The relationship between psychological pressure and performance outcomes has been studied across a variety of sporting contexts. As an extension and complement to recent empirical studies, we construct a formal model of soccer penalty shoot-outs to determine the links between psychological pressure and first-mover advantage (FMA). Our approach indicates that even seemingly simple competitive interactions may include a rich, complex set of effects. We demonstrate that psychological pressure leads to FMA in shoot-outs; however, we show that this relationship can vary depending on a variety of different factors, such as the nature of the pressure, the magnitude of the pressure, and the specific rules governing the shoot-out. Overall, our work clarifies and extends knowledge of the operation of FMA and of how psychological pressure impacts performance outcomes in competitive interactions.
AnbarciN.SunC.-J.ÜnverM. U. (2015). Designing fair tiebreak mechanisms: The case of FIFA penalty shootouts(Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved fromhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=2558979.
2.
AndersonC. L. (1977). Note on the advantage of first serve. Journal of Combinatorial Theory (A), 23, 363.
3.
ApesteguiaJ.Palacios-HuertaI. (2010). Psychological pressure in competitive environments: Evidence from a randomized natural experiment. American Economic Review, 100, 2548–2564.
4.
ArielyD.GneezyU.LoewensteinG.MazarN. (2009). Large stakes and big mistakes. Review of Economic Studies, 76, 451–469.
5.
BaumeisterR. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610–620.
6.
BeilockS. L.CarrT. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 701–725.
7.
BergerJ.PopeD. (2011). Can losing lead to winning?Management Science, 57, 817–827.
8.
BernsteinN. A. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
9.
BreitmoserY.TanJ. H. W.ZizzoD. J. (2010). Understanding perpetual R&D races. Economic Theory, 44, 445–467.
10.
CarrilloJ. D. (2007). Penalty shoot-outs: Before or after extra time?Journal of Sports Economics, 8, 505–518.
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
DohmenT. J. (2008). Do professionals choke under pressure?Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65, 636–653.
13.
GenakosC.PaglieroM. (2012). Interim rank, risk taking, and performance in dynamic tournaments. Journal of Political Economy, 120, 782–813.
14.
GenakosC.PaglieroM.GarbiE. (2015). When pressure sinks performance: Evidence from diving competitions. Economics Letters, 132, 5–8.
15.
GoldmanM.RaoJ. M. (2016). Loss aversion around a fixed reference point in highly experienced agents(Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved fromhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=2782110.
16.
González-DíazJ.GossnerO.RogersB. W. (2012). Performing best when it matters most: Evidence from professional tennis. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 84, 767–781.
17.
González-DíazJ.Palacios-HuertaI. (2016). Cognitive performance in competitive environments: Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 139, 40–52.
18.
HillB. (2014). The heat is on: Tournament structure, peer effects, and performance. Journal of Sports Economics, 15, 315–337.
19.
JordetG. (2009). Why do English players fail in soccer penalty shootouts? A study of team status, self-regulation, and choking under pressure. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 97–106.
20.
KingstonJ. G. (1976). Comparison of scoring systems in two-sided competitions. Journal of Combinatorial Theory (A), 20, 357–362.
21.
KocherM. G.LenzM. V.SutterM. (2012). Psychological pressure in competitive environments: New evidence from randomized natural experiments. Management Science, 58, 1585–1591.
22.
KolevG. I.PinaG.TodeschiniF. (2015). Decision making and underperformance in competitive environments: Evidence from the National Hockey League. Kyklos, 68, 65–80.
23.
KrumerA. (2013). Best-of-two contests with psychological effects. Theory and Decisions, 75, 85–100.
24.
LentenL. J. A.LibichJ.StehlíkP. (2013). Policy timing and footballers’ incentives: Penalties before or after extra time?Journal of Sports Economics, 14, 629–655.
25.
MagnusJ. R.KlaassenF. J. G. M. (1999). On the advantage of serving first in a tennis set: Four years at Wimbledon. The Statistician, 48, 247–256.
26.
McGarryT.FranksI. M. (2000). On winning the penalty shoot-out in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 401–409.
27.
PageL.PageK. (2007). The second leg home advantage: Evidence from European football cup competitions. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 1547–1556.
28.
Palacios-HuertaI. (2012). Tournaments, fairness and the Prouhet–Thue–Morse sequence. Economic Inquiry, 50, 848–849.
29.
Palacios-HuertaI. (2014). Beautiful game theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
PopeD. G.SchweitzerM. E. (2011). Is Tiger Woods loss averse? Persistent bias in the face of experience, competition, and high stakes. American Economic Review, 101, 129–157.
31.
SavageD. A.TorglerB. (2012). Nerves of steel? Stress, work performance and elite athletes. Applied Economics, 44, 2423–2435.
32.
TomaM. (2017). Missed shots at the free-throw line: Analyzing the determinants of choking under pressure. Journal of Sports Economics, 18, 539–559.
33.
WineJ. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92–104.
34.
YerkesR. M.DodsonJ. D. (1908). The relationship of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459–482.
35.
ZajoncR. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.
36.
ZizzoD. J. (2002). Racing with uncertainty: A patent race experiment. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20, 877–902.
