Is There No 'I' in Team? Strategic Effects in Multi-Battle Team Competition

Abstract

Empirical literature consistently challenges the rationality assumption of individuals’ behaviour in dynamic situations and in teamwork environments. Here I examine rational forward-looking behaviour in a dynamic team competition with multi-period “battles”. Using field data from professional squash team tournaments (820 matches), I provide evidence consistent with the game-theoretical prediction of “strategic neutrality” in team matches: the outcomes of previous battles do not affect the outcome of the current battle. Further, by exploiting a unique feature that each battle is in itself a multi-period contest between two contestants, I exclude another psychological mechanism that might explain the neutrality result, thus establishing the empirical relevance of its game-theoretical foundation.