The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Choking under pressure–Evidence of the causal effect of audience size on performance
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The number of fans negatively affected the performance of less skilled players, proving how spectators created psychological pressure on players [27].”
From The Influence of Home-Court Advantage in Elite Basketball: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [27]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure?
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.701 · Cited by 1,201 · cited 1×
“The mechanisms of choking are found to operate on proceduralized task control structures (Beilock and Carr, 2001).”
A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments
Dechenaux, E., Kovenock, D., & Sheremeta, R. M. (2015) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-014-9421-0 · Cited by 706
Taylor, S. E., Seeman, T. E., Eisenberger, N. I., Kozanian, T. A., Moore, A. N., & Moons, W. G. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0016563 · Cited by 119
Research works printed but not linked: 31
- Baumeister, 1984, Chocking under pressure: self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 46, 610, 10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.610 · DOI · Paper page
- Boudreaux, 2017, A natural experiment to determine the crowd effect upon home court advantage, J. Sports Econ., 18, 737, 10.1177/1527002515595842 · DOI
- Braga, 2012, Working under pressure: evidence from the impacts of soccer fans on players’ performance, Econ. Lett., 114, 212, 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.10.017 · DOI
- Butler, 1998, The trouble with friendly faces: skilled performance with a supportive audience, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 75, 1213, 10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1213 · DOI
- Cao, 2011, Performance under pressure in the NBA, J. Sports Econ., 12, 231, 10.1177/1527002511404785 · DOI
- Cohen-Zada, 2017, Choking under pressure and gender: evidence from professional tennis, J. Econ. Psychol., 61, 176, 10.1016/j.joep.2017.04.005 · DOI
- Deutscher, 2011, Productivity and new audiences: empirical evidence from professional basketball, J. Sports Econ., 12, 391, 10.1177/1527002511404782 · DOI
- Dohmen, 2008, Do professionals choke under pressure?, J. Econ. Behav. Organ., 65, 636, 10.1016/j.jebo.2005.12.004 · DOI
- Dohmen, 2008, The influence of social forces: evidence from the behavior of football referees, Econ. Inq., 46, 411, 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00112.x · DOI
- Ehrenberg, 1990, Do tournaments have incentive effects?, J. Polit. Econ., 98, 1307, 10.1086/261736 · DOI
- Epting, 2011, Cheers vs. jeers: effects of audience feedback on individual athletic performance, North Am. J. Psychol., 13, 299
- Galily, 2018, Choking or delivering under pressure? the case of elimination games in NBA playoffs, Front. Psychol., 9, 979, 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00979 · DOI
- Georganas, 2015, Peer pressure and productivity: the role of observing and being observed, J. Econ. Behav. Organ., 117, 223, 10.1016/j.jebo.2015.06.014 · DOI
- González-Díaz, 2012, Performing best when it matters most: evidence from professional tennis, J. Econ. Behav. Organ., 84, 767, 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.09.021 · DOI
- Gray, 2004, Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: expertise differences, choking, and slumps, J. Exp. Psychol., 10, 42
- Hickman, 2015, The impact of pressure on performance: evidence from the PGA TOUR, J. Econ. Behav. Organ., 116, 319, 10.1016/j.jebo.2015.04.007 · DOI
- Hill, 2010, Choking in sport: a review, Int. Rev. Sport Exercise Psychol., 3, 24, 10.1080/17509840903301199 · DOI
- Jose, 2010, Psychological pressure in competitive environments: evidence from a randomized natural experiment, Am. Econ. Rev., 100, 2548, 10.1257/aer.100.5.2548 · DOI · Paper page
- Kleibergen, 2006, Generalized reduced rank tests using the singular value decomposition, J. Econom., 133, 97, 10.1016/j.jeconom.2005.02.011 · DOI · Paper page
- Kocher, 2012, Psychological pressure in competitive environments: new evidence from randomized natural experiments, Manage. Sci., 58, 1585, 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1516 · DOI
- Langer, 1979, When practice makes imperfect: debilitating effects of overlearning, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 37, 2014, 10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2014 · DOI · Paper page
- Lazear, 1981, Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts, J. Polit. Econ., 89, 841, 10.1086/261010 · DOI · Paper page
- Lewis, 1997, Thinking about choking? attentional processes and paradoxical performance, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 23, 937, 10.1177/0146167297239003 · DOI
- Maze, 2006, Whether weather matters to traffic demand, traffic safety, and traffic operations and flow, Transp. Res. Rec., 1948, 170, 10.1177/0361198106194800119 · DOI
- Otten, 2009, Choking vs. clutch performance: a study of sport performance under pressure, J. Sport Exercise Psychol., 31, 583, 10.1123/jsep.31.5.583 · DOI
- Toma, 2017, Missed shots at the free-throw line: analyzing the determinants of choking under pressure, J. Sports Econ., 18, 539, 10.1177/1527002515593779 · DOI
- Uziel, 2007, Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: a review and meta-analysis, J. Res. Pers., 41, 579, 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.008 · DOI
- Wallace, 2005, Audience support and choking under pressure: a home disadvantage?, J. Sports Sci., 23, 429, 10.1080/02640410400021666 · DOI
- Wang, 2004, Self-consciousness and trait anxiety as predictors of choking in sport, J. Sci. Med. Sport, 7, 174, 10.1016/S1440-2440(04)80007-0 · DOI · Paper page
- Worthy, 2009, Choking and excelling at the free throw line, Int. J. Creativity Prob.Solving, 19, 53
- Zajonc, 1965, Social facilitation, Science, 149, 269, 10.1126/science.149.3681.269 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
The Influence of Home-Court Advantage in Elite Basketball: A Systematic Review
Mochales Cuesta, I., Jiménez-Sáiz, S. L., Kelly, A. L., & Bustamante-Sánchez, Á. (2024) · Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology · doi:10.3390/jfmk9040192 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Böheim, R., Grübl, D., & Lackner, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 168
- Pages
- 76-93
- ISSN
- 0167-2681
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- Funders
- Oesterreichische Nationalbank
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Choking under pressure–Evidence of the causal effect of audience size on performance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.10.001
- The paper
- Böheim, R., Grübl, D., & Lackner, M. (2019). Choking under pressure–Evidence of the causal effect of audience size on performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.10.001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.