Abstract
In this study, we examine the impact of two tournament design features, tournament horizon (repeated or grand) and percentage of winners (low or moderate), on individuals’ attributions and performance in a multi-period setting. Using an experiment, we predict and find that individuals competing in a repeated tournament tend to attribute their performance to their own ability to a greater extent than do those competing in a grand tournament. These attributions subsequently impact the degree to which individuals are willing to exert effort in later periods of the tournament. When the percentage of winners is low, we find performance increases more in later periods in the grand tournament than in the repeated tournament. In addition, the performance increases of weaker competitors in later periods is larger in the grand tournament than the repeated tournament. When the tournament has a low percentage of winners, our results indicate that if the objective of the tournament is to keep top performers motivated over several periods, repeated tournaments appear to be preferable. However, if the objective is to keep weaker performers motivated over several periods, grand tournaments appear to be more effective. Our results related to tournaments with a moderate percentage of winners are more equivocal, although they imply when the percentage of winners is moderate, effort changes over time (within or across competitions) are not as sensitive to the type of tournament employed.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call