What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.

Jun. 29 2010 - 2:39 pm | 320 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Goalkeeping with an ancient mind

Penalty Kick (2 of 2)

Image by NathanF via Flickr

Behavioral economist Ofer Azar did an intriguing study of premier soccer goalies a few years ago, worth dusting off for the World Cup. Azar, a lecturer at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, studied penalty kicks. A penalty kick is awarded after a foul, and is often used as a tie-breaker in championship games.  A designated player stands 36 feet from the goal, which measures 24 feet side to side. Only the opposing goalie stands between the kicker and the goal, so it’s a high probability shot. In fact, with the typical penalty kick flying at more than 60 miles per hour, the goalie has only a fraction of a second to respond.

Facing such a physical challenge, professional goalies must decide before the actual kick what they will do: go right, go left, or stay put. So Azar decided to study what they actually do—and what they should do to be successful. He collected data on more than 300 of the top keepers in the world in action, and found a clear pattern: Goalies had the best chance of stopping a penalty shot if they just stayed put, smack in the center of the net. If they did this—that is, moved neither left not right–they were able to stop the opponent’s shot 33.3 percent of the time. That’s not great, but it’s a lot better than the other odds: Goalies who made a guess and jumped left stopped only 14.2 percent of the shots, and goalies who dove right stopped a dismal 12.6 percent. That’s one in eight, which means seven of every eight penalty shots flew past for a score. That can’t feel good.

Indeed, it felt lousy. Azar interviewed the goalies about their decisions in the net, and he found that their emotions played a major role in goaltending strategy. Despite the clear statistical advantage of staying put in the center, only about 6 percent of goalies actually choose to do this. Why? Because they feel worse if they fail standing still—worse than they feel if they fail diving. In other words, taking any action—even an action doomed to failure—is better than inaction, because doing nothing and still failing is emotionally unacceptable. That’s the heuristic mind that makes movement an emotional choice, and it takes a lot of effort to alter the impulse.

Azar doesn’t care all that much about soccer. In fact, he published these results in the Journal of Economic Psychology, because his real interest is how and why people make irrational choices in business and personal finance. And it’s clear that most of us are just as irrationally biased toward action as these world-class goalies. As I describe in my forthcoming book, On Second Thought: Outsmarting Your Mind’s Hard-Wired Habits, we have a powerful urge to “do something” even when the “something” doesn’t make a great deal of sense. This almost certainly derives from an ancient and powerful habit of dealing with threats through action.


One T/S Member Comment Called Out, 1 Total Comment
Post your comment »
  1. collapse expand

    Mr. Herbert,

    This study explains a lot about the popular response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Many people, including commentators here at T/S, demanded that Mr. Obama do something, ANYTHING despite the fact that there was in fact absolutely nothing he could do. Mr. Obama was even criticized by people who knew he could do nothing, they demanded that he at least sound or look like he was doing something, even if it was utterly meaningless. Thanks for this story.

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook

My T/S Activity Feed


    About Me

    I've been a Washington, DC-based science writer for many years, specializing in psychology and human behavior. I currently write a blog for the Association for Psychological Science called "We're Only Human," and am also a regular contributor to Newsweek.com and Scientific American Mind. Crown will be publishing my book, On Second Thought: Outsmarting Your Mind's Hard-Wired Habits, in September. I am an old-school journalist embracing the world of new media. I'm on Facebook and Twitter. I believe that every news story--whether it's about money or politics or crime or love or health-- is in large part about psychology and the quirks of the human mind. When I am not writing, I am hanging out at Westside Club, riding my bicycle, listening to music and/or cooking for family and friends.

    See my profile »
    Followers: 60
    Contributor Since: July 2009
    Location:Washington, DC

    What I'm Up To

    We’re Only Human

    For more insights into the quirks of human nature, visit my “We’re Only Human” blog. Selections from the blog also appear regularly in the magazine Scientific American Mind and at the website Newsweek.com.