tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post7453357844074134015..comments2024-03-09T10:26:48.789+00:00Comments on economics, psychology, policy: World Cup Final 2006 - A case study on decision making under pressure Emma Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11466193733741012673noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-67874545742890096822014-03-20T12:08:36.271+00:002014-03-20T12:08:36.271+00:00Thanks Mark, the Ref certainly overcame any ambigu...Thanks Mark, the Ref certainly overcame any ambiguity aversion! Though looking back at the footage and the length of time he speaks to the linesman makes me think he may now be suffering from choice-supportive bias!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-68246428498126767792014-03-20T11:49:20.115+00:002014-03-20T11:49:20.115+00:00I was thinking that myself Cathal. I think you can...I was thinking that myself Cathal. I think you can draw on two (cross-disciplinary) explanations to explain the problem and the solution. <br /><br />The problem was that Elizondo felt he couldn't issue a straight red-card without causing a riot. Sending off the most important player (in his final game no less!) in the most important game in the world 10 minutes before the final whistle, when most of the crowd hadn't seen the incident, would have likely caused a lot of confusion and outrage by the French fans in the stadium.<br /><br />The Theory of Mind offers an explanation for Elizondo's thought process here. ToM is a fundamental theory in psychology which refers to a person's ability to infer the existence of an independent mind in other people, and understand that they have different thoughts, knowledge, emotions, etc. It might sound almost too common-sense to spell it out like that, but there is for example research on autistic individuals who lack this ability. So in this context we're talking about Elizondo's ability to introspect, put himself in the shoes of the crowd and realize a bit of theatre was needed.<br /><br />That theatrical solution is explained by signalling theory in economics. Elizondo had a problem of asymmetric information - he knew why he had to send off Zidane but the crowd didn't. You might think of this problem as roughly analogous to a young person who wants to signal to a prospective employer that he is a good potential employee and worth hiring. He might send such a signal by attending a prestigious university. Although the things he learns in university may not be terribly relevant to day-to-day performance on his desired job, his degree functions as a signal that he is motivated and has a reasonable level of ability. Similarly with Elizondo, his conferring with the linesman had no inherent value because it didn't tell him anything he didn't already know, but it served as a signal to the crowd that he had information that was informing his subsequent decision to send off Zidane.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10290073721086163656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-73106430670374259082014-03-20T10:43:10.688+00:002014-03-20T10:43:10.688+00:00Mark, thanks for posting this (it touches on two o...Mark, thanks for posting this (it touches on two of my main interests!). I was wondering what facet of decision-making you thought was most at play here? For example, did the Ref display incredible awareness of framing effects by placing his decision in the context of a second opinion for the benefit of the crowd, or was there some other phenomenon at play? Thanks, CathalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com