Chapter 6 Exercises

Exercise 6.1 — Social Identity Mapping (Individual, 30–45 min)

Purpose: Apply social identity theory to your own identity portfolio.

Instructions:

  1. List five to eight social groups you belong to that contribute to your self-concept. These can include nationality, ethnicity, religion, occupation, political affiliation, and — relevant for this chapter — fan communities.

  2. For each, rate its salience (how often you think of yourself in those terms) and its centrality (how important it is to your overall self-concept) on a 1–5 scale.

  3. Identify which of these identities generate the clearest ingroup/outgroup dynamics in your daily life. What are the comparison groups? What is being compared?

  4. Select one fan identity from your list (or discuss why you don't have one). Apply the five functions framework (self-expression, social connection, meaning-making, escape, self-expansion): which functions does this identity serve for you, and which are less relevant?

Discussion prompt: Share your salience/centrality ratings for your fan identity with a partner. Are there patterns in which identities feel most central vs. most salient? What might explain those patterns?

Exercise 6.2 — Ingroup Boundary Analysis (Small Group, 45–60 min)

Purpose: Examine how fan communities construct and police ingroup boundaries.

Instructions:

In a group of three to four, choose a fan community you collectively know enough about to analyze. This could be a community any of you belongs to or has observed.

  1. Identify the explicit membership criteria: what does someone need to have done, watched, read, or owned to be considered a member?

  2. Identify the implicit membership criteria: what behaviors, attitudes, or knowledge level mark someone as a "real" fan vs. a casual observer? How are these communicated?

  3. Identify the disqualifying criteria: what behaviors or attitudes would cause someone to be labeled "not a real fan" or excluded from the community?

  4. Analyze: Who benefits from the current boundary construction? Who is disadvantaged? Does the boundary serve a protective function for the community, an exclusionary one, or both?

  5. Connect your analysis to SIT: How do these boundaries serve the ingroup's identity maintenance function?

Deliverable: A 500-word analysis that applies SIT concepts explicitly.

Exercise 6.3 — Identity Threat Response Analysis (Individual, 30 min)

Purpose: Apply the identity threat framework to a real fandom controversy.

Instructions:

  1. Identify a recent controversy in any fan community you know about. This could involve: a creator saying something offensive, a much-anticipated installment failing critically, a community member behaving badly, or a source material change that disappointed fans.

  2. Describe the type of identity threat the controversy represented (evaluative, behavioral, source, or catastrophic).

  3. Identify three to five distinct responses from fans in the community. Categorize each response: - Identity-protective (defending the group's positive valence) - Distancing (separating oneself or "good fans" from the problem) - Reaffirmation (restating group values) - Exit (leaving the community) - Cognitive restructuring (reinterpreting the threat as not actually threatening)

  4. Evaluate: Were these responses adaptive (did they help the community maintain healthy functioning)? What would a healthier set of responses have looked like?

Exercise 6.4 — Developmental Interview (Paired, 60–90 min)

Purpose: Collect and analyze data on fan identity formation across the life course.

Instructions:

Interview a classmate about their most significant fan identity using the questions below. Then switch roles. After both interviews, analyze the data comparatively.

Interview questions: - When and how did you first become a fan of [X]? - How old were you? What was happening in your life at that time? - What was the first fan community or fan activity you participated in? - How central is this fan identity to your overall self-concept today? - Has your relationship to this fandom changed over time? How? - Has the fandom ever been threatened in ways that felt personally significant? How did you respond? - Do you feel there is tension between being a fan and being a critical observer? How do you manage it?

Analysis questions: - Does the developmental argument (adolescence as privileged site) fit your data? Where does it break down? - What identity functions did the fan identity serve at the time of formation vs. now? - What SIT concepts best explain the interview data?

Deliverable: A 600-word comparative analysis.

Exercise 6.5 — The Participant-Observer Position (Writing, 45 min)

Purpose: Apply reflexivity to your own relationship to fan scholarship.

Scenario: You are conducting a research project on a fan community you are a member of. Your advisor is asking you to write a positionality statement — a paragraph for the methods section of your paper that discloses your relationship to the community and discusses how that relationship might affect your research.

Task: Write a positionality statement (300–400 words) that: - Accurately describes your position (member, former member, observer-only, etc.) - Identifies the potential advantages of your position for the research - Identifies the potential risks and limitations of your position - Describes specific methodological choices you would make to manage those risks

If you are not a member of any fan community, write the positionality statement for Priya Anand studying the Kalosverse community, drawing on the details provided in the chapter.

Exercise 6.6 — Case Application: The ARMY Identity (Group Discussion, 45 min)

Purpose: Apply the chapter's frameworks to the ARMY Files running example.

Discussion questions:

  1. Mireille describes being ARMY as involving knowing "how you engage, how you talk to other fans, what you prioritize." Apply SIT: What is the function of these norms for ARMY's social identity?

  2. TheresaK's five-year trajectory as an ARMY has involved substantial self-expansion: language learning, cultural knowledge, organizational skill development. Does self-expansion theory adequately explain this investment? What does it leave out?

  3. The ARMY community's explicit norm-setting against "toxic stan behavior" is a form of ingroup policing. Using the boundary analysis framework from Exercise 6.2, analyze the function and limitations of this policing.

  4. ARMY is both a global fandom with transnational membership and a community with intense local variations (Brazilian ARMY, Filipino ARMY, Korean ARMY all operate quite differently). How does SIT handle this complexity? What frameworks might better account for nested and multiple fan identities?

  5. When BTS announced a hiatus for members' mandatory South Korean military service, ARMY fans faced a form of identity threat. Categorize this threat type and analyze the community responses you observed or can research.