Controlling for location and time fixed effects, weather factors, the pre-game point spread, and the size of the local viewing audience, we find that upset losses by the home team (losses in games that the home team was predicted to win by more than 3 points) lead to an 8 percent increase in police reports of at-home male-on-female intimate partner violence.
Here is the source paper and that is from David Card and Gordon Dahl. In contrast, if you go see a violent movie, for that same length of time you are sequestered and thus less likely to be a danger to others.
It is highly unlikely that people had a bet on the outcome of the movie. However for many people a negative outcome on a football game is often a financial problem.
It really takes an economist to question the conclusion here. It’s entirely intuitive to everyone else that people are more likely to hit someone when they’re mad, and that watching their team lose makes them mad.
On the other hand the death of a soap opera character would likely have the opposite effect.
My findings are, controlling for location, opportunity, and stupidity effects, that papers like these lead to an 8 percent increase in reader-on-researcher violence.
Gosh, and I thought it was Superbowl where most women got beat up….gotta throw that piece of junk science away since the Superbowl is rarely an upset….
That should provide those lousy home teams a little more incentive to play harder.
I find it odd they find no female-male correlation though, and wonder if it is a result of preferences, underreporting, or what. Afterall, one would assume mad people would tend towards violence regardless of gender.
To anomymous
I didn’t read the whole report but I assume they are using data from police reports. I’m not sure that people would often volunteer data on illegal betting while they are in trouble for spousal abuse.
Is it true that people who bet on football are, in general, more invested in the outcome? I think so. Football bettors tend to over bet favorites, especially early in the season. They also tend to over bet the home team. The research cited seems to indicate that unexpected upsets of the home team cause violence.
As for the movie data, leave aside the possibility that couples who abuse each other are just less likely to go to a movie together. Drinking and drug use often leads to violence. Less drinking or less drug use leads to less crime. OK. And at least in the short run, violent movies do not seem to increase violent behavior. (Long term exposure was not studied.)
I would suspect, can not prove, that gambling leads to an increase in spousal abuse (wife). That watching football by itself does not increase violence.
Tyler wrote:
In contrast, if you go see a violent movie, for that same length of time you are sequestered and thus less likely to be a danger to others.
I realize Tyler may not have been implying anything more than the strict statement above, but I know plenty of people have argued that this paper shows, “Contrary to popular belief and handwringing moralizers, violent [pornographic] movies actually reduce crime [rapes]!” And I think that’s a silly argument.
By the same token, we could prove that selling Big Macs lowers obesity. After all, people aren’t eating when they’re standing in line at McDonalds.
So upset losses draw out the marginal wife beaters
Since soccer so often leads to riots, I think one has to look at the tension-release landscape of the game being played. Watching your team lose when it should be winning causes a buildup of ‘steam’ that almost never gets a sweet release in a last minute victory. Soccer happens to be a game where wins don’t happen often; ties are common.
thank you i like this.
Comments on this entry are closed.