When trying to be fair goes too far: How awareness reversed bias in cricket
People are often expected to make impartial decisions, whether they are judges in courtrooms, teachers assessing students, managers evaluating employees, or officials overseeing sporting contests. Yet decades of research have shown that decisions can be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by social identities such as nationality, ethnicity, gender, or group affiliation. While policymakers and organisations increasingly use transparency and public scrutiny to reduce such biases, an important question remains: can awareness of potential bias actually change behaviour, and if so, how far can it go?
About our work
The project examines that question using a unique natural experiment from the game of cricket. Historically, international cricket faced concerns that home-country umpires (referees) were more likely to make decisions favouring their own national team. In response, the International Cricket Council (ICC) introduced neutral umpires, and by 2002 all 5-day Test matches were officiated by officials from third countries. During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, travel restrictions forced a temporary return to home-country umpires, creating a rare opportunity to study how officials behave when a well-known source of bias re-emerges under intense public scrutiny.
The research combines behavioural economic theory with detailed data from 153 international Test matches played between 2017 and 2022. The analysis focuses particularly on Leg Before Wicket (LBW) decisions, one of the most subjective and consequential judgments made by umpires in cricket. These decisions must often be made in a fraction of a second and have long been regarded as an area where umpire discretion can influence match outcomes.
The findings challenge conventional expectations. Rather than observing a return of home-team favouritism or elimination of any bias when home umpires were reintroduced, the study finds evidence that awareness and scrutiny changed behaviour in the opposite direction. The traditional home-team advantage in LBW decisions largely disappeared, and in some marginal cases home umpires appeared more likely to make decisions against their own national side. The evidence suggests that officials were consciously attempting to avoid any perception of bias and, in doing so, may have overcompensated.
The behavioural theory proposes that when individuals become highly aware that their decisions are being monitored for potential bias, the reputational costs of appearing partial towards own people increase. As a result, decision-makers may move beyond neutrality and begin favouring the opposite side in order to show fairness. The empirical evidence from cricket is consistent with this prediction and demonstrates that awareness can not only reduce identity-driven bias but, under some circumstances, reverse it.
The implications extend well beyond sport. Similar concerns arise in courts, educational settings, workplaces, hiring decisions, promotion panels, and public institutions. The results suggest that transparency, accountability, and public awareness campaigns can be powerful tools for reducing discrimination. At the same time, they highlight an important behavioural insight: interventions designed to eliminate bias may sometimes create incentives for overcorrection. Understanding this balance is crucial for designing fair and effective institutions.
Outputs
Chowdhury, S. M., Jewell, S., & Singleton, C. (2024). Can awareness reduce (and reverse) identity-driven bias in judgement? Evidence from international cricket. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 226, 106697.