IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v215y2023icp307-324.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Queen's Gambit: Explaining the superstar effect using evidence from chess

Author

Listed:
  • Bilen, Eren
  • Matros, Alexander

Abstract

Superstars exist in classrooms and workplaces. Superstars can intimidate others and create a negative performance shock, or they can encourage others by inspiring everybody to “step up their game.” In this study, we examine two effects: the impact of head-to-head competition with a superstar (direct) effect and the influence of a superstar presence on players' performance (indirect) effect. We find that the direct superstar effect in theory and in the data is always negative. The indirect superstar effect is neutral in theory, but depends on the intensity of the superstar in the data: if the skill gap between the superstar and the rest is small (large), there is a positive (negative) indirect effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Bilen, Eren & Matros, Alexander, 2023. "The Queen's Gambit: Explaining the superstar effect using evidence from chess," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 307-324.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:215:y:2023:i:c:p:307-324
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2023.09.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268123003189
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.09.002?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Cornelissen & Christian Dustmann & Uta Schönberg, 2017. "Peer Effects in the Workplace," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(2), pages 425-456, February.
    2. Anthony Strittmatter & Uwe Sunde & Dainis Zegners, 2020. "Life cycle patterns of cognitive performance over the long run," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(44), pages 27255-27261, November.
    3. Benny Moldovanu & Aner Sela, 2008. "The Optimal Allocation of Prizes in Contests," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Arye L. Hillman & Kai A. Konrad (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 1, pages 615-631, Springer.
    4. P.-J. Jost & M. Kräkel, 2005. "Preemptive behavior in sequential-move tournaments with heterogeneous agents," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 245-252, November.
    5. Jennifer Brown & Dylan B. Minor, 2014. "Selecting the Best? Spillover and Shadows in Elimination Tournaments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3087-3102, December.
    6. Canice Prendergast, 1999. "The Provision of Incentives in Firms," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(1), pages 7-63, March.
    7. González-Díaz, Julio & Palacios-Huerta, Ignacio, 2016. "Cognitive performance in competitive environments: Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 40-52.
    8. Jiang, Lingqing, 2020. "Splash with a teammate: Peer effects in high-stakes tournaments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 165-188.
    9. Esther Duflo & Pascaline Dupas & Michael Kremer, 2011. "Peer Effects, Teacher Incentives, and the Impact of Tracking: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1739-1774, August.
    10. Tanaka, Ryuichi & Ishino, Kazutoshi, 2012. "Testing the incentive effects in tournaments with a superstar," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 393-404.
    11. Dreber, Anna & Gerdes, Christer & Gränsmark, Patrik, 2013. "Beauty queens and battling knights: Risk taking and attractiveness in chess," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 1-18.
    12. Green, Jerry R & Stokey, Nancy L, 1983. "A Comparison of Tournaments and Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(3), pages 349-364, June.
    13. Joris Klingen & Jos Ommeren, 2022. "Risk-Taking and Air Pollution: Evidence from Chess," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(1), pages 73-93, January.
    14. Kevin J. Boudreau & Karim R. Lakhani & Michael Menietti, 2016. "Performance responses to competition across skill levels in rank-order tournaments: field evidence and implications for tournament design," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(1), pages 140-165, February.
    15. Dmitry Ryvkin, 2009. "Tournaments of Weakly Heterogeneous Players," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 11(5), pages 819-855, October.
    16. Gerdes, Christer & Gränsmark, Patrik, 2010. "Strategic behavior across gender: A comparison of female and male expert chess players," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 766-775, October.
    17. Michael Babington & Sebastian J. Goerg & Carl Kitchens, 2020. "Do Tournaments With Superstars Encourage or Discourage Competition?," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 21(1), pages 44-63, January.
    18. Barry J. Nalebuff & Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1983. "Prices and Incentives: Towards a General Theory of Compensation and Competition," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(1), pages 21-43, Spring.
    19. Peter Backus & Maria Cubel & Matej Guid & Santiago Sánchez‐Pagés & Enrique López Mañas, 2023. "Gender, competition, and performance: Evidence from chess players," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), pages 349-380, January.
    20. Dan Ariely & Uri Gneezy & George Loewenstein & Nina Mazar, 2009. "Large Stakes and Big Mistakes," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(2), pages 451-469.
    21. Jennifer Brown, 2011. "Quitters Never Win: The (Adverse) Incentive Effects of Competing with Superstars," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(5), pages 982-1013.
    22. Bertoni, Marco & Brunello, Giorgio & Rocco, Lorenzo, 2015. "Selection and the age – productivity profile. Evidence from chess players," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 45-58.
    23. Benscheidt, Kevin & Carpenter, Jeffrey, 2020. "Advanced counter-biasing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 1-18.
    24. Linnemer, Laurent & Visser, Michael, 2016. "Self-selection in tournaments: The case of chess players," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PA), pages 213-234.
    25. Shoko Yamane & Ryohei Hayashi, 2015. "Peer Effects among Swimmers," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 117(4), pages 1230-1255, October.
    26. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & Sally E. Sadoff, 2011. "Checkmate: Exploring Backward Induction among Chess Players," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 975-990, April.
    27. Shunyuan Zhang & Param Vir Singh & Anindya Ghose, 2019. "A Structural Analysis of the Role of Superstars in Crowdsourcing Contests," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 15-33, March.
    28. Moul, Charles C. & Nye, John V.C., 2009. "Did the Soviets collude? A statistical analysis of championship chess 1940-1978," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 10-21, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Elias Bouacida & Renaud Foucart & Maya Jalloul, 2024. "Decreasing Differences in Expert Advice," Working Papers 408394204, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Linnemer, Laurent & Visser, Michael, 2016. "Self-selection in tournaments: The case of chess players," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PA), pages 213-234.
    2. Dainis Zegners & Uwe Sunde & Anthony Strittmatter, 2020. "Decisions and Performance Under Bounded Rationality: A Computational Benchmarking Approach," CESifo Working Paper Series 8341, CESifo.
    3. Deutscher, Christian & Neuberg, Lena & Thiem, Stefan, 2023. "Who’s afraid of the GOATs? - Shadow effects of tennis superstars," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Michael Babington & Sebastian J. Goerg & Carl Kitchens, 2020. "Do Tournaments With Superstars Encourage or Discourage Competition?," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 21(1), pages 44-63, January.
    5. Dilmaghani, Maryam, 2021. "The gender gap in competitive chess across countries: Commanding queens in command economies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 425-441.
    6. Loukas Balafoutas & E. Glenn Dutcher & Florian Lindner & Dmitry Ryvkin, 2017. "The Optimal Allocation Of Prizes In Tournaments Of Heterogeneous Agents," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 461-478, January.
    7. Roman M. Sheremeta, 2016. "The pros and cons of workplace tournaments," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 302-302, October.
    8. Jose De Sousa, "undated". "Peer competition: Evidence from 5- to 95-year-olds," French Stata Users' Group Meetings 2022 03, Stata Users Group.
    9. Künn, Steffen & Seel, Christian & Zegners, Dainis, 2020. "Cognitive Performance in the Home Office - Evidence from Professional Chess," Research Memorandum 021, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    10. Johannes Carow & Niklas M. Witzig, 2024. "Time Pressure and Strategic Risk-Taking in Professional Chess," Working Papers 2404, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    11. Bar-Eli, Michael & Krumer, Alex & Morgulev, Elia, 2020. "Ask not what economics can do for sports - Ask what sports can do for economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    12. Dmitry Ryvkin & Andreas Ortmann, 2008. "The Predictive Power of Three Prominent Tournament Formats," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 492-504, March.
    13. Brian Hill, 2014. "The Heat Is On," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 15(4), pages 315-337, August.
    14. Balafoutas, Loukas & Faravelli, Marco & Fornwagner, Helena & Sheremeta, Roman, 2023. "Conflict in the pool: A field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 60-73.
    15. Bastani, Spencer & Giebe, Thomas & Gürtler, Oliver, 2022. "Simple equilibria in general contests," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 264-280.
    16. Daniel Ershov, 2018. "Competing with Superstars in the Mobile App Market," Working Papers 18-02, NET Institute.
    17. Ricardo Manuel Santos, 2023. "Effects of psychological pressure on first‐mover advantage in competitive environments: Evidence from penalty shootouts," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(2), pages 354-369, April.
    18. Christine Harbring & Bernd Irlenbusch, 2004. "Anreize zu produktiven und destruktiven Anstrengungen durch relative Entlohnung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 546-576, September.
    19. Drugov, Mikhail & Ryvkin, Dmitry, 2020. "Tournament rewards and heavy tails," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    20. Alastair Smith & Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, 2019. "Motivating political support with group-based rewards," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(2), pages 156-182, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Superstar; Tournament; Effort; Peer-effect; Chess;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M52 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects
    • J3 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs
    • J44 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Professional Labor Markets and Occupations
    • D3 - Microeconomics - - Distribution

    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:eee:jeborg:v:215:y:2023:i:c:p:307-324. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.