This article investigates various types of bias and favoritism that may be present in the performance evaluations of state-licensed and state-selected judges for mixed martial arts (MMA) events. Using detailed fighter performance statistics collected from after-the-fact video analysis, I investigate live, round-by-round judging decisions for major MMA events held in Nevada and California from 2001 to 2012. Findings do not support hypotheses that judge favor titleholders or disfavor fighters given point deductions but do support bias toward larger betting favorites, those with insurmountable leads, and the fighter who won the previous round. Findings provide nonexperimental support for possible biases in a relatively opaque decision environment involving substantial complexity. The results also have strategic implications for MMA fighters and coaches as well as certified judge trainers the athletic commissions that license and oversee the judges.
AmegashieJ.KutsoatiE. (2005). Rematches in boxing and other sporting events. Journal of Sports Economics, 6, 401–411.
2.
AttaliY. (2011). Sequential effects in essay ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 68–79.
3.
BalmerN.NevillA.LaneA. (2005). Do judges enhance home advantage in European championship boxing?Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 409–416.
4.
BertrandM.ChughD.MullainathanS. (2005). Implicit discrimination. American Economic Review, 95, 94–98.
5.
CollierT.JohnsonA.RuggieroJ. (2012). Aggression in mixed martial arts: An analysis of the likelihood of winning a decision. In JewellT. (Ed.), Violence and aggression in sporting contests: Economics, history, and policy (pp. 97–109). New York, NY: Springer.
6.
DamischL.MussweilerT.PlessnerH. (2006). Olympic medals as fruits of comparison? Assimilation and contrast in sequential performance judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 166–178.
7.
DillaW.SteinbartP. (2005). Relative weighting of common and unique balanced scorecard measures by knowledgeable decision makers. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 17, 43–53.
8.
EmersonJ.SeltzerW.LinD. (2009). Assessing judging bias: An example from the 2000 Olympic Games. The American Statistician, 63, 124–131.
GiftP. (2015). Sequential judgment effects in the workplace: Evidence from the National Basketball Association. Economic Inquiry, 53, 1259–1274.
13.
GlejserH.HeyndelsB. (2001). Efficiency and inefficiency in the ranking in competitions: The case of the Queen Elisabeth music contest. Journal of Cultural Economics, 25, 109–129.
14.
GoldinC.RouseC. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90(4), 715–741.
15.
MatherM.JohnsonM. (2000). Choice-supportive source monitoring: Do our decisions seem better to us as we age?Psychology and Aging, 15, 596–606.
MorganH.RotthoffK. (2014). The harder the task, the higher the score: Findings of a difficulty bias. Economic Inquiry, 52, 1014–1026.
18.
New Jersey State Athletic Control Board. (2002). Mixed martial arts unified rules of conduct. NJ.gov. Retrieved January 9, 2013, fromhttp://www.nj.gov/lps/sacb/docs/martial.html
19.
PageL.PageK. (2010). Last shall be first: A field study of biases in sequential performance evaluation on the Idol series. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 73, 186–198.
20.
ParsonsC.SulaemanJ.YatesM.HamermeshD. (2011). Strike three: Discrimination, incentives, and evaluation. American Economic Review, 101, 1410–1435.
21.
PopeD.PriceJ.WolfersJ. (in press). Awareness reduces racial bias. Management Science.
22.
PriceJ.RemerM.StoneD. (2012). Subperfect game: Profitable biases of NBA referees. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 21, 271–300.
23.
Segrest PurkissS.PerreweP.GillespieT.MayesB.FerrisG. (2006). Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgments and decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 152–167.
24.
SeltzerR.GlassW. (1991). International politics and judging in Olympic skating events: 1968–1988. Journal of Sports Behavior, 14, 189–200.
WilsonV. (1977). Objectivity and effect of order of appearance in judging of synchronized swimming meets. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 295–298.
30.
ZitzewitzE. (2006). Nationalism in winter sports judging and its lessons for organizational decision making. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 15, 67–99.
