1
SKYLARK MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY
REVISION NOTES FROM AUTHORS (ROUND 2)
We are delighted to be able to move forward with this paper and hopefully move the finding to
press as three very active sports seasons (college basketball and professional football/basketball)
hit their stride or prepare for their big “finale” games. We are also very appreciative of the
quality of the reviews, the great guidance provided by the AE’s comments on how to address
these comments to improve the manuscript, and the timeliness of the review. Thank you! We
hope we have succeeded in being similarly thorough and responsive in how we have made the
requested improvements. We explain these changes here:
1. Reviewer C asked that we use additional relevant literature on alcohol consumption to shore
up the potential for the alternative explanation. We added to the discussion on the existing
research on the relationship between boredom and drinking behavior (additional paragraph at
bottom of p. 5); specifically citations by Patrick and Schulenberg 2011, Forsyth and
Hundleby 1987, and Carlson, Johnson, and Jacobs 2010. We think that these citations help
show that the alternative explanation is a legitimate and logical hypothesis that has grounding
in the literature.
2. We added a statement early in the paper (last paragraph of the introduction, p. 4) to clearly
explain the purpose and limitations of this type of research as expressed by Reviewer C.
3. Reviewer A asked that we foreshadow the link between psychological and biological
research and these findings. This statement is also added to the last paragraph of the
introduction (p. 4).
4. As requested by Reviewer A, we added more details about the tradition of drinking in
conjunction with sporting events. We also include reference to rugby (p. 7) and soccer (p.
16) to help readers relate this finding to similar sporting environments in different cultures.
5. Reviewer A asked that we use additional relevant literature on the link between testosterone
and aggression. We added to the discussion on pages 7-8, specifically citations by Winslow
et al (1988), Kouri et al (1995), and Moore et al (2007). While we didn’t want to add an
overabundance of citations, we did take the space to describe the findings of Kouri et al
(1995) and Moore et al (2007) in more detail as they are especially apropos.
6. Reviewer B asked us to consider other analyses that might be possible. While we did not
have data on gender or age, we did find the hypothesis that high-scoring games may lead to
greater fatalities to be very intriguing. Thus, we analyzed the data including the total score
(sum of both teams’ points). We found that the close game effect was still observed, but that,
as posited by Reviewer B, there was a main effect in that higher total scores were associated
with more fatalities. Thus, a “shoot-out” game may well be more arousing and, thus, more
dangerous for post-game driving. This analysis is included on page 14.
This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only.
2
7. Reviewer B asked us to consider whether these findings might have implications for
advertising. We think that there are two possible “paths” for future research on this point.
First, physiological effects should influence consumers’ information processing ability and
reliance on heuristics. Second, testosterone peaks may influence consumers’ evaluation of
stimuli depicting risk or sexually-oriented themes. We now add a discussion of this to the
General Discussion (pp. 16-17).
8. Finally, all reviewers asked us to address a few minor issues and we did our best to clarify or
correct these points as requested.
In all of these improvements, we tried to be careful to avoid adding inappropriate length to the
manuscript as we noted that the review team was unanimous in liking the shorter format of the
paper. Thank you again for your comments!
This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only.