One of my pet peeves as a psychologist is the misuse of correlational data. In spite of the best efforts of hoards of professionals in statistics and the behavioral sciences, we continue to see the misinterpretation of correlational data. A real doozy came across my desk this morning.
Apparently, Derek Kreager, an assistant professor of sociology at Penn State, believes that “males with all-football friends are expected to have a 45 per cent probability of getting into a serious fight, more than 8 percentage points higher than similar individuals with no football friends and almost 20 percentage points higher than males with all-tennis friends” [1]. Kreager also suggests that “players might be getting cues from parents, peers, coaches, and the popular community, who support violence as a way of attaining ‘battlefield’ victories, becoming more popular, and asserting ‘warrior’ identities.”
The clear implications of both the original paper and interviews with Dr. Kreager are that playing football or wrestling CAUSES more violent behavior. As any fifth grader knows, correlations do not causality make.
Dr. Kreager, do you personally know anyone who plays football or tennis? There is just a little self-selection going on here. Guys who don’t want to get hit are unlikely to choose to play football, and that “I don’t want to get hit” part would also impact their willingness to get into a fight. In addition, tennis remains an expensive sport. My guess is that one would find some significant SES differences between guys choosing to play tennis versus those who play football. Those same SES differences might well account for the fighting statistics Kreager reports. Country club guys are no less aggressive than street guys–they just take your money away instead of hitting you.
Another aspect ignored in this research is the nature of the violence being recorded. There is a huge difference between the guys who start the fight and the ones who respond defensively to another’s aggression. A male who feels physically competent due to the strength requirements of football or wrestling (outside of shot putters, these guys are probably among the strongest on the planet) is unlikely to stand by when somebody else is getting hurt because he feels that others are better qualified to help.
As to the friend factor, most social psychologists tell us that birds of a feather do indeed flock together. Again, it’s a big stretch to say that the influence of football-playing friends makes you more violent. Instead, the same self-selection factors that pull one male to play football and another to play tennis would probably account for their choices of different types of friends.
I’m not saying that it’s impossible that experience in sports can’t contribute to non-sport violence, just that this is not the way to reach that conclusion.
1. Kreager, D. (2007). Unnecessary roughness? School sports, peer networks, and male adolescent violence. American Sociological Review, 72, 705-724.
2 Comments
bblaine · January 29, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I can see both sides to this. On one hand, it is so easy to stereotype football players because they are physically bigger and stronger than others. This automatically triggers humans to think they are “fighters” or more prone to violence. Adding to that, from my personal experience, it is always football or wrestling players getting into fights around me. I wouldn’t make a bold statement in saying that all are violent, but one can’t refute statistical analysis that shows how often these males are involved in fights. On the other hand, I have two brothers who grew up playing baseball and tennis. There were definitely times where their teammates fought or acted violently towards one another. How frequently as opposed to football players is probably the best question to ask in comparing, but either way, its probably best to not stereotype at all.
ccallag · March 14, 2008 at 10:15 pm
That is one thing i appreciated from my stats class- the ability to look at claims and figure out if an interpretation is accurate. This professor has missed the ball on his correlation. I really don’t think that just because a person has football friends they will be more violent. What about people who have boxer friends? They should be looked at as the most likely to get in to fights! I think it’s just the fact that football players are more physically strong that they do not fear getting hit thus they would not back out of a fight.
Comments are closed.