Research Article

Why Is Fan Verbal Aggression So Fierce: An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective

Qingyu LiSchool of Journalism and Communication, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China* Huiya ZhouSchool of Health Management, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China Yuhan ShenSchool of Atmospheric Sciences, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing, China

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Fan-verbal aggression conflict is a worldwide universal phenomenon. As opposed to condemning fans as reckless or irrational, our work provides an evolutionary psychology perspective to give a possible explanation of this phenomenon. This paper points out that people in modern society join alliances for shared interests and then face an “anti-exploitation mechanism”. To preserve the right to gain resources and avoid losing benefits from an alliance, showing verbal aggression in public affirms one’s role as a contributor rather than a cheater or free rider. Eventually, when conflict occurs, instead of mediating, getting involved or keeping silent are usually the only choices, leaving the dispute to heat up. We reveal this psychological computation from the theory of welfare tradeoff ratios. The group member’s WTR to the aggressor will be higher than their WTR to the non-aggressor. Participants in college with experience in idol chasing (N=500) will be involved.

Keywords: fan alliance; WTR; verbal aggression; social media; online fan wars
Published: May 23, 2025
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/2024.23328
Volume: CHR Vol.59
pp. 152-156
Download PDF

References

  1. Jiang, B., Karami, M., Cheng, L., Black, T., & Liu, H. (2021). Mechanisms and attributes of echo chambers in social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05401.
  2. Rastegarpanah, B., Gummadi, K. P., & Crovella, M. (2019, January). Fighting fire with fire: Using antidote data to improve polarization and fairness of recommender systems. In Proceedings of the twelfth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, 231-239.
  3. Dandekar, P., Goel, A., & Lee, D. T. (2013). Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5791–5796. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217220110
  4. Liu, Yayun. (2016). Rationality and Madness: A Study of Subculture in Fan Groups (Master's thesis, Anhui University). Master's Thesis.
  5. Wang Jiayun.(2019). Study on Radical Behaviors of Fan Groups (Master's thesis). Nanjing Normal University.
  6. Wann, D. L. (1993). Aggression among highly identified spectators is a function of their need to maintain a positive social identity. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 17, 134–143.
  7. Wann, D. L., Dolan, T. J., MeGeorge, K. K., & Allison, J. A. (1994). Relationships between spectator identification and spectators' perceptions of influence, spectators' emotions, and competition outcome. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(4), 347-364.
  8. Wann, D. L., Carlson, J. D., & Schrader, M. P. (1999). The impact of team identification on the hostile and instrumental verbal aggression of sport spectators. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 14(2).
  9. Wann, D. L., Peterson, R. R., Cothran, C., & Dykes, M. (1999). Sport fan aggression and anonymity: The importance of team identification. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 27(6), 597-602.
  10. Krause, J., & Ruxton, G. D. (2002). Living in Groups. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  11. Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., & Price, M. E. (2006). Cognitive adaptations for n‐person exchange: the evolutionary roots of organizational behavior. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27(2–3), 103–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1287
  12. DeScioli, P. (2016). The side-taking hypothesis for moral judgment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.002
  13. Kimbrough, E. O., & DeScioli, P. (2023). Alliance formation and divided loyalties. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4429685
  14. Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2016). How the mind makes welfare tradeoffs: evolution, computation, and emotion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.06.006
  15. Delton, A. W., Jaeggi, A. V., Lim, J., Sznycer, D., Gurven, M., Robertson, T. E., Sugiyama, L. S., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2023). Cognitive foundations for helping and harming others: making welfare tradeoffs in industrialized and small-scale societies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 44(5), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.01.013