IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v102y2021i1p362-373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cultural Sources of Deception in Soccer: How Collectivism Affects the Number of Penalties in European Soccer Leagues

Author

Listed:
  • Ignacio Lago
  • Carlos Lago‐Peñas

Abstract

Objectives This article relies on data from 20,730 matches in 30 national soccer leagues in Europe to explore the determinants of penalties taken in elite soccer. Methods We run OLS cross‐sectional regressions using aggregated data. Results We find that the variation in the number of penalties given across European soccer leagues is largely explained by the individualism versus collectivism dimension. Conclusions The more (less) collectivistic (individualistic) the culture of the country, the more likely soccer players are to fall intentionally in the penalty area to increase the chances of a foul being called.

Suggested Citation

  • Ignacio Lago & Carlos Lago‐Peñas, 2021. "The Cultural Sources of Deception in Soccer: How Collectivism Affects the Number of Penalties in European Soccer Leagues," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 362-373, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:1:p:362-373
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12890
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12890
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12890?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Gächter & Jonathan F. Schulz, 2016. "Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies," Nature, Nature, vol. 531(7595), pages 496-499, March.
    2. Thomas J. Dohmen, 2008. "The Influence Of Social Forces: Evidence From The Behavior Of Football Referees," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(3), pages 411-424, July.
    3. Catrine Jacobsen & Toke Reinholt Fosgaard & David Pascual†Ezama, 2018. "Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide To The Dishonesty Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 357-387, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pfister, Roland & Wirth, Robert & Weller, Lisa & Foerster, Anna & Schwarz, Katharina, 2018. "Taking shortcuts: Cognitive conflict during motivated rule-breaking," MPRA Paper 95773, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Cristina Bicchieri & Eugen Dimant, 2018. "It's Not A Lie If You Believe It. Lying and Belief Distortion Under Norm-Uncertainty," PPE Working Papers 0012, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    3. Garbarino, Ellen & Slonim, Robert & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Loss aversion and lying behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 379-393.
    4. Aksoy, Billur & Palma, Marco A., 2019. "The effects of scarcity on cheating and in-group favoritism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 100-117.
    5. Shuguang Jiang & Marie Claire Villeval, 2022. "Dishonesty in Developing Countries -What Can We Learn From Experiments?," Working Papers hal-03899654, HAL.
    6. Andrea Albertazzi, 2022. "Individual cheating in the lab: a new measure and external validity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 37-67, July.
    7. Morgulev, Elia & Galily, Yair, 2019. "Analysis of time-wasting in English Premier League football matches: Evidence for unethical behavior in final minutes of close contests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1-8.
    8. Pfister, Roland & Wirth, Robert & Weller, Lisa & Foerster, Anna & Schwarz, Katharina A., 2019. "Taking shortcuts: Cognitive conflict during motivated rule-breaking," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 138-147.
    9. Alessandro Bucciol & Simona Cicognani & Natalia Montinari, 2020. "Cheating in university exams: the relevance of social factors," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 67(3), pages 319-338, September.
    10. Paul Clist & Ying-yi Hong, 2019. "Why do we lie? Distinguishing between competing lying theories?," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 19-03, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    11. Ellen Garbarino & Robert Slonim & Marie Claire Villeval, 2019. "Loss aversion and lying behavior," Post-Print halshs-01981542, HAL.
    12. Billur Aksoy & Marco A. Palma, "undated". "The Effects of Scarcity on Cheating and In-Group Favoritism," Working Papers 20180918-001, Texas A&M University, Department of Economics.
    13. Edward Cartwright & Lian Xue & Charlotte Brown, 2020. "Are People Willing to Tell Pareto White Lies? A Review and New Experimental Evidence," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-23, December.
    14. Maggioni, Mario A. & Rossignoli, Domenico, 2020. "Clever little lies: Math performance and cheating in primary schools in Congo," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 380-400.
    15. Akin, Zafer, 2022. "Playing the victim behavior: an experimental study," MPRA Paper 115532, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Paul Bose & Eberhard Feess & Helge Mueller, 2022. "Favoritism towards High-Status Clubs: Evidence from German Soccer," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 422-478.
    17. Nils Köbis & Jean-François Bonnefon & Iyad Rahwan, 2021. "Bad machines corrupt good morals," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 679-685, June.
    18. Lackner, Mario & Sonnabend, Hendrik, 2021. "Coping with advantageous inequity—Field evidence from professional penalty kicking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    19. Jacquemet, N. & Luchini, S. & Malézieux, A. & Shogren, J.F., 2020. "Who’ll stop lying under oath? Empirical evidence from tax evasion games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    20. Lambsdorff, Johann Graf & Grubiak, Kevin & Werner, Katharina, 2023. "Intrinsic Motivation vs. Corruption? Experimental Evidence on the Performance of Officials," MPRA Paper 118153, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:1:p:362-373. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.