Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43

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

Böheim, René, Grübl, Dominik, Lackner, Mario·2019·Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
DOI 10.1016/j.jebo.2019.10.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jebo.2019.10.001

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. 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
  2. Boudreaux, 2017, A natural experiment to determine the crowd effect upon home court advantage, J. Sports Econ., 18, 737, 10.1177/1527002515595842 · DOI
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Cao, 2011, Performance under pressure in the NBA, J. Sports Econ., 12, 231, 10.1177/1527002511404785 · DOI
  6. 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
  7. Deutscher, 2011, Productivity and new audiences: empirical evidence from professional basketball, J. Sports Econ., 12, 391, 10.1177/1527002511404782 · DOI
  8. Dohmen, 2008, Do professionals choke under pressure?, J. Econ. Behav. Organ., 65, 636, 10.1016/j.jebo.2005.12.004 · DOI
  9. 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
  10. Ehrenberg, 1990, Do tournaments have incentive effects?, J. Polit. Econ., 98, 1307, 10.1086/261736 · DOI
  11. Epting, 2011, Cheers vs. jeers: effects of audience feedback on individual athletic performance, North Am. J. Psychol., 13, 299
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Gray, 2004, Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: expertise differences, choking, and slumps, J. Exp. Psychol., 10, 42
  16. 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
  17. Hill, 2010, Choking in sport: a review, Int. Rev. Sport Exercise Psychol., 3, 24, 10.1080/17509840903301199 · DOI
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Kocher, 2012, Psychological pressure in competitive environments: new evidence from randomized natural experiments, Manage. Sci., 58, 1585, 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1516 · DOI
  21. 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
  22. Lazear, 1981, Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts, J. Polit. Econ., 89, 841, 10.1086/261010 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Lewis, 1997, Thinking about choking? attentional processes and paradoxical performance, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 23, 937, 10.1177/0146167297239003 · DOI
  24. Maze, 2006, Whether weather matters to traffic demand, traffic safety, and traffic operations and flow, Transp. Res. Rec., 1948, 170, 10.1177/0361198106194800119 · DOI
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Wallace, 2005, Audience support and choking under pressure: a home disadvantage?, J. Sports Sci., 23, 429, 10.1080/02640410400021666 · DOI
  29. 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
  30. Worthy, 2009, Choking and excelling at the free throw line, Int. J. Creativity Prob.Solving, 19, 53
  31. Zajonc, 1965, Social facilitation, Science, 149, 269, 10.1126/science.149.3681.269 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Böheim, R., Grübl, D., & Lackner, M.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
168
Pages
76-93
ISSN
0167-2681
DOI
10.1016/j.jebo.2019.10.001
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

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.