6.27.2010

Dr LIC's Krazy SyEnce Korner




































Every now and then social scientists find something interesting to say about our hallowed league, but it is usually within moments that the finding goes viral, and is swallowed, chewed, and spit out by every sports geek like me on the internet. In this korner, I will attempt to present findings on the NBA "before they go mainstream," presenting the most up to date research that illuminates the inner workings of the Association we hold so dearly.

The first entry comes courtesy of psychologists Graeme Haynes of University of Western Ontario and Thomas Gilovich (who did the original research on the "hot hand") of Cornell University, who recently published a paper called "Ball Don't Lie: How Inequity Aversion Can Undermine Performance" in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*. The paper formally tests a cognitive explanation for the hypothesis frequently put forth by Rasheed Wallace that says that a player will often miss free throws after getting a foul that he does not deserve. The explanation that Haynes and Gilovich point to is a phenomenon known as inequity aversion, the idea that people prefer to avoid unfairness and injustice (even if sometimes it is not in their best interest to do so).

A study from earlier this year demonstrated inequity aversion by setting up a scenario in which two individuals were given unequal portions of money at the outset of the study ($50 versus $0). This created inequality such that one subject was a high-pay subject and one subject was the low-pay subject. Each subject then had their brains scanned while looking at slides that showed further monetary transfers either to oneself (self transfers) or to the other person in the study (other transfers). What happened was that high-pay subjects rated other transfers to be more positive whereas low-pay subjects rated self transfers to be more positive, both demonstrating that they enjoyed transfers that narrowed the money disparity between the two. Furthermore, brain activation mirrored these explicit evaluations--regions involved in the experience of reward corresponded to subjects evaluations of the transfers, suggesting that people felt that transfers that reduced inequality were more rewarding. The takeaway: People dislike inequality, even when they are in a position of higher gains.
























Now back to hoops. Haynes and Gilovich examined whether inequality aversion plays out in the NBA by looking at whether players miss more free throws after an obviously incorrect call. The authors watched 102 games from the 2007-2008 season and noted any instance of an obviously incorrect call. This was always done BEFORE the fouled player went to the free throw line, and yielded a total of 77 identified obviously incorrect calls. Four additional coders examined the calls and showed substantial agreement about their incorrect nature. Then, the authors calculated free throw percentage for the first shot after these incorrect calls, which turned out to be a whoppingly low 53.2%, substantially lower than the league average for the season on first-shot free throws, 73.6% (the league average was 77.8% for second-shot free throws). This suggests inequity aversion--players felt significantly less comfortable making a free throw after receiving an unjust foul call.

Home versus away status did not matter, the player's normal free throw percentage did not matter, but what did matter was whether the team of the player shooting the free throw was currently ahead in the game. The inequity aversion effect emerged significantly more often when the team of the player shooting the free throw was ahead, suggesting that players aren't so concerned with fairness that they will miss while their team needs the points. Self-interest takes over at that point.

The main question for this finding--which the authors raise as well--is about the extent to which this inequity aversion occurs on a conscious level. If you asked players whether they are intentionally missing shots after getting bogus calls, 99% of them would obviously say no. Another question I have is what are the circumstances in sports where players are completely ok with inequity. The past year has seen soccer referees, baseball umpires, and NBA refs absolutely crucified for their shoddy work...and the beneficiaries of this ineptitude are usually are the only not complaining.























*Abstract as follows:

Previous research has found that people are often averse to inequity, even when it works
to their own advantage. The present research extends previous demonstrations of inequity
aversion by examining how it plays out in a real-world context in which self-interest
motivations and competitive pressures are substantial. National Basketball Association
games were examined and instances of obviously incorrect foul calls were identified.
Players were found to make a substantially lower percentage of the foul shots they were
awarded as a result of incorrect calls, indicating that they were troubled by the inequity.
This drop-off in performance was only observed when the shooter’s team was ahead,
highlighting the trade-off between the two conflicting motives of self-interest (the desire
to win) and inequity aversion.

Labels:

14 Comments:

At 6/28/2010 7:13 AM, Blogger 黃允妏 said...

成熟,就是有能力適應生活中的模糊。....................................................................

 
At 6/28/2010 11:32 AM, Blogger Mr. Shrimp said...

Great post. Thanks for writing this up. The sample size might not be big enough, but I'd love to see how this plays out with individual players, especially big stars who supposedly get lots of iffy calls. I wonder if the results would conform to the standard mythology of the stars (i.e., Kobe wouldn't care about the inequity - he'd probably revel in it).

 
At 6/28/2010 11:51 AM, Blogger Dude N Plenty said...

Wonder how the numbers are effected when Sheed happened to be involved in the game and what Sheed's numbers are like.

 
At 6/28/2010 3:39 PM, Blogger W2 said...

Good to see the LIC.

Fun take on one part of Sheeds sizable contribution to league.

I am gonna miss his flavor.

Ball don't lie.

 
At 6/28/2010 4:14 PM, Blogger Joey said...

Ball don't lie.

Both teams played hard.

Cut the check. (My personal fav)

When Rasheed files his formal paperwork, we'll need to have some kind of ceremony.

I maintain that he is among the five or ten most gifted players I've ever seen. Not just his manifold offensive skills, but his on-ball defense, his defensive timing, his shot blocking, his feel for how people move on the court. Outside of drug-tragedy cases, Rasheed may have squandered more talent than anyone ever. He could have truly been an all-time great.

wv: untin--a Latverian word that Dr. Doom's minions might have said on an MF Doom record.

 
At 6/28/2010 4:21 PM, Blogger Joey said...

"squandered" isn't the right word. it's more that he just didn't always use what was available.

 
At 6/28/2010 4:46 PM, Blogger Mouth said...

"As long as somebody CTC, at the end of the day I'm with 'em."
-Sheed

When I read this several years ago, probably at the Links at SlamOnline, it was the moment when I developed man-love for Mr. Wallace.

I kept waiting and waiting for him to take over and dominate game 7 for Boston, but I guess that's just not his game after all. Yeah, not "squandered," but not fully playing to his potential either.

 
At 6/29/2010 9:45 AM, Blogger Tatarana Crocodilo said...

I did not like the way the sample was selected and confronted with the league average free-throw percentage.

The way it was done it left the authors free to, in a non-concious level, pick player who shoot free-throws poorly than the average NBA player.

 
At 6/29/2010 12:42 PM, Blogger SpoonyBard3000 said...

The sample size, and the less than scientific means by which it was selected, don't diminish the importance of the subject. The original study (the one with the money) didn't suffer from either of these limitations, so we know that this exists in some form. For it not to creep into athletic competition in inconceivable. I definitely agree with Mr. Shrimp - what I'd really like to see is an analysis of players who are affected at different levels.

Also, what does it mean when somebody doesn't feel this way?? My brother, when he was five, used to cheat at Candyland. Muhfuckin Candyland - and he never once admitted it, or said he was sorry. All he wanted was for the game to be over as fast as possible, with him as the winner, and how that end was reached meant nothing. He's mellowed out a lot as he's aged, but it still shocks me that someone could care so exclusively about winning that to essentially invalidate the achievment didn't diminish the satisfaction that it provided. That scares me.

 
At 6/29/2010 1:43 PM, Blogger bushytop said...

love it. this makes me want to go back and check the footage of nick anderson in the 95 finals. he prolly just tried to even things out on the bad calls.

 
At 6/29/2010 8:09 PM, Blogger spanish bombs said...

Sorry, can I ask one of the people who are complaining about the sample size and selection to summarize the methodology please? I don't feel like reading the paper.

 
At 7/02/2010 3:58 AM, Blogger 吳思 said...

一棵樹除非在春天開了花,否則難望在秋天結果。.................................................................

 
At 7/05/2010 12:07 PM, Blogger TW Cable said...

Reading this, my brainwaves repeatedly replaced the phrase "Inequity Aversion" with "Allen Iverson." I wish I knew what that meant.

 
At 4/19/2013 4:21 AM, Blogger Jim Philips said...

I haven't had the opportunity to check recent articles about Social Scientist because they are so popular at Hostpph

 

Post a Comment

<< Home