Fig 1 - uploaded by Shaul Shalvi
Content may be subject to copyright.
Effect of the standing of the goalkeeper's team on the goalkeeper's decision to dive right. For each data set, the proportion of times that the goalkeepers dived right when their team was not behind was subtracted from the proportion of times that the goalkeepers dived right when their team was behind. The top three data points show results for Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup shoot-outs between 1982 and 2010 (taken from Roskes, Sligte, Shalvi, & De Dreu, 2011), shoot-outs during the Copa América tournament and Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) Champions League final games between 1984 and 2011 (taken from Price & Wolfers, 2014), and the combined data from both studies. For these analyses, goalkeepers' teams were considered behind if they scored fewer goals than their competitors' teams. The lower three data points show the same data recoded according to alternative criteria devised by Price and Wolfers, in which goalkeepers' teams were considered behind if they missed more goal attempts than their competitors' teams. The plot was generated using Exploratory Software for Confidence Intervals (ESCI; Cumming, 2013). Error bars show 95% confidence intervals.
Source publication
In 2011, we tested the hypothesis that people exhibit a right-oriented bias when they are approach motivated and act quickly (Roskes, Sligte, Shalvi, & De Dreu, 2011). An experiment showed that when people had to act quickly, they bisected lines farther to the right when they were approach motivated than when they were avoid-ance motivated. Analysi...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... that confidence intervals are a better way to present differences. Figure 1 presents the differences between the proportion of goalkeepers who dived right when their team was behind and the proportion who dived right when their team was not behind. Indeed, the repli- cation does not rule out a zero effect in the combined UEFA and Copa América data (zero falls within the con- fidence interval). ...
Similar publications
Citations
... However, as the Chi-Square p-values reported in Table 1 show, the differences in the relative frequency of choosing left versus right between the various score situations were not statistically significant. This was the case both when we combined the Tied and Ahead categories to one category of "Not behind" (following Roskes et al., 2014) and performed a Chi-Square test on the resulting 2X2 distribution, and when we used the 3X2 distribution, in which Behind, Tied, and Ahead were treated as three separate groups. ...
... To summarise, in men's soccer there have been claims in both directions, with Roskes et al. (2011Roskes et al. ( , 2014 claiming to show such a right-oriented bias, whereas Price and Wolfers (2014) and Avugos et al. (2020) claiming not to find this bias when using an alternative coding of the data, either around the definition of game situations that are likely to elicit approach motivation (i.e., "being behind") or the definition of goal centre width (and thus the distribution of kicks to either side), on a larger sample of shots. Our replicated study with women's soccer led to similar conclusions. ...
... Although female goalkeepers dived more often to the right than to the left (similar to male goalkeepers), this was a reasonable reaction of the goalies given that kickers also chose that side more often. Therefore, contrary to what has been suggested by Roskes et al. (2011Roskes et al. ( , 2014, it seems that the situation of a shootout is not likely to evoke the expected approach-motivated behaviours that are associated with the bias to the rightand this conclusion is more robust for the women's games. Future research should examine the behaviour of goalies during penalty shootouts in the context of temporal decision-making, as suggested by others (e.g., Noël et al., 2021;van der Kamp et al., 2018) i.e., not only choosing the left or right side of the goal depending on the score situation, but also deciding when to dive. ...
There is plenty of research on penalty kicking in men's soccer, with a focus on either the goalkeeper or the penalty taker. Yet women's soccer and their playing behaviour are under-represented in research. The current study was designed to examine gender differences in the choice patterns of expert kickers and goalkeepers during penalty shooting in relation to the previously documented right-oriented bias. Using videos of penalties from shootouts at the highest level of men's and women's international soccer, we recorded the goalkeeper's dive direction and accurately measured the location of the ball as it crossed the goal line. We created a map of all kicks and their outcomes (goal, no goal, off-target). Our mapping procedure allowed us to use alternative definitions for the goal centre width and to extract the corresponding kick distribution between right, centre and left. In addition to analysing the potential right-oriented bias in women goalies’ behaviour, we also analysed the joint distribution of kickers’ and goalkeepers’ choices for each score situation (behind, tied, or ahead). Our findings indicate that the goalkeepers’ general tendency was to dive more often to the right, while the kickers’ tendency was to shoot to the right of the goalies. Moreover, this latter tendency of kicking to the goalies’ right was found to be stronger among the female kickers. Finally, our analysis refutes the claim that goalkeepers exhibit a detrimental right-oriented bias, with this conclusion being even stronger among female goalies.
... The literature also shows that when people have to act fast under an increased time pressure, they tend to rely on their initial automatic responses (Gray, 2001;Tomarken & Keener, 1998). Roskes et al. (2011Roskes et al. ( , 2014 claimed to demonstrate that during FIFA World Cup penalty shootouts (between 1982 and 2010), soccer goalkeepers whose team was behind were significantly more likely to dive right (71%) than left (29%), seemingly displaying a right-oriented diving bias. Goalkeepers' teams were considered behind if their teams scored fewer goals than the rival team in the penalty shootout so far, a situation that according to Roskes et al. elicits an approach motivation. ...
... In the first test we use the 3 × 2 distribution, i.e., we treat Behind, Tied and Ahead as three separate states. In the second test (reported in the right-most column), we combine the Tied and Ahead categories to one category of "Not behind" (following Roskes et al., 2014) and perform a Chi-Square test on the resulting 2 × 2 distribution. Both Chi-Square tests suggest that there is no statistically significant (at the 5% level) interaction effect between the game situation and the goalie's side choice. ...
Previous studies suggest that approach motivation (a focus on achieving positive outcomes) is related to relative left-hemispheric brain activation, which results in a variety of right-oriented behavioral biases. It has been argued that during FIFA World Cup penalty shootouts, soccer goalkeepers whose team was behind and therefore had approach motivation, dived right more often than left. The present study elaborates on the previous studies in several ways. First, we collected a larger dataset with more penalty kicks from penalty shootouts in top worldwide competitions. Second, we analyze several issues about the behavior of kickers and goalkeepers that were not analyzed before. Third, we use a different methodology to determine the direction of the kicks (right, middle or left), which does not rely on subjective perception of human judges for this classification. Our analysis shows no statistically significant relationship between the game situation (which team leads in the shootout) and the goalie's side choice. Kickers showed a small tendency to shoot to the right side of goalkeepers. Goalkeepers whose team was behind were much more likely to dive right than left, which makes sense given the kickers' behavior.
... In their analysis of Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup penalty shootouts, Roskes and colleagues found that goalkeepers were more likely to dive to the right than to the left in penalty shootouts, but only when their team was behind. Following a failed attempt to replicate these results in other major football tournaments (Price & Wolfers, 2014), Roskes, Sligte, Shalvi, and De Dreu (2014) conceded that it remains unclear under which circumstances approach-motivation is linked with a right-oriented bias. Their remark dovetails the findings of Nash et al. (2010, Study 2), who found that people with high self-esteem are more oriented to the right than people with low self-esteem, but this discrepancy only emerged after people re-lived a personal dilemma. ...
... It also sheds light on the circumstances in which activation in BAS is associated with a right-oriented bias (cf. Price & Wolfers, 2014;Roskes et al., 2014). ...
Healthy individuals display a tendency to allocate attention unequally across space, and this bias has implications for how individuals interact with their environments. However, the origins of this phenomenon remain relatively poorly understood. The present research examined the joint and independent contributions of two fundamental motivational systems – behavioural approach and inhibition systems (BAS and BIS) – to lateral spatial bias in a locomotion task. Participants completed self-report measures of trait BAS and BIS, then repeatedly traversed a room, blindfolded, aiming for a straight line. We obtained locomotion data from motion tracking to capture variations in the walking trajectories. Overall, walking trajectories deviated to the left, and this tendency was more pronounced with increasing BIS scores. Meanwhile, BAS was associated with relative rightward tendencies when BIS was low, but not when BIS was high. These results demonstrate for the first time an association between BIS and lateral spatial bias independently of variations in BAS. The findings also contribute to clarify the circumstances in which BAS is associated with a rightward bias. We discuss the implications of these findings for the neurobiological underpinnings of BIS and for the literature on spatial bias.
... In fact, a vast amount of marketing literature is concerned with devaluation of laterally placed items (Dittrich and Klauer, 2012), which is at times confounded with a desirable perception of magnitude (i.e., heaviness perception; Deng and Kahn, 2009) or automatic price and quality inferences (i.e., expensive and highquality items on the right end; Valenzuela and Raghubir, 2009). For free choice actions, goal keepers were found more likely to dive to the right during shoot-outs and under pressure (Roskes et al., 2011; but see Price and Wolfers, 2014), which was taken to document approach motivation (Roskes et al., 2014). ...
Converging evidence from controlled experiments suggests that the mere processing of a number and its attributes such as value or parity might affect free choice decisions between different actions. For example the spatial numerical associations of response codes (SNARC) effect indicates the magnitude of a digit to be associated with a spatial representation and might therefore affect spatial response choices (i.e., decisions between a “left” and a “right” option). At the same time, other (linguistic) features of a number such as parity are embedded into space and might likewise prime left or right responses through feature words [odd or even, respectively; markedness association of response codes (MARC) effect]. In this experiment we aimed at documenting such influences in a natural setting. We therefore assessed number-space and parity-space association effects by exposing participants to a fair distribution task in a card playing scenario. Participants drew cards, read out loud their number values, and announced their response choice, i.e., dealing it to a left vs. right player, indicated by Playmobil characters. Not only did participants prefer to deal more cards to the right player, the card’s digits also affected response choices and led to a slightly but systematically unfair distribution, supported by a regular SNARC effect and counteracted by a reversed MARC effect. The experiment demonstrates the impact of SNARC- and MARC-like biases in free choice behavior through verbal and visual numerical information processing even in a setting with high external validity.
