Resources

Funding

Invitation

Publication

Practice

Scientists are writers.

IMRAD Report

• Introduction

• Methods

• Results

• Discussion

Why do women swear? An exploration of reasons for and perceived efficacy of swearing in Dutch female students

Eric Rassin and Peter Muris

Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 38, Issue 7,

Pages 1669-1674

IMRAD Report

• Introduction: Our question is significant.

• Methods: Our method is appropriate.

• Results: Our findings are valid.

• Discussion: Our conclusions are important.

Introduction

• State significance of the phenomenon

• Summarize research to date

• Point out gap in research

• Describe new proposed research

Introduction: Stating the significance of the phenomenon

The use of bad language is a major societal issue. On the one hand, swearwords abound in daily life. As a recent example, rapper Curtis Jackson, who calls himself “50 cents” [sic] scored a hit with a pop song in which he says “I am a motherfucking pimp”. This single did very well internationally in the pop charts. (p. 1670)

Introduction: Summarizing research to date

Rainey and Schweickert (1991), and Rainey, Schweickert, Granito, and Pullella (1990) asked baseball players about their attitude towards umpires who make bad calls. They found that some players admitted to acting in a verbally aggressive manner regularly. (p. 1670)

Introduction: Pointing out the gap in research

In general, little is known about why people swear (see Jay, 1992, for a study of swearing in America). More importantly, the perceived and actual efficacy of swearing is unknown. (p. 1670)

Introduction: Describing the new proposed research

The purpose of the present study was to explore the use of swearwords in a Dutch female student sample. We hypothesised that swearing would be correlated with general aggression, …and we hypothesised that swearing is negatively correlated with general life satisfaction. (p. 1670)

Method

• Justify choice in materials and methods

• Provide enough detail for replication

Method: Justifying choice in materials and methods

Seventy-two female undergraduate psychology students completed several questionnaires in return for course credits or a small financial compensation. (p. 1671)

Method: Providing enough detail

First, participants completed a questionnaire constructed for this study. The first item addressed the participant’s frequency of swearing. Answer options were: “Less than once per year”, …etc. The second item instructed the participant to report her five (maximum) favourite, most often used swearwords. (p. 1671)

Results

• Summarize, reduce, and compare data

• Generalize from data

Results

Table 1: Questionnaire descriptives, and correlations with swearword frequency

Reasons to swear:

Habit 2.52 (1.31) 0.59**Strengthening of argument 2.35 (1.31) 0.35**Expressing positive emotions 1.66 (0.91) 0.34**Expressing negative emotions 4.20 (0.80) 0.43**Shocking/insulting 1.80 (1.03) 0.27**

Results: Summarizing, reducing, and comparing the data

After this transformation, the mean frequency of swearing turned out to be 3.19 per day (SD = 7.30; range: 0–50). (p. 1671)

Results: Generalizing from the data

As to the most frequently uttered swearwords, “shit” was most popular (58 mentions), closely followed by “kut” (“cunt”, 54), “Godverdomme” (“Goddamnit”, 51), “klote” (“bollocks”, 30), “fuck” (25), “Jezus” (“Jesus”, 21), “tering” (“tuberculosis”, 15), “kanker” (“cancer”, 8), “lul” (“prick”, 5), “tyfus” (“typhus”, 4), and “bitch” (4). (p. 1671)

Discussion

• State significance of results

• Compare results with previous studies

• Acknowledge limitations of study

• Make recommendations for future research social policy, or practical application

Discussion: Stating the significance of the results

First, our sample of female respondents reported that they swore quite regularly (i.e., on average three times per day). Second, the strongest reason to swear was the need to express negative emotions. Third and surprisingly, …people swear even though they realise that swearing will not bring them much closer to their goal. (p. 1673)

Discussion: Comparing the results with previous studies

These associations are plausible because previous research has yielded significant correlations between verbal aggression, physical aggression, anger, and hostility (p. 1673)

Discussion: Acknowledging the limitations of study

Contrary to our expectation, lack of life satisfaction did not correlate with swearing. We had hypothesised that lack of satisfaction may function as a determinant of swearing. However, such a relation was not borne out by the present data. (p. 1673)

Discussion: Making recommendations for future

research

Future studies are needed to explore possible sex differences in the use of swearwords and to test the effects of swearing experimentally. (p. 1673)

http://www.bondtegenvloeken.nl/index.php?paginaID=89

Author Recorder Editor

Author Recorder Editor Reviewers

Author Recorder Editor Reviewers

Editor

Yes

NoYes, but…

?

Author Recorder Editor Reviewers

Editor

Yes

NoYes, but… ?

Author Recorder Editor Reviewers

Editor

Yes

NoYes, but…?

Author Recorder Editor Reviewers

Editor

Yes

NoYes, but…

Copy EditorAuthorPrinter

?

Author Recorder Editor Reviewers

Editor

Yes

NoYes, but…

Copy EditorAuthorPrinter

Editor Author Copy Editor Author

?

Author Recorder Editor Reviewers

Editor

Yes

NoYes, but…

Copy EditorAuthorPrinter

Editor Author Copy Editor Author

Copy EditorPrinterDistribution

?

Author Recorder Editor Reviewers

Editor

Yes

NoYes, but…

Copy EditorAuthorPrinter

Editor Author Copy Editor Author

Copy EditorPrinterDistributionCorrespondence

?

(Letter to the Editor)

"Folic acid as ultimate in disease prevention."  British Medical Journal.  328.7442 

EDITOR--Lucock considered the likely effects of mass use of folate but did not mention the potential benefits to mental health. (1)Associations between folate status and mood have been known for some time…

George A. Ricaurte, “Severe Dopaminergic Neurotoxicity in Primates After a Common Recreational Dose Regimen of MDMA (‘Ecstasy’)” Science, September 2002: Vol. 297. no. 5590, pp. 2260 - 2263

“Retraction,” Science, September 2003: Vol. 301. no. 5639, p. 1479

“We write to retract our report "Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA ("ecstasy")", following our recent discovery that the drug used to treat all but one animal in that report came from a bottle that contained (+)-methamphetamine instead of the intended drug, (±)MDMA.”