Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 108–120 | Cite as

Winner and Loser Effects in Collegiate Baseball and Softball Doubleheaders

  • Andrew C. Gallup
  • Omar Tonsi Eldakar
  • Michael Schonning
  • Michael Yanchus
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Past experiences have a considerable impact on the success of future interactions across the animal kingdom. Known as winner and loser effects, victors of prior contests tend to have an increased chance of future success while losers are likely to experience additional failure. These effects are in part due to differential endocrine responses among competitors following initial bouts, with winners benefiting from subsequent increases in testosterone (T) and losers being disadvantaged by reductions in T and heightened stress hormones. Now well documented across a range of human competitions, sporting events provide an ideal setting to explore this biological phenomenon. This study uses the perspective of winner and loser effects to study the pattern of outcomes observed in consecutive baseball and softball games played in the same day (i.e., doubleheaders) at the collegiate level. Using archival data from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), we show that the distribution of winning and losing within these contests is not random. Consistent with a previous report on Major League Baseball (MLB), collegiate baseball and softball doubleheaders are more likely to be swept (i.e., one team winning both games) than split (i.e., each team winning and losing once), and the margin of victory in the first game was positive predictor of this outcome. While there were no differences between the strength of these effects between baseball and softball, both collegiate sports resulted in greater proportion of sweeps than in MLB. A residency effect was also observed, whereby victors of sweeps were more often the home team. This home field advantage was stronger for collegiate baseball compared to softball and the MLB. This report adds to a large comparative literature on winner and loser effects, and provides insight into the dynamics that modulate human performance in high-level athletic competition.

Keywords

Stress Sport psychology Game theory Dominance Winner effect Loser effect 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Archer, J. (2006). Testosterone and human aggression: an evaluation of the challenge hypothesis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(3), 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnott, G., & Elwood, R. W. (2008). Information gathering and decision making about resource value in animal contests. Animal Behaviour, 76(3), 529–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateup, H. S., Booth, A., Shirtcliff, E. A., & Granger, D. A. (2002). Testosterone, cortisol, and women's competition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernhardt, P. C., Dabbs Jr., J. M., Fielden, J. A., & Lutter, C. D. (1998). Testosterone changes during vicarious experiences of winning and losing among fans at sporting events. Physiology & Behavior, 65(1), 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Booth, A., Shelley, G., Mazur, A., Tharp, G., & Kittok, R. (1989). Testosterone, and winning and losing in human competition. Hormones and Behavior, 23(4), 556–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carré, J. M., & Putnam, S. K. (2010). Watching a previous victory produces an increase in testosterone among elite hockey players. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35(3), 475–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carré, J. M., Campbell, J. A., Lozoya, E., Goetz, S. M., & Welker, K. M. (2013). Changes in testosterone mediate the effect of winning on subsequent aggressive behaviour. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38(10), 2034–2041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chase, I. D., Bartolomeo, C., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1994). Aggressive interactions and inter-contest interval: how long do winners keep winning? Animal Behaviour, 48(2), 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Courneya, K. S., & Carron, A. V. (1992). The home advantage in sport competitions: A literature review. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(1), 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dugatkin, L. A., & Reeve, H. K. (2014). Winning, losing, and reaching out. Behavioral Ecology, 25(4), 675–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Earley, R. L., & Dugatkin, L. A. (2002). Eavesdropping on visual cues in green swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri) fights: a case for networking. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 269(1494), 943–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards, D. A., & Kurlander, L. S. (2010). Women's intercollegiate volleyball and tennis: Effects of warm-up, competition, and practice on saliva levels of cortisol and testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 58(4), 606–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards, D. A., & O'Neal, J. L. (2009). Oral contraceptives decrease saliva testosterone but do not affect the rise in testosterone associated with athletic competition. Hormones and Behavior, 56(2), 195–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, D. A., Wetzel, K., & Wyner, D. R. (2006). Intercollegiate soccer: saliva cortisol and testosterone are elevated during competition, and testosterone is related to status and social connectedness with team mates. Physiology & Behavior, 87, 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Enquist, M., & Leimar, O. (1987). Evolution of fighting behaviour: the effect of variation in resource value. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 127(2), 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuxjager, M. J., Mast, G., Becker, E. A., & Marler, C. A. (2009). The ‘home advantage’ is necessary for a full winner effect and changes in post-encounter testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 56(2), 214–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallup, A. C., & Eldakar, O. T. (2014). Winner and loser effects in major league baseball double headers. Human Ethology Bulletin, 29(4), 18–27.Google Scholar
  18. Gonzalez-Bono, E., Salvador, A., Serrano, M. A., & Ricarte, J. (1999). Testosterone, cortisol, and mood in a sports team competition. Hormones and Behavior, 35(1), 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodman, M. L. (1969). On the incidence of swept double-headers. The American Statistician, 23(5), 15–17.Google Scholar
  20. Hsu, Y., & Wolf, L. L. (1999). The winner and loser effect: integrating multiple experiences. Animal Behaviour, 57(4), 903–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hsu, Y., Lee, I. H., & Lu, C. K. (2009). Prior contest information: mechanisms underlying winner and loser effects. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 63(9), 1247–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jamieson, J. P. (2010). The home field advantage in athletics: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(7), 1819–1848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jiménez, M., Aguilar, R., & Alvero-Cruz, J. R. (2012). Effects of victory and defeat on testosterone and cortisol response to competition: evidence for same response patterns in men and women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(9), 1577–1581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kasumovic, M. M., Elias, D. O., Sivalinghem, S., Mason, A. C., & Andrade, M. C. (2010). Examination of prior contest experience and the retention of winner and loser effects. Behavioral Ecology, 21(2), 404–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kemp, D. J., & Wiklund, C. (2004). Residency effects in animal contests. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271, 1707–1712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kivlighan, K. T., Granger, D. A., & Booth, A. (2005). Gender differences in testosterone and cortisol response to competition. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30(1), 58–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kokko, H., López-Sepulcre, A., & Morrell, L. J. (2006). From hawks and doves to self-consistent games of territorial behavior. The American Naturalist, 167(6), 901–912.Google Scholar
  28. Liening, S. H., Stanton, S. J., Saini, E. K., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2010). Salivary testosterone, cortisol, and progesterone: two-week stability, interhormone correlations, and effects of time of day, menstrual cycle, and oral contraceptive use on steroid hormone levels. Physiology & Behavior, 99(1), 8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marler, C. A., Oyegbile, T. O., Plavicki, J., & Trainor, B. C. (2005). Response to Wingfield's commentary on “A continuing saga: The role of testosterone in aggression”. Hormones and Behavior, 48(3), 256–258.Google Scholar
  30. Mazur, A., Booth, A., & Dabbs Jr., J. M. (1992). Testosterone and chess competition. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 70–77.Google Scholar
  31. Mehta, P. H., & Josephs, R. A. (2006). Testosterone change after losing predicts the decision to compete again. Hormones and Behavior, 50(5), 684–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mehta, P. H., Jones, A. C., & Josephs, R. A. (2008). The social endocrinology of dominance: basal testosterone predicts cortisol changes and behavior following victory and defeat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mehta, P. H., Snyder, N. A., Knight, E. L., & Lassetter, B. (2015). Close versus decisive victory moderates the effect of testosterone change on competitive decisions and task enjoyment. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 1(3), 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Merlo, L. M., Pepper, J. W., Reid, B. J., & Maley, C. C. (2006). Cancer as an evolutionary and ecological process. Nature Reviews Cancer, 6(12), 924–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mock, D. W., & Parker, G. A. (1998). The evolution of sibling rivalry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Neave, N., & Wolfson, S. (2003). Testosterone, territoriality, and the ‘home advantage’. Physiology & Behavior, 78(2), 269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Obermeier, M., & Schmitz, B. (2003). Recognition of dominance in the big-clawed snapping shrimp (Alpheus heterochaelis Say 1818) part II: analysis of signal modality. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 36(1), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oliveira, R. F., McGregor, P. K., & Latruffe, C. (1998). Know thine enemy: fighting fish gather information from observing conspecific interactions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 265(1401), 1045–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oliveira, R. F., Silva, A., & Canário, A. V. (2009a). Why do winners keep winning? Androgen mediation of winner but not loser effects in cichlid fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 276(1665), 2249–2256.Google Scholar
  40. Oliveira, T., Gouveia, M. J., & Oliveira, R. F. (2009b). Testosterone responsiveness to winning and losing experiences in female soccer players. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(7), 1056–1064.Google Scholar
  41. Oyegbile, T. O., & Marler, C. A. (2005). Winning fights elevates testosterone levels in California mice and enhances future ability to win fights. Hormones and Behavior, 48(3), 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Page, L., & Coates, J. (2017). Winner and loser effects in human competitions. Evidence from equally matched tennis players. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(4), 530–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parker, G. A. (1974). Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 47(1), 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parker, G. A., & Rubenstein, D. I. (1981). Role assessment, reserve strategy, and acquisition of information in asymmetric animal conflicts. Animal Behaviour, 29(1), 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pollard, R., & Gómez, M. A. (2014). Comparison of home advantage in men's and women's football leagues in Europe. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(sup1), S77–S83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rillich, J., & Stevenson, P. A. (2011). Winning fights induces hyperaggression via the action of the biogenic amine octopamine in crickets. PLoS One, 6(12), e28891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rutte, C., Taborsky, M., & Brinkhof, M. W. (2006). What sets the odds of winning and losing? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(1), 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schuett, G. W., Harlow, H. J., Rose, J. D., Van Kirk, E. A., & Murdoch, W. J. (1996). Levels of plasma corticosterone and testosterone in male copperheads (Agkistrodon contortrix) following staged fights. Hormones and Behavior, 30(1), 60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schulteiss, O. C., Wirth, M. M., Torges, C. M., Pang, J. S., Villacorta, M. A., & Welsh, K. M. (2005). Effects of implicit power motivation on men’s and women’s implicit learning and testosterone changes after social victory or defeat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 174–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith, J. M. (1982). Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trainor, B. C., Bird, I. M., & Marler, C. A. (2004). Opposing hormonal mechanisms of aggression revealed through short-lived testosterone manipulations and multiple winning experiences. Hormones and Behavior, 45(2), 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Anders, S. M., & Watson, N. V. (2007). Ability- vs. chance-determined competition outcomes: effects on testosterone in humans. Physiology & Behavior, 90, 634–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whitehouse, M. E. (1997). Experience influences male–male contests in the spiderArgyrodes antipodiana (Theridiidae: Araneae). Animal Behaviour, 53(5), 913–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wiedemann, D., Barton, R. A., & Hill, R. A. (2012). Evolutionary perspectives on sport and competition. In Applied evolutionary psychology (pp. 290–307) Ed. S. C. Roberts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Wingfield, J. C. (1994). Regulation of territorial behavior in the sedentary song sparrow, Melospiza melodia morphna. Hormones and Behavior, 28(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wingfield, J. C., Hegner, R. E., Dufty Jr., A. M., & Ball, G. F. (1990). The ‘challenge hypothesis’: theoretical implications for patterns of testosterone secretion, mating systems, and breeding strategies. American Naturalist, 136, 829–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zilioli, S., & Watson, N. V. (2014). Testosterone across successive competitions: evidence for a ‘winner effect’in humans? Psychoneuroendocrinology, 47, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew C. Gallup
    • 1
  • Omar Tonsi Eldakar
    • 2
  • Michael Schonning
    • 3
  • Michael Yanchus
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Social and Behavioral SciencesSUNY Polytechnic InstituteUticaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesNova Southeastern UniversityFt. LauderdaleUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologySUNY OneontaOneontaUSA

Personalised recommendations