IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jospec/v12y2011i3p391-403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Productivity and New Audiences: Empirical Evidence From Professional Basketball

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Deutscher

    (Department of Management, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany, christian.deutscher@wiwi.uni-paderborn.de)

Abstract

Changing clubs in professional sports lets a player face a new supportive crowd during home games, hence the question arises how performance is impacted by changing teams. This article measures the impact of the changed audience on free throw shooting performance. The data set includes all free throw attempts for 10 seasons from the National Basketball Association (NBA) and distinguishes between home and away games. Results support the idea that only free agents who were able to select a new team worsened their performance due to social pressure experienced during home games, while the performance during away games is unaffected. They suggest that especially bad free throw shooters suffer from facing this additional pressure.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Deutscher, 2011. "Productivity and New Audiences: Empirical Evidence From Professional Basketball," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(3), pages 391-403, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jospec:v:12:y:2011:i:3:p:391-403
    DOI: 10.1177/1527002511404782
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1527002511404782
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1527002511404782?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. Dohmen, Thomas J., 2008. "Do professionals choke under pressure?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 636-653, March.
    2. Jones Marshall B, 2007. "Home Advantage in the NBA as a Game-Long Process," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 3(4), pages 1-16, October.
    3. Harold Fried & Loren Tauer, 2011. "The impact of age on the ability to perform under pressure: golfers on the PGA tour," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 75-84, February.
    4. Gary Charness & Luca Rigotti & Aldo Rustichini, 2007. "Individual Behavior and Group Membership," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1340-1352, September.
    5. Jones Marshall B, 2008. "A Note on Team-Specific Home Advantage in the NBA," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 4(3), pages 1-15, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Böheim, René & Grübl, Dominik & Lackner, Mario, 2019. "Choking under pressure – Evidence of the causal effect of audience size on performance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 76-93.

    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. Manner Hans, 2016. "Modeling and forecasting the outcomes of NBA basketball games," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 31-41, March.
    2. Ferraresi Massimiliano & Gucciardi Gianluca, 2023. "Team performance and the perception of being observed: Experimental evidence from top-level professional football," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 24(1), pages 1-31, February.
    3. Christopher J. Boudreaux & Shane D. Sanders & Bhavneet Walia, 2017. "A Natural Experiment to Determine the Crowd Effect Upon Home Court Advantage," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 18(7), pages 737-749, October.
    4. J. James Reade & Dominik Schreyer & Carl Singleton, 2022. "Eliminating supportive crowds reduces referee bias," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(3), pages 1416-1436, July.
    5. Daniel C. Hickman & Craig Kerr & Neil Metz, 2019. "Rank and Performance in Dynamic Tournaments: Evidence From the PGA Tour," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 20(4), pages 509-534, May.
    6. Massimiliano Ferraresi & Gianluca Gucciardi, 2020. "Team performance and audience: experimental evidence from the football sector," Working papers 94, Società Italiana di Economia Pubblica.
    7. Marius Ötting & Christian Deutscher & Sandra Schneemann & Roland Langrock & Sebastian Gehrmann & Hendrik Scholten, 2020. "Performance under pressure in skill tasks: An analysis of professional darts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, February.
    8. Ertac, Seda & Gumren, Mert & Gurdal, Mehmet Y., 2020. "Demand for decision autonomy and the desire to avoid responsibility in risky environments: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    9. 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).
    10. Faralla, Valeria & Borà, Guido & Innocenti, Alessandro & Novarese, Marco, 2020. "Promises in group decision making," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 1-11.
    11. Dickinson, David & Villeval, Marie-Claire, 2008. "Does monitoring decrease work effort?: The complementarity between agency and crowding-out theories," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 56-76, May.
    12. Ayelet Gneezy & Alex Imas & Amber Brown & Leif D. Nelson & Michael I. Norton, 2012. "Paying to Be Nice: Consistency and Costly Prosocial Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 179-187, January.
    13. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David & Peterle, Emmanuel, 2018. "Discrimination as favoritism: The private benefits and social costs of in-group favoritism in an experimental labor market," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 220-236.
    14. Michael T. Rauh & Giulio Seccia, 2010. "Agency and Anxiety," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 87-116, March.
      • Michael T. Rauh & Giulio Seccia, 2006. "Agency and Anxiety," Working Papers 2006-02, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    15. Böheim, René & Lackner, Mario, 2013. "Gender and Competition: Evidence from Jumping Competitions," IZA Discussion Papers 7243, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Rémi Suchon & Marie Claire Villeval, 2017. "Does upward mobility harm trust?," Post-Print halshs-01659021, HAL.
    17. de Melo, Gioia & Piaggio, Matías, 2015. "The perils of peer punishment: Evidence from a common pool resource framed field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 376-393.
    18. Reto Foellmi & Stefan Legge & Lukas Schmid, 2016. "Do Professionals Get It Right? Limited Attention and Risk‐taking Behaviour," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(592), pages 724-755, May.
    19. Klein Teeselink, Bouke & Potter van Loon, Rogier J.D. & van den Assem, Martijn J. & van Dolder, Dennie, 2020. "Incentives, performance and choking in darts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 38-52.
    20. Daniel Goller, 2023. "Analysing a built-in advantage in asymmetric darts contests using causal machine learning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(1), pages 649-679, June.

    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:sae:jospec:v:12:y:2011:i:3:p:391-403. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.