Watching sports and happiness among older adults in Japan: The JAGES cohort study

Kenjiro Kawaguchi; Kazushige Ide; Satoru Kanamori; Taishi Tsuji; Katsunori Kondo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320213

. 2025 Apr 9;20(4):e0320213. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320213

Watching sports and happiness among older adults in Japan: The JAGES cohort study

Kenjiro Kawaguchi ^1,^*, Kazushige Ide ¹, Satoru Kanamori ^2,³, Taishi Tsuji ⁴, Katsunori Kondo ^1,⁵

Editor: Mohamed Ahmed Said⁶

PMCID: PMC11981122 PMID: 40202950

Abstract

Objective

While watching sports may enhance older adults’ happiness, the relationship between sports spectatorship and happiness may vary depending on on-site or TV/Internet. This study examined associations between different forms of sports spectatorship (on-site and TV/Internet) and happiness among older adults in Japan.

Methods

We used data from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study, conducted in 2019 and 2022. The outcome variable was happiness, and the explanatory variables were watching sports on-site, watching professional sports on-site, and watching sports on TV/Internet. Multiple linear regression was performed to examine the association between watching sports and happiness, after adjusting for potential confounders. A modified Poisson regression analysis was performed for the binarized outcome with a cutoff of 8 points. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on sports club participation, age, and sex.

Results

Watching sports on-site a few times annually was associated with higher happiness scores (B: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.19) and a higher prevalence of happiness (PR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.12) than not watching sports. Similar results were observed when the participants watched professional sports a few times annually (B: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.22; PR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.12). No significant associations were found between watching sports on TV/Internet and happiness. The associations were more pronounced among participants who did not participate in sports clubs, males, and those aged < 75 years.

Conclusion

Watching sports on-site, particularly a few times a year, was associated with higher happiness levels among older adults. These findings highlight the importance of developing targeted interventions that promote older adults’ access to live sports events as a public health strategy.

Introduction

Promoting subjective well-being is crucial for healthy aging in later life [1]. Subjective well-being is defined as “subjective experiences and perceptions of individuals regarding their overall well-being and quality of life” [2]. Happiness, an essential aspect of subjective well-being, is characterized by a pleasant and slightly energized emotional state [3,4]. Research suggests that happiness can improve health outcomes; for instance, it can reduce mortality, lower morbidity, and increase functional independence [5]. However, maintaining good health is not the only benefit for happiness. Another critical reason for prioritizing happiness is its close connection with several other factors that play a significant role in leading a good life in later years. Several studies have reported that individuals with higher levels of subjective well-being, including happiness, have favorable outcomes in the personal, social, economic, and behavioral domains [6,7]. Given these findings, there is a growing interest in exploring factors and effective interventions that promote happiness and, more broadly, subjective well-being.

Being active later in life was positively associated with subjective well-being [3,8]. Numerous studies have found a positive association between physical activity, participation in active sports, and subjective well-being. One meta-analysis showed that physical activity positively affects the subjective well-being of older adults [9]. There is also a growing body of literature on the association between passive sports participation—such as watching sports on-site, on TV, or on the Internet (TV/Internet)—and happiness. Previous studies have reported that passive sports participation is associated with greater subjective well-being [10–12], including happiness [13]. Another interventional study involving older adults demonstrated that happiness was enhanced after observing a professional baseball game [14]. Attending sporting events can foster emotional support and a sense of belonging among spectators [15]. Spectator sports can create a common social identity that reflects various socioeconomic factors, demographics, and origins [16]. The experiences of belonging and identity are believed to contribute to increased happiness.

Passive sports participation may be a promising strategy to enhance happiness in older adults. Specifically, watching sports may be more accessible for older adults than engaging in sports or other physical activities. Additionally, accessibility to sports may vary depending on the form of spectatorship. Most individuals prefer watching sports on TV to live sports events because of their cost, emotional comfort, and convenience [17]. Previous research [10,18] has reported that roughly a quarter of Japanese older adults watch sports on-site at least once a year, and more than three-quarters watch sports on TV or the Internet at least once a year. According to a study focusing on college students [19], online video sport spectatorship may improve subjective well-being, with sport participation moderating the relationship between online video sport spectatorship and well-being. Thus, the relationship between sports spectatorship and happiness could differ depending on whether sports are watched on-site, on TV, or on the Internet. However, existing literature has not yet fully addressed this issue among older adults [20], which is particularly crucial in Japan, the most rapidly aging country worldwide. Therefore, using a nationwide sample, the current study investigated the association between watching sports on-site, on TV, or on the Internet and happiness among older adults in Japan. We hypothesized that older adults who engage in sports spectatorship would experience greater happiness than those who do not.

Materials and methods

Study design

Data were obtained from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study (JAGES) [21], an ongoing cohort study examining social factors influencing the health of community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years and older. Since 2003, JAGES surveys have been conducted approximately every three years in collaboration with municipal governments across Japan [21]. These governments develop and implement long-term care insurance plans, including preventive care services. JAGES surveys provide critical data for assessing policy effectiveness and guiding future planning [21]. Within each municipality, eligible individuals aged 65 years and older without long-term care certification are selected from the resident registry. In small municipalities, all eligible older adults are included, whereas in large municipalities, 30% of the target sample is randomly selected. Among the remaining 70%, individuals aged 65 to 67 years are chosen proportionally based on population distribution. Subsequently, individuals aged 68 years and older who participated in the most recent survey are prioritized for recruitment. Additional participants aged 68 years and older are enrolled until the target sample size is achieved.

We constructed an analytical sample for our study by combining data from the 2019 and 2022 waves. The survey questionnaires in both waves comprised core questions, and one of the eight modules was randomly assigned to the participants [21]. Each module contained a unique set of questions, with one explicitly asking about the form and frequency of watching sports during the past year. We obtained covariates from the 2019 wave, including the prior outcome of happiness and the outcome and explanatory variables from the 2022 wave. This design establishes a temporal relationship between the covariates and exposure, and ensures that the covariates precede exposure in time, avoiding adjustment for potential mediators [22]. Moreover, adjusting for prior outcomes can reduce the risk of reverse causation [22], which occurs when happy individuals tend to watch sports.

Study population

The JAGES 2022 survey, conducted between November and December 2022, mailed questionnaires containing items related to sports spectatorship to 42,096 community-dwelling individuals aged ≥ 65 years, identified through official residential registers provided by municipal governments. Of them, 23,916 completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 56.8%. After excluding 2,395 respondents who lacked independence in activities of daily living (ADLs) or who had insufficient data on sex or age, the sample consisted of 21,521 eligible respondents. Lack of independence in ADLs was defined based on self-reported responses to the question, “Do you require nursing care or assistance in daily life from anyone?” [18]. Of them, 11,265 had completed the questionnaire in 2019 and were included in the final analysis.

Measures

Outcome variable: Happiness score.

In our research, we measured happiness levels using the following question: “On a scale of 0 to 10, where zero represents very unhappy and ten represents very happy, how would you rate your overall level of happiness?” Several studies have investigated the reliability and validity of single-item happiness scales with scores of 0–10, and the results have shown them to be reliable and valid measures of happiness [23,24].

Explanatory variables: Frequency of watching sports.

We used the following questions to determine the frequency at which participants watched sports: 1) “On average, how often did you watch sports on-site in the past year? These include professional sports, local sports clubs, and groups” (watching sports on-site); 2) “(For those who answered “yes” to the previous question) On average, how often did you watch professional sports on-site, such as at a stadium or arena, during the past year?” (watching professional sports on-site); 3) “On average, how often did you watch sports on television or the Internet in the past year? This includes not only professional sports but also local sports clubs and groups (excluding minimal viewing of television news)” (watching sports on TV/Internet). The participants were required to select one of the following response options: never, a few times a year, 1–3 times a month, or at least once a week. To ensure an adequate number of observations per category, we categorized each variable into three groups: never, a few times a year, and at least once a month.

Covariates.

We included 23 covariates as possible confounders based on previous research [10,18] that examined the association between watching sports and depression or subjective well-being. We obtained all covariates detailed below from the 2019 wave. Sex (male or female), age (continuous), marital status (married or unmarried), living arrangement (living alone or with others), occupational status (employed or unemployed), years of education ( < 10, 10–12, or ≥ 13 years), drinking status (none or current), and smoking status (none or current) were included in this study. The annual equivalent income, divided by the square root of the number of household members, was categorized as < 2 million, 2–4 million, or > 4 million JPY per year (1 USD = 155 JPY). Instrumental activities of daily living were assessed using the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Index of Competence [25], which examines five activities: public transportation, shopping for daily necessities, preparing meals, paying bills, and handling banking. Each item was scored as 1 for yes (able to perform) or 0 for no, with participants classified as independent (5 points) or dependent ( ≤ 4 points). Self-reported height and weight were used to calculate the body mass index (kg/m²). Self-rated health was evaluated using a standard one-item question: “How would you describe your current health?” The response categories (excellent, good, fair, and poor) were good (excellent or good) or poor (fair or poor). The Japanese short version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) was used to assess depressive symptoms. This 15-item scale, validated for older adults in Japan, has demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.80) and sensitivity (96%) and specificity (95%) for detecting major depressive disorder [26]. Scores range from 0 to 15, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms. Disease status included hypertension, stroke, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and musculoskeletal disorders, which were assessed using yes/no responses. We included the participants’ participation in hobbies and sports clubs. Participants were requested to indicate their frequency of participation by selecting one of the following options: “almost every day,” “twice or thrice a week,” “once a week,” “once or twice a month,” “a few times a year,” or “never.” Responses were classified as “yes” if individuals selected any of the five options ranging from “a few times a year” to “almost every day” and “no” if they chose “never.” The population density per km² of the inhabitable area was categorized into three groups: < 1,000, 1,000–4,000, and > 4,000 persons/km². The happiness in the 2019 wave was included as a covariate.

Statistical analysis

Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to examine the association between sports participation and happiness. We created separate regression models for each form of watching sports on-site, professional sports on-site, and sports on TV or the Internet. We individually entered each of the three explanatory variables into the statistical models. Additionally, given the overlap between those who watch sports on TV/Internet and those who watch sports on-site, we constructed regression models that encompassed watching sports on-site and on TV/Internet, as well as watching professional sports on-site and watching sports on TV/Internet simultaneously. The non-spectator category was used as the reference for each form. Unstandardized coefficients (B), standardized coefficients (β) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. To enhance the interpretation of our findings, we dichotomized the outcome variable of happiness. We determined cutoff points of 7 and 8 based on the average scale of the outcome variable. We estimated the prevalence ratio (PR) using a modified Poisson regression method because the prevalence of dichotomized outcomes was greater than 10% [27]. Furthermore, we conducted subgroup analyses to investigate potential differences in the associations between watching sports and happiness stratified by sports club participation (yes or no), sex, and age ( < 75 years or ≥ 75 years) in the 2019 wave. These factors could influence accessibility to sports due to differences in interest, engagement, mobility, health concerns, and gender-related preferences. The subgroup analyses aimed to understand whether the effects of watching sports on happiness were equally distributed, or whether certain subgroups benefited more from accessing or engaging in watching sports. To assess multicollinearity, we calculated the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for each model. All VIFs values were less than 10, indicating no significant multicollinearity in the models. Missing values were imputed using random forest imputation, an iterative method based on random forests that constitutes multiple imputation schemes, by averaging many unpruned classification or regression trees [28]. All statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.2.1, with p < 0.05 indicating statistical significance.

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Chiba University, Japan (approval number: M10460). All participants were informed that their participation in the study would be voluntary. After completing the questionnaire, selecting the acceptance checkbox, and returning it via mail, the participants provided written consent to participate.

Results

Table 1 summarizes the background characteristics of the 11,265 participants before imputation for missing values. The average age was 73.6 years (standard deviation [SD], 5.6) and the proportion of women was 52.2% (n = 5,883). Of the 11,265 participants, 418 (4.1%) reported watching sports on-site at least once a month, whereas 1,222 (12.0%) and 8,511 (83.8%) reported watching sports on-site a few times a year or never, respectively. Similarly, 64 (0.6%) participants reported watching professional sports on-site at least once a month, whereas 625 (6.2%) and 9,329 (93.1%) reported watching professional sports on-site a few times a year or never, respectively. Of the participants, 6,113 (58.8%) reported watching sports on TV or the Internet at least once a month. A total of 2,434 (23.4%) participants reported watching sports on TV or the Internet a few times a year, whereas 1,857 (17.8%) had never watched sports on TV or the Internet. The average happiness score for the 2022 wave is 7.4 (SD 1.8). S1 Table in S1 File shows the distribution of happiness scores by the frequency of watching sports. Participants who watched sports on-site a few times a year reported higher happiness scores (mean = 7.6) than those who did not (mean = 7.2). Regarding professional sports on-site, happiness scores were similar between those who never watched (mean = 7.6) and those who watched it a few times a year (mean = 7.7). Participants who watched sports on TV/Internet at least once a month showed higher happiness scores (mean = 7.4) than those who did not (mean = 7.1). To assess potential selection bias from sample attrition, we compared our analytic sample with the original sample in 2019 (n = 22,528; S2 Table in S1 File). The background characteristics of our analytic sample were largely comparable to those of the original sample, although our analytic samples included slightly younger participants (mean age: 73.6 vs 74.5 years).

Table 1. Characteristics of the participants aged 65 or older before missing values were imputed.

Characteristic	N = 11,265^a
Sex, female	5,883 (52.2%)
Age (years)	73.6 (5.6)
Marital status: married	8,036 (72.2%)
Living arrangements: living alone	1,455 (13.6%)
Occupational status: employed	3,397 (32.8%)
Years of education (years)
<10	2,559 (23.3%)
10–12	4,908 (44.7%)
≥ 13	3,523 (32.1%)
Drinking status: yes	4,766 (43.8%)
Smoking status: yes	1,059 (9.6%)
Equivalent income (yen)
< 2 million	4,818 (48.7%)
2–4 million	4,034 (40.8%)
> 4 million	1,041 (10.5%)
Body mass index (kg/m²)	23.0 (3.1)
Instrumental activities of daily living, independent	10,236 (93.2%)
Self-rated health, good	10,076 (91.5%)
Geriatric depression scale (0–15: higher scores indicate a more severe presence of depressive symptoms)	2.7 (2.8)
Hypertension, yes	5,179 (47.3%)
Stroke, yes	245 (2.2%)
Cardiovascular disease, yes	1,025 (9.4%)
Diabetes, yes	1,645 (15.0%)
Dyslipidemia, yes	1,763 (16.1%)
Musculoskeletal disorders, yes	1,048 (9.6%)
Population density (persons/km²)
< 1,000	4,233 (37.6%)
1,000–4,000	3,305 (29.3%)
> 4,000	3,727 (33.1%)
Participation in sports clubs, yes	3,543 (36.4%)
Participation in hobby groups, yes	4,493 (45.4%)
Happy score in 2019 (0 ~ 10: higher scores indicate feeling happier)	7.3 (1.8)
Happy score in 2022 (0 ~ 10: higher scores indicate feeling happier)	7.4 (1.8)
Watching sports on-site
Never	8,511 (83.8%)
A few times a year	1,222 (12.0%)
At least once a month	418 (4.1%)
Watching professional sports on-site
Never	9,329 (93.1%)
A few times a year	625 (6.2%)
At least once a month	64 (0.6%)
Watching sports on TV/Internet
Never	1,857 (17.8%)
A few times a year	2,434 (23.4%)
At least once a month	6,113 (58.8%)

Open in a new tab

^an (%); Mean (Standard deviation).

Table 2 shows the results of the linear regression analysis of watching sports and happiness among independent older adults aged ≥ 65 years. After adjusting for possible confounders, participants who watched sports on-site a few times a year had higher happiness scores than those who did not (B: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.19; β: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.11). However, watching sports on-site at least once a month was not significantly associated with happiness (B: 0.07, 95% CI: − 0.05 to 0.20; β: 0.04, 95% CI: − 0.03 to 0.11). Concerning watching professional sports on-site, watching a few times a year was significantly associated with a higher happiness score (B: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.22; β: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.13), but watching at least once a month was not (B: 0.01, 95% CI: − 0.29 to 0.31; β: 0.00, 95% CI: − 0.16 to 0.17). In terms of watching sports on TV or the Internet, no significant associations were observed between watching sports and happiness, regardless of the frequency of watching (a few times a year B: − 0.04, 95% CI: − 0.11 to 0.04;; β: − 0.02, 95% CI: − 0.06 to 0.02; at least once a month B: 0.03, 95% CI: − 0.04 to 0.10; β: 0.02, 95% CI: − 0.02 to 0.06). Table 3 presents the regression model results. When holding covariates constant, on average, individuals who watched sports on-site a few times a year reported 0.11 points higher happiness than those who did not. This increase in happiness is comparable to an increase in income from JPY 2 million to JPY 4 million. Similar results were obtained in the analyses in which two explanatory variables–watching sports on TV or the Internet and watching sports or professional sports on-site–were considered simultaneously (S3 and S4 Tables in S1 File).

Table 2. Regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals of linear regression analyses examining associations between happiness and watching sports.

Frequency of watching sports	B (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	p-value
Watching sports on-site
Never	Reference	Reference
A few times a year	0.11 (0.03, 0.19)	0.06 (0.02, 0.11)	0.006
At least once a month	0.07 (−0.05, 0.20)	0.04 (−0.03, 0.11)	0.262
Watching professional sports on-site
Never	Reference	Reference
A few times a year	0.12 (0.02, 0.22)	0.07 (0.01, 0.13)	0.018
At least once a month	0.01 (−0.29, 0.31)	0.00 (−0.16, 0.17)	0.952
Watching sports on TV/Internet
Never	Reference	Reference
A few times a year	−0.04 (−0.11, 0.04)	−0.02 (−0.06, 0.02)	0.357
At least once a month	0.03 (−0.04, 0.10)	0.02 (−0.02, 0.06)	0.337

Open in a new tab

Note: All models were controlled for sex, age, marital status, living arrangements, occupational status, years of education, drinking status, smoking status, equivalized income, body mass index, instrumental activities of daily living, self-rated health, geriatric depression scale, hypertension, stroke, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, dyslipidemia, musculoskeletal disorders, population density, participation in sports clubs, participation in hobbies, and happiness scores in 2019. B: Unstandardized coefficient, β: Standardized coefficient, CI: Confidence interval.

Table 3. Regression coefficients for all covariates included in the models with each explanatory variable of watching sports on-site, watching professional sports on-site, and watching sports on TV/Internet.

Explanatory Variables and Covariates: Variable (Reference Group)	B	p-value	B	p-value	B	p-value
Watching sports on-site (Never)
A few times a year	0.11	0.006
At least once a month	0.07	0.262
Watching professional sports on-site (Never)
A few times a year			0.12	0.018
At least once a month			0.01	0.952
Watching sports on TV/Internet (Never)
A few times a year					−0.04	0.357
At least once a month					0.03	0.337
Sex, male (female)	−0.21	<0.001	−0.21	<0.001	−0.21	<0.001
Age	0.01	<0.001	0.01	<0.001	0.01	<0.001
Marital status, married (unmarried)	0.01	0.856	0.01	0.875	0.00	0.930
Living arrangements, living alone (living with others)	−0.08	0.087	−0.08	0.083	−0.08	0.084
Occupational status, employed (unemployed)	−0.00	0.939	−0.00	0.970	0.00	0.948
Years of education ( < 10 years)
10–12 years	−0.00	0.943	−0.00	0.946	−0.00	0.898
≥ 13 years	0.10	0.006	0.10	0.006	0.10	0.009
Drinking status, current (none)	0.02	0.519	0.02	0.507	0.02	0.511
Smoking status, current (none)	−0.06	0.189	−0.06	0.183	−0.06	0.183
Equivalent income ( < 2 million yen)
2–4 million yen	0.07	0.017	0.07	0.017	0.06	0.020
> 4 million yen	0.11	0.013	0.11	0.014	0.11	0.013
Body mass index (kg/m²)	0.00	0.879	0.00	0.872	0.00	0.860
Instrumental activities of daily living, independent (dependent)	−0.09	0.085	−0.09	0.089	−0.09	0.086
Self-rated health, good (poor)	−0.01	0.901	−0.01	0.884	−0.01	0.914
Participation in sports clubs, yes (no)	−0.03	0.246	−0.03	0.337	−0.03	0.376
Participation in hobby groups, yes (no)	0.03	0.377	0.03	0.347	0.03	0.327
Happy score in 2019	0.53	<0.001	0.53	<0.001	0.53	<0.001
Geriatric depression scale	−0.10	<0.001	−0.10	<0.001	−0.10	<0.001
Hypertension, yes (no)	−0.03	0.306	−0.03	0.279	−0.03	0.298
Stroke, yes (no)	−0.09	0.292	−0.08	0.308	−0.09	0.293
Cardiovascular disease, yes (no)	−0.04	0.394	−0.04	0.384	−0.04	0.390
Diabetes, yes (no)	0.03	0.426	0.03	0.412	0.03	0.396
Dyslipidemia, yes (no)	−0.00	0.899	−0.00	0.902	−0.00	0.886
Musculoskeletal disorders, yes (no)	−0.10	0.019	−0.10	0.018	−0.10	0.018
Population density ( < 1,000 persons/km²)
1,000–4,000/km²	−0.02	0.544	−0.02	0.491	−0.02	0.477
>4,000/km²	−0.06	0.038	−0.07	0.026	−0.07	0.030

Open in a new tab

The findings of the modified Poisson regression analysis of the relationship between watching sports and happiness are presented in Table 4. After adjusting for potential confounders, participants who watched sports on-site a few times a year and those who watched sports on-site at least once a month had a higher prevalence of happiness (happiness score ≥ 8) than those who did not (PR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.12 and PR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.14, respectively). Participants who watched professional sports on-site a few times a year, not at least once a month, were more likely to report feeling happy than those who did not (PR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.12; PR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.26, respectively). Similar results were obtained in the analyses that considered two explanatory variables (S5 and S6 Tables in S1 File).

Table 4. Prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals of modified Poisson regression analyses examining the associations between happiness and watching sports.

Frequency of watching sports	PR	95% CI	p-value
Watching sports on-site
Never	Reference
A few times a year	1.07	1.03, 1.12	0.001
At least once a month	1.07	1.00, 1.14	0.037
Watching professional sports on-site
Never	Reference
A few times a year	1.06	1.01, 1.12	0.027
At least once a month	1.06	0.89, 1.26	0.503
Watching sports on TV/Internet
Never	Reference
A few times a year	0.98	0.93, 1.03	0.358
At least once a month	1.01	0.96, 1.05	0.814

Open in a new tab

Note: All models controlled for sex, age, marital status, living arrangements, occupational status, years of education, drinking status, smoking status, equivalized income, body mass index, instrumental activities of daily living, self-rated health, geriatric depression scale, hypertension, stroke, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, dyslipidemia, musculoskeletal disorders, population density, participation in sports clubs, participation in hobbies, and happiness scores in 2019. CI: Confidence interval, PR: Prevalence ratio.

In the subgroup analysis of participation in sports clubs at least a few times a year (n = 4,091), none of the three forms of watching sports was associated with a higher happiness score (as presented in Table 5). However, the subgroup analysis of non-participation in sports clubs (n = 7,174) observed that individuals who watched sports on-site a few times a year and those who watched sports on-site at least once a month, as well as those who watched professional sports on-site a few times a year, had a higher happiness score than those who did not (B: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.28; β: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.16; B: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.50; β: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.27 and B: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.33; β: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.18, respectively; Table 5). In the sex-stratified analysis (male: n = 5,382; female: n = 5,883), men who watched sports on-site a few times a year and professional sports on-site a few times a year were more likely to feel happier than those who did not (B: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.26; β: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.15; B: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.32; β: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.18, respectively), whereas no significant associations were observed among women (S6 Table in S1 File). In the age-stratified analysis ( < 75 years: n = 6,653; ≥ 75 years: n = 4,612), individuals aged < 75 years who watched sports on-site or professional sports on-site a few times a year were more likely to report higher levels of happiness than those who did not (B: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.20; β: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.11; B: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.27; β: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.15, respectively, as shown in S8 Table in S1 File). Conversely, individuals aged 75 years or older who watched sports on TV/Internet a few times a year were more likely to report lower levels of happiness than those who did not (B: − 0.15, 95% CI: − 0.28 to − 0.02; β: − 0.08, 95% CI: − 0.15 to − 0.01, as shown in S8 Table in S1 File).

Table 5. Regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals of linear regression analyses examining the associations between happiness and watching sports stratified by participation in sports clubs.

Frequency of watching sports	B (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	p-value
Participation in sports clubs (n = 4,091)
Watching sports on-site
Never	Reference	Reference
A few times a year	0.04 (−0.06, 0.15)	0.03 (−0.04, 0.09)	0.413
At least once a month	−0.08 (−0.24, 0.07)	−0.05 (−0.14, 0.04)	0.281
Watching professional sports on-site
Never	Reference	Reference
A few times a year	0.07 (−0.06, 0.21)	0.04 (−0.04, 0.12)	0.295
At least once a month	−0.36 (−0.76, 0.04)	−0.21 (−0.46, 0.03)	0.078
Watching sports on TV/Internet
Never	Reference	Reference
A few times a year	0.02 (−0.11, 0.16)	0.02 (−0.07, 0.10)	0.723
At least once a month	0.10 (−0.02, 0.23)	0.06 (−0.01, 0.14)	0.105
No participation in sports clubs (n = 7,174)
Watching sports on-site
Never	Reference	Reference
A few times a year	0.17 (0.06, 0.28)	0.09 (0.03, 0.16)	0.003
At least once a month	0.29 (0.09, 0.50)	0.16 (0.05, 0.27)	0.005
Watching professional sports on-site
Never	Reference	Reference
A few times a year	0.17 (0.02, 0.33)	0.09 (0.01, 0.18)	0.029
At least once a month	0.38 (−0.05, 0.81)	0.21 (−0.03, 0.44)	0.085
Watching sports on TV/Internet
Never	Reference
A few times a year	−0.06 (−0.15, 0.04)	−0.03 (−0.08, 0.02)	0.219
At least once a month	0.01 (−0.08, 0.09)	0.00 (−0.04, 0.05)	0.906

Open in a new tab

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to focus on the differences in the relationship between watching sports and happiness based on spectating type. These findings revealed that watching sports on-site, particularly a few times a year, was associated with higher happiness levels among older adults. Conversely, the relationship between watching sports on TV/Internet was insignificant. This study confirmed a positive association between watching sports and happiness, with robust associations observed among individuals who did not participate in sports clubs (i.e., those with fewer opportunities to engage in sports), men, and those under 75 years of age.

Consistent with our findings, studies on watching sports have shown a positive association with subjective well-being [14,15,29–31]. Factors such as team identification, game outcomes, and game processes can mediate the relationship between watching sports on-site and happiness [31–33]. In terms of biological mechanisms, watching popular sports may increase brain activity and structural volume in regions associated with positive emotions, leading to enhanced self-reported well-being [34]. We observed associations between watching sports on-site and happiness, regardless of whether it was live spectatorship of professional sports. Based on our findings, watching sports, irrespective of the competition level, can elicit feelings of happiness because it provides an opportunity to support one’s favorite teams, athletes, friends, and family [18].

Our findings suggest that individuals who watch sports on-site more frequently are not necessarily happy. While frequent sports watching might intuitively seem more beneficial, a moderate frequency (a few times per year) appears optimal for happiness. The complex relationship between watching frequency and happiness can be explained through three mechanisms. First, regular spectators often experience stronger negative emotions from losses, which can offset positive effects [35]. Moderate attendance may provide a balance by allowing individuals to enjoy the excitement of live events while ensuring sufficient emotional recovery between experiences. This pattern can help minimize the accumulation of negative emotions resulting from frequent exposure to team losses or disappointments. Second, quality of engagement appears to be more critical for happiness than quantity of attendance. Evidence on the connection between watching sports and well-being [36] indicates that an individual’s psychological connection with a sports team may be more important than watching frequency itself for greater well-being. The depth of emotional attachment to a favorite team, rather than the frequency of attendance, may drive the benefits of happiness associated with sports spectatorship. Third, hedonic adaptation theory offers additional insights into why occasional attendance may yield greater happiness benefits. This theory suggests that people tend to return to a baseline level of happiness despite repeated positive experiences [37]. While occasional attendance may provide novelty, excitement, and a temporary boost in mood, frequent attendance may reduce positive emotional returns as individuals become accustomed to the experience. Less frequent attendance also enhances the psychological benefits of anticipation and savoring, further amplifying the positive emotional effects of each event. Moderate attendance may balance excitement with emotional recovery, avoiding negative emotions associated with frequent losses, or team-related disappointments. Thus, the relationship between watching sports and happiness appears to be influenced by both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of sports engagement.

The positive association between watching sports and happiness was specific to on-site spectatorship and not observed with TV/Internet watching. One study found that viewing sporting events on TV or the Internet could enhance viewers’ well-being [38]. Conversely, another study examining the effects of the frequency of watching professional baseball on fans’ life satisfaction revealed that while attending ballparks to watch games was positively associated with sports fans’ life satisfaction, watching baseball on the TV, Internet, or mobile devices was not [39]. While watching sports on TV or the Internet is routine, visiting a stadium or arena for spectatorship is viewed as a special event because it requires more time and money. Additionally, attending a sporting event provides an opportunity to escape from daily life, appreciate athletes’ aesthetics, and socialize with friends or family, which can make the experience more immersive [40]. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that watching sports on-site can significantly affect happiness more than watching sports on TV or the Internet.

The relationship between watching sports and happiness was observed among older adults who did not participate in sports clubs rather than among those who participated at least several times a year. The effect of watching sports on happiness may vary depending on the active participation of older adults in sports. Many studies have consistently demonstrated that active participation in sports can lead to higher happiness levels [9]. However, it is generally difficult to encourage older adults, especially those with functional decline or limited mobility, to engage in regular sports or exercise. Our findings suggest that watching sports may have different implications for participants and non-participants in sports clubs. Sports club participants may already receive social and emotional benefits through active participation, creating a ceiling effect for additional benefits from watching sports. By contrast, non-participants may experience unique social connections and sports-related enjoyment, primarily through watching sports. Additionally, the novelty effect may be stronger for non-participants. While sports club participants are regularly exposed to sports environments, individuals who do not participate in sports may find the atmosphere and excitement of live sports events more stimulating and beneficial to their emotional states. However, these potential mechanisms remain hypothetical, and future research is needed to examine the psychological processes underlying the differential effects of watching sports between sports participants and non-participants.

Previous research has reported sex-specific differences in the enjoyment of watching sporting events on TV [41]. Men were more likely to engage in the passionate and emotional aspects of watching sports on TV, be immersed in the excitement and drama of the game, and actively participate in the watching experience by eating, drinking, and vocalizing their reactions. In contrast, women were more likely to watch sports to pass time or companionship. Other studies have demonstrated that male viewers prefer sports featuring physical competition or the use of tools such as boxing, ice hockey, and basketball, whereas female viewers exhibit a greater affinity for aesthetic sports such as figure skating [42]. The relationship between watching sports and happiness may vary depending on how men and women watch sports.

We observed no notable association between watching sports and happiness in individuals aged ≥ 75 years, contrary to the findings for those aged < 75 years. Older adults tend to choose media content that makes them feel good and avoid programs that are negative in nature [43]. As individuals age, they often prioritize experiences that are more emotionally meaningful [44], and their emotional stability tends to increase [45]. This suggests that those aged ≥ 75 years who do not watch sports may have alternative ways of increasing their happiness apart from watching sports. However, this proposed explanation cannot fully account for our finding that those aged ≥ 75 years who watched sports on TV or the Internet a few times per year were less happy than those who did not. However, further studies are required to address this issue.

Our research revealed that on-site sports spectatorship, but not TV or Internet viewing, is positively associated with happiness among older adults. While watching sports on TV or the Internet is accessible, visiting stadiums or arenas for spectatorship may be more effective in enhancing happiness [40]. Facilitating access to live sports events in older adults may function as a public health strategy to enhance happiness. This strategy could include both financial interventions, such as targeted ticket discounts or voucher programs [18], and infrastructure optimization of existing facilities, such as public stadiums and parks [46]. Stadiums and arenas could integrate age-friendly features, including ergonomic seating, accessible restrooms, and designated rest areas, to better accommodate older spectators. Hosting pre-event social gatherings or arranging guided group visits might also improve attendance and foster greater engagement among older adults. Such comprehensive approaches to promoting live sports spectatorship may serve as an effective public health strategy to enhance happiness among older adults.

One strength of this study is that it examined the relationship between watching sports and happiness in older adults using a large population-based sample. Additionally, we used the covariates measured before measuring the exposure variables of interest to reduce the possibility of reverse causation. In other words, we aimed to account for the possibility that happier older adults were more inclined to watch sports.

This study has several limitations. First, generalizability is limited by our focus on community-dwelling older adults in Japan. Cultural factors may influence the relationship between sports spectatorship and happiness, warranting caution when extending these findings to other populations. Second, while our analytic sample was largely comparable to the original sample, the sample attrition could have introduced selection bias, potentially skewing the sample towards more active individuals. Additionally, although we adjusted for several confounders, unmeasured variables such as sporting event type, motivation for attendance, and team preferences were not considered due to questionnaire constraints [47]. The COVID-19 pandemic may also have affected our data, as concerns about infection could have diminished enjoyment and attenuated feelings of happiness among spectators [48]. Furthermore, the primarily cross-sectional design restricts our ability to infer causality. Although we attempted to reduce reverse causation by using covariates measured prior to exposure, we cannot eliminate the possibility that happier individuals are simply more inclined to watch sports. Future research should address these limitations by replicating this study in diverse populations across different cultures. Longitudinal designs are needed to establish temporal relationships and elucidate the dynamic interplay between sports spectatorship and happiness. Further investigation into underlying mechanisms (e.g., social interaction, emotional responses, team identification) and the moderating effects of sport type and viewing context is also warranted.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study highlights the positive association between watching sports on-site and happiness among older adults. However, watching sports on TV or the Internet was not associated with higher levels of happiness. Additionally, the association between watching sports and happiness was pronounced among individuals who did not participate in sports, men, and those aged < 75 years. Interventions aimed at promoting access to live sporting events could significantly increase happiness.

Supporting information

S1 File

S1 Table. Distribution of happiness scores by frequency of watching sports. S2 Table. Comparison of background characteristics between analytic sample and original sample in 2019. S3 Table. Regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals of linear regression analyses examining the associations between happiness and watching sports in the model, including the two explanatory variables of watching sports on-site and on TV/Internet simultaneously. S4 Table. Regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals of linear regression analyses examining the associations between happiness and watching sports in the model, including the two explanatory variables of watching professional sports on-site and watching sports on TV/Internet simultaneously. S5 Table. Prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals of modified Poisson regression analyses examining the associations between happiness and watching sports in the model, including the two explanatory variables of watching sports on-site and on TV/Internet simultaneously. S6 Table. Prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals of modified Poisson regression analyses examining the associations between happiness and watching sports in the model, including the two explanatory variables of watching professional sports on-site and watching sports on TV/Internet simultaneously. S7 Table. Regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals of linear regression analyses examining the association between happiness and watching sports stratified by sex. S8 Table. Regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals of linear regression analyses examining the associations between happiness and watching sports stratified by age (< 75 years and ≥ 75 years).

(DOCX)

pone.0320213.s001.docx^{(40.3KB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Editage [http://www.editage.com] for editing and reviewing this manuscript for English language.

Data Availability

The data used in this study cannot be made publicly available due to ethical restrictions imposed by JAGES (the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study) administrative office because the data contain potentially sensitive information about human research participants, including detailed health and socioeconomic status at small geographical areas. However, interested researchers may request access to the anonymized data by contacting the JAGES office: (Email: dataadmin.ml@jages.net; Website: https://www.jages.net/data_application/). Data requests will be considered following review of the research proposal and approval from the JAGES office. Researchers must agree to the JAGES data sharing guidelines and sign a data usage agreement to access the data. Data cannot be made public due to the inclusion of sensitive information provided by human participants. Researchers may request the data from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study (URL: https://www.jages.net/data_application/; Email: dataadmin.ml@jages.net).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by JST RISTEX Japan Grant Number JPMJRS22B1. This study used data from JAGES (the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study). The JAGES was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (20H00557, 20K10540, 21H03153, 21H03196, 21K17302, 22H00934, 22H03299, 22K04450, 22K13558, 22K17409, 23H00449, 23H03117), Health Labour Sciences Research Grants (19FA1012, 19FA2001, 21FA1012, 22FA2001, 22FA1010, 22FG2001), the Open Innovation Platform with Enterprises, Research Institute and Academia (JPMJOP1831) from the Japan Science and Technology (JST), a grant from Japan Health Promotion & Fitness Foundation, TMDU priority research areas grant and National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Jivraj S, Nazroo J, Vanhoutte B, Chandola T. Aging and subjective well-being in later life. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2014;69(6):930–41. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Diener E. guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and Ill-being. J Happiness Stud. 2006;7(4):397–404. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9000-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3.Oerlemans WGM, Bakker AB, Veenhoven R. Finding the key to happy aging: A day reconstruction study of happiness. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2011;66(6):665–74. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbr040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Russell JA. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychol Rev. 2003;110(1):145–72. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.1.145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Chei C-L, Lee JM-L, Ma S, Malhotra R. Happy older people live longer. Age Ageing. 2018;47(6):860–6. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afy128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Hill PL, Turiano NA, Mroczek DK, Burrow AL. The value of a purposeful life: Sense of purpose predicts greater income and net worth. J Res Pers. 2016;65:38–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.07.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Steptoe A, Fancourt D. Leading a meaningful life at older ages and its relationship with social engagement, prosperity, health, biology, and time use. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(4):1207–12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1814723116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Nimrod G. Expanding, reducing, concentrating and diffusing: post retirement leisure behavior and life satisfaction. Leisure Sciences. 2007;29(1):91–111. doi: 10.1080/01490400600983446 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Marquez DX, Aguiñaga S, Vásquez PM, Conroy DE, Erickson KI, Hillman C, et al. A systematic review of physical activity and quality of life and well-being. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(5):1098–109. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibz198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Keyes H, Gradidge S, Gibson N, Harvey A, Roeloffs S, Zawisza M, et al. Attending live sporting events predicts subjective wellbeing and reduces loneliness. Front Public Health. 2023;10:989706. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.989706 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Yoshida M, Sato M, Doyle J. Feeling vital by watching sport: the roles of team identification and stadium attendance in enhancing subjective vitality. J Sport Manag. 2023;37(4):229–42. doi: 10.1123/jsm.2021-0174 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12.Kinoshita K, Matsuoka H. Risk and psychological return: A moderating role of covid-19 risk perception in the impact of team identification on vitality after sport spectatorship in tokyo. IJSMS. 2022;24(1):20–37. doi: 10.1108/ijsms-01-2022-0007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13.Lera-López F, Ollo-López A, Sánchez-Santos JM. Is Passive sport engagement positively associated with happiness? Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2021;13(1):195–218. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Kawakami R, Sawada SS, Ito T, Gando Y, Fukushi T, Fujie R, et al. Influence of watching professional baseball on japanese elders’ affect and subjective happiness. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2017;3:2333721417721401. doi: 10.1177/2333721417721401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Inoue Y, Wann DL, Lock D, Sato M, Moore C, Funk DC. Enhancing older adults’ sense of belonging and subjective well-being through sport game attendance, team identification, and emotional support. J Aging Health. 2020;32(7–8):530–42. doi: 10.1177/0898264319835654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Mael FA, Ashforth BE. Identiﬁcation in Work, War, Sports, and Religion: Contrasting the Beneﬁts and Risks. J Theory Soc Behav. 2001;31(2):197–222. doi: 10.1111/1468-5914.00154 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Kim MJ, Mao LL. Sport consumers motivation for live attendance and mediated sports consumption: A qualitative analysis. Sport in Society. 2019;24(4):515–33. doi: 10.1080/17430437.2019.1679769 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18.Tsuji T, Kanamori S, Watanabe R, Yokoyama M, Miyaguni Y, Saito M, et al. Watching sports and depressive symptoms among older adults: a cross-sectional study from the JAGES 2019 survey. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):10612. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89994-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Lin Y-H, Chen C-Y, Lin Y-K, Lee C-Y, Cheng C-Y. Effects of online video sport spectatorship on the subjective well-being of college students: the moderating effect of sport involvement. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(5):4381. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Frey BS, Gullo A. Does sports make people happier, or do happy people more sports?. J Sport Econ. 2021;22(4):432–58. doi: 10.1177/1527002520985667 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21.Kondo K, Rosenberg M. Advancing universal health coverage through knowledge translation for healthy ageing: Lessons learnt from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study. 2018.
22.VanderWeele TJ, Mathur MB, Chen Y. Outcome-wide longitudinal designs for causal inference: A new template for empirical studies. Statist Sci. 2020;35(3). doi: 10.1214/19-sts728 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
23.Abdel-Khalek AM. Measuring happiness with a single-item scale. soc behav pers. 2006;34(2):139–50. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2006.34.2.139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24.Moldovan CP. AM. Happy Scale: reliability and validity of a single-item measure of happiness; 2018. Loma Linda University. http://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd/438. [Google Scholar]
25.Koyano W, Shibata H, Nakazato K, Haga H, Suyama Y. Measurement of competence: reliability and validity of the TMIG Index of Competence. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 1991;13(2):103–16. doi: 10.1016/0167-4943(91)90053-s [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Nyunt MSZ, Fones C, Niti M, Ng T-P. Criterion-based validity and reliability of the Geriatric Depression Screening Scale (GDS-15) in a large validation sample of community-living Asian older adults. Aging Ment Health. 2009;13(3):376–82. doi: 10.1080/13607860902861027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Zhang J, Yu KF. What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA. 1998;280(19):1690–1. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.19.1690 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Stekhoven DJ, Bühlmann P. MissForest--non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(1):112–8. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr597 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Inoue Y, Sato M, Filo K, Du J, Funk DC. Sport Spectatorship and Life Satisfaction: A Multicountry Investigation. J Sport Manag. 2017;31(4):419–32. doi: 10.1123/jsm.2016-0295 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
30.Knoll J, Schramm H, Schallhorn C. Mood effects of televised sports events: the impact of FIFA World Cups on viewers’ mood and judgments. Communication & Sport. 2013;2(3):242–60. doi: 10.1177/2167479513487525 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Stieger S, Götz FM, Gehrig F. Soccer results affect subjective well-being, but only briefly: A smartphone study during the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Front Psychol. 2015;6:497. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Wann DL. Understanding the positive social psychological benefits of sport team identification: The team identification-social psychological health model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2006;10(4):272–96. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.272 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Jang W, Ko YJ, Wann DL, Kim D. Does Spectatorship Increase Happiness? The Energy Perspective. J Sport Manag. 2017;31(4):333–44. doi: 10.1123/jsm.2016-0113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34.Kinoshita K, Nakagawa K, Sato S. Watching sport enhances well-being: evidence from a multi-method approach. Sport Manag Rev. 2024;27(4):595–619. doi: 10.1080/14413523.2024.2329831 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Moore SC, Shepherd JP, Eden S, Sivarajasingam V. The effect of rugby match outcome on spectator aggression and intention to drink alcohol. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2007;17(2):118–27. doi: 10.1002/cbm.647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Oshimi D, Kinoshita K. Relationship between residents’ sporting life and hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in Hiroshima: the mediating role of PERMA in sport. Manag Sport Leis. 2022: 1–16. doi: 10.1080/23750472.2022.2147857 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
37.Luhmann M, Intelisano S. Hedonic adaptation and the set point for subjective well-being. Handbook of Well-Being. 2018:1–26. doi: nobascholar.com [Google Scholar]
38.Kim J, Kim Y, Kim D. Improving well-being through hedonic, eudaimonic, and social needs fulfillment in sport media consumption. Sport Management Review. 2017;20(3):309–21. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2016.10.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
39.Oh T, Kang J-H, Kwon K. Is there a relationship between spectator sports consumptionand life satisfaction?. Manag Sport and Leisure. 2020;27(3):254–66. doi: 10.1080/23750472.2020.1784035 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
40.Pelletier LG, Tuson KM, Fortier MS, Vallerand RJ, Briére NM, Blais MR. Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The sport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 1995;17(1):35–53. doi: 10.1123/jsep.17.1.35 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
41.Gantz W, Wenner LA. Men, women, and sports: Audience experiences and effects. J Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 1991;35(2):233–43. doi: 10.1080/08838159109364120 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
42.Sargent SL. Enjoyment of televised sporting events: Evidence of a gender gap. Communication Research Reports. 2003;20(2):182–8. doi: 10.1080/08824090309388814 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
43.Mares M-L, Bartsch A, Bonus JA. When meaning matters more: Media preferences across the adult life span. Psychol Aging. 2016;31(5):513–31. doi: 10.1037/pag0000098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Carstensen LL. Socioemotional selectivity theory: The role of perceived endings in human motivation. Gerontologist. 2021;61(8):1188–96. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnab116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Brose A, Scheibe S, Schmiedek F. Life contexts make a difference: Emotional stability in younger and older adults. Psychol Aging. 2013;28(1):148–59. doi: 10.1037/a0030047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Oshimi D, Kinoshita K, Yamashita R. The mediating role of sport-specific PERMA in the relationship between physical activity/passive sport and global well-being/loneliness. J Leis Res. 2023;56(2):274–95. doi: 10.1080/00222216.2023.2287009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
47.Funk D, Filo K, Beaton A, Pritchard M. Measuring the motives of sports event attendance: Bridging the academic-practitioner divide to understanding behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly. 2009;18(1):126–38. [Google Scholar]
48.Takamatsu S. Spectators’ Worries and attitudes during the covid-19 pandemic: A case of a women’s volleyball match in japan. Int J Sport Health Sci. 2021;19(0):81–6. doi: 10.5432/ijshs.202118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. 2025 Apr 9;20(4):e0320213. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320213.r001

Author response to Decision Letter 0

25 Sep 2024

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320213.r002

Decision Letter 0

Mohamed Said

22 Oct 2024

PONE-D-24-42023Watching sports and happiness among older adults in Japan: The JAGES cohort studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kawaguchi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. The reviewers have highlighted several minor issues that need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for final acceptance.

We encourage you to revise your manuscript in response to the reviewers' comments, ensuring that all points raised are thoroughly addressed. Once revised, please submit your updated manuscript for further consideration.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 06 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions, see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamed Ahmed Said, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by JST RISTEX Japan Grant Number JPMJRS22B1. This study used data from JAGES (the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study). The JAGES was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (20H00557, 20K10540, 21H03153, 21H03196, 21K17302, 22H00934, 22H03299, 22K04450, 22K13558, 22K17409, 23H00449, 23H03117), Health Labour Sciences Research Grants (19FA1012, 19FA2001, 21FA1012, 22FA2001, 22FA1010, 22FG2001), the Open Innovation Platform with Enterprises, Research Institute and Academia (JPMJOP1831) from the Japan Science and Technology (JST), a grant from Japan Health Promotion & Fitness Foundation, TMDU priority research areas grant and National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We would like to thank Editage [http://www.editage.com] for editing and reviewing this manuscript for English language. This study was supported by JST RISTEX, Japan (grant number JPMJRS22B1). This study used data from the JAGES. The JAGES was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (20H00557, 20K10540, 21H03153, 21H03196, 21K17302, 22H00934, 22H03299, 22K04450, 22K13558, 22K17409, 23H00449, and 23H03117), Health Labour Sciences Research Grants (19FA1012, 19FA2001, 21FA1012, 22FA2001, 22FA1010, and 22FG2001), the Open Innovation Platform with Enterprises, Research Institute and Academia (JPMJOP1831) from the Japan Science and Technology (JST), a grant from Japan Health Promotion & Fitness Foundation, TMDU priority research areas grant, and National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of the respective funding organizations.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have explored a highly intriguing issue, especially in today's context where aging is becoming increasingly prevalent. The study suggests that older adults who watch sports on-site experience an increase in happiness, while those who watch through television or the internet do not see a significant impact on their happiness.

I believe this article contributes an interesting perspective on how to maintain and enhance the happiness of older adults. The structure of the paper adheres to the standards of scientific research papers, with each section closely connected, clear logic, and easy to understand.

The only regret I have is that the references cited by the authors in the introduction and discussion sections only go up to the year 2022. This could lead professional peers to believe that there is a lack of literature on the topic discussed by the authors in the most recent years, 2023-2024. If possible, I recommend that the authors supplement the paper with some relevant literature from the past two years.

In the introduction section, has there been any recent attention from peers in the past two years regarding the relationship between passive sports participation and the happiness of older adults? I believe this is an area that the authors could consider expanding upon in the introduction.

In the discussion section, the authors specifically address two issues of our concern: (1) "Our findings suggest that individuals who watch sports on-site more frequently are not necessarily happy."; (2) "The relationship between watching sports and happiness was observed among older adults who did not participate in sports clubs rather than among those who participated at least several times a year." These two conclusions clearly defy readers' intuitive expectations, which is an intriguing finding. The authors have discussed these two reader concerns, but as a reader, I feel that the discussion could be more exhaustive. I hope the authors can provide more detailed explanations. If the authors could incorporate more recent literature to elucidate this phenomenon, it might be more persuasive.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, I hope you find in a good health. First of all I would like to congratulate for the research.

there are some comments to improve the text:

1. abstract most be crearly about the aim of the study; it seems to be different in the text;

2. in the method, were possible to have an instrumentation item and another one to describe the population;

3. in the results, there will be possible to highlight the results of the Happiness score (maybe in a separate table);

4. some suggestions must be done with the specific purpose, with the findings, suggestions to increase happiness of these specific population.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Vinicius Barroso Hirota

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Apr 9;20(4):e0320213. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320213.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1

7 Nov 2024

Dear Editor,

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and their constructive comments. We have addressed all comments and revised our manuscript accordingly. Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response to Reviewer #1:

Comment 1: The references cited in the introduction and discussion sections only go up to the year 2022. This could lead professional peers to believe that there is a lack of literature on the topic in the most recent years, 2023-2024.

Comment 2: Has there been any recent attention from peers in the past two years regarding the relationship between passive sports participation and the happiness of older adults?

Response: We appreciate this valuable suggestion. We have conducted an additional literature review to include the most recent studies from 2023-2024 and added some new insights into online sports watching and biological mechanism.

Changes: We have updated references in our introduction. The list of new references is provided as follows:

• Yoshida M, Sato M, Doyle J. Feeling vital by watching sport: The roles of team identification and stadium attendance in enhancing subjective vitality. J Sport Manag. 2023;37: 229-242. doi: 10.1123/jsm.2021-0174.

• Kinoshita K, Matsuoka H. Risk and psychological return: a moderating role of COVID-19 risk perception in the impact of team identification on vitality after sport spectatorship in Tokyo. Int J Sports Mark Spons. 2023;24: 20-37. doi: 10.1108/IJSMS-01-2022-0007.

• Lin Y-H, Chen C-Y, Lin Y-K, Lee C-Y, Cheng C-Y. Effects of Online Video Sport Spectatorship on the Subjective Well-Being of College Students: The Moderating Effect of Sport Involvement. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20:4381. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054381.

• Kinoshita K, Nakagawa K, Sato S. (2024). Watching sport enhances well-being: evidence from a multi-method approach. Sport Manage Rev. 2024;27: 595-619. doi: 10.1080/14413523.2024.2329831

We have modified the introduction section with recent references:

“Previous studies have reported that passive sports participation is associated with greater subjective well-being [10-12]” (p.4, line 65).

“According to a study focusing on college students [19], online video sport spectatorship may improve subjective well-being, with sport participation moderating the relationship between online video sport spectatorship and well-being.” (p. 4, lines 78–81).

We have updated the discussion section with recent references:

“In terms of biological mechanisms, watching popular sports increases brain activity in regions associated with positive emotions, leading to enhanced self-reported well-being [34].” (p. 24, lines 300-302).

Comment 3: The discussion of two counterintuitive findings (frequency of watching and non-participation in sports clubs) could be more exhaustive.

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We appreciate the reviewer's insight that these counterintuitive findings require more detailed explanation. We have expanded our discussion of these findings with additional theoretical frameworks and supporting evidence.

Changes: We have modified the text in the discussion (p. 24–25, lines 308–322): “While frequent sports watching might intuitively seem more beneficial, moderate frequency (a few times per year) appears optimal for happiness. The complex relationship between watching frequency and happiness can be explained by three mechanisms. First, regular spectators often experience stronger negative emotions from losses, which can offset positive effects [35]. This emotional variability may explain why moderate frequency (a few times per year) shows optimal effects on happiness. Second, a study on the connection between watching sports and well-being [36] indicated that an individual’s psychological connection with a sports team may be more important than watching frequency itself for greater well-being. The relationship between watching sports and happiness may depend more on how much attachment individuals have to their favorite teams rather than how often they watch sports. Third, the hedonic adaptation theory suggests that people tend to return to a baseline level of happiness despite repeated positive experiences [37]. Frequent sports watching may lead to habituation, reducing its emotional effect over time. Thus, the relationship between sports watching and happiness appears to be influenced by both quantitative and qualitative aspects of sports engagement.”

We have updated the following text in the discussion (p. 26, lines 337–351): “The effect of watching sports on happiness may vary depending on older adults' active participation in sports. Many studies have consistently demonstrated that active participation in sports can lead to higher happiness levels [9]. However, it is generally not easy to encourage older adults, especially those with functional decline or limited mobility, to engage in regular sports or exercise. Our findings suggest that watching sports may have different implications for participants versus non-participants in sports clubs. Sports club participants may already receive social and emotional benefits through their active participation, creating a ceiling effect for additional benefits from watching sports. In contrast, non-participants may experience unique social connection and sports-related enjoyment primarily through watching sports. Additionally, the novelty effect may be stronger for non-participants. While sports club participants are regularly exposed to sports environments, individuals who do not participate in sports may find the atmosphere and excitement of live sports events more stimulating and beneficial on their emotional state. However, these potential mechanisms remain hypothetical, and future research is needed to examine the psychological processes underlying the differential effects of sports watching between sports participants and non-participants.”

Response to Reviewer #2:

Comment 1: Abstract must be clearly about the aim of the study; it seems to be different in the text.

Response: Thank you for this important observation regarding the consistency of our study aims. We have revised the abstract to ensure consistency between the stated aims in the abstract and main text.

Changes: The objective statement in the abstract (p. 2, lines 22–24) was modified to read: “This study aimed to investigate the association between different forms of sports spectatorship (on-site and on TV/Internet) and happiness among older adults in Japan.”

Comment 2: In the method, were possible to have an instrumentation item and another one to describe the population.

Response: Thank you for this constructive suggestion to improve the organization of our methods section. We have restructured the methods section to include separate subsections for instrumentation and population description.

Changes: Added two new subsections in the methods:

1. “Study population” (p. 6, lines 105-112): “Between November and December 2022,...”

2. “Measures” (p. 6–7, lines 113-160): “In our research,...”

Comment 3: In the results, there will be possible to highlight the results of the Happiness score (maybe in a separate table).

Response: Based on your suggestion, we have created a new table specifically focusing on happiness scores and their distribution across different viewing patterns.

Changes: Added S1 Table: “Distribution of happiness scores by frequency of watching sports.” (Supporting information) and the following text in the results (p.10, lines 201–208):

“S1 Table shows the distribution of happiness scores by frequency of watching sports. Participants who watched sports on-site over a few times a year reported higher happiness scores (mean = 7.6) than those who never watched sports (mean = 7.2). Regarding professional sports on-site, happiness scores were similar between those who never watched (mean = 7.6) and those who watched a few times a year (mean = 7.7). Participants who watched sports on TV/Internet at least once a month showed higher happiness scores (mean = 7.4) than those who never watched (mean = 7.1).”

S1 Table. Distribution of happiness scores by frequency of watching sports.

Frequency of watching sports Mean (SD)

Watching sports on-site

Never 7.2 (1.8)

A few times a year 7.6 (1.6)

At least once a month 7.6 (1.8)

Watching professional sports on-site

Never 7.6 (1.7)

A few times a year 7.7 (1.6)

At least once a month 7.3 (1.7)

Watching sports on TV/Internet

Never 7.1 (2.0)

A few times a year 7.2 (1.8)

At least once a month 7.4 (1.7)

SD: Standard deviation

Comment 4: Some suggestions must be done with the specific purpose, with the findings, suggestions to increase happiness of these specific population.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion regarding the need for practical implications derived from our findings. We have added specific recommendations based on our findings.

Changes: We have modified the text in the discussion (p. 27, lines 370–381): “Our research reveals a positive association between watching sports on-site and happiness, but not with TV or Internet watching. Our findings have several implications. First, it suggests the importance of creating environments that promote watching sports on-site rather than on TV or Internet. While watching sports on TV or the Internet is accessible, visiting stadiums or arenas for spectatorship may be more effective in enhancing happiness [40]. Second, optimizing the use of existing facilities, such as public parks and stadiums, could help promote happiness among older adults [46]. These venues could be designed to facilitate the social aspects of live sports events that may not be obtained through TV or Internet watching. Third, providing older adults with discounted or free tickets to sports events could serve as an effective population-based strategy for promoting happiness [18]. Overall, initiatives that encourage on-site sports spectatorship could play a key role in improving happiness among older adults.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: response_letter.docx

pone.0320213.s003.docx^{(25.6KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320213.r004

Decision Letter 1

Mohamed Said

6 Dec 2024

PONE-D-24-42023R1Watching sports and happiness among older adults in Japan: The JAGES cohort studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kawaguchi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. The manuscript requires further scrutiny and additional modifications before it can be considered for final acceptance. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within Jan 20 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamed Ahmed Said, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors have made great efforts to actively address the suggestions for improvement put forward by me, thus enhancing the academic level of the paper.

Reviewer #2: Dear Author(s), I hope you find well! Here you can find the considerations for the manuscript to improve the publication;

Incorporation of Reviewer Feedback:

The revised manuscript includes detailed responses to the reviewers' suggestions, such as adding more recent literature (up to 2023-2024), which broadens the theoretical and practical foundation of the study.

Comments on the clarity of the study's objective in the abstract and consistency with the main text were addressed. The abstract has been revised but could still be enhanced for greater impact. Suggested improvements include:

Avoiding redundant language, such as "Although the relationship... remains unclear."

More explicitly highlighting the practical implications directly in the abstract.

The introduction mentions several theoretical references but could include a clearer explanation of why happiness in older adults is particularly relevant in the Japanese context. This would strengthen the rationale behind the study's focus.

Methodological Structuring:

The revised document organizes the methodology into clearer subsections, such as "Study Population" and "Measures," ensuring greater transparency and accessibility.

Expanded Discussion and Analyses:

The discussion in the revised manuscript presents more in-depth analyses, such as explanations for counterintuitive findings and theoretical considerations about the moderate frequency of sports watching and participation in sports clubs.

The revised text adds references to theories like hedonic adaptation and psychological impacts.

In the discussion, some ideas, such as hedonic adaptation and the psychological impact of watching sports, could be connected to other areas, such as mental health and social interaction in older adults.

Exploring why moderate frequency of sports watching appears more effective in enhancing happiness could generate additional insights.

Presentation of Results:

The revised manuscript includes supplementary detailed tables describing happiness scores concerning the frequency of sports watching, offering greater visual clarity and understanding.

Practical Applications:

New practical suggestions were incorporated to promote happiness among older adults, such as initiatives to enhance access to live sports events. The mentioned practical implications could be elaborated on, such as:

Concrete examples of public policies or initiatives to encourage older adults to attend live sports events.

Strategies to overcome specific barriers, such as financial or mobility limitations.

These changes indicate significant progress, addressing reviewers' recommendations and improving the overall quality of the manuscript. If you wish, I can delve into specific details or other aspects of the document.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Vinicius Barroso Hirota, PhD.

**********

PLoS One. 2025 Apr 9;20(4):e0320213. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320213.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 2

14 Dec 2024

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and expertise you have dedicated to helping us improve our work. We have carefully considered all comments and have made substantial revisions to address each point raised. Below, we detail our responses to the reviewer's comments and the corresponding changes made to the manuscript.

Response to Reviewer #2:

Comment 1: The introduction mentions several theoretical references but could include a clearer explanation of why happiness in older adults is particularly relevant in the Japanese context.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion regarding the abstract’s clarity and impact.

Changes:

We have:

• Removed redundant language, specifically the phrase "Although the relationship... remains unclear"

• Revised the objective statement to be more direct: "This study examined associations between different forms of sports spectatorship (on-site and TV/Internet) and happiness among older adults in Japan"

• Strengthened the conclusion to better highlight practical implications: “These findings highlight the importance of developing targeted interventions that promote older adults’ access to live sports events as a public health strategy.”

Comment 2: The introduction mentions several theoretical references but could include a clearer explanation of why happiness in older adults is particularly relevant in the Japanese context.

Response: We thank you for noting the need for stronger contextualization.

Changes: We have added new text in the introduction that specifically addresses (p. 4, lines 100–101): “However, existing literature has not yet fully addressed this issue among older adults [20], which is particularly crucial in Japan, the most rapidly aging country worldwide.”

Comment 3: Exploring why moderate frequency of sports watching appears more effective in enhancing happiness could generate additional insights.

Response: We have substantially expanded the discussion section.

Changes: p. 24–25, lines 330–347: “Moderate attendance may provide a balance by allowing individuals to enjoy the excitement of live events while ensuring sufficient emotional recovery between experiences. This pattern can help minimize the accumulation of negative emotions resulting from frequent exposure to team losses or disappointments. Second, quality of engagement appears to be more critical for happiness than quantity of attendance. Evidence on the connection between watching sports and well-being [36] indicates that an individual’s psychological connection with a sports team may be more important than watching frequency itself for greater well-being. The depth of emotional attachment to a favorite team, rather than the frequency of attendance, may drive the benefits of happiness associated with sports spectatorship. Third, hedonic adaptation theory offers additional insights into why occasional attendance may yield greater happiness benefits. This theory suggests that people tend to return to a baseline level of happiness despite repeated positive experiences [37]. While occasional attendance may provide novelty, excitement, and a temporary boost in mood, frequent attendance may reduce positive emotional returns as individuals become accustomed to the experience. Less frequent attendance also enhances the psychological benefits of anticipation and savoring, further amplifying the positive emotional effects of each event. Moderate attendance may balance excitement with emotional recovery, avoiding negative emotions associated with frequent losses, or team-related disappointments.”

Comment 4: The mentioned practical implications could be elaborated on, such as: Concrete examples of public policies or initiatives to encourage older adults to attend live sports events. Strategies to overcome specific barriers, such as financial or mobility limitations.

Response: Thank you for this constructive suggestion to improve our discussion section.

Changes: Following your suggestion, we have elaborated on practical implications (p. 27–28, lines 422–437) : “Our research revealed that on-site sports spectatorship, but not TV or Internet viewing, is positively associated with happiness among older adults. While watching sports on TV or the Internet is accessible, visiting stadiums or arenas for spectatorship may be more effective in enhancing happiness [40]. Facilitating access to live sports events in older adults may function as a public health strategy to enhance happiness. This strategy could include both financial interventions, such as targeted ticket discounts or voucher programs [18], and infrastructure optimization of existing facilities, such as public stadiums and parks [46]. Stadiums and arenas could integrate age-friendly features, including ergonomic seating, accessible restrooms, and designated rest areas, to better accommodate older spectators. Hosting pre-event social gatherings or arranging guided group visits might also improve attendance and foster greater engagement among older adults. Such comprehensive approaches to promoting live sports spectatorship may serve as an effective public health strategy to enhance happiness among older adults.”

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320213.r006

Decision Letter 2

Mohamed Said

16 Jan 2025

PONE-D-24-42023R2Watching sports and happiness among older adults in Japan: The JAGES cohort studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kawaguchi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 02 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamed Ahmed Said, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript has effectively addressed the reviewers' suggestions with significant revisions, and it has now reached a level suitable for publication. I recommend acceptance for publication.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript under examination explores the correlation between sports viewership and happiness in Japanese senior citizens. The work utilizes robust statistical techniques and presents valuable findings; yet certain aspects require clarification, elaboration, and methodological enhancement. The following are targeted remarks and recommendations for improving the quality and efficacy of the manuscript.

Methodology

The sampling methodology and the criteria for inclusion and exclusion require more comprehensive elucidation. Elucidate the methods employed for participant recruitment and the justification for the inclusion and exclusion criteria established. This is especially significant considering that approximately fifty percent of the original participants were eliminated, which raises issues regarding attrition bias and the generalizability of the findings.

Specify the methods employed to contact participants (e.g., via community centers, health clinics, or online platforms).

Elucidate the techniques for distributing questionnaires (e.g., postal surveys, face-to-face interviews, or electronic forms) to offer insights into response rates and any biases.

Elucidate the methodology employed to assess ADL independence. Indicate if validated instruments or standardized scales were employed and their significance to the study context.

Summarize the Japanese short version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), detailing its objective, framework, and methodology for assessing depression symptoms.

Emphasize the scale's validity and reliability to substantiate its application in the research.

Results and Statistical Analysis

The elimination of about fifty percent of the subjects substantially affects the study's generalizability. Identify potential obstacles associated with this issue and offer arguments or techniques for alleviating attrition bias.

Explore alternate metrics for happiness, such ordinal regression or continuous happiness scores, in additional analysis to maintain information integrity and evaluate the robustness of dichotomized outcomes.

Directly tackle multicollinearity concerns, especially within multivariable models.

Enhance transparency by disclosing subgroup sizes and addressing restrictions arising from small samples or diminished statistical power.

Incorporate standardized coefficients to offer detailed insights into the comparative influence of various forms of sports viewing on happiness.

Discussion

Recognize the constraints on the generalizability of findings stemming from the elevated exclusion rate and the particular demographic concentration on Japanese older persons.

Elucidate the impact of various forms of sports viewership on happiness and assess how these results correspond with or contrast to the current body of knowledge.

Elaborate on potential biases and constraints, and provide avenues for future research, such the replication of the study in other populations or the utilization of longitudinal designs.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: ahmed khalifa

**********

PLoS One. 2025 Apr 9;20(4):e0320213. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320213.r007

Author response to Decision Letter 3

13 Feb 2025

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to helping us improve our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised.

Methodology

#1. The sampling methodology and the criteria for inclusion and exclusion require more comprehensive elucidation.

#2. Elucidate the methods employed for participant recruitment and the justification for the inclusion and exclusion criteria established. This is especially significant considering that approximately fifty percent of the original participants were eliminated, which raises issues regarding attrition bias and the generalizability of the findings.

#3. Specify the methods employed to contact participants (e.g., via community centers, health clinics, or online platforms).

#4. Elucidate the techniques for distributing questionnaires (e.g., postal surveys, face-to-face interviews, or electronic forms) to offer insights into response rates and any biases.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback regarding the methodology and the potential implications of sample attrition. We have addressed these points comprehensively in the revised manuscript and provide a detailed response below. We have expanded the Methods section to provide a more thorough description of the JAGES study design. To address the potential for attrition bias, we conducted a detailed comparison of the background characteristics between our analytic sample and the original 2019 sample.

Lines 89–102:

“Data were obtained from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study (JAGES) [21], an ongoing cohort study examining social factors influencing the health of community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years and older. Since 2003, JAGES surveys have been conducted approximately every three years in collaboration with municipal governments across Japan [21]. These governments develop and implement long-term care insurance plans, including preventive care services. JAGES surveys provide critical data for assessing policy effectiveness and guiding future planning [21]. Within each municipality, eligible individuals aged 65 years and older without long-term care certification are selected from the resident registry. In small municipalities, all eligible older adults are included, whereas in large municipalities, 30% of the target sample is randomly selected. Among the remaining 70%, individuals aged 65 to 67 years are chosen proportionally based on population distribution. Subsequently, individuals aged 68 years and older who participated in the most recent survey are prioritized for recruitment. Additional participants aged 68 years and older are enrolled until the target sample size is achieved.”

Lines 123–126:

“The JAGES 2022 survey, conducted between November and December 2022, mailed questionnaires containing items related to sports spectatorship to 42,096 community-dwelling individuals aged ≥ 65 years, identified through official residential registers provided by municipal governments.”

#5. Elucidate the methodology employed to assess ADL independence. Indicate if validated instruments or standardized scales were employed and their significance to the study context.

Response: Thank you for raising this point. We have expanded the Methods section to further clarify that ADL independence was assessed through a self-reported question: "Do you require nursing care or assistance in daily life from anyone?"

Lines 129–130:

“Lack of independence in ADLs was defined based on self-reported responses to the question, ‘Do you require nursing care or assistance in daily life from anyone?’”

#6. Summarize the Japanese short version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), detailing its objective, framework, and methodology for assessing depression symptoms. Emphasize the scale's validity and reliability to substantiate its application in the research.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have provided a more detailed description of the Japanese short version of the GDS in the Methods section. The revised text now includes evidence of its validity and reliability in assessing depressive symptoms among older adults in Japan.

Lines 172–176:

“The Japanese short version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) was used to assess depressive symptoms. This 15-item scale, validated for older adults in Japan, has demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.80) and sensitivity (96%) and specificity (95%) for detecting major depressive disorder [26]. Scores range from 0 to 15, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms.”

Results and Statistical Analysis

#7. The elimination of about fifty percent of the subjects substantially affects the study's generalizability. Identify potential obstacles associated with this issue and offer arguments or techniques for alleviating attrition bias.

Response: We acknowledge this limitation. We have performed a comparison between our analytic sample and the original sample to assess potential selection bias (reported in S2 Table and discussed in the Results section).

Lines 240–244:

“To assess potential selection bias from sample attrition, we compared our analytic sample with the original sample in 2019 (n=22,528; S2 Table). The background characteristics of our analytic sample were largely comparable to those of the original sample, although our analytic samples included slightly younger participants (mean age: 73.6 vs 74.5 years).”

#8. Explore alternate metrics for happiness, such ordinal regression or continuous happiness scores, in additional analysis to maintain information integrity and evaluate the robustness of dichotomized outcomes.

Response: We appreciate this suggestion and have already performed linear regression using happiness scores as a continuous variable. The results were consistent with the dichotomized outcome analysis, ensuring the robustness of our findings. We have added this detail to the manuscript, along with a discussion of its implications. By using both continuous and dichotomized outcomes, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the relationship between sports spectatorship and happiness.

#9. Directly tackle multicollinearity concerns, especially within multivariable models.

Response: Thank you for raising this concern. We assessed multicollinearity by calculating the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for each model. All VIF values were less than 10, indicating no significant multicollinearity. We have explicitly stated this in the Methods section of the revised manuscript.

Lines 212–214:

“To assess multicollinearity, we calculated the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for each model. All VIFs values were less than 10, indicating no significant multicollinearity in the models.”

#10. Enhance transparency by disclosing subgroup sizes and addressing restrictions arising from small samples or diminished statistical power.

Response: We have ensured that the sizes of all subgroups are clearly reported in the Results section and relevant tables.

Lines 314–317, 322, 327

“In the subgroup analysis of participation in sports clubs at least a few times a year (n = 4,091), none of the three forms of watching sports was associated with a higher happiness score (as presented in Table 5). However, the subgroup analysis of non-participation in sports clubs (n = 7,174)”

“In the sex-stratified analysis (male: n = 5,382; female: n = 5,883),”

“In the age-stratified analysis (< 75 years: n = 6,653; ≥ 75 years: n = 4,612),”

#11. Incorporate standardized coefficients to offer detailed insights into the comparative influence of various forms of sports viewing on happiness.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion. We have reported both unstandardized and standardized coefficients.

Discussion

#12. Elucidate the impact of various forms of sports viewership on happiness and assess how these results correspond with or contrast to the current body of knowledge.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's insightful suggestion to further elucidate the differential impact of various forms of sports viewership on happiness. We have revised the Discussion section to explicitly highlight the contrasting of on-site versus TV/Internet spectatorship. Specifically, we have modified the text to emphasize that the observed positive association between watching sports and happiness was unique to on-site spectatorship and was not found for TV/Internet viewing.

Lines 406–407

“The positive association between watching sports and happiness was specific to on-site spectatorship and not observed with TV/Internet watching.”

#13. Recognize the constraints on the generalizability of findings stemming from the elevated exclusion rate and the particular demographic concentration on Japanese older persons.

#14. Elaborate on potential biases and constraints, and provide avenues for future research, such the replication of the study in other populations or the utilization of longitudinal designs.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have explicitly acknowledged these limitations in the revised manuscript and expanded the Limitations section.

Lines 474–491

“This study has several limitations. First, generalizability is limited by our focus on community-dwelling older adults in Japan. Cultural factors may influence the relationship between sports spectatorship and happiness, warranting caution when extending these findings to other populations. Second, while our analytic sample was largely comparable to the original sample, the sample attrition could have introduced selection bias, potentially skewing the sample towards more active individuals. Additionally, although we adjusted for several confounders, unmeasured variables such as sporting event type, motivation for attendance, and team preferences were not considered due to questionnaire constraints [47]. The COVID-19 pandemic may also have affected our data, as concerns about infection could have diminished enjoyment and attenuated feelings of happiness among spectators [48]. Furthermore, the primarily cross-sectional design restricts our ability to infer causality. Although we attempted to reduce reverse causation by using covariates measured prior to exposure, we cannot eliminate the possibility that happier individuals are simply more inclined to watch sports. Future research should address these limitations by replicating this study in diverse populations across different cultures. Longitudinal designs are needed to establish temporal relationships and elucidate the dynamic interplay between sports spectatorship and happiness. Further investigation into underlying mechanisms (e.g., social interaction, emotional responses, team identification) and the moderating effects of sport type and viewing context is also warranted.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: response_letter_auresp_3.docx

pone.0320213.s005.docx^{(22.1KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320213.r008

Decision Letter 3

Mohamed Said

16 Feb 2025

<p>Watching sports and happiness among older adults in Japan: The JAGES cohort study

PONE-D-24-42023R3

Dear Dr. Kenjiro Kawaguchi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohamed Ahmed Said, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: The manuscript under review examines the relationship between sports viewing and happiness in Japanese elderly. The work uses powerful statistical techniques and provides valuable results; no further modifications are needed.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #3: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320213.r009

Acceptance letter

Mohamed Said

PONE-D-24-42023R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kawaguchi,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mohamed Ahmed Said

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 File

(DOCX)

pone.0320213.s001.docx^{(40.3KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: response_letter.docx

pone.0320213.s003.docx^{(25.6KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: response_letter_auresp_3.docx

pone.0320213.s005.docx^{(22.1KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

[pone.0320213.ref001] 1.Jivraj S, Nazroo J, Vanhoutte B, Chandola T. Aging and subjective well-being in later life. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2014;69(6):930–41. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref002] 2.Diener E. guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and Ill-being. J Happiness Stud. 2006;7(4):397–404. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9000-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref003] 3.Oerlemans WGM, Bakker AB, Veenhoven R. Finding the key to happy aging: A day reconstruction study of happiness. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2011;66(6):665–74. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbr040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref004] 4.Russell JA. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychol Rev. 2003;110(1):145–72. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.1.145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref005] 5.Chei C-L, Lee JM-L, Ma S, Malhotra R. Happy older people live longer. Age Ageing. 2018;47(6):860–6. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afy128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref006] 6.Hill PL, Turiano NA, Mroczek DK, Burrow AL. The value of a purposeful life: Sense of purpose predicts greater income and net worth. J Res Pers. 2016;65:38–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.07.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref007] 7.Steptoe A, Fancourt D. Leading a meaningful life at older ages and its relationship with social engagement, prosperity, health, biology, and time use. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(4):1207–12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1814723116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref008] 8.Nimrod G. Expanding, reducing, concentrating and diffusing: post retirement leisure behavior and life satisfaction. Leisure Sciences. 2007;29(1):91–111. doi: 10.1080/01490400600983446 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref009] 9.Marquez DX, Aguiñaga S, Vásquez PM, Conroy DE, Erickson KI, Hillman C, et al. A systematic review of physical activity and quality of life and well-being. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(5):1098–109. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibz198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref010] 10.Keyes H, Gradidge S, Gibson N, Harvey A, Roeloffs S, Zawisza M, et al. Attending live sporting events predicts subjective wellbeing and reduces loneliness. Front Public Health. 2023;10:989706. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.989706 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref011] 11.Yoshida M, Sato M, Doyle J. Feeling vital by watching sport: the roles of team identification and stadium attendance in enhancing subjective vitality. J Sport Manag. 2023;37(4):229–42. doi: 10.1123/jsm.2021-0174 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref012] 12.Kinoshita K, Matsuoka H. Risk and psychological return: A moderating role of covid-19 risk perception in the impact of team identification on vitality after sport spectatorship in tokyo. IJSMS. 2022;24(1):20–37. doi: 10.1108/ijsms-01-2022-0007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref013] 13.Lera-López F, Ollo-López A, Sánchez-Santos JM. Is Passive sport engagement positively associated with happiness? Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2021;13(1):195–218. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref014] 14.Kawakami R, Sawada SS, Ito T, Gando Y, Fukushi T, Fujie R, et al. Influence of watching professional baseball on japanese elders’ affect and subjective happiness. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2017;3:2333721417721401. doi: 10.1177/2333721417721401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref015] 15.Inoue Y, Wann DL, Lock D, Sato M, Moore C, Funk DC. Enhancing older adults’ sense of belonging and subjective well-being through sport game attendance, team identification, and emotional support. J Aging Health. 2020;32(7–8):530–42. doi: 10.1177/0898264319835654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref016] 16.Mael FA, Ashforth BE. Identiﬁcation in Work, War, Sports, and Religion: Contrasting the Beneﬁts and Risks. J Theory Soc Behav. 2001;31(2):197–222. doi: 10.1111/1468-5914.00154 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref017] 17.Kim MJ, Mao LL. Sport consumers motivation for live attendance and mediated sports consumption: A qualitative analysis. Sport in Society. 2019;24(4):515–33. doi: 10.1080/17430437.2019.1679769 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref018] 18.Tsuji T, Kanamori S, Watanabe R, Yokoyama M, Miyaguni Y, Saito M, et al. Watching sports and depressive symptoms among older adults: a cross-sectional study from the JAGES 2019 survey. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):10612. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89994-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref019] 19.Lin Y-H, Chen C-Y, Lin Y-K, Lee C-Y, Cheng C-Y. Effects of online video sport spectatorship on the subjective well-being of college students: the moderating effect of sport involvement. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(5):4381. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref020] 20.Frey BS, Gullo A. Does sports make people happier, or do happy people more sports?. J Sport Econ. 2021;22(4):432–58. doi: 10.1177/1527002520985667 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref021] 21.Kondo K, Rosenberg M. Advancing universal health coverage through knowledge translation for healthy ageing: Lessons learnt from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study. 2018.

[pone.0320213.ref022] 22.VanderWeele TJ, Mathur MB, Chen Y. Outcome-wide longitudinal designs for causal inference: A new template for empirical studies. Statist Sci. 2020;35(3). doi: 10.1214/19-sts728 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref023] 23.Abdel-Khalek AM. Measuring happiness with a single-item scale. soc behav pers. 2006;34(2):139–50. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2006.34.2.139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref024] 24.Moldovan CP. AM. Happy Scale: reliability and validity of a single-item measure of happiness; 2018. Loma Linda University. http://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd/438. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref025] 25.Koyano W, Shibata H, Nakazato K, Haga H, Suyama Y. Measurement of competence: reliability and validity of the TMIG Index of Competence. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 1991;13(2):103–16. doi: 10.1016/0167-4943(91)90053-s [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref026] 26.Nyunt MSZ, Fones C, Niti M, Ng T-P. Criterion-based validity and reliability of the Geriatric Depression Screening Scale (GDS-15) in a large validation sample of community-living Asian older adults. Aging Ment Health. 2009;13(3):376–82. doi: 10.1080/13607860902861027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref027] 27.Zhang J, Yu KF. What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA. 1998;280(19):1690–1. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.19.1690 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref028] 28.Stekhoven DJ, Bühlmann P. MissForest--non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(1):112–8. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr597 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref029] 29.Inoue Y, Sato M, Filo K, Du J, Funk DC. Sport Spectatorship and Life Satisfaction: A Multicountry Investigation. J Sport Manag. 2017;31(4):419–32. doi: 10.1123/jsm.2016-0295 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref030] 30.Knoll J, Schramm H, Schallhorn C. Mood effects of televised sports events: the impact of FIFA World Cups on viewers’ mood and judgments. Communication & Sport. 2013;2(3):242–60. doi: 10.1177/2167479513487525 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref031] 31.Stieger S, Götz FM, Gehrig F. Soccer results affect subjective well-being, but only briefly: A smartphone study during the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Front Psychol. 2015;6:497. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref032] 32.Wann DL. Understanding the positive social psychological benefits of sport team identification: The team identification-social psychological health model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2006;10(4):272–96. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.272 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref033] 33.Jang W, Ko YJ, Wann DL, Kim D. Does Spectatorship Increase Happiness? The Energy Perspective. J Sport Manag. 2017;31(4):333–44. doi: 10.1123/jsm.2016-0113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref034] 34.Kinoshita K, Nakagawa K, Sato S. Watching sport enhances well-being: evidence from a multi-method approach. Sport Manag Rev. 2024;27(4):595–619. doi: 10.1080/14413523.2024.2329831 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref035] 35.Moore SC, Shepherd JP, Eden S, Sivarajasingam V. The effect of rugby match outcome on spectator aggression and intention to drink alcohol. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2007;17(2):118–27. doi: 10.1002/cbm.647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref036] 36.Oshimi D, Kinoshita K. Relationship between residents’ sporting life and hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in Hiroshima: the mediating role of PERMA in sport. Manag Sport Leis. 2022: 1–16. doi: 10.1080/23750472.2022.2147857 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref037] 37.Luhmann M, Intelisano S. Hedonic adaptation and the set point for subjective well-being. Handbook of Well-Being. 2018:1–26. doi: nobascholar.com [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref038] 38.Kim J, Kim Y, Kim D. Improving well-being through hedonic, eudaimonic, and social needs fulfillment in sport media consumption. Sport Management Review. 2017;20(3):309–21. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2016.10.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref039] 39.Oh T, Kang J-H, Kwon K. Is there a relationship between spectator sports consumptionand life satisfaction?. Manag Sport and Leisure. 2020;27(3):254–66. doi: 10.1080/23750472.2020.1784035 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref040] 40.Pelletier LG, Tuson KM, Fortier MS, Vallerand RJ, Briére NM, Blais MR. Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The sport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 1995;17(1):35–53. doi: 10.1123/jsep.17.1.35 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref041] 41.Gantz W, Wenner LA. Men, women, and sports: Audience experiences and effects. J Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 1991;35(2):233–43. doi: 10.1080/08838159109364120 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref042] 42.Sargent SL. Enjoyment of televised sporting events: Evidence of a gender gap. Communication Research Reports. 2003;20(2):182–8. doi: 10.1080/08824090309388814 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref043] 43.Mares M-L, Bartsch A, Bonus JA. When meaning matters more: Media preferences across the adult life span. Psychol Aging. 2016;31(5):513–31. doi: 10.1037/pag0000098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref044] 44.Carstensen LL. Socioemotional selectivity theory: The role of perceived endings in human motivation. Gerontologist. 2021;61(8):1188–96. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnab116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref045] 45.Brose A, Scheibe S, Schmiedek F. Life contexts make a difference: Emotional stability in younger and older adults. Psychol Aging. 2013;28(1):148–59. doi: 10.1037/a0030047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref046] 46.Oshimi D, Kinoshita K, Yamashita R. The mediating role of sport-specific PERMA in the relationship between physical activity/passive sport and global well-being/loneliness. J Leis Res. 2023;56(2):274–95. doi: 10.1080/00222216.2023.2287009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref047] 47.Funk D, Filo K, Beaton A, Pritchard M. Measuring the motives of sports event attendance: Bridging the academic-practitioner divide to understanding behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly. 2009;18(1):126–38. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0320213.ref048] 48.Takamatsu S. Spectators’ Worries and attitudes during the covid-19 pandemic: A case of a women’s volleyball match in japan. Int J Sport Health Sci. 2021;19(0):81–6. doi: 10.5432/ijshs.202118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Watching sports and happiness among older adults in Japan: The JAGES cohort study

Kenjiro Kawaguchi

Kazushige Ide

Satoru Kanamori

Taishi Tsuji

Katsunori Kondo

Roles

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Materials and methods

Study design

Study population

Measures

Outcome variable: Happiness score.

Explanatory variables: Frequency of watching sports.

Covariates.

Statistical analysis

Results

Table 1. Characteristics of the participants aged 65 or older before missing values were imputed.

Table 2. Regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals of linear regression analyses examining associations between happiness and watching sports.

Table 3. Regression coefficients for all covariates included in the models with each explanatory variable of watching sports on-site, watching professional sports on-site, and watching sports on TV/Internet.

Table 4. Prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals of modified Poisson regression analyses examining the associations between happiness and watching sports.

Table 5. Regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals of linear regression analyses examining the associations between happiness and watching sports stratified by participation in sports clubs.

Discussion

Conclusion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 0

Mohamed Said

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 1

Mohamed Said

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 2

Mohamed Said

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 3

Decision Letter 3

Mohamed Said

Roles

Acceptance letter

Mohamed Said

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases