Losing the blame game: automated officiating, team identification and fan attribution of losses

Purpose This study examines how automated officiating affects fans' attribution of negative game outcomes and team satisfaction, with particular attention to the role of team identification. Drawing on Social Identity Theory and Attribution Theory, we propose that automated officiating reduces the availability and credibility of external blame targets, constraining identity-protective attributions and exposing highly identified fans to greater psychological costs. Design/methodology/approach A single-factor (officiating type: human vs. automated) between-subjects experiment was conducted with 577 MLB fans. We measured participants' supported team and team identification, followed by a manipulation using a simulated playoff loss scenario involving either a human umpire or the Automated Ball-Strike (ABS) system. Then, internal attribution, team satisfaction and preferred post-loss remedies were measured. Hypothesis testing was performed using ANOVA, regression and conditional process analysis. Findings Fans in the ABS condition made significantly more internal attributions than those in the human umpire condition. Internal attributions negatively affected team satisfaction and also mediated the relationship between officiating type and team satisfaction. Team identification moderated these effects, with more highly identified fans showing a stronger shift toward internal attribution and a larger indirect reduction in team satisfaction. Originality/value This study identifies a boundary condition for the identity-protective function of team identification, showing that its benefits depend on the availability of credible external attribution targets. By demonstrating that automated officiating shifts fans' attributional patterns away from the officiating system and toward the team itself, the findings show the psychological consequences of technological innovation in sport officiating.