IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpg/wpaper/2020_21.html

Psychological pressure and the right to determine the moves in dynamic tournaments – Evidence from a natural field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Kassis
  • Sascha L. Schmidt
  • Dominik Schreyer
  • Matthias Sutter

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn)

Abstract

In this paper, we show that the right to determine the sequence of moves in a dynamic team tournament improves the chances of winning the contest. Because studying dynamic team tournaments – like R&D races – with interim feedback is difficult with company data, we examine decisions of highly paid professionals in soccer penalty shootouts and show that teams whose captains can decide about the shooting sequence are more likely to win the shootout. So, managerial decisions matter for outcomes of dynamic tournaments and we discuss potential reasons for this finding.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Kassis & Sascha L. Schmidt & Dominik Schreyer & Matthias Sutter, 2020. "Psychological pressure and the right to determine the moves in dynamic tournaments – Evidence from a natural field experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2020_21, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2020_21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2020_21online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Devriesere, Karel & Csató, László & Goossens, Dries, 2025. "Tournament design: A review from an operational research perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 324(1), pages 1-21.
    3. Fischer, Kai & Reade, J. James & Schmal, W. Benedikt, 2022. "What cannot be cured must be endured: The long-lasting effect of a COVID-19 infection on workplace productivity," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    4. Csató, László & Boros, Réka & Czakó, Adrienn, 2025. "Igazságtalanul rendezik a svájci rendszerű sakkversenyeket?. Egy empirikus bizonyíték [Are Swiss-system chess tournaments unfair?. Empirical evidence]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(6), pages 596-607.
    5. Silvan Vollmer & David Schoch & Ulrik Brandes, 2024. "Penalty shoot-outs are tough, but the alternating order is fair," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(12), pages 1-20, December.
    6. Dmitry Dagaev & Sofia Paklina & J. James Reade & Carl Singleton, 2024. "The Iron Curtain and Referee Bias in International Football," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 25(1), pages 126-151, January.
    7. Pipke, David, 2025. "No evidence of first-mover advantage in a large sample of penalty shootouts," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 318391, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    8. Fabrizio Colella & Patricio S. Dalton & Giovanni Giusti, 2024. "Moral Support and Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(7), pages 4614-4628, July.
    9. Xu, Minbo & Wang, Oliver, 2023. "Psychological pressure and performance in competitive environments: The first-hole effect in youth golf," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    10. Brams, Steven & Ismail, Mehmet S. & Kilgour, Marc, 2023. "Fairer Shootouts in Soccer: The m-n Rule," MPRA Paper 116352, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Kai Fischer & J. James Reade & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The Long Shadow of an Infection: COVID-19 and Performance at Work," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2021-17, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    12. Steven J. Brams & Mehmet S. Ismail & D. Marc Kilgour, 2023. "Fairer Shootouts in Soccer: The $m-n$ Rule," Papers 2303.04807, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D00 - Microeconomics - - General - - - General
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • Z20 - Other Special Topics - - Sports Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:mpg:wpaper:2020_21. 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: Marc Martin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mppggde.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.