.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
The Sacred Prototype Negotiation Framework
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1080/16184742.2026.2701812.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
Sport managers often find it challenging to market to a diverse fanbase, as doing so can alienate current fan community members. To avoid alienating current fans, a better understanding of how sport entities can alter how a fan community defines itself without disempowering current members is an important research gap.
To address this research gap, this conceptual paper forwards a framework called the Sacred Prototype Negotiation Framework (SPNF). This framework is developed through a review of literature on sport fan communities, grounded in the social identity approach and literature on the sacred.
The SPNF illustrates how fan community prototypes are often sacred to members, making them resistant to change. Altering these deeply held prototypes depends on two mechanisms: normative framing and prototype threat. Sacred framing can reinforce commitment to the sacred, while instrumental framing can reduce sacredness, thereby increasing flexibility. Based on framing, when prototypes are sacred, threat leads to social conflict; when nonsacred, however, threat leads to negotiation over prototypicality. This reflects contextually responsive shifting of boundaries.
The SPNF is a tool for sport managers to influence fan communities without disempowering membership. Through normative framing, sport entities can alter the prototype's sacredness, creating conditions for conflict or negotiation when the prototype is threatened. Theoretically, the SPNF introduces sacredness as a critical variable for understanding sport fandom, building upon the social identity approach. Additionally, the SPNF addresses criticisms of rigid insider/outsider dichotomies, illustrating group boundaries as fluid.
Keywords:
Sport fan communities
sacred
social identity
prototype
group boundaries
Journal
IF:
3.7
Papers:
753
Citations:
2.4K