I, too, have heard anecdotal evidence that says that men behave more violently toward women during football games. I’m not familiar with the research. I do know, however, that there is documented a strong correlation between men battering women and men’s intake of alcohol. If men drink more alcohol during football games (not a bad assumption), then that could explain increased violence toward women (and children) during football games. By the way, as a sample of one, I can attest to increased emotional abuse when the home team loses. Growing up, my brothers, mother, and I knew our best bet was to be far away from my father when his football team lost.
(Link added when column was posted online - Jill)
[Note: This message has been edited by JillGat]
IMHO, the “Women-Battering” on Superbowl Sunday is another false Urban Legend with not a shred of evidence to support it. Much like the “Patriarchic” Society that oppresses everyone. :o
Claw
From reading Cecil’s article, “Does violence against women rise 40% during the Super Bowl? (14-Apr-2000)”, it seems that the Super Bowl claim was invented, and that the study that showed the 40% increase in violent assaults on women after “wins” by the Washington Redskins had a very small sample base.
The suggestion in the original post seems reasonable to me, namely that the increased violence is probably related to alcohol use rather than viewing of sporting events.
Well, I’m quite curious to see a bit more elaboration on the statistical methods. For example, are they saying that football Sundays are more likely to spawn abuse than the other Sundays of the year, or that a football Sundays are more violent than the average day of the year? Could the timing of the football Sundays be more likely to be violent for other reasons such as colder weekends and cabin fever? How strictly did they define those injuries and violent medical visits? Could it be that women were out partying as well, and simply got injured? With the frequent claims of how rare actual reports of spousal abuse are, is there any evidence that those extra injured women were victims of abuse?
I have to say that I can’t grasp why victories would offer a peak compared to loses. Hell, nothing makes my day more than the Bears winning a close game followed up by some kinky monkey sex and a beer. Hmmmm, maybe the extra hospital visits are some sexcapdes that got out of hand?
Which means that Washington D.C. has been one of the safest places in the country for women to live for the last six years.
JMCJ
“Y’know, I would invite y’all to go feltch a dead goat, but that would be abuse of a perfectly good dead goat and an insult to all those who engage in that practice for fun.” -weirddave, set to maximum flame
As noted by Cecil in the column, the number of wins in the two years of the study was 20; obviously the study occurred while the Redskins (no offense to Amerinds intended by use of the name) were still reasonably good.
I, too, would like more information about the study, such as the numbers on ‘loss’ days, the correlation of the numbers to non-football Sundays, etc. I suppose I’ll just have to get ahold of the study. (sigh)
Another thought: was there any evidence the batterers in question had actually watched any of the football?
IIRC (no source, unfortunately), there is an overall increase in emergency room admissions on weekends. I don’t know if the original study corrected for that, but given their, ahem, creative use of statistics, I don’t imagine they did.
How the original study compensated for other effects is irrelevant. Their sample space was simply too small to draw any conclusions. A difference of less than 10 admissions on the Superbowl days vs non-Superbowl days is almost certainly attributable to variance. The number of admissions in any ER can vary by dozens of people on any given night.
So why is Stupor Bowl Sunday more important, or significant, than, say, World Series final games, ACC tournaments, NCAA Final four weekends, etc.? Doesn’t anyone get that excited about bowling or Roller Derby any more? Did anyone do studies during the Fischer-Spassky chess match in 1972? You know how those chess players get…
The sample sizes are, indeed, so small as to be statistically invalid. This is an excellent example of what Darrell Huff refers to in his excellent book HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS, which should be required reading for news media flacks.
Guy, is the Huff book still available? is there an updated version?
I bought several copies, and I loan it out often. Some of the numbers are way outdated (average annual salaries of USD 5,000 for instance) but the points are still all valid. A week doesn’t go by that I don’t see one of Huff’s examples of lying with statistics being used in advertising or whatever.
While I have no doubt that increase in the (ab)use of alcohol can and does contribute to spousal abuse, I do have my doubts that the Superbowl contributes significantly to this effect. My reasoning is that, people who are prone to alcohol induced spousal abuse don’t need the Superbowl as an excuse to get blitzed. In other words, Superbowl Sunday is no more likely than any other Sunday to foster this behavior… In fact, perhaps it’s less so. At least on Superbowl Sunday the alcoholic, abusive spouse has something else to occupy his or her attention… that and the fact that they’re so full of burgers, beer, and nachos that they’re lucky if they can muster enough energy to climb out of that easy chair to go take a wizz…
The Huff book is still in print - I don’t think it will ever go out for long. I just bought a copy recently myself in a trade paper format. BTW, I’ve found that simply multiplying everything by 10 in the 1954 book equates reasonably well to 2000. My very loose rule-of-thumb is a multiplier of 10 for 1945-55 and a multiplier of 100 for circa 1895-1905.
The sad but boring truth about any set of medical statistics, especially those derived from actual patient visits (i.e. in a non-controlled setting) is that most information on causes of accidents and injuries is by and large reported by the patient. Unless the patient or professional or friend reports that the injury was caused by abuse, it’s not going to be reported that way.
However (and this is a biggie), there are cases in which abuse was reported when it did not occur. Legislation requiring police involvement in suspected abuse, bitter divorces, and even family or friends who just don’t like the guy have contributed to false reporting. My experience (and I know it’s anecdotal at best) is that that does happen, and the effects are devastating.
I guess I’m just agreeing with the people who say that the statistics lie. I just wish there weren’t as much tragedy associated with that lie.
They are comparing actual admissions to expected admissions, the expected admisssions are considerably different for the day after, therefore they are taking weekends into consideration.
You might be right that the sample space is too small--I don't remember enough statistics to calculate this. However, merely noting the small number is evidence that it doesn't matter.
I was trying to figure out what the actual probability was on this and realized we are missing one key piece of data--the normal variation.
If the normal variation is +-1%, then the data is very signifigant. If the normal variation is +-100%, the data is irrelevant.
The statistics don’t lie. People use them to lie. Say there are 1500 cases of breast cancer in women in a region one year and 1542 the next year. But cases in men went from 1 case the first year to 3 cases the next. You could say breast cancer has tripled in men, and that the growth rate of this disease in men is much greater and more alarming than in women. You just gotta look at the whole picture rather than just one number/rate/percentage statistic.
Yes, Jill, glad someone pointed that out. It’s what you conclude from the data you collect that gets you in trouble.
I think, from the data posted, that it would be reasonable to conclude there is an increased instance of certain types of emergency room visits after wins by the Redskins. It is patently stupid to assert that the 40% difference actually observed represents a usable figure for future prediction, based on the small number of cases in the study. Whether or not one can conclude that the fact the Redskins won actually had anything to do with the observed increase in ER visits requires more data than we are privvy to.