FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Let Them Be the Judge of That: Bias Cascade in Elite Dressag...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2023; 13(17); doi: 10.3390/ani13172797

Let Them Be the Judge of That: Bias Cascade in Elite Dressage Judging.

Abstract: Sport performances judged subjectively often suffer from systematic errors due to biases, with the sport of equestrian dressage being no exception. This study examines whether international dressage judges display systematic errors while evaluating elite horse-rider combinations. Data from seven 5* Grand Prix dressage events between May 2022 and April 2023 were analyzed (510 judges' scores) using Multivariable Linear Regression Analysis. Five predictor variables-Home, Same Nationality, Compatriot, FEI Ranking and Starting Order-were studied in relation to Total Dressage Score (TS). The model accounted for 44.1% of TS variance; FEI Ranking, Starting Order, Compatriot, Same Nationality, and Home were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Judges exhibited nationalistic and patriotism-by-proxy biases, awarding significantly higher scores to riders from their countries (p < 0.001). FEI Ranking and Starting Order also influenced scores significantly (p < 0.001). These biases, combined, created a cascade effect benefiting a specific group of riders. To address this, measures should be taken to develop a more objective judging system that is based on unequivocal, transparent and evidence-based criteria and supports the continuous development of a fair, sustainable, equine welfare orientated sport that fosters societal acceptance.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-09-03 PubMed ID: 37685061PubMed Central: PMC10486362DOI: 10.3390/ani13172797Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article explores the presence of systematic bias in judging in international dressage events, highlighting how various factors including nationalistic bias and starting order can influence the scores given to horse-rider teams.

Objective of the Research

  • The study aimed to identify if dressage judges at international events exhibit a systematic bias while judging performances. The bias was investigated in relation to certain key parameters such as FEI (International Federation for Equestrian Sports) Ranking, Starting Order, and the nationality of the participants.

Methodology of the Research

  • The research was based on data collected from seven 5* Grand Prix dressage events held between May 2022 and April 2023.
  • A total of 510 judges’ scores were scrutinized using Multivariable Linear Regression Analysis.
  • Five predictor variables were analyzed in relation to the Total Dressage Score (TS). These variables include Home (whether the competition was held in the judge’s home country), Compatriot (whether the rider was from the judge’s country), Same Nationality (whether the judge and rider share the same nationality), FEI Ranking, and the Starting Order of the performers.

Findings of the Research

  • The analysis showed that the chosen model accounted for 44.1% of the variance in TS.
  • Statistically significant bias was found regarding all five predictor variables (FEI Ranking, Starting Order, Compatriot, Same Nationality, Home).
  • The results revealed that judges displayed nationalistic and patriotism-by-proxy biases, awarding higher scores to riders from their own countries.
  • The study also showed that the FEI Ranking and Starting Order significantly influenced the scores awarded by the judges.

Relevance and Implications of the Study

  • The research highlights a serious issue of bias in dressage judging at international events. The biases create a cascade effect, giving an unfair advantage to certain groups of riders, particularly those from the judges’ countries.
  • This systematic bias challenges the fairness and sustainability of the sport, which emphasizes and requires objectivity, transparency, and equine welfare for societal acceptance.
  • Given these findings, the authors push for measures to improve the objectivity of judging in equestrian sports. They suggest developing a system that is more transparent and based on unequivocal, evidence-driven criteria.

Cite This Article

APA
Wolframm I. (2023). Let Them Be the Judge of That: Bias Cascade in Elite Dressage Judging. Animals (Basel), 13(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13172797

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 13
Issue: 17

Researcher Affiliations

Wolframm, Inga
  • Applied Research Centre, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, Larensteinselaan 26-A, 6882 CT Velp, The Netherlands.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 81 references
  1. Stefani R. Predicting Outcomes. In: Bennett J., editor. Statistics in Sport. Arnold; London, UK: 1998. pp. 249–275.
  2. Bar-Eli M, Plessner H, Raab M. Judgment, Decision-Making and Success in Sport. Wiley-Blackwell; Chichester, UK: 2011.
  3. Kittel A, Cunningham I, Larkin P, Hawkey M, Rix-Lièvre G. Decision-Making Training in Sporting Officials: Past, Present and Future. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2021;56:102003.
    doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102003google scholar: lookup
  4. Luck S.J., Vogel E.K.. The Capacity of Visual Working Memory for Features and Conjunctions. Nature 1997;390:279–281.
    doi: 10.1038/36846pubmed: 9384378google scholar: lookup
  5. Marois R, Ivanoff J. Capacity Limits of Information Processing in the Brain. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005;9:296–305.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.010pubmed: 15925809google scholar: lookup
  6. Todd J.J., Marois R. Capacity Limit of Visual Short-Term Memory in Human Posterior Parietal Cortex. Nature 2004;428:751–754.
    doi: 10.1038/nature02466pubmed: 15085133google scholar: lookup
  7. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science 1981;211:453–458.
    doi: 10.1126/science.7455683pubmed: 7455683google scholar: lookup
  8. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 1974;185:1124–1131.
    doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124pubmed: 17835457google scholar: lookup
  9. Makridakis S, Hibon M. The M3-Competition: Results, Conclusions and Implications. Int. J. Forecast. 2000;16:451–476.
    doi: 10.1016/S0169-2070(00)00057-1google scholar: lookup
  10. Bouwens J, Hofmann C, Lechner C. Transparency and Biases in Subjective Performance Evaluation. Account. Transpar. 2022;72:1–42.
    doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4012905google scholar: lookup
  11. Heiniger S, Mercier H. Judging the Judges: A General Framework for Evaluating the Performance of International Sports Judges. arXiv 20181807.10055.
  12. Plessner H, Haar T. Sports Performance Judgments from a Social Cognitive Perspective. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2006;7:555–575.
    doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.03.007google scholar: lookup
  13. Ansorge C.J., Scheer J.K. International Bias Detected in Judging Gymnastic Competition at the 1984 Olympic Games. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 1988;59:103–107.
    doi: 10.1080/02701367.1988.10605486google scholar: lookup
  14. Emerson J.W., Meredith S. Nationalistic Judging Bias in the 2000 Olympic Diving Competition. Math. Horiz. 2011;18:8–11.
    doi: 10.4169/194762111X12954578042812google scholar: lookup
  15. Fenwick I, Chatterjee S. Perception, Preference, and Patriotism: An Exploratory Analysis of the 1980 Winter Olympics. Am. Stat. 1981;35:170–173.
    doi: 10.1080/00031305.1981.10479345google scholar: lookup
  16. Greenlees I, Dicks M, Holder T, Thelwell R. Order Effects in Sport: Examining the Impact of Order of Information Presentation on Attributions of Ability. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2007;8:477–489.
    doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.07.004google scholar: lookup
  17. Rotthoff K.W.. (Not Finding a) Sequential Order Bias in Elite Level Gymnastics. SSRN Electron. J. 2013;3:1–32.
    doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2230038google scholar: lookup
  18. Smith M.J., Greenlees I, Manley A. Influence of Order Effects and Mode of Judgement on Assessments of Ability in Sport. J. Sports Sci. 2009;27:745–752.
    doi: 10.1080/02640410902939647pubmed: 19437187google scholar: lookup
  19. Unkelbach C, Memmert D. Serial-Position Effects in Evaluative Judgments. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2014;23:195–200.
    doi: 10.1177/0963721414533701google scholar: lookup
  20. Findlay L.C., Ste-Marie D.M.. A Reputation Bias in Figure Skating Judging. J. Sport. Exerc. Psychol. 2004;26:154–166.
    doi: 10.1123/jsep.26.1.154google scholar: lookup
  21. Ste-Marie D.M., Valiquette S.M., Taylor G. Memory-Influenced Biases in Gymnastic Judging Occur across Different Prior Processing Conditions. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 2001;72:420–426.
    doi: 10.1080/02701367.2001.10608979pubmed: 11770792google scholar: lookup
  22. Ste-Marie D.M., Valiquette S.M.. Enduring Memory-Influenced Biases in Gymnastic Judging. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 1996;22:1498–1502.
    doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1498google scholar: lookup
  23. Boen F, van Hoye K, Vanden Auweele Y, Feys J, Smits T. Open Feedback in Gymnastic Judging Causes Conformity Bias Based on Informational Influencing. J. Sports Sci. 2008;26:621–628.
    doi: 10.1080/02640410701670393pubmed: 18344133google scholar: lookup
  24. Boen F, Vanden Auweele Y, Claes E, Feys J, De Cuyper B. The Impact of Open Feedback on Conformity among Judges in Rope Skipping. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2006;7:577–590.
    doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.12.001google scholar: lookup
  25. Vanden Auweele Y, Boen F, De Geest A, Feys J. Judging Bias in Synchronized Swimming: Open Feedback Leads to Nonperformance-Based Conformity. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2004;26:561–571.
    doi: 10.1123/jsep.26.4.561google scholar: lookup
  26. Wanderer J.J.. Social Factors in Judges’ Rankings of Competitors in Figure-Skating Championships. J. Sport. Behav. 1987;10:93–102.
  27. Greifeneder R, Bless H, Fiedler K. Social Cognition—How Individuals Construct Social Reality. Routledge; New York, NY, USA: 2018.
  28. Plessner H, Ermark F, Schütz L.-M., Schweizer G. Sports Performance Judgments—An Update from a Social Cognitive Perspective. Asian J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2023;3:13–23.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ajsep.2023.01.002google scholar: lookup
  29. Dallas G, Mavidis A, Chairopoulou C. Influence of Angle of View on Judges’ Evaluations of Inverted Cross in Men’s Rings. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2011;112:109–121.
    doi: 10.2466/05.22.24.27.PMS.112.1.109-121pubmed: 21466084google scholar: lookup
  30. Hüttermann S, Noël B, Memmert D. Evaluating Erroneous Offside Calls in Soccer. PLoS ONE 2017;12:e0174358.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174358pmc: PMC5363904pubmed: 28333996google scholar: lookup
  31. Heiniger S, Mercier H. National Bias of International Gymnastics Judges during the 2013-2016 Olympic Cycle. arXiv 20181807.10033.
  32. Askim K, Knardahl S. The Influence of Affective State on Subjective-Report Measurements: Evidence From Experimental Manipulations of Mood. Front. Psychol. 2021;12:601083.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.601083pmc: PMC7930079pubmed: 33679520google scholar: lookup
  33. Diaz A.E., Johnston M.S., Lucitti J., Neckameyer W.S., Moran K.M. Scoring Variables and Judge Bias in United States Dressage Competitions. J. Quant. Anal. Sport. 2010;6:13.
    doi: 10.2202/1559-0410.1251google scholar: lookup
  34. Hamilton K.L., Lancaster B.E., Hall C. Equine Conflict Behaviors in Dressage and Their Relationship to Performance Evaluation. J. Vet. Behav. 2022;55–56:48–57.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2022.07.011google scholar: lookup
  35. Hawson L.A., McLean A.N., McGreevy P.D. Variability of Scores in the 2008 Olympic Dressage Competition and Implications for Horse Training and Welfare. J. Vet. Behav. 2010;5:170–176.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2009.12.010google scholar: lookup
  36. Sandberg A. Competing Identities: A Field Study of In-group Bias Among Professional Evaluators. Econ. J. 2018;128:2131–2159.
    doi: 10.1111/ecoj.12513google scholar: lookup
  37. Hogg R.C., Hodgins G.A.. Symbiosis or Sporting Tool? Competition and the Horse-Rider Relationship in Elite Equestrian Sports. Animals 2021;11:1352.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11051352pmc: PMC8151029pubmed: 34068606google scholar: lookup
  38. Wolframm I.A., Meulenbroek R.G.J.. Co-Variations between Perceived Personality Traits and Quality of the Interactibetween Female Riders and Horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012;139:96–104.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.03.006google scholar: lookup
  39. Clarke S, Froemming A, Moritz V, Withages M, Zang L. Dressage Handbook Guidelines for Judging. Federation Equestre Internationale; Lausanne, Switzerland: 2007.
  40. Waran N, Visser K. Equine Ethics & Wellbeing Commission, Report to the FEI General Assembly South Africa November 2022. [(accessed on 12 April 2023)].
  41. FEI. Dressage Rules, 26th ed., Effective 1st January 2023. [(accessed on 24 May 2023)].
  42. FEI. FEI Code of Conduct for the Welfare of the Horse. [(accessed on 13 November 2022)].
  43. British Dressage. British Dressage Judges’ Quick Reference Guide. [(accessed on 8 June 2023)].
  44. Hogarth R.M., Einhorn H.J.. Order Effects in Belief Updating: The Belief-Adjustment Model. Cogn. Psychol. 1992;24:1–55.
    doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90002-Jgoogle scholar: lookup
  45. FEI. Dressage Judges’ Supervisory Panel Description and Requirements Document. [(accessed on 22 July 2023)].
  46. Dressage Judging Working Group. Report of the FEI Dressage Judging Working Group. [(accessed on 8 June 2023)].
  47. FEI. Guidelines for the Marking of Fundamental Mistakes in Dressage Movements. [(accessed on 22 July 2023)].
  48. FEI. FEI Dressage Performance Dashboard. [(accessed on 25 July 2023)].
  49. Algra K, Bouter L, Hol A, van Kreveld J. Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. 2018. [(accessed on 26 July 2023)].
  50. FEI. FEI Rankings and Standings. [(accessed on 25 July 2023)].
  51. FEI. Dressage—FEI Dressage World Ranking. [(accessed on 6 August 2023)].
  52. Pallant J. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS. 7th ed. Routledge; London, UK: 2020.
  53. Cohen J.W.. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Hillsdale, NJ, USA: 1988.
  54. Zitzewitz E. Nationalism in Winter Sports Judging and Its Lessons for Organizational Decision Making. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy. 2006;15:67–99.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9134.2006.00092.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  55. Pollard R, Pollard G. Long-Term Trends in Home Advantage in Professional Team Sports in North America and England (1876–2003). J. Sports Sci. 2005;23:337–350.
    doi: 10.1080/02640410400021559pubmed: 16089179google scholar: lookup
  56. Pollard R. Home Advantage in Soccer: A Retrospective Analysis. J. Sports Sci. 1986;4:237–248.
    doi: 10.1080/02640418608732122pubmed: 2884328google scholar: lookup
  57. Morley B, Thomas D. An Investigation of Home Advantage and Other Factors Affecting Outcomes in English One-Day Cricket Matches. J. Sports Sci. 2005;23:261–268.
    doi: 10.1080/02640410410001730133pubmed: 15966344google scholar: lookup
  58. Balmer N, Nevill A, Lane A. Do Judges Enhance Home Advantage in European Championship Boxing?. J. Sports Sci. 2005;23:409–416.
    doi: 10.1080/02640410400021583pubmed: 16089185google scholar: lookup
  59. Baghurst T, Fort I. Subjective Judging and the Home Advantage in Female Collegiate Division I Gymnastics. Women Sport Phys. Act. J. 2008;17:3–7.
    doi: 10.1123/wspaj.17.2.3google scholar: lookup
  60. Tajfel H. Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1982;33:1–39.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245google scholar: lookup
  61. Terry D.J., Hogg M.A.. Group Norms and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship: A Role for Group Identification. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1996;22:776–793.
    doi: 10.1177/0146167296228002google scholar: lookup
  62. Everett J.A.C., Faber N.S., Crockett M. Preferences and Beliefs in Ingroup Favoritism. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2015;9:15.
    doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00015pmc: PMC4327620pubmed: 25762906google scholar: lookup
  63. Hewstone M, Rubin M, Willis H. Intergroup Bias. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002;53:575–604.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109pubmed: 11752497google scholar: lookup
  64. Leyens J.-P., Paladino P.M., Rodriguez-Torres R., Vaes J., Demoulin S., Rodriguez-Perez A., Gaunt R. The Emotional Side of Prejudice: The Attribution of Secondary Emotions to Ingroups and Outgroups. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2000;4:186–197.
    doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06google scholar: lookup
  65. Taylor D.M., Doria J.R.. Self-Serving and Group-Serving Bias in Attribution. J. Soc. Psychol. 1981;113:201–211.
    doi: 10.1080/00224545.1981.9924371google scholar: lookup
  66. Eren O. Potential In-Group Bias at Work: Evidence from Performance Evaluations. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2023;206:296–312.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2022.11.030google scholar: lookup
  67. Shayo M, Zussman A. Judicial Ingroup Bias in the Shadow of Terrorism. Q. J. Econ. 2011;126:1447–1484.
    doi: 10.1093/qje/qjr022google scholar: lookup
  68. Chae J, Kim K, Kim Y, Lim G, Kim D, Kim H. Ingroup Favoritism Overrides Fairness When Resources Are Limited. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:4560.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08460-1pmc: PMC8927613pubmed: 35296722google scholar: lookup
  69. Elder L. British Dressage Rider at World Number One for the First Time since 2016. [(accessed on 6 August 2023)].
  70. Mackay D. British Pair Fry and Glamourdale Claim Top Spots in Revised FEI Dressage World Rankings. [(accessed on 6 August 2023)].
  71. FEI. Jessica von Bredow-Werndl Back on Top of the FEI World Ranking List, Fry Second. [(accessed on 6 August 2023)].
  72. Terry M. British Riders Top All Olympic World Rankings. [(accessed on 6 August 2023)].
  73. Flanagan D.J., O’Shaughnessy K.C.. The Effect of Layoffs on Firm Reputation. J. Manag. 2005;31:445–463.
    doi: 10.1177/0149206304272186google scholar: lookup
  74. Rindova V.P., Williamson I.O., Petkova A.P., Sever J.M.. Being Good or Being Known: An Empirical Examination of the Dimensions, Antecedents, and Consequences of Organizational Reputation. Acad. Manag. J. 2005;48:1033–1049.
    doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.19573108google scholar: lookup
  75. Jones M.V., Paull G.C., Erskine J. The Impact of a Team’s Aggressive Reputation on the Decisions of Association Football Referees. J. Sports Sci. 2002;20:991–1000.
    doi: 10.1080/026404102321011751pubmed: 12477009google scholar: lookup
  76. Higgins E.T.. Knowledge Activation: Accessibility, Applicability, and Salience. In: Higgins E.T., Kruglanski A.W., editors. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. The Guildford Press; New York, NY, USA: 1996. pp. 133–168.
  77. Arnold V., Collier P.A., Leech S.A., Sutton S.G.. The Effect of Experience and Complexity on Order and Recency Bias in Decision Making by Professional Accountants. Account. Financ. 2000;40:109–134.
    doi: 10.1111/1467-629X.00039google scholar: lookup
  78. Asare S.K.. The Auditor’s Going-Concern Decision: Interaction of Task Variables and the Sequential Processing of Evidence. Account. Rev. 1992;67:379–393.
  79. Bruine de Bruin W. Save the Last Dance for Me: Unwanted Serial Position Effects in Jury Evaluations. Acta Psychol. 2005;118:245–260.
    doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.08.005pubmed: 15698823google scholar: lookup
  80. Timoney P.J.. The Increasing Significance of International Trade in Equids and Its Influence on the Spread of Infectious Diseases. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2006;916:55–60.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb05274.xpubmed: 11193671google scholar: lookup
  81. World Horse Welfare. Eurogroup for Animals Removing the Blinkers: The Health and Welfare of European Equidae in 2015. World Horse Welfare; Norwich, UK: 2015.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.