this strategy, illustrating that some threat management steps can beresisted and challenged by group members.

General Criticism (Facebook n = 109; Twitter n = 72)

General criticism was distinct from renouncing fandom and punishment com-mentary in that individuals would provide brief, targeted criticism of the actionsof the Rams players. This type of criticism was not accompanied by theindividual severing all ties with the team (e.g., renouncing fandom) or by callsto action or discussion of penalties that should be enforced (e.g., punishmentcommentary). Instead, users were simply adding their “two cents” to the con-versation by expressing their displeasure or venting their frustration. Peopleexpressed sentiments such as “Losers”; “Such a disrespect to St. Louis, MO”;“Sad”; “Disgraceful!!” “piss on em”; “Pathetic”; “Un-sportsmanlike conduct”;and “We expected a larger degree of professionalism from our players.” ViaTwitter, fans used hashtags to illustrate their condemnation, such as“#MillionDollarMorons” and “#RamsTrash” and one person noted, “These arecoddled idiots.”

Attacking Other Group Members (Facebook n = 63; Twitter n = 26)

Although some individuals used Facebook and Twitter to vent frustrationsregarding the hands-up gesture, others viewed these sites as an open invitationto attack other group members who shared dissenting perspectives on thegesture. For instance, when one Facebook user stated that the players’ behaviordid not represent the Ram’s fan base, he was met with the following comment:

Be careful in claiming that what the players did does not represent their fan base.There are probably many Rams fans who supported their statement, and even somewho could have cared less one way or the other, or even some who did not agree

SOCIAL IDENTITY THREAT MANAGEMENT 313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

with what they did, but defend their right to express themselves. Because you are afan and you feel the protest was uncalled for, doesn’t mean all Rams fans feel thesame way.

On Twitter, one person cautioned, “RT @[user] boycotting is the exacteconomic equivalent of looting. Why are you destroying your community sportsfranchise? #BoycottRams.” These particular comments are unique because theytook a relatively neutral stance on the issue while still “calling out” other groupmembers. However, although some comments were neutral in tone, most attackswere quite vicious. Any participant who countered the group norm (e.g., expres-sing disgust) was met with comments such as “It appears that some of yousupport the Rams and their actions. If so, why are you even on this page? Gorally your ignorance somewhere else!” and “Wtf are you? The Facebook police??F you & that wack ass profile pic”; on Twitter, one person declared, “Unfollowme you faggots.”

Presenting the “Facts” of the Case (Facebook n = 62; Twitter n = 81)

Substantial conversation on Facebook and Twitter was dedicated to the actions ofthe Rams players. However, there was a significant offshoot of this conversationthat focused on Darren Wilson and Michael Brown—the impetus for the Ramsplayers’ advocacy. Similar to the attacking other group members’ theme, indivi-duals often attacked the views of other participants by engaging in debate overwhat was perceived to be the “true” nature of the Michael Brown shooting. Forinstance, on Facebook: “You’re not supposed to shoot an unarmed defenselessperson running away. And why do you believe he kept getting shot and wasrunning toward the officer? Yes the hate you have is real”; “Defenseless HA HAHA HA HA HA”; and “Tell me how this 300 pound guy is considered unarmed. . . his size alone is an issue . . . just like they call it strong armed robbery, theirsize. . .” On Twitter, people noted, “National TV, captive audience, glorifying liesand what #ferguson has become arson, violence, paid protestors. NO@StLouisRams #BoycottRams.”

Other people called into question whether Brown’s hands were up during theshooting with comments such as “Wow what a concept put your hands up andfollow the law!” and “. . .No his hands were not up when he got shot. Before thatis when they were up.” On Twitter, one person commented, “All of the protestsare driven off the lie that Michael Brown surrendered. It is adding fuel to a fire.#BoycottRams.” Perhaps these comments were an attempt by group members tominimize the impact of the hands-up gesture on their social identity as a Ramsfan by questioning the efficacy of the Brown case itself. Also on Twitter, anumber of participants suggested that by the Rams failing to take any disciplin-ary action, they were perpetuating falsehoods about the Brown case. For

314 SANDERSON, FREDERICK, STOCZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

instance, “RT @BoycottTheRams Hands up don’t shoot is a lie! The@STLouisRams are promoting and spreading lies #BoycottRams” and “RT@BoycottTheRams Get it going! The @STLouisRams are promoting lies! Getit trending! #BoycottRams.”

Through Facebook and Twitter, participants managed the social identity threat bychallenging media representations and reporting of the Brown case and presentingwhat, in their view, amounted to the actual events of the incident. In doing so, groupmembers were able to attack those who supported the Rams players and/or believedthat the Brown case was an illustration of racial injustice in the United States.Further, in presenting the “facts of the case,” group members highlighted whatwas deemed to be the overwhelming group value in question here—support oflaw enforcement. For these members, unequivocal support of law enforcement was anon-negotiable group value, and they subsequently pinned the blame on the Ramsorganization for allowing this value to be undermined. Consequently, participantswere able to shape a narrative that placed blame squarely on the Rams and indictedthem as the source of this falsehood. As this sentiment was retweeted and shared, itprovided an identifiable source for group members to direct their wrath and toengage in action that had been suggested within the comments and tweets (e.g.,boycotting the team, calling sponsors, etc.).

DISCUSSION

This research investigated how fans used Facebook and Twitter to protestadvocacy efforts initiated by St. Louis Rams players in response to theMichael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Beyond the emergent themes,this research offers several implications for social identity threat management, aswell as athletes and sport organization administrators that are now discussed.First, when the Rams players performed the hands-up gesture, it constituted whatBranscombe et al. (1999) termed a value threat, as some group membersperceived this action to constitute an attack on group values. In particular,these values fell along two strands: (a) that sporting events (in this case, afootball game) are inappropriate venues for activism and (b) that law enforce-ment is an authoritarian entity that is to not to be questioned. Once these valueswere violated, fans took to Facebook and Twitter to mitigate the perceivedstigma associated with this advocacy, including severing ties with the group(Rams). Indeed, fans were able to attribute blame to the organization, circulatecalls for a boycott of the team, and alert sponsors to the group’s dissatisfaction,thereby involving stakeholders into the narratives around the players’ advocacy.

Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter function as spaces wherefans manage social identity threats (Sanderson, 2013). Furthermore, the open-accessconfiguration of these platforms enables a wide swath of participation (Kang, 2009).

SOCIAL IDENTITY THREAT MANAGEMENT 315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

In this case, although it was the intention of some group members to sever ties withthe Rams, compelling discussion was fostered about the extent to which this group“spoke” for the Rams fan base. Thus, the Boycott the St. Louis Rams page and the#BoycottRams hashtag became spaces where the values and norms of the group, aswell as the efficacy of those values and norms, could be discussed. Further, throughthe circulation of those messages, access to these conversations was broadened,providing enhanced opportunity for discussion about group norms and values.Nevertheless, within the Facebook page and Twitter hashtag, there was narrowroom for dissent. Those who supported the players’ actions were framed as violatinggroup values and, as several participants noted, not conforming to American ideals.Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter contain a mixture of socialnetwork elements and broadcast principles that allow cultural groups to cultivate anddisperse online content they perceive to be relevant to their cultural group (Brock,2012). Whereas traditional media can and do attempt to engage in cultural conversa-tions through the lens of sport, these discussions are programmed, are often one-directional, and rarely incorporate audience feedback. Through channels such asFacebook and Twitter, however, the intersection of group cultural values is ongoing,and participation is not limited to media producers.

A second implication of this research centers on minority athletes and theconsequences of their engaging in advocacy and activism. Cunningham andRegan (2012) observed that one reason African American athletes may bereticent to speak up about social and political issues is the perception thattheir views may counter public perceptions that racism and other social illsare evaporating. The results here indicate another reason why minorityathletes may be hesitant to speak up: They will be subjected to racialtauntings and threats from fans. Whereas fans in this forum did not expressthese sentiments directly to the Rams players, many people were quick toinvoke racial stereotypes, equating the players' activity with “thuggish”behavior and threatening to notify team administrators. In addition, throughsocial media platforms, fans have the ability to alert or notify sport organi-zation stakeholders about their displeasure with the behavior of athletes, andthese messages may persuade sponsors to take action and reduce or pulltheir team sponsorships. If such action occurs, players may receive overt orveiled messaging to tone down their public communication of social justiceissues, which could then create a culture that suffocates dissent or unpopularopinion. Consequently, minority athletes may eschew advocacy and activismopportunties altogether to avoid this kind of vitriolic response and organiza-tional pushback. Of interest, as group members labeled the players and theirsupporters in racist terms, they minimzed discussion about the social issuesbehind their advocacy. However, in doing so, they simultaneously illustratedthat the social issue (in this case, racism) was indeed prevalent.

316 SANDERSON, FREDERICK, STOCZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

In addition, the reaction to the hands-up gesture illustrates the stronglinkages between sport and authority (Butterworth, 2013). That is, athleteswho question authority will be subjected to harsh reactions from in-groupmembers (fans), who equate sport (in this case football) as being distinct fromsocial and policital issues, or at least a place where these issues should not bechallenged. Butterworth (2011) observed, “Sport is not a distraction fromsocio-political issues; rather, it is a constitutive site in which these issuesare communicated” (p. 326). Indeed, within the world of sport, manifestationsabout militarism and authority have only intensified (Butterworth, 2014).Butterworth (2013) further contended that “both college and professionalfootball history are replete with stories of coaches who push their playersto emotional and physical limits, all in the name of building ‘character,’‘discipline,’ and ‘teamwork’” (p. 287). As illustrated here, these values areso embedded in sport that some in-group members elected to renounce theirmembership (e.g., fandom) rather than entertain discussions about why thesevalues may need to be challenged.

Whereas fans expressed their intention to boycott the Rams and called foraction to rally influential Rams’s stakeholders (e.g., sponsors) to their cause, it isworth noting that the Rams took no adverse action against these players. Thisoutcome, despite intensive pressure from groups such as the St. Louis PoliceOfficers Association (Fantz, 2014), suggests that sport organizational personnelmay be hesitant to censure players for what is perceived to be an expression of“freedom of speech,” which may induce more minority athletes to engage inactivism in the future. Certainly arguments can be made about the appropriate-ness of activism at athletic contests, yet such behavior is not unprecedented, anda compelling argument can be made that advocacy enacted while at a sportingevent is witnessed by a larger audience than perhaps other contexts couldprovide. Although this one case is not representative of how sport organizationpersonnel might act consistently, it does suggest that they may be more tolerantof advocacy efforts, despite significant pushback from fans and otherstakeholders.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This research has several limitations. First, although there was significantactivity in the infancy of the Facebook and Twitter content, the data herepresent a cross-section of time. It would be worthwhile for researchers toemploy a longitudinal approach to investigate how social identity threatmanagement strategies remain static or change over time. Admittedly,these strategies also may be influenced by organizational responses, and itwould be fruitful to examine how official statements and/or adverse action

SOCIAL IDENTITY THREAT MANAGEMENT 317

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

taken by the organization influence the social identity threat managementprocess. Second, given the racial overtones of some of the messages and theracial elements of the Brown case, it would be important to investigate howsocial identity threat management varies by race of the athlete and race ofin-group members. Such investigation may help illustrate a more nuancedpicture of why some “voices” of the in-group become more salient thanothers. Third, and along those lines, the researchers are all White men.Thus, we may bring assumptions about race that may reflect our positionof privilege, and we may not fully understand the underlying social struc-tures involved in issues of police brutality. We tried to minimize thosebiases through our analytic process, yet we acknowledge we may not fullyhave done so. Fourth, we did not contact participants directly to assess theirintention with their comments. Although we recognize this as a shortcom-ing, we also believed that in doing so, given many of the inflammatorycomments, such invitation may have proven to only embolden problematicdiscourse.

In terms of future research, there are several promising directions forscholars to undertake. First, it would be fruitful to ascertain if there arecertain sports where advocacy efforts are more or less accepted than whatwas found here. Although the responses in the data may be attributable tothe close link that football has with American national identity (Trujillo,1995), this may not be the case with a sport that is less connected withAmerican national identity, such as soccer. Second, how do reactions varybased on the race and gender of the athlete? The athletes in this case wereall African American men, and it would be interesting to observe thereactions here with responses from a White football player, such as ChrisKluwe, who has been a vocal advocate for marriage equality (Butterworth,2014). Finally, the messages here were not expressed directly to players, yeteach of these players maintains a Twitter account, where messaging fromfans to athletes is common (Sanderson & Truax, 2014). Investigating howfans communicate support or contempt directly to athletes may shed light onadditional consequences of advocacy that may dictate the frequency offuture activism.

CONCLUSION

As athletes engage in activism and advocacy, social media platforms con-stitute a rich site for inclusion in these narratives. That is, social mediaplatforms provide space where group members can contest, reinforce, andchallenge group norms and values. As these conversations take place,

318 SANDERSON, FREDERICK, STOCZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

actions such as posting information about team sponsors can mobilizeaction, which could affect future activism and advocacy efforts. Thus, notonly do social media platforms serve as venues where group membersaddress social identity threats, but as the process for managing those threatsunfolds, consequences of advocacy and activism may emerge. Sport is a sitewhere larger social conversations can take place and where attention tosocial issues can play out in front of large audiences. When athletes engagein activism and advocacy, particularly with efforts that challenge authority,group values are likely to be fractured. The discourse that is generatedthrough multiple media channels provides rich terrain to examine the inter-section of athlete advocacy and social identity threat management.

REFERENCES

Adande, J. A. (2014, December 10). Purpose of “I can’t breathe” t-shirts. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12010612/nba-stars-making-statement-wearing-breathe-shirts

Agyemang, K. J. (2012). Black male athlete activism and the link to Michael Jordan: A transforma-tion leadership and social cognitive theory analysis. International Review for the Sociology ofSport, 47, 433–445. doi:10.1177/1012690211399509

Agyemang, K. J., Singer, J. N., & DeLorme, J. (2010). An exploratory study of Black male collegeathletes’ perceptions on race and athlete activism. International Review for the Sociology of Sport,45, 419–435. doi:10.1177/1012690210374691

Alper, J. (2013, July 14). Roddy White apologizes for post Zimmerman verdict tweet. Retrieved fromhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/07/14/roddy-white-apologizes-for-post-zimmerman-verdict-tweet

Al-Rawi, A. K. (2014). The Arab Spring and online protests in Iraq. International Journal ofCommunication, 8, 916–942.

Basu, M., Ford, D., & Yan, H. (2014, November 25). Fires, chaos erupt in Ferguson after grand jurydoesn’t indict in Michael Brown case. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/24/justice/ferguson-grand-jury/

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of socialidentity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity (pp. 35–59). Oxford,UK: Blackwell.

Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self–esteem consequences of out-groupderogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24,641–657. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420240603

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research inPsychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brock, A. (2012). From the blackhand side: Twitter as a cultural conversation. Journal ofBroadcasting & Electronic Media, 56, 529–549. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.732147

Browning, B., & Sanderson, J. (2012). The positives and negatives of Twitter: Exploring howstudent-athletes use Twitter and respond to critical tweets.. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bruns, A. (2012). How long is a tweet? Mapping dynamic conversations on Twitter using Gawk andGephi. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5, 503–521. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2011.635214

SOCIAL IDENTITY THREAT MANAGEMENT 319

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

Buford, R. A. M. (2009). The good and bad of it all: Professional black basketball players as rolemodels for young black male basketball players. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26, 443–461.

Butterworth, M. L. (2011). Saved at home: Christian branding and faith nights in the “church ofbaseball.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97, 309–333. doi:10.1080/00335630.2011.585170

Butterworth, M. L. (2013). Coaches gone wild: Media, masculinity, and morality in big-time collegefootball. In L. A. Wenner (Ed.), Fallen sports heroes, media, & celebrity culture (pp. 284–297).New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Butterworth, M. L. (2014). Public memorializing in the stadium: Mediated sport, the tenth anniversaryof 9/11, and the illusion of democracy. Communication & Sport, 2, 203–224. doi:10.1177/2167479513485735

Cadinu, M. R., & Cerchioni, M. (2001). Compensatory biases after ingroup threat: ‘Yeah, but we havea good personality.’ European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 353–367. doi:10.1002/ejsp.46

Cave, D. (2014, November 24). Ferguson and other cities react to grand jury decision not to indictDarren Wilson. Retrieved from http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/live-updates-from-ferguson-on-the-grand-jury-decision-in-michael-brown-shooting/?_r=0

Cohen, G. L., & Garcia, J. (2005). I am us: Negative stereotypes as collective threats. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 89, 566–582. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.566

Cunningham, G. B., & Regan, M.R., Jr. (2012). Political activism, racial identity, and the commercialendorsement of athletes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47, 657–669.doi:10.1177/1012690211416358

Dalton, R. J., Sickle, A. V., & Weldon, S. (2009). The individual-institutional nexus of protestbehaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 51–73. doi:10.1017/s000712340999038x

Demby, G. (2012, May 23). LeBron James tweets picture of Miami Heat wearing hoodies insolidarity with family of Trayvon Martin. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/lebron-heat-trayvon-tweet_n_1375831.html

Earl, J., Hurwitz, H. M., Mesinas, A. M., Tolan, M., & Ariotti, A. (2013). This protest will betweeted. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 459–478. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2013.777756

Edwards, H. (1969). The revolt of the Black athlete. New York, NY: Free Press.Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review ofPsychology, 53, 161–186.

Fantz, A. (2014, December 1). Police angry at ‘hands up’ gesture by St. Louis Rams players.Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/us/ferguson-nfl-st-louis-rams/

Fink, J. S., Parker, H., Martin, B., & Higgins, J. (2009). Off-field behavior of athletes and teamidentification: Using social identity theory and balance theory to explain fan reactions. Journal ofSport Management, 23, 142–155.

Gabler, N. (2014, May 30). NFL: Last sports bastion of white, male conservatives. Retrieved fromhttp://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/30/nfl-last-sports-bastion-of-white-male-conservatives/

Geary, M. (2014, November 30). St. Louis police officers angered by Rams’ ‘hands up, don’t shoot’pose. Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/11/30/st-louis-rams-ferguson-protests

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.Granderson, L. Z. (2012, August 14). The political Michael Jordan. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8264956/michael-jordan-obama-fundraiser-22-years-harvey-gantt

Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1999). Group distinctiveness and intergroup discrimina-tion. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content(pp. 107–126). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Kang, J. (2009). A volatile public: The 2009 whole foods boycott on Facebook. Journal ofBroadcasting & Electronic Media, 56, 562–577. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.732142

320 SANDERSON, FREDERICK, STOCZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

Kassing, J. W., & Sanderson, J. (2009). “You’re the kind of guy that we all want for a drinkingbuddy”: Expressions of parasocial interaction on Floydlandis.com. Western Journal ofCommunication, 73, 182–203. doi:10.1080/10570310902856063

Kassing, J. W., & Sanderson, J. (2015). Playing in the new media game or riding the virtual bench:Confirming and disconfirming membership in the community of sport. Journal of Sport & SocialIssues, 39, 3–18. doi:10.1177/0193723512458931

Khan, A. (2010). Baseball in the black public sphere: Curt Flood and the disappearance of race(Ascension Order No. 11398). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http://conservancy.unm.edu/bitstream/handle//11299/98800/Khan_umn_0130E_11398.pdf?sequence=1

Khan, A. (2012). Curt Flood in the media: Baseball, race, and the demise of the activist athlete.Oxford: University of Mississippi Press.

Maireder, A., & Ausserhofer, J. (2014). Political discourses on Twitter: Networking topics, objects,and people. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter andsociety (pp. 305–318). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology,56, 393–421.

Mandell, N. (2014, November 25). Kobe Bryant on Ferguson: Until the legal system changes “it’sgoing to keep on happening.” Retrieved from http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/11/kobe-bryant-ferguson

Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. (1993). The critical mass in collective action: A micro-social theory.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, M. (2011, May 5). Rashard Mendenhall fired by Champion over Osama bin Laden tweets.Retrieved from http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/05 rashard-menden-hall-fired-by-champion-over-osama-bin-laden-comments/1#.UoZMjo1 Q14E

Melnick, M. J., & Jackson, S. J. (2002). Globalization American style and reference idol selection.International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 37, 429–448. doi:10.1177/1012690202037004027

Miami Heat don hoodies after teen’s death. (2012, March 24). Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/story/_/id/7728618/miami-heat-don-hoodies-response-death-teen-trayvon-martin

Miller, F. M., & Laczniak, G. R. (2011). The ethics of celebrity-athlete endorsement. Journal ofAdvertising Research, 51, 499–510. doi:10.2501/jar-51-3-499-510

Partridge, J. A., Wann, D. L., & Elison, J. (2010). Understanding college fans’ sports experiences ofand attempts to cope with shame. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33, 160–175.

Pelak, C. F. (2005). Athletes as agents of change: An examination of shifting race relations withinwomen’s netball in post-apartheid South Africa. Sociology of Sport Journal, 21, 59–77.

Peters, M., & Kesling, B. (2014, August 14). Ferguson has long been challenged by racial tensions:Protests turn violent again in a city with a growing divide. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/missouri-community-seeks-answers-about-police-shooting-of-teen-1407939862

Powell, S. (2008). Souled out? An evolutionary crossroads for blacks in sport. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.

Ragas, M. W., & Kiousis, S. (2008). Intermedia agenda-setting and political activism: Moveon.organd the 2008 presidential election. Mass Communication & Society, 13, 560–583. doi:10.1080/15205436.2010.515372

Rajan, B. (2014, March 10). #Racism in 140 characters. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nitya-rajan/racism-in-140-characters_b_4922343.html

Rhoden, W. C. (2006). Forty million dollar slaves. New York: Three Rivers Press.Riches, S. (2015, March 3). The activist athlete in the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.psmag.com/

books-and-culture/so-what-do-you-really-think-about-derek-jeters-the-players-tribune-websiteSanderson, J. (2013). From loving the hero to despising the villain: Sports fans, Facebook, and social

identity threats.Mass Communication and Society, 16, 487–509. doi:10.1080/15205436.2012.730650

SOCIAL IDENTITY THREAT MANAGEMENT 321

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6

Sanderson, J., & Truax, C. (2014). “I hate you man!”: Exploring maladaptive parasocial interactionexpressions to college athletes via Twitter. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 7, 333–351.

Schmittel, A. & Sanderson, J. (2015). Talking about Trayvon in 140 characters: Exploring NFLplayers’ tweets about the George Zimmerman verdict. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 39, 332–345. doi:10.1177/0193723514557821

Small, T. A. (2011). What the hashtag? A content analysis of Canadian politics on Twitter.Information, Communication, & Society, 14, 872–895. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2011.554572

Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure:Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality & SocialPsychology, 51, 382–388. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.51.2.382

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures fordeveloping grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Suter, E. A., Bergen, K. M., Daas, K. L., & Durham, W. T. (2006). Lesbian couples’ management ofpublic-private dialectical contradictions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 349–365. doi:10.1177/0265407506064201

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). Social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W. Austin & S.Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 33–47). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Trujillo, N. (1995). Machines, missiles, and men: Images of the male body on ABC’s Monday NightFootball. Sociology of Sport Journal, 12, 403–423.

Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparisons and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior.European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 1–34. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420050102

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Self,identity, and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Valenzuela, S., Arriagada, A., & Scherman, A. (2012). The social media basis of youth protestbehavior: The case of Chile. Journal of Communication, 62, 299–314. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01635.x

van Sterkenburg, J., & Knoppers, A. (2004). Dominant discourses about race/ethnicity and gender insport practice and performance. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 39, 301–321.doi:10.1177/1012690204045598

Wagner, K. (2014, January 21). The word “thug” was uttered 625 times on TV on Monday. That’s alot. Retrieved from http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-word-thug-was-uttered-625-times-on-tv-yesterday-1506098319

Weber, J. M. (2013). “Kissing for equality” and “dining for freedom”: Analyzing the ego-function ofthe August 2012 Chick-fil-A demonstrations. Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, 3, 30–45.

Wetzel, D. (2008, August 7). Will Kobe, LeBron pass on Darfur? Retrieved from http://sports.yahoo.com/news/kobe-lebron-pass-darfur-133500960–oly.html

Willnat, L. W., Wong, W. J., Tamam, E., & Aw, A. (2013). Online media and political participation:The case of Malaysia. Mass Communication & Society, 16, 557–585. doi:10.1080/15205436.2012.734891

322 SANDERSON, FREDERICK, STOCZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

40 1

0 M

arch

201

6