The influence of players' standard of competition on referees' decision making was investigated. Standard of competition was examined by studying 30 handball matches, 15 at League and 15 at National standard. At both standards, we examined two types of refereeing decision (sporting and disciplinary) after transgressions that varied in ambiguity. The results indicated that referees made more lenient decisions at higher standards of competition, but this tendency depended on the type of decision being made and ambiguity in the offence. The hypothesis that referees use standard of competition as a judgemental heuristic, but in varying ways, was supported.
Prior research has found that referees are harsher toward sporting offenses in regional-level matches between women than in regional-level matches between men. We tested whether this bias also occurs at a higher, national level of competition, despite the greater pressures for objectivity and fairness at this level. Referees' decisions were examined in 15 national-level handball matches between women and 15 national-level handball matches between men after transgressions that varied in severity. The results suggest that referees made harsher decisions in female than in male matches. Although more research is needed, this study supported the hypothesis that referees may use the gender of players as a powerful judgmental heuristic for deciding how to respond to aggression.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.