Behavioral Economics Sports Bingo

A bit of an unusual post today. It being summer, therefore, here is a behavioral economics sports bingo card.

Behavioural Economics Sports Bingo Game

I’m looking for some help in assessing my new Behavioral Economics Sports Bingo game. The idea is that when you are watching sports you lookout for interesting comments from commentators, players, coaches, and those watching it with you. As with any bingo you have to observe and cross off a complete line to win. (Unlike some other games dishonesty is considered a fact of life. If you cheat, provided you don’t cheat too much, it is regarded as pretty normal).

To play the game just print out the Bingo Sheet and look out for examples. For example, you can look out for: Outcome bias. This is judging a decision on the outcome. The outcome may just be through luck, rather than the quality of the process. An example might be a commentator saying: “She was right to try the low probability long-range shot” (just because it happened to work on this occasion — maybe through a lucky deflection). Similarly, one might spot the Illusion of Control.

When To Play?

Watching televised sport is always exciting. Sometimes the games themselves disappoint but the commentators always entertain. They are normal people paid to talk for hours on end. Their pronouncements, while often of dubious factual basis, reveal how we think. Behavioral Economics Bingo allows you to gain enjoyment from the common traps that commentators, players, coaches, and your watching companions fall into. We highlight them to help people question the way all of us think about how the world works.

Rules When Watching Any Sporting Event

1. Appoint an impartial judge. (Someone who doesn’t’ experience any behavioral effects)
2. Next look at the Explanation of Behavioral Effects sheet for examples of each effect
3. After that, players mark their own sheets. (Asking judge for guidance when they aren’t sure)
4. The first to shout bingo after crossing off an entire row or column wins
5. Version 1: Players show their completed cards to the judge who verifies the win.
   Version 2: The games is similat but players shred their cards before anyone looks at it.
   Experience tends to suggest that version 1 often takes longer.

Alternative Drinking Game Version

Whenever a player, coach, commentator, or a watching companion makes a statement that fits the Behavioral Effects description.

For instance if you spot an effect with Yellow background. In that case the person spotting the effect nominates who takes a gulp
Similarly if you find one with a Green background, then the person spotting the effect nominates two people to take a gulp.
Everyone drinks for any socially awkward comment. (Those with a purple background)

If playing the related evolutionary psychology version of the game everyone takes extra gulps for socially awkward comments. This is because it is often a bit socially awkward.

Behavioral Economics Bingo Card

Explanation Of The Behavioral Effects Part 1

Effect	Explanation	Examples
Accepting Appeal to Authority	Believing what people in authority say just because they have authority	Anyone takes seriously what coaches say in interviews
Availability	Focusing on examples that come easily to mind	For instance, referring constantly to high profile games when giving examples
Bandwagon effect	The tendency to do things because others are doing it	When commentators explain how formations/tactics become popular
Base rate neglect	Ignoring the underlying likelihood of something happening	Being surprised when a high probability event happens, e.g., sequence of penalty kick successes
Cheerleader effect	People appear more attractive in groups	Pretty much any comment about cheerleaders
Confirmation bias	Noting evidence supportive of a preconceived idea	Fixating on the mistakes of a player the speaker has clearly never rated
Curse of knowledge	Inability to ignore what we know. Can make communication hard to understand	Commentators refer to information listener cannot be expected to know without explanation
Forer effect	Believing vague assertions that could apply to almost anyone describes an individual	“She doesn’t like losing”
Framing	The way an idea is described matters	‘Unbeaten in three games’ sounds more positive than ‘no wins in three’ when all games were draws
Gamblers Fallacy	The belief that you are “due a win” after a series of failures	“They haven’t won in four games and I feel it is their turn this week”
Hindsight effect	Thinking things that happened were always likely to happen	“Of course, this team were always going to win the world cup”
Hot hand fallacy	Belief that success comes in streaks	“After scoring her last five she’ll surely get this”
Hyperbolic discounting	Heavily discounting anything to be received after this moment	Players taking actions with no athletic benefit, e.g., drinking, likely to shorten their career.

Explanation Of The Behavioral Effects Part 2

Illusion of control	People believe they can impact things beyond their control	“Fan is wearing his lucky socks”
Just World Phenomenon	Those who do well deserve their success more than those who fail	Excessive praise of the character of winning team/Injuries show lack of character
Lake Wobegon Effect	Belief that the average person is better than average	A supporter of a mediocre team might insist that they are great
Missing Regression to the Mean	Being surprised when a surprisingly good (or bad) streak ends	“He was player of the month last month but this month has been relatively disappointing”
Reference group neglect	Not comprehending that the comparisons have changed	Thinking that a star from a small team could excel at the highest level
Outcome bias	Judging a decision on the outcome	“She was right to try the low probability long range shot” (because it happened to work)
Outgroup homogeneity bias	Members of groups you don’t identify with are thought more similar than they are	“As with all the Italian team, his outfit is stylish”
Overconfidence	Misjudging your ability to predict	“No way the team comes back from two down”
Self-serving bias	People find it easier to spot transgressions against them than the opposite	“Ref can’t you see that our player was fouled”
Stereotyping	Ascribing characteristics to an individual based upon group stereotype	“The German attacker is very efficient”
Sunk Cost Bias	Taking into account costs already gone for decisions about the future	A player gets more playing time than is deserved because he cost more to bring to the team
Winner’s Curse	In a common value auction (where asset would be useful to all) winning auction suggests you overpaid	Paying excessive amounts for a star player because of interest from multiple teams

For More

For more on behavioral economics and public policy see here. After that, here is great book on the topic to read see here.

Please let me know what you think. What works? What doesn’t? Here is the draft:

BE Bingo Draft July 2017
Thanks very much, Neil