IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-731740.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In-Group Favoritism and Peer Effects in Wrongful Acquittals: National Basketball Association Referees as Judges

Author

Listed:
  • Naci Mocan
  • Eric Osborne-Christenson

Abstract

We provide the first analysis of racial in-group bias in decision errors. Using player-referee matched data from the National Basketball Association, we show that there is no racial bias or in-group bias in foul calls regardless of whether the call was correct or incorrect. But a player is 27 percent more likely to get away with a foul if the referee is of the same race. Thus, racial in-group bias exists not in the actions of referees but in their inactions, and this effect is driven by black referees. Although higher rates of decision errors impact referees’ playoff assignments, month-to-month adjustment in referees’ behavior occurs only for foul call errors, which are more noticeable. Black referees tend to make errors in favor of black players unless they have two white peer referees. In-group favoritism in white referees’ errors arises only when there are two black peers.

Suggested Citation

  • Naci Mocan & Eric Osborne-Christenson, 2024. "In-Group Favoritism and Peer Effects in Wrongful Acquittals: National Basketball Association Referees as Judges," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(4), pages 731-766.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/731740
    DOI: 10.1086/731740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/731740
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/731740
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/731740?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/731740. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.