eLetters to:

ARTICLES: Robert H. DuRant, Heather Champion, and Mark Wolfson The Relationship Between Watching Professional Wrestling on Television and Engaging in Date Fighting Among High School Students Pediatrics 2006; 118: e265-e272 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

eLetters: Submit a response to this article

eLetters published:

I feel that this is a morality tale described as science.

Paul Misner, Jim Kavadias, Bob Schultz, Jef Fieldman   (7 August 2006)

Poor evidence for study hypothesis.

Christopher J. Ferguson   (13 September 2006)

I feel that this is a morality tale described as science. 7 August 2006
Paul Misner, Sales Smartchive, LLC, Jim Kavadias, Bob Schultz, Jef Fieldman Send letter to journal: Re: I feel that this is a morality tale described as science. vpndude{at}vpndude.com Paul Misner, et al.	This study negates to filter out the socio-economic, and psychological backgrounds of the types of people who watch professional wrestling. Since viewer demographics are easily obtainable, (and partly used in this study) by Neilsen, one must question whether the goal of this study was to provide a truly scientific outcome. By using bad science, the authors end up sabatoging what their own motives might have been, to not have children watch wrestling. Let's do it right next time. Let's filter out the kids who watch WWE because there isn't a parent at home. Let's filter out all the kids who are violent because a parent beats them, and who watch WWE/ In this particular case, good science would have not required much more work. Conflict of Interest: None declared
Poor evidence for study hypothesis. 13 September 2006
Christopher J. Ferguson, Assistant Professor of Clinical and Forensic Psychology Texas A&M International University Send letter to journal: Re: Poor evidence for study hypothesis. CJFerguson1111{at}aol.com Christopher J. Ferguson	This study purports to supply evidence that individuals who watch professional wrestling are more inclinced to engage in "date fighting" and other antisocial behaviors. It is unfortunate that the authors appear to be "naive" (as many authors in medical and social science are) as to the differences between "statistical" signifcance and "effect size". As "statistical significance" is highly sensitive to large sample sizes (as with the present study a sample of over 2000), rejecting or not rejecting the null-hypothesis is (in and of itself) arguably uninterpretable (see Cohen, 1994 for a discussion). A look at the various "statistically significant" relationships discussed in this study finds that the effect size (here denoted r2x100) ranges from essentially 0% to no higher than 3.6% Unfortunately such weak effect sizes (not atypical for media violence effects studies) are difficult to conclude as meaningful, particularly when the authors fail to report the confidence interval around the effect size (if such a confidence interval included 0% it should be concluded that no effect has been demonstrated). This study is an example of how statistics in social and medical sciences are in dire need for improvement. Conflict of Interest: None declared