Action bias among elite soccer goalkeepers: The case of penalty kicks

被引:139
作者
Bar-Eli, Michael
Azar, Ofer H.
Ritov, Ilana
Keidar-Levin, Yael
Schein, Galit
机构
[1] Ben Gurion Univ Negev, Sch Management, Dept Business Adm, IL-84105 Beer Sheva, Israel
[2] Hebrew Univ Jerusalem, Sch Educ, Jerusalem, Israel
关键词
decision making; uncertainty; choice behavior; sport psychology; behavioral economics;
D O I
10.1016/j.joep.2006.12.001
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 [经济学];
摘要
in soccer penalty kicks, goalkeepers choose their action before they can clearly observe the kick direction. An analysis of 286 penalty kicks in top leagues and championships worldwide shows that given the probability distribution of kick direction, the optimal strategy for goalkeepers is to stay in the goal's center. Goalkeepers, however, almost always jump right or left. We propose the following explanation for this behavior: because the norm is to jump, norm theory (Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136-153) implies that a goal scored yields worse feelings for the goalkeeper following inaction (staying in the center) than following action (jumping), leading to a bias for action. The omission bias, a bias in favor of inaction, is reversed here because the norm here is reversed - to act rather than to choose inaction. The claim that jumping is the norm is supported by a second study, a survey conducted with 32 top professional goalkeepers. The seemingly biased decision making is particularly striking since the goalkeepers have huge incentives to make correct decisions, and it is a decision they encounter frequently. Finally, we discuss several implications of the action/omission bias for economics and management. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:606 / 621
页数:16
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]
The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion [J].
Anderson, CJ .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 2003, 129 (01) :139-167
[2]
Baron J., 1994, THINKING DECIDING
[3]
On learning to become a successful loser: A comparison of alternative abstractions of learning processes in the loss domain [J].
Bereby-Meyer, Y ;
Erev, I .
JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1998, 42 (2-3) :266-286
[4]
Testing mixed-strategy equilibria when players are heterogeneous: The case of penalty kicks in soccer [J].
Chiappori, PA ;
Levitt, S ;
Groseclose, T .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2002, 92 (04) :1138-1151
[5]
THE UNDOING OF TRAUMATIC LIFE EVENTS [J].
DAVIS, CG ;
LEHMAN, DR ;
WORTMAN, CB ;
SILVER, RC ;
THOMPSON, SC .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 1995, 21 (02) :109-124
[6]
NORM THEORY - COMPARING REALITY TO ITS ALTERNATIVES [J].
KAHNEMAN, D ;
MILLER, DT .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1986, 93 (02) :136-153
[7]
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PREFERENCES [J].
KAHNEMAN, D ;
TVERSKY, A .
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 1982, 246 (01) :160-&
[8]
Intention and the omission bias: Omissions perceived as nondecisions [J].
KordesdeVaal, JH .
ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA, 1996, 93 (1-3) :161-172
[9]
Counterfactual thinking and the first instinct fallacy [J].
Kruger, J ;
Wirtz, D ;
Miller, DT .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 88 (05) :725-735