Title: Accusations of Unfairness Bias Subsequent Decisions: A Study of Major League Umpires Authors: Travis J. Carter1*, Erik G. Helzer2. Affiliations: 1Department of Psychology, Colby College. 2The Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. *Correspondence to:
[email protected] Abstract: What happens when decision-makers are accused of bias by an aggrieved party? We examined the ball-and-strike calls of Major League Baseball umpires before and after arguments from players or managers resulting in ejection. Prior to ejection, the accusing team was, in fact, disadvantaged by the home plate umpire’s calls. After the ejection, umpires did not revert to neutrality—they exhibited the opposite bias, advantaging the accusing team. This pattern was only evident when the ejection was related to pitch location, not other kinds of ejections. Using a laboratory analogue of the umpires’ situation, we replicated this post-accusation tendency with experimental participants. This study further revealed that decision-makers were unaware of the shifts in their behavior in response to the accusations, and another survey indicated that this tendency violates beliefs about fairness. These results suggest that performance following accusations may unwittingly succumb to this insidious tendency to favor the accusing party. One Sentence Summary: After being (rightly) accused of biased behavior toward one team, MLB Umpires responded by committing the opposite bias, now giving more favorable calls to the accuser’s team. MANUSCRIPT UNDER REVIEW—PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION 1 Main Text: Among the many responsibilities leaders bear is a commitment to fairness. Perceptions of fairness are important for many organizational and interpersonal outcomes (1–3), and leaders, as decision-makers, find themselves in the unique position to uphold fairness standards.