Algorithmic fandom in the age of AI: a four-wave multilevel longitudinal study of identity mirroring, fan belonging, and social inclusion

Introduction: AI-curated sports environments can make users feel that a platform recognizes who they are, yet the psychological process linking perceived recognition to belonging and inclusion remains unclear. Methods: We examined this process in a four-wave, multilevel longitudinal survey of 1,200 participants nested within 60 digital sports communities in China. Participatory algorithmic governance was examined as a community-level boundary condition. Community fixed-effects models with standard errors clustered by community were used, with prior levels of the corresponding outcomes and participant characteristics taken into account. The serial prospective association at mean governance climate was evaluated using a community bootstrap with 2,000 replications. Results: Algorithmic identity mirroring at Wave 1 was positively associated with digital identity integration at Wave 2, digital identity integration was positively associated with fan belonging at Wave 3, and fan belonging was positively associated with perceived social inclusion at Wave 4. The models supported all three lagged associations, and the community bootstrap supported a positive serial prospective association at mean governance climate. Participatory governance modestly strengthened the association between algorithmic identity mirroring and subsequent digital identity integration but did not attenuate the negative association between marginalized identity and later perceived social inclusion. Discussion: Conceptually, the study distinguishes algorithmic identity mirroring from personalization, algorithmic trust, and self-congruity, while also differentiating digital identity integration, fan belonging, perceived social inclusion, and team identification. The findings provide longitudinal evidence consistent with the proposed psychological sequence, although significant reverse-order diagnostics indicate that reciprocal associations remain plausible. Because the study is observational, the findings should be interpreted as longitudinal associations rather than causal effects.