G ENRE SHAPING THE COMMUNITY

5.4.1 Peer groups

Belonging to separate groups

Both results shown in interviews and probe diaries, our participants have a group of people who shared the same interest on sport events, as they called “sport peer group”. In the interview, according to participants' description, the peer group is consisting of those people they meet in the past who shared the same interest in sport events. The relationships between them are many, such as classmate, teammate, roommate or family, but the formation process is the similar which by mutually interact on sport events to gradually form a stable relationship between them.

Figure 5-8 People belongs to many small-sized sport peer group

Interestingly, as we further discover from the probe diaries, most of our participants are not actually in a single peer group, instead, they belongs to many separate groups at same time. These groups usually small-sized and the relationship within the group members are identical, such as they are all college classmate.(Figure 5-8) Moreover, people in different group do not know each other, as one informant explain in the pair interview:

“These peers of mime are met at different past periods of life, so peers who met at same periods are acquaintance which form a peer group, otherwise they would be separate and have no interaction between them, since they don’t know each other”(P5)

In sum, as most of our participants belongs to separate sport peers group. We might argue that when people interact with one of their peer groups, they would not intend to involve another peer who is out of group, because the unfamiliar relation might cause the fail of interaction. This inference might also supported by the previous evidence we have discussed, when people watching sport events with collocate peers, they would not intend to interact with other remote peers unless they are familiar with each other.

Stronger ties factors

By comparing two peers’ diaries within the same group, we found many similarities between those group members. First, information sources of the sport events are alike, such as they all browse the same BBS boards and official sites, and the social network site they use are also relatively similar. Second, the sport events and player or team they loved are usually more than one overlapping. For example, both of them might watch NBA and MLB and supported the same player. Third, their relationship are commonly overleaping, as they might be classmate and teammate as well. Fourth, many of them regard the other one are a more professional fans or at least at same level of understanding of the games. Last but not least, the anecdote evidence shown that they are usually physically close, such as living together.

Although these similarities show in various ways, they point to a core function:

facilitating the social interaction. First, similar Information source and the overleaping preference of sport events generate vast of common topics for talk or share and by using the same social media make the interaction much convenient. Next, similar understandings of the game smooth their communication during or even after the game, which is the common sense requirement. Finally, the overlapping relationship and physically close distant create more opportunity for frequently interact with each other.

Furthermore, these similarities appear higher overlapping on the two closest peers than other peers. Hence, we might conclude that these similarities are actually interdepend factors which stronger the social tie between two sport peers. In other words, the more similarities overleaping, the more frequent interaction and the stronger tie can be form.

“My roommate is my best peer, we always watch sport events together, talking and even criticizing around the games, and both of us supported the same team, loved the same game, which is NBA and MLB. It just how easy for both of us to talk around sports”(P4)

Active interaction on favorite issues

In pair interview, two informants within the same group reported that they would take the initiative interaction on their favorite issues of sport events. For example, if one participant’s favorite player is Michael Jordan, then he would be the most likely person in the group to share, talk and even send the game viewing invitation about Michael Jordan. Similar results in probe diaries further confirm the evidence, when we ask the two peers within the same group to recall the information the other one usually share, the content they noted all match to each other’s favorite sport events, players and teams. As one participant even noted the difference of leading roles they played in the group:

“If the information is about basketball, I would be the one who most actively share, but if it’s about baseball, he would be the guy who share passionately to others”(P5)

It seems natural that people would take the leading role on interaction related to their favorite issues, as they would pay more attention on them. The massive receiving frequencies make these issues would have a higher probability to be the information which they think is worth to be shared. Moreover, as they are more familiar with their favorite issues, they might implicitly showing their competence or promoting themselves through the discussion, and form a leading role on these issues within the group. (Lull, 1980)

Relation between sport and sport events

As previously discussed, the sports our participants play might improve their understanding of the sport events they watch by providing related knowledge, and further smooth the interaction with their peers. With some anecdotal evidences revealing in interviews and probe diaries, the impact of sport seems also reaching to the relationship of the peer groups.

In probe diaries, many participants and their peers play the same sport which related to the sport events they both watch. Some of them play together with their peers, or at least they know what kind of sport their peers play.

On the other hand, some participants in the interview reported that they often talk about sport events when they playing the related sport. Conversely, some participants also described that when they watch sport events with their peers, they would sometimes referred to the sport they play. More interesting, some participants even claim they might recommend or share the information to people who did not watch the sport events but play

the related sport. Similarly, many of our participants met their current sport events peers because of the same sport they play.

All above evidence shown how easily people could linking their through between sport events and the related sport they play. Hence, we argued sport might play two roles on the relationship of sport peer groups: maintain and enlarge. For example, people could extend the topic from the astonishing movement shown on the television to the similar play they have experienced by themselves before, and vice versa. The extending experiences prolong the interaction which further maintaining a better relationship between them. Moreover, people could use other’s sport preference as a hint to meet new sport event peers, since these people might have a better chance to appreciate the sport events they loved.

5.4.2 Larger Community

Player and team forming sense of community

Throughout the research, we have seen the interaction between our participants and the strangers are very much depending on the play or team they support. There are lots of evidence, both interview and probe diaries, supports this dependent relation.

At first, most participant’s claim they would stay on the BBS boards which related to the players or teams they loved, then celebrating the game with other strangers while watching the sport events. Some participants even join an online virtual club for the players or teams, such as a team’s Facebook page. Later, many participants also report they would habitually browsing these BBS boards or clubs to updating the news and might even join the discussion with other strangers. More interesting, although most of our participant shows a conservative social attitude toward those unknown strangers, they present a relatively open attitude to the strangers who supported the same teams or players. As we could see our participants would more likely to post the information on the BBS or club related to their favorite teams or players.

All above evidence shared a similar concept, the players and teams they loved play a center role on the interaction between our participants and other unknown strangers.

(Figure 5-9) The virtual spaces, which related to particular player or team, provide a clear sign for people to know other strangers’ preferences. This sign motivate our participants to boldly share they thought to others, as we can see the social attitude become much actively and openly when people meet these strangers who shared same interest with them.

Figure 5-9 Players and teams as a central for connecting to other unknown viewers

Furthermore, we found many of the above evidences can be matched to the notion of

“sense of community” which proposed by McMillan and Chavis (1986). People join or appear on the virtual spaces which related to their favorite players or teams to show their membership. They shared emotional connections and exchange of support among members by celebrating the great performances played by their favorite player. The sharing information and discussion on these virtual spaces also have certain influence on peoples’

perspective of the sport events. Therefore, we might argue that players and teams provide a solid target for people to aggregating similar thought, emotion and shared faith with strangers who have the same interested, that create a “sense of community”.

Attitude changing with the crowd

In the above discussion, it could be found that some evidence indistinctly shown others’

reaction might influence peoples’ perception about the sport events. Here, we further identify how these influence change peoples’ attitude about the game. As we first look the in pair interview, two participants who are junior high classmate, both recalled the reason they begin to watching sport events is to create common topics with other classmates.

“When everyone around you is talking about sport events, you would start following the game, because you want to join the conversation.”(P6)

Several findings present similar influence, many participants claim that their current support players or teams are somehow influenced by their peers’ preference. Other participants also reported that those teams or players with higher broadcasting frequencies would have more possibility to become their favorites. Moreover, during or after sport

events, our participant would reference strangers’ reaction on the BBS board to choose the game they want to watch. One participant even notes the reason he watch a game is because everybody in the room are gathering to watch the same game, and he do not even know what the game is about.

These robust evidences are telling a truth: people’s attitude and preference about sport events would affect a lot by others, or more precisely, approaching to others. And the social force appears stronger with closer relationship, since people change and approaching more toward their friends than strangers. As we might infer from these results, the approaching attitude seems expanding people’s social fabric of sport events, no matter people aware of it or not. People changing attitude with the crowd, forms a larger community around sport events.

“I want to discover more sport peers from those people around me, and I would like to know if there are more people who watch the same game as me, even strangers.”(P5)