This paper studies the effect of multiple reference points on decisions made by professional athletes. Unique design features present in elite-level figure skating competitions generate two salient reference points: one reflecting rational expectations about the likelihood of success and the other reflecting information on the performance of previous competitors. An analysis of effort decisions and competition outcomes shows that both reference points affect skaters’ decisions; the effect diminishes with experience. The results support the idea that the elimination of market anomalies takes time even for highly trained professionals and the time required varies depending on the specific reference point.
BalmerN. J.NevillA. M.WilliamsA. M. (2001). Home advantage in the Winter Olympics (1908–1998). Journal of Sports Sciences, 19(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404101300036334
3.
BarberisN. C. (2013). Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.1.173
4.
BartlingB.BrandesL.SchunkD. (2015). Expectations as reference points: Field evidence from professional soccer. Management Science, 61(11), 2646–2661. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2048
5.
BoothA.NolenP. (2012). Choosing to compete: How different are girls and boys?Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(2), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.07.018
6.
BrownJ. (2011). Quitters never win: The (adverse) incentive effects of competing with superstars. Journal of Political Economy, 119(5), 982–1013. https://doi.org/10.1086/663306
7.
CamererC.BabcockL.LoewensteinG.ThalerR. (1997). Labor supply of New York City cabdrivers: One day at a time. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 407–441. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555244
8.
CampbellB.GalbraithJ. W. (1996). Nonparametric tests of the unbiasedness of Olympic figure skating judgments. The Statistician, 45(4), 521–526. https://doi.org/10.2307/2988550
9.
CardD.DahlG. B. (2011). Family violence and football: The effect of unexpected emotional cues on violent behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(1), 103–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr001
10.
CardD.MasA.MorettiE.SaezE. (2012). Inequality at work: The effect of peer salaries on job satisfaction. The American Economic Review, 102(6), 2981–3003. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.6.2981
11.
CarronA. V.LoughheadT. M.BrayS. R. (2005). The home advantage in sport competitions: Courneya and Carron’s (1992) conceptual framework a decade later. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410400021542
12.
CoatesD.HumphreysB. R.ZhouL. (2014). Reference-dependent preferences, loss aversion, and live game attendance. Economic Inquiry, 52(3), 959–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12061
13.
CourneyaK. S.CarronA. V. (1992). The home advantage in sport competitions: A literature review. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.14.1.13
14.
DicksonA.JenningsC.KoopG. (2016). Domestic violence and football in Glasgow: Are reference points relevant?Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 78(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12105
15.
FindlayL. C.Ste-MarieD. M. (2004). A reputation bias in figure skating judging. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26(1), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.1.154
16.
GillD.ProwseV. (2012). A structural analysis of disappointment aversion in a real effort competition. American Economic Review, 102(1), 469–503. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.1.469
17.
GneezyU.NiederleM.RustichiniA. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049–1074. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360698496
18.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
ManskiC. F. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 531–542. https://doi.org/10.2307/2298123
22.
MorganH. N.RotthoffK. W. (2014). The harder the task, the higher the score: Findings of a difficulty bias. Economic Inquiry, 52(3), 1014–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12074
23.
MunyoI.RossiM. A. (2013). Frustration, euphoria, and violent crime. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 89, 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.02.005
NiederleM.VesterlundL. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much?The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1067
26.
OzbeklikS.SmithJ. K. (2017). Risk taking in competition: Evidence from match play golf tournaments. Journal of Corporate Finance, 44, 506–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.05.003
27.
PopeD. G.SchweitzerM. E. (2011). Is Tiger Woods loss averse? Persistent bias in the face of experience, competition, and high stakes. The American Economic Review, 101(1), 129–157. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.1.129
28.
SalaB. R.ScottJ. T.SpriggsJ. F. (2007). The Cold War on ice: Constructivism and the politics of Olympic figure skating judging. Perspectives on Politics, 5(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759270707003X
29.
SeltzerR.GlassW. (1991). International politics and judging in Olympic skating events: 1968–1988. Journal of Sport Behavior, 14(3), 189.
30.
TanakaR.IshinoK. (2012). Testing the incentive effects in tournaments with a superstar. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 26(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjie.2012.05.001
YamaneS.HayashiR. (2015). Peer effects among swimmers. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1230–1255. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12124
33.
ZitzewitzE. (2006). Nationalism in winter sports judging and its lessons for organizational decision making. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 15(1), 67–99.
34.
ZitzewitzE. (2014). Does transparency reduce favoritism and corruption? Evidence from the reform of figure skating judging. Journal of Sports Economics, 15(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002512441479
