In a new study published in Psychological Science, researchers from the Université du Québec en Outaouais delved into the contentious realm of sportsmanship and justice within the heated atmosphere of professional baseball games. Their investigation reveals a surprising dynamic: verbal aggression towards umpires can actually sway their decisions in favor of the aggressor’s team. After facing verbal abuse, umpires tend to call fewer strikes against the team of the aggressor and more against their opponents.
The study was motivated by a desire to understand and ultimately reduce the morally questionable behavior of verbally abusing in-game officials — a behavior surprisingly common in sports, including baseball. Despite being traditionally penalized by ejection from the game, the researchers aimed to explore the actual effects of such aggression on the decision-making processes of umpires.
“Verbal abuse of officials is a plague in sport in general,” said study author Joël Guérette, a professor of kinesiology. “We wanted to find a way to reduce this morally questionable behavior. The first step was to understand how being shouted at influences officials.”
The study hinged on the analysis of ejections, which serve as a proxy for incidents of verbal aggression, during Major League Baseball (MLB) games from 2010 to 2019. Ejections occur as a direct response to behaviors that cross the boundaries of acceptable conduct, including excessive verbal abuse. The MLB umpire manual explicitly outlines behaviors leading to ejection, such as the use of profanity directed at an umpire or the refusal to stop arguing and further delaying the game after an umpire has issued a warning.
In professional baseball, where every game is meticulously recorded and statistics on nearly every conceivable aspect of play are kept, ejections are documented with specific details about the time, individuals involved, and the reasons behind them.
To construct a dataset capable of revealing patterns in umpire behavior, the researchers compiled information on 1,204 ejections from the Retrosheet website, a comprehensive resource for baseball game data. This sample, derived from 1,001 games, was then narrowed down to focus on instances directly involving criticisms of the strike zone or umpire decisions.
The final dataset comprised 1,204 ejections, which were then analyzed alongside 153,255 pitches using advanced statistical models. These models took into account various factors, such as the pitch’s location and the game context, to determine the baseline likelihood of a pitch being called a strike. This approach allowed for a precise examination of how umpire decisions were influenced before and after an ejection for verbal abuse.
The researchers found evidence that verbal aggression from players or coaches can sway umpires’ subsequent decisions in a manner that benefits the aggressor’s team. Specifically, after an individual from a team is ejected for verbally aggressive behavior towards an umpire, particularly in disputes over the strike zone, the likelihood that pitches to batters from the ejected individual’s team are called strikes decreases.
On the other hand, pitches to batters from the opposing team are more likely to be called strikes. This pattern suggests that umpires, perhaps subconsciously, adjust their decisions to favor the team that expressed outrage.
Guérette said he was surprised to find “that the results encourage socially unacceptable behavior.”
Intriguingly, this effect was consistent regardless of the ejected individual’s role (player or coach), their status as an all-star, their experience, or their performance level. This suggests that the verbal aggression itself, rather than the specific characteristics of the aggressor, prompts a change in umpire behavior.
One of the most intriguing aspects of these findings is their implication for understanding human behavior and decision-making under pressure. Umpires, tasked with maintaining fairness and order in a highly competitive and emotionally charged environment, appear susceptible to the psychological impact of verbal aggression. This vulnerability may lead them to make compensatory decisions that, while intended to restore fairness, actually introduce a new form of bias.
“To reduce verbal aggression towards officials, it is essential that they ensure that they do not encourage this type of behavior,” Guérette told PsyPost. “The take-home message should be directed at officials to make them aware of the decision-making bias that can arise after being excessively criticized.”
The study has certain limitations, including its focus on the elite level of professional baseball and the specific conditions under which the data were collected. Future research might explore how these dynamics play out in other sports, at different competition levels, or in other professional settings where decision-makers face criticism. Additionally, examining the effectiveness of verbal aggression when the perceived injustice is unfounded could offer further valuable perspectives.
“Shouting at a perfectly impartial umpire, or one with less experience of realizing his mistakes, could produce completely different results,” Guérette noted.
The study, “Verbal Aggressions Against Major League Baseball Umpires Affect Their Decision Making,” was authored by Joël Guérette, Caroline Blais, and Daniel Fiset.