Action bias — Bar-Eli et al. (2007), Journal of Economic Psychology: 286 penalty kicks analysed; goalkeepers jumped 93.7% of the time despite center being utility-maximising (33.3% saves staying central vs. 12.6% right and 14.2% left)

Claim: Bar-Eli et al.'s real-world demonstration of action bias: analysis of 286 professional soccer penalty kicks found "in 93.7% of the kicks the goalkeepers chose to jump to their right or left" — yet keepers saved 33.3% of penalties when staying central versus 12.6% jumping right and 14.2% jumping left, making the centre the utility-maximising choice.

The result is the canonical real-world action-bias finding: even expert decision-makers in high-stakes settings prefer doing something over the empirically better strategy of holding position.

Source: Bar-Eli, M., Azar, O. H., Ritov, I., Keidar-Levin, Y., & Schein, G. (2007). "Action bias among elite soccer goalkeepers: The case of penalty kicks." Journal of Economic Psychology 28(5):606–621.

Confidence: Verified (named-author peer-reviewed paper; n=286 high-stakes real-world observations).

Caveat: "Centre is best" is a specific finding of this dataset, not a universal action-bias coefficient. Use it as the canonical example of action bias overriding utility, not as a quantitative model for any other domain.