Stephen Reysen[*]
Abstract
An 11-item survey was created and administered to examine differences
between secular and religious fans with respect to fan behaviours and beliefs.
Responses from 158 adults were examined. Responses from different secular
fan groups (e.g., music, media, sports) were similar, lending support to
the notion that fans are similar regardless of interest. Responses from
different religious groups were also similar among themselves. However,
secular fan group responses were different from religious member responses
with respect to a number of the questions presented.
[1] In the present study, a fan was defined as a person who is a devoted
and ardent admirer. Most empirical work focuses on sport fans, especially
those who exhibit violent behaviour (e.g., Wann and Branscombe 1993). For
example, Wann has created a scale to measure the level of identity sports
fans possess with their target interest and how this predicts fan behaviour
(for a review see Wann, Melnick, Russell and Pease 2001). To a lesser extent,
fans of television programs have been examined. Given the ubiquitous nature
of fandom one would surmise that a wealth of research exists on the topic.
Some popular writers and theorists have compared fandom to religion. However,
no studies have attempted to compare secular fans from different interest
groups. Conclusions have yielded mixed results as to similarities and differences
among religious groups (Frederick and Price, 2001; Furnham 1982; Khayyer
2000). And no studies have compared fandom to religion. The present study
explores the sociological literature and examines the notion of fandom
as a religion through empirical examination.
[2] The word “fan” is an abbreviation of fanatic. A fanatic
is defined as “One zealously devoted to a religion” or “One
who holds extreme views or advocates extreme measures” (Phelps 1995).
For the present study, a religious “fan” was defined as a person
who belongs to a religious group, and adheres to or manifests religious
beliefs. The definition is applied to religious members excluding individuals
who collect religious paraphernalia. This definition may be viewed as an
overextension of the concept of a fan; however, theorists have drawn similarities
between fans and religious members, thus encouraging further examination.
Both secular fans and religious members strive for a connection with an
interest and are devoted to the interest to some degree.
[3] Religion was defined as a “commitment or devotion to religious
faith” (Mish and Morse 1993, 988). Religious beliefs were defined
as tenets held by a religious faith group. A religious group was defined
as two or more individuals who hold similar religious beliefs. In the present
examination, respondents were asked to answer a questionnaire regarding
their religious membership, assessing them as “fans of religion.”
[4] While no studies have empirically examined similarities or differences
between secular fans and religious members, in his book, Celebrity,
Chris Rojek (2001) discusses the religion-fan connection. He does not posit
the legitimacy of a connection, but does offer possible similarities. Secular
fans strive to lessen the distance between themselves and the target celebrity.
This is exemplified by a fan’s quest to collect items used by or
associated with the celebrity and visitation to celebrity burial sites.
One possible explanation, “the St. Thomas effect,” cites individuals’ desire
to authenticate a target celebrity by seeing or touching them in person.
Barbas (2001) has developed a similar explanation. For both authors, there
exists a parasocial relationship for fans, meaning that all relations between
the fans and their interests are through media instead of face-to-face
interaction. This parallels religion by seeking enlightenment through,
e.g., the Bible, rather than speaking directly to the source. Lastly, both
fans and religious members have sacred and profane worlds, rites of passage,
rituals and heightened emotions with respect to their fan or religious
interest.
[5] Gabler (1998) indicates that fandom has come to replace organized religion.
Gabler suggests that as science and rational thought become more prevalent,
religion and magic have waned. However, a void needed to be filled, individuals
strived to find their lives meaningful, and celebrity culture was secular
society’s answer. Religion has adapted by assimilating consumer culture,
using similar forms of media communication. Religions are branding beliefs
via the Internet, magazines and television (Rojek 2001). This means religions
are trademarking their beliefs in consumer packages. Thus, religion and
fandom hold similar appearances of information dissemination. Despite the
caution expressed by some, bold statements continue to be made regarding
a definite connection (for one such statement, see Doss 1999). The notion
of fandom and religion as related phenomena or as similarly defined is
untested and often disputed.
[6] Hill (2002) suggests that fandom is dissimilar to religion. Religious
terms are simply used as a means to explain fan behaviour, although they
have separate meanings. He instead calls the fan behaviour neoreligious.
Fans are not similar to religious members, but religious labels have been
given to fan behaviour. Duffett (2003) also argues against a connection.
He states that once the popular culture has accepted the metaphor, or religious
labels detailing fan behaviour, fans will be forced to into that mold.
[7] These ideas, however, are speculation by popular writers. No empirical
studies exist concerning a connection between fandom and religion. The
present study sought to explore this relationship. Two goals of the present
study are to further the research examining fans, and to study any possible
connections between fandom and religion. Included in the current study
are three hypotheses: (1) different secular fan groups’ description
of fanship would be similar; (2) different religious groups’ description
of fanship would be similar; and (3) religious and secular fan groups’ description
of fanship would be similar.
Method
Participants
[8] Surveys were emailed to webmasters of fan clubs, and numerous surveys
were posted on Internet fan club bulletin boards. A number of email messages
were returned due to inaccurate or outdated addresses, thus an exact response
rate is unknowable. Three main groups of individuals were contacted: music
fans, media fans, and religious individuals. A music fan was defined as
a person who is interested in a particular band; a media fan was defined
as a fan of a particular actor, director, or television program. A religious
individual was defined as a person who belonged to a religious group and
these were contacted through church websites. A majority of religious respondents
belonged to the Assembly of God organization, a group arbitrarily chosen
for the study. A total of 169 individuals responded: 11 responses were
discarded due to the respondent leaving more than two questions unanswered
or indicating they were less than 18 years of age, leaving 158 remaining
responses included in this analysis (see Table 1 for respondent characteristics).
--------------------------
Table 1
Characteristics of the Sample
N
(%) M SD
Agea 33.36 14.25
Number of years a fanb 17.38 14.50
How big a fan (1-10)c 8.50 1.59
Gendera
Men 87
(55%)
Women 71
(45%)
Fan Groupa
Assembly
of God 52 (32.91%)
Other
religions 12
(7.59%)
Music 51
(32.28%)
Media 23
(14.56%)
Sports 12
(7.59%)
Other 8
(5.06%)
a Total N = 158, b Total N = 157, c Total
N = 155
--------------------------
Instrument
[9] The survey consisted of 12 questions concerning respondents’ fanship
beliefs and behaviours. The questions are each of individual interest and
are not intended to measure any one concept. These included: How did you
become involved with your interest? Are you part of a fan club? Where do
you get your information regarding your interest? How do you explain your
interest to others? How do others view your interest? How do you deal with
disagreement regarding your interest? Do you feel isolated when not around
others who share your interest? Are you a bigger fan than someone else,
and how did you compare? How big of a fan are you (1-10)? How long have
you considered yourself a fan? What are your other interests? The survey
was modified slightly for religious respondents. Instead of using “fan” or “interest,” the
survey read “member” or “religion.”
[10] Informed consent was given to participants explaining voluntary participation,
the ability to discontinue without penalty, and assurance of confidentiality.
All participants acknowledged understanding of the consent and the voluntary
decision to participate. The data were kept separately from participants’ identity
and all emails were destroyed at the end of data collection.
Results
[11] The items appear face valid. Responses were read using inductive content
coding, and frequent responses were categorized. All responses were read
once and categorized according to similarity in answers. For example, when
asked how they deal with disagreement one religious respondent stated, “I
honestly love and pray for all people.” A fan of college football
stated, “I don’t deal with them.” A fan of radio talk
show host Bob Brinker stated, “I try to find facts to support my
position and explain my reasons gently in order to convince them to alter
their opinion.” The first example was coded as “love/pray”,
the second “ignore,” and the third as “engage/challenge.”
Fan vs. Religious Group Differences
[12] Using chi-square tests of independence, no differences were found
between secular fan groups for any survey question. Similarly, no differences
were found between religious groups for any survey question. As a result,
the religious fans’ responses were grouped together, and the secular
fans’ responses were grouped together. These two groups of responses
were then compared using chi-square tests of independence. The two groups
differed significantly with respect to: how they became involved with their
interest, if they are part of a club, where they receive their information,
how they explain their interest to others, how they believe others view
their interest, how they deal with disagreement, if they compare themselves
to others, and how they compare themselves to others in the group (see
Table 2).
-------------------------------
Table 2
Religious and Secular Group Statistically Significant Differences
How became involved |
Religious (N = 64) |
Secular (N = 89) |
Friends
Church
Parents/ Family
Media
Internet |
23.4%
9.4%
62.5%
4.7%
0% |
25.8%
0%
18%
53.9%
2.2% |
(c2(4, N = 153) = 57.12, p = .00)a
Part of a club or group |
(N = 64) |
(N = 94) |
Yes
No |
100%
0% |
69.1%
30.9% |
(c2(4, N = 158) =24.18, p = .00)
Where receive information |
(N = 64) |
(N = 94) |
Internet
Family/ Friends
TV/ Magazine/ Newspaper/ Video/ Radio
Bible/ Historical Text
Group Leaders |
1.6%
3.1%
1.6%
70.3%
23.4% |
58.5%
8.5%
27.7%
0%
5.3% |
(c2(5, N = 158) =127.73, p = .001)
Table 2 continued
How explain to others |
Religious (N = 64) |
Secular (N = 94) |
Already Know
Relate to Self
Relate to Other
Glorify
Don’t Explain
Other/ Depends |
0%
60.9%
17.2%
1.6%
1.6%
18.8% |
3.2%
48.9%
6.4%
14.9%
12.8%
13.8% |
(c2(5, N = 158) = 20.71, p = .001)
How others view |
(N = 63) |
(N = 94) |
Positive
Neutral
Negative |
65.1%
22.2%
12.7% |
29.8%
40.4%
29.8% |
(c2(2, N = 157) = 19.27, p = .00)
How deal with disagreement |
(N = 64) |
(N = 93) |
Ignore
Retaliate/ Names
Engage/ Challenge
Love/ Pray |
15.6%
1.6%
26.6%
56.3% |
62.4%
5.4%
21.5%
10.8% |
(c2(3, N = 157) = 47.76, p = .00)a
Table 2 continued
Compare with others |
Religious (N = 62) |
Secular (N = 93) |
Yes
No
Not about that |
46.8%
32.3%
21% |
62.4%
31.2%
6.5% |
(c2(2, N = 155) = 8.02, p = .01)
How compare |
(N = 38) |
(N = 62) |
Time
Willing to Give
Personal Feeling
Other |
10.5%
50.8%
34.2%
5.3% |
46.8%
29%
14.5%
9.7% |
(c2(3, N = 100) = 16.91, p = .001)a
a 20% or more of the cells have an expected count less than
5.
Bold percentages represent the most common response by group.
-------------------------------
[12] Religious respondents were more likely to have become involved in
their interest through parents or other family members, while secular respondents
were drawn in through media sources (e.g., television, radio, magazines).
Secular respondents also were more likely to continue receiving their information
through the Internet and media sources, whereas religious respondents cited
the Bible and religious writings. Both groups of respondents explained
their interest to others by relating the interest to them, although religious
respondents did this significantly more. For example, a religious respondent
would state what about religion had helped or changed them. Religious respondents
stated that they believed other people viewed their interest in religion
to be positive, while the secular group thought others viewed their interest
as either neutral or negative. When confronted with disagreement, those
in the religious group explained how they would pray or love the individual,
whereas those in the secular fan group said they would ignore them. A majority
of respondents in both groups agreed they could compare themselves with
others. However, in the religious group, fewer agreed regarding comparing
themselves to others. When asked how they made the comparison between themselves
and another person in their group, the religious respondents cited their
willingness to give up things for their religion. Secular respondents cited
the amount of time they have spent on their given interest. For example,
religious respondents frequently stated they would give their lives for
their religion, whereas fan respondents stated they have spent their lives
being a fan of their interest.
Age Differences
[13] To better understand differences due to age, another analysis was
conducted. Respondents were split into two groups by median age: those
18-30 were termed “young,” those 31 or older were termed “old”.
The age groups differed significantly with respect to: which group they
were associated with, whether they belonged to a club, where they received
their information, how they dealt with disagreement regarding their interest,
whether they compared themselves with other fans or members, and gender
of respondent (see Table 3).
----------------------------
Table 3
Statistically Significant Differences by Age
Group Association |
Young (N = 75) |
Old (N = 83) |
Religious
Non-Religious |
44.6%
76% |
55.4%
24% |
(c2(1, N = 158) = 16.14, p = .00)
Part of a club or group |
(N = 75) |
(N = 83) |
Yes
No |
65.3%
34.7% |
96.4%
3.6% |
(c2(1, N = 158) = 25.35, p = .00)
Where receive information |
(N = 75) |
(N = 83) |
Internet
Family/ Friends
TV/ Magazine/ Newspaper/ Video/ Radio
Bible/ Historical Text
Group Leaders |
45.3%
6.5%
24%
12%
12% |
26.5%
6%
10.5%
43.4%
13.3% |
(c2(4, N = 158) =21.62, p = .00)
Table 3 continued
How deal with disagreement |
Young (N = 75) |
Old (N = 82) |
Ignore
Retaliate/ Names
Engage/ Challenge
Love/ Pray |
46.7%
6.7%
28%
18.7% |
40.2%
1.2%
19.5%
39% |
(c2(3, N = 157) = 10.15, p = .017)a
Compare with others |
(N = 74) |
(N = 81) |
Yes
No
Not about that |
60.8%
35.1%
4.1% |
51.9%
28.4%
19.8% |
(c2(2, N = 155) = 8.88, p = .012)
Gender |
(N = 75) |
(N = 83) |
Women
Men |
53.3%
46.7% |
37.3%
62.7% |
(c2(1, N = 158) = 4.07, p = .05)
a 20% or more of the cells have an expected count less
than 5.
Bold percentages represent the most common response by group.
----------------------------
[14] Younger respondents were less likely to be religious members than
the older respondents. In comparison to older respondents, younger respondents
were less likely to be associated with a fan club or group, and more likely
to receive their information from media sources. Younger respondents were
more likely to engage others who disagreed with their interest whereas
the older respondent would love or pray for others. Older respondents were
more likely to state that it is not about comparing themselves to others
whereas younger respondents either agreed or disagreed that they compared
themselves with others. Younger respondents were also more likely to be
women.
Discussion
[15] The present study sought to explore the similarities between fans
of different interests and the possible similarities to religious fans.
A survey was administered to test for basic similarities in the belief
processes of secular and religious fans. A number of significant results
were found bearing on the original three hypotheses. The first and second
hypotheses were supported: secular responses were similar among themselves
and religious responses were similar among themselves. This is important
for future fan research because comparisons can possibly be made across
all fan groups. The third hypothesis was not supported: secular fan group
responses were not similar to religious responses. Thus, the findings do
not indicate a connection between fandom and religion.
[16] Significant group differences included the indoctrinating medium through
which individuals became involved in their interest. Family members were
much more likely to introduce individuals to religion. This finding might
aid future conversion methods for religious groups. Religious respondents
stated that they believed others viewed their interest in religion as positive,
whereas secular interest respondents believed others viewed their interest
as neutral or negative. This may exemplify the acceptance of intense religious
interest, whereas other interests are seen as abnormal or maladaptive to
the individual. The way respondents deal with others who disagree with
their interest proved significant. Religious respondents were more likely
to express love or to pray for the individual, whereas secular respondents
stated they would ignore those persons. This could be due to the specific
group doctrine. Religious members are taught to pray for those who disagree
with them. Fan groups may lack any explicitly stated doctrine of love.
Both groups agreed they compare themselves with others in the group; however
the deciding factor they stated differed. Religious respondents stated
they were willing to give everything for their religion, even their lives.
Secular respondents used time as a deciding factor. This might show a real
difference in loyalty or devotion to the interest between groups.
[17] Many conclusions may be drawn from the present study. First, in relation
to age differences, there exists a possible trend for younger respondents
to use the Internet to seek information more than older individuals. This
may reflect the growing importance of the Internet among the younger generation.
Another possible trend is that younger respondents are more likely to engage
or challenge others who disagree with their interest. This enthusiasm to
argue may extinguish as individuals mature in relation to the interest.
[18] The results support popular writers who dispute an association between
fandom and religion (e.g., Duffett, 2003; Hill, 2002). Religious members
were less likely than fans to use the Internet as a source of information
which does not support assertions by Rojek (2001). The result concerning
the similarities between fan groups (e.g., music, sports) is of particular
interest for further studies of fandom. Fans may be similar regardless
of the interest.
[19] Limitations of the present study include small sample sizes, unknown
response rate, and lack of generalizability. A larger study may include
more fan groups and religious groups to improve the validity of the results.
Using more advanced Internet research methods may be able to track participants
and record a definite response rate. Lastly, due to small sample sizes,
the results may not be generalizable to other religious groups. Past research
has yielded mixed results regarding the similarities and differences among
religious groups (Frederick and Price 2001; Furnham 1982; Khayyer 2000).
[20] More attention is warranted for the examination of fandom due to the
overwhelming presence of the phenomenon in our culture. The present study
aids future research by providing empirical evidence supporting the notion
of fan group similarities, and the lack of association with religion. Future
studies may examine the concept of the fan more closely and construct a
measure to quantify the degree to which individuals are fans.
References
Barbas, S. 2001. Movie Crazy: Fans, Stars, and the Cult of Celebrity.
New York: Palgrave.
Doss, E. 1999. Elvis Culture: Fans, Faith and Image. Lawrence: University
of Kansas Press.
Duffett, M. 2003. “False Faith or False Comparison? A Critique of
the Religious Interpretation of Elvis Fan Culture.” Popular Music
and Society (December):
1-4.
Frederick, C.M. and B. Price, B. 2001. “Thinking Creatively about
Religion: Belief-related Differences.” Journal of Creative Behaviour 35,3:
205-24.
Furnham, A.F. 1982. “Explaining Poverty in India: A Study of Religious
Group Differences.” Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology
in the Orient 25,4: 236-43.
Gabler, N. 1998. Life: The Movie. New York: Random House.
Hill, M. 2002. Fan Cultures. New York: Routledge.
Khayyer, M. 2000. “Comparison of Locus of Control among Muslim and
Jewish School Students in Iran.” Psychological Reports 87,1:
183-187.
Mish, F.C. and J.M. Morse, eds. 1993. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary. 10th Edition. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster
Inc.
Phelps, M.F., ed. 1995. Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus. 3rd Edition.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rojek, C. 2001. Celebrity. London: Reaktion Books.
Wann, D.L. and N.R. Branscombe. 1993. “Sports Fans: Measuring Degree
of Identification with their Team.” International Journal of Sport
Psychology 24,1: 1-17.
Wann, D.L., M.J. Melnick, G.W. Russell and D.G. Pease. 2001. Sport Fans:
The Psychology and Social Impact of Spectators. New York:
Routledge.
Author Note
[*] I would like to thank Constance Jones, Robert Levine and Ellen
Ganz for their help with this research. Address correspondence to Stephen
Reysen, University of Kansas, Department of Psychology, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd.
Rm. 426, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7556 [email: sreysen@jasnh.com].
