Swearing in Sport and Exercise: Development and Validation of a New Questionnaire
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Conceptual Clarity of Dimensions: While the merger of the 'intellectual' and 'sexual degradation' factors into a single 'Self/Other Degradation' dimension is statistically justified, additional theoretical discussion is warranted to address the conceptual overlap and implications of this unification.
- Cross-Cultural Generalizability: The study is based entirely on Hebrew-speaking Israeli participants. Although this is acknowledged in the limitations, a stronger emphasis in the discussion on how cultural norms shape swearing patterns—and how this might affect the applicability of the USWSEQ in other populations—would improve the manuscript.
- Effectiveness Measure Ambiguity: The item asking participants to rate how helpful a swear word is ('helps you function better') lacks precision. Future iterations might differentiate whether the effect relates to motivation, pain management, emotional relief, or attentional focus. Please consider adding a clarifying note or a plan for refinement.
- Functional Categorization Justification: The revised two-factor model (Self/Other Degradation and Situational-Focused Swearing) is well-supported statistically, but more elaboration is needed on the psychological mechanisms that distinguish these categories. The pragmatic use of profanity is complex and may overlap more than the model suggests.
- Page 4, lines 130–144: You mention differences in swearing patterns between various subgroups. Consider stating whether these exploratory comparisons were pre-registered or purely post hoc.
- Table 2: Please clarify the factor loading threshold used for item retention. You mention .40 in the text—indicating this directly in the table header would enhance clarity.
- Figure 2: Consider adding confidence intervals or standard error bars to the subjective helpfulness ratings to support interpretation.
- Discussion, lines 468–490: While discussing the cultural semantics of swearing, the manuscript would benefit from citing additional cross-linguistic studies, e.g., Dewaele (2010) on multilingual swearing.
- Minor language point: The phrase 'helps you function better' appears vague—consider revising to 'helps you perform better during training or competition' for improved clarity.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I have made all the necessary revisions and included them in the attached Word file for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
For the authors’ convenience, I have split up my review (roughly) according to the headings that the authors themselves use in their paper. Please also note that I review as I read, so if I mention something earlier that appears later in the paper, simply take it as an indication that it might be helpful to the reader to have that information earlier than it is currently found in the manuscript. Finally, I am not a sports researcher, but I do have some background in psychometrics, so please take my literature comments with a proverbial grain of salt.
Introduction: I am curious how “vulgar slang” (p.1) differs from sexuality and bodily function language? In my mind, they’re the same thing, but I am open to being corrected there. I would also like to see a definition of ergogenic, as this is a pretty technical word for interdisciplinary readers. Other than that, I find this introduction compelling and well-researched. The aim is justified and there is a convincing lack of literature on this topic in particular.
Materials and Methods: Only a minor detail – due to the focus on sports, I imagine that gender here is referring to biological sex? It might be worth specifying just to avoid any confusion. The more major concern here is that the authors said that the questionnaires were distributed in Hebrew, but I’m not seeing what translation procedure was used (or which papers who had already completed the translation and validation of these scales were cited). If that information is there and I missed it, I would recommend making it more explicit. Otherwise, it needs to be added.
Results: I applaud the authors full justification of each of their methodological choices and detailed descriptions of their story of creating this scale. I am satisfied with the statistics and choices presented here, although there were some statistics I wasn’t entirely familiar with, so I defer to other reviewers on this front.
Discussion: I have no further questions. The practical and theoretical implications are clear, and the authors have been extremely transparent in their writing. This is also easily the most fun I’ve had reviewing an article in ages.
N/A
Author Response
I have made all the necessary revisions and included them in the attached Word file for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
