IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v16y2013i1p39-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do dangerous sports specialists play more dangerously? An experimental study on sample selection

Author

Listed:
  • Luc Collard
  • Alexandre Oboeuf

Abstract

Dangerous/extreme sports specialists are often accused of reckless behaviour. The present research study sought to test that assumption. Sixty-six sportspeople (mean ± SD age: 20.3 ± 1.2) of both genders (including nine extreme sports specialists) took part in a sports game ('chickie run') which obliged them to choose between cautious and risky behaviours. The participants played each other in pairs, i.e. 65 matches per player. In 'chickie run', the two players start 20 m apart and run straight towards each other. If the players collide at the meeting point, they each lose 2 points. If both players 'chicken out' by deviating from their line, each scores 2 points. If one chickens out and the other does not, the defecting player scores 0 and the non-defector gains 4 points. In theory, players should defect every other time in the iterated 'chickie run' game (as long as one does not take account of the opponent's reputation). Out of the 2145 recorded matches, the sportspeople generally tended to play according to this symmetric risk (expected Nash equilibrium: 1 point per match). Only extreme sports specialists tended to maximize their score (1.34 points per match) by playing significantly more cautiously (they deviated 3 times out of 4, with a Maximin profile, p > 0.01).

Suggested Citation

  • Luc Collard & Alexandre Oboeuf, 2013. "Do dangerous sports specialists play more dangerously? An experimental study on sample selection," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 39-50, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:16:y:2013:i:1:p:39-50
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2012.725671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2012.725671
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2012.725671?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search 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:taf:jriskr:v:16:y:2013:i:1:p:39-50. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.