IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/econjl/v135y2025i671p2192-2219..html

The Dynamics of Inattention in the (Baseball) Field

Author

Listed:
  • James Archsmith
  • Anthony Heyes
  • Matthew Neidell
  • Bhaven Sampat

Abstract

Recent theoretical and empirical work characterises attention as a costly resource that decision-makers allocate strategically. There has been less research on the dynamic interdependence of attention: how paying attention now may affect performance later. In this paper, we exploit high-frequency data on decision-making by Major League Baseball umpires to examine this. We find that umpires apply greater effort to higher-stakes decisions, but also that effort applied to earlier decisions increases errors later. These findings are consistent with the umpire being endowed with a depletable ‘budget’ of attention or the psychological theory of ego depletion. There is no such interdependence across the breaks that occur during the game (at the end of each half-inning) suggesting that even short rest periods can replenish attention budgets. An expectation of higher-stakes decisions in the future induces reduced attention to current decisions, consistent with a forward-looking agent allocating his budget strategically across a sequence of decisions of varying importance. We believe this to be the first large-scale empirical demonstration, from economics or psychology, that individuals may manage the stock of attention in anticipation of future use.

Suggested Citation

  • James Archsmith & Anthony Heyes & Matthew Neidell & Bhaven Sampat, 2025. "The Dynamics of Inattention in the (Baseball) Field," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 135(671), pages 2192-2219.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:econjl:v:135:y:2025:i:671:p:2192-2219.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ej/ueaf030
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    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:oup:econjl:v:135:y:2025:i:671:p:2192-2219.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.html .

    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.