Psychology of Sport & Exercise 80 (2025) 102899

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Psychology of Sport & Exercise

The psychology of sport officiating

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Sport officials are key actors in organized and competitive sports. With numerous required tasks (e.g., attending
Referees to athlete safety and applying fair decisions), sport officials must possess several competencies including
Umpires appropriate positioning, adequate fitness, excellent rule knowledge, and contextual judgement. To enhance the
Judges
consistency and quality of sport officiating performances, psychological skills are also required. The purpose of
Performance
Mental skills
this article is to broadly review the research as it pertains to the psychology of sport officiating. After outlining
sport officials’ roles, we describe relevant models and theories that have been applied to sport officiating
research—some of which are specific to sport officials, while others are drawn from general psychology.
Following, we provide insights on key studies that form the evidence base for understanding sport officials’
psychology, including mental skills, motivation, group dynamics, communication, and decision-making. The
final section offers direction to future researchers to overcome some of the challenges in this field. These
challenges include relatively few studies on sport officials from individual sports, a lack of demographic diversity
among the studied sport officials, little investigation into sport officials’ mental skills, and minimal theories that
exist to predict and explain the psychology of sport officiating. Collectively, we hope this article not only inspires
more research on the psychology of sport officiating, but also offers strategic direction to future researchers to
ensure meaningful studies in this field.

Sport officials are individuals who are responsible for adjudicating To excel at sport officiating, an individual must possess several
competitions and include referees, umpires, judges, and timekeepers characteristics. Mascarenhas, Collins, and Mortimer (2005) described
(Webb et al., 2024). Collectively, sport officials are charged with these characteristics as “cornerstones” for sport officiating performance,
ensuring fair competitions, enhancing athlete safety, and applying the which included: (a) knowledge/application of rules, (b) fitness and
rules of their respective sports. The application of these duties varies positioning, (c) personality and game management (i.e., able to effec­
depending on the nature of their sports. Responding to this variation, tively communicate with athletes and coaches), and (d) contextual
Plessner and MacMahon (2013) created a system to categorize sport judgement (i.e., apply rules flexibly based on the situational demands of
officials, based on their interactions with athletes, location within the the competition). Whereas some of these characteristics are more/less
competitive environment, and decision-making demands. First, inter­ salient depending on one’s sport officiating role, Mascarenhas et al.
actors (e.g., soccer referees) are sport officials who are in the competi­ posited psychological excellence (e.g., distraction control, goal setting,
tion environment, regularly communicate with athletes, and have and imagery) as an overarching characteristic that is important to all
several decision-making responsibilities. Second, monitors (e.g., gym­ sport officials’ performances, without which, performance would suffer.
nastics judges) include those sport officials who remain outside the The remainder of this article is dedicated to explaining the psychology of
competition environment, infrequently communicate with athletes, and sport officiating, including important theories, existing literature, chal­
make numerous decisions and judgements. Third, reactors (e.g., tennis lenges in the field, and future research avenues.
line judges) remain outside the competition environment, typically do We consider “psychology of sport officiating” to be the characteris­
not communicate with athletes, and frequently focus on one or two tics that influence mental performance. This places the focus on cogni­
decisions (e.g., judging whether a served ball was in or out). tive components of performance (e.g., focus, imagery, and motivation),

This article is part of a special issue entitled: PSE 25th Anniversary published in Psychology of Sport & Exercise.
* Corresponding author. 230 Elizabeth Avenue, Room: PE #2308, St. John’s, NL, A1C 5S7, Canada.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D.J. Hancock).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2025.102899
Received 7 February 2025; Received in revised form 23 April 2025; Accepted 28 May 2025
Available online 28 May 2025
1469-0292/© 2025 Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.
D.J. Hancock and A. Pizzera Psychology of Sport & Exercise 80 (2025) 102899

as opposed to physical demands—though we certainly recognize that and relatedness), they are more likely to be retained. Second, sport of­
physical demands might interact with mental performance (e.g., phys­ ficials meet the designated requirements (Carron & Eys, 2012) to be
ical fatigue can reduce decision-making accuracy). As our focus is per­ considered groups, both as an in-competition micro group and an
formance psychology, this article excludes negative mental health organizational macro group (Hancock et al., 2018, 2024). Consequently,
outcomes (e.g., depression). Early work in this field (e.g., Weinberg & certain group dynamics theories have been successfully applied to sport
Richardson, 1990) applied sport psychology principles (e.g., officials to understand the psychology of their groups. This includes
self-confidence and communication) to sport officials—often based on studies on shared mental models (Sinval et al., 2020), the
evidence gleaned from athletes. Since then, there have been consider­ cohesion-performance relationship (Hancock et al., 2024), and the
able advancements in our understanding of the psychology of sport group environment (Hancock et al., 2024). Third, decision-making (a
officiating, with an uptick in research on sport officials themselves. cognitive task) is the central component to sport officiating performance
in all sports. It is not surprising that several researchers have applied
1. Sport officiating models and relevant theories decision-making theories to sport officiating, including the
social-cognitive approach (Plessner & Haar, 2006), embodied cognition
Relative to athletes and coaches, the attention that researchers direct (Pizzera, 2015), and signal detection theory (MacMahon et al., 2007).
toward the psychology of sport officiating is limited. Owing to this, the Recent attempts have been made to develop decision-making models
volume of theoretical development regarding sport officials’ psychology specific to sport officials (e.g., the threshold process model, Raab et al.,
is underwhelming, with reliance on certain elements of sport officiating 2021; Expanded Sport Official’s Decision-Making Model, Kostrna &
models, as well as psychological theories from other disciplines. As Tenenbaum, 2022), but research testing their validity is limited.
noted, Mascarenhas, Collins, and Mortimer (2005) provided a model to Collectively, this demonstrates that research on the psychology of sport
demonstrate the foundational skills required of effective sport officials, officiating is reliant on existing interdisciplinary theories, rather than
with psychological excellence as a central theme. Guillén and Feltz contemporary, domain-specific theories guided by evidence from sport
(2011) advanced the psychology of sport officiating with a conceptual officiating.
model on sport officials’ efficacy. Generated from a focus group with
sport officials, the authors documented similar dimensions as Mascare­ 2. Notable evidence and literature
nhas et al., but also considered sources of efficacy (e.g., goal setting,
arousal regulation, past performances, and task familiarity) and out­ Since the earliest studies on the psychology of sport officiating were
comes in their model. Myers et al. (2012) extended this work by published over 50 years ago (e.g., Faulkner & Loken, 1962), it can be
developing and validating a sport officials self-efficacy scale. Unfortu­ daunting for a newcomer scientist to grasp the scope of the extant
nately, it appears that sport officiating researchers have not used the literature. This article is not intended to be a comprehensive review of
conceptual model or scale to better understand sport officials’ all aspects of the psychology of sport officiating—the field is much too
self-efficacy. In recent years, a few models have been created that focus broad to achieve that in one article. Instead, the authors took a selective
on the psychology of decision-making. For instance, Schrödter et al. approach to this review. First, the authors reviewed foundational works
(2024) proposed a three-stage decision flow model that attempts to in sport officiating research that outlined important research areas for
explain how interactor officials apply competition rules while balancing the psychology of sport officiating (i.e., Hancock et al., 2021; MacMahon
game management and fairness. Samuel et al. (2024) outlined several et al; Mascarenhas, Collins, & Mortimer, 2005; Webb et al., 2024). This
variables that impacted sport officials’ psychological performances and led to a broad list of topics that could be relevant for the review. Second,
developed an attention allocation model to guide their decisions. Simi­ using their expertise (each author has published on sport officiating
larly, Hoffman et al. (2024) created the Game Management Framework psychology for over a decade), the authors narrowed the list of topics to
for Sports Refereeing, which is a non-empirical framework for under­ those that would be most beneficial for new researchers to the field to
standing the tasks of interactor sport officials. The model shares similar understand. Third, the authors responded to valuable reviewer feedback
constructs to Mascarenhas et al., and includes some elements related to to ensure a comprehensive review of topics; this process resulted in the
the psychology of sport officiating, such as decision-making and addition of several articles for this review. Through this approach, we
communication. Lastly, while the FTEM-O (MacMahon & Weissen­ believe this article provides a strong overview and guidance to new
steiner, 2024) provides an outline of sport officiating development, its researchers in this field, while also offering challenges and future di­
latest iteration includes the 3DOD (Three-Dimensional Officiating rections for experienced sport officiating researchers. In particular, we
Development). Therein, the authors highlight “mindset” as a variable focus on mental skills, motivations to begin, continue and quit, group
within the individual level, including key psychological constructs such dynamics, communication, and decision-making.
as self-regulation, coping, confidence, and arousal control. The outlined
models constitute initial forays into the psychology of sport officiating. 2.1. Mental skills
Important as the models are, limits still exist. Primarily, the models tend
to focus on team sports, as is evidenced by the narrow term “referee” Mental skills refer to the strategies enacted by performers to optimize
used in four of the models. Second, the model authors described char­ mental performance. These skills are imperative to sport officials, who
acteristics related to the psychology of sport officiating, but unlike often execute their duties in high-pressure, time-constrained environ­
substantive theories, little is offered in terms of explaining, predicting, ments. Whereas many authors had explored the general psychology of
and guiding the acquisition and implementation of sport officials’ psy­ sport officiating (e.g., personality: Fratzke, 1975; stressors: Rainey &
chological skills. Hardy, 1997), Mathers and Brodie (2011) were among the first to
To account for this shortfall, sport officiating researchers often rely examine mental skills specifically. The authors developed a case study
on interdisciplinary theories. Herein, our goal is not to fully explain intervention approach with one elite European soccer referee. Through
these theories, as that is done elsewhere in non-sport officiating litera­ his engagement in mental skills training, the participant witnessed
ture. Instead, our aim is to outline a few of these theories and how they notable improvements in imagery, productive self-talk, arousal regula­
have been applied to the psychology of sport officiating. First, Self- tion, and productive pre-match routines—which led to enhanced con­
Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2008) has evolved as a fidence and performance. Several intervention studies followed Mathers
meaningful theory for sport officiating research, particularly to explain and Brodie; all targeted soccer referees and found similar results:
sport officials’ motivations to begin, continue, and or/quit (e.g., Gray & engaging in mental skills training improved referees’ mental toughness
Wilson, 2013). These studies (and others) support that when sport of­ (Slack et al., 2015), confidence (Blumenstein & Orbach, 2014; Slack
ficials’ basic psychological needs are met (i.e., autonomy, competence, et al., 2015), coping/relaxation (Blumenstein & Orbach, 2014; Mudian

2
D.J. Hancock and A. Pizzera Psychology of Sport & Exercise 80 (2025) 102899

et al., 2021), emotional regulation (Mudian et al., 2021), and perfor­ perceived locus of causality) were correlated with most of the RRS
mance (Blumenstein & Orbach, 2014; Mudian et al., 2021; Slack et al., subscales (administrator consideration [autonomy], intrinsic motives,
2015). sense of community [relatedness] and continuing education [compe­
Despite encouraging results regarding sport officials’ acquisition and tence]). Importantly, their results showed that increases in BNSSS scores
implementation of mental skills through interventions, the extent to predicted an increased likelihood to remain as sport officials.
which sport officials develop mental skills of their own volition is not Other psychological concepts also help our understanding of sport
well known. Slack et al. (2014) identified that elite soccer referees had officials’ motivations to begin, continue, and quit. Bernal et al. (2012),
developed strategies to enhance mental toughness, often relying on a for instance, documented that sport officials’ initial motivations to begin
calm demeanor and clear communication. In another study, Nazarudin (i.e., for the love of the sport) transformed into passion for sport offici­
et al. (2014) identified that elite rugby referees had established strate­ ating, which likely led to continuation. Elsewhere, sport officiating
gies that enhanced coping skills, imagery, goal setting, arousal regula­ passion has been shown to influence sport officials’ emotions and re­
tion, and confidence. Meanwhile, Giske et al. (2016) noted that 69 % of sponses to performance errors (Philippe et al., 2009)—clearly this is an
participants (sub-elite and elite soccer referees) were self-educated on important psychological variable for sport officials. Possessing resilience
mental skills training, mostly focused on cultivating imagery, focus, and is also crucial for sport officials, who often face adversity when
self-talk. Responding to the gap in previous research, Coady and Han­ executing their tasks. Livingston and Forbes (2016, 2017) demonstrated
cock, 2024) broadly explored elite ice hockey officials’ mental skills. that resilience was high among sport officials who had remained in the
Participants reported numerous mental skills that facilitated their per­ profession, though it remains unclear if sport officials naturally have
formances, but noted that most of their skills were self-learned. In fact, high resilience, or build resilience through sport officiating experiences.
participants reported that it was incumbent on sport organizations to Nevertheless, there have been calls for interventions that enhance sport
offer mental skills training to their sport officials, which they believed officials’ resilience, which might increase intentions to continue sport
would improve retention and overall performance at all levels of sport. officiating (Kim et al., 2024). Lastly, self-efficacy (which has strong links
In sum, it is evident that mental skills training is imperative for elite to competence; see Lirgg et al., 2016 for a review), sport commitment
team sport officials’ performances. Based on this, and given that youth (Barnhill et al., 2018), and satisfaction (Giel & Breuer, 2023) all appear
athletes’ performances benefit from mental skills training (Knight et al., to be vital to sport officials’ motivations.
2017), we contend that the importance of mental skills training extends The motivations to continue or quit as sport officials are deeply
to non-elite, individual, and youth sport officials, despite the fact that embedded within basic psychological needs, and appear related to
these populations are understudied. In the absence of such evidence, we passion, resilience, self-efficacy, commitment, and satisfaction as well.
rely on existing athlete literature and encourage sport organizations to For sport organizations, this can provide some guidance on steps to
establish mental skills training programs for sport officials, beginning at enact that might enhance retention (e.g., implementing practices that
grassroots and extending to the highest ranks. build social connections among sport officials). While it appears that
these psychological constructs also influence motivations to begin sport
2.2. Motivations to begin, continue, and quit officiating, the research in this area is minimal. This identifies a gap, and
we encourage future researchers to intentionally explore how basic
Worldwide, organizations are struggling to provide enough qualified psychological needs, passion, resilience, self-efficacy, commitment, and
sport officials to meet the demands of competitive sports. In Canada, for satisfaction can be leveraged to enhance sport officials’ motivations to
instance, the number of ice hockey officials dropped 27 % between 2011 begin and continue, rather than quit.
and 2022, while the number of soccer officials decreased 38 % from
2016 to 2021 (Canada Soccer, 2019; 2022; Hockey Canada, 2011, 2.3. Group dynamics
2022). Similar trends exist in the United States, with it being described
as a sport officiating crisis (Niehoff, 2021). Whereas the issue of sport The psychology of sport officiating groups is a burgeoning field of
officials’ recruitment/retention is often viewed through a sport man­ study, as both researchers and practitioners are realizing the importance
agement lens, the research below demonstrates how this issue is rooted of a quality group dynamic for optimizing sport officials’ performances.
within sport psychology. Carron and Eys (2012) established five requisite criteria to constitute a
Researchers have made efforts to understand why sport officials group: (a) self-categorization, (b) common fate, (c) mutual benefit, (d)
begin, continue, and quit. A recurring theme is that researchers have social structure, and (e) quality interactions. Based on this definition,
uncovered motivational principles with strong connections to SDT (Deci sport officiating organizations can be considered groups, though
& Ryan, 2008). Gray and Wilson (2008) were among the first to inte­ research on these larger groups is non-existent. Instead, the focus herein
grate SDT with sport officiating retention, noting that perceived relat­ is on in-competition groups.
edness with other sport officials predicted the likelihood to continue Hancock et al. (2018) studied group characteristics among ice
among track and field officials. In a follow-up study, Gray and Wilson hockey officials, finding evidence of Carron and Eys’ (2012) five criteria.
(2013) strengthened these results by noting all three basic psychological For self-categorization, participants described feeling part of a team on
needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) influenced track the ice, and the pride that came along with serving that role—especially
and field officials’ motivations to continue. Subsequent studies lend in important games. Participants spoke to common fate through their
further support to the connection to SDT, even if not all explicitly descriptions of collective decision-making, noting that if one official
applied the SDT framework to their research. For instance, Hancock made an error, it reflected poorly on the entire group. Mutual benefit
et al. (2015) outlined intrinsic motivation, relatedness, and lack of au­ was evident through participants’ descriptions of support and sense of
tonomy as key reasons for sport officials to begin, continue, and quit, belonging, which were frequently relied upon during games. As with
respectively—results that are supported by several other researchers (e. many sport officials, participants outlined a social structure to their
g., Forbes & Livingston, 2013; Livingston & Forbes, 2016). More on-ice groups, differentiating between referees and linespersons, as well
recently, Sunde et al. (2024) conducted a comprehensive study exam­ as senior and junior officials. Lastly, participants shared experiences
ining female sport officials’ (28 sports represented) basic needs and related to task and social communication, which exemplified quality
motivations. A key aspect to this study was the use of the Basic Needs interactions. Beyond these five characteristics, ice hockey officials
Satisfaction in Sport Scale (BNSSS; Ng et al., 2011) and the Referee described feelings of transience (i.e., working with different partners
Retention Scale (RRS; Ridinger et al., 2017). Through the administration from one night to the next) and intra-team competition (i.e., competing
of these questionnaires, the authors identified that all five subscales of with other officials for playoff assignments) as influencing their per­
the BNSSS (competence, relatedness, choice, volition, and internal ceptions of their sport officiating group. Though this study was specific

3
D.J. Hancock and A. Pizzera Psychology of Sport & Exercise 80 (2025) 102899

to ice hockey officials, it is not difficult to imagine how generalizable authoritative messaging, without being domineering. Lastly, partici­
these results are to other sport officials. In fact, other researchers have pants stressed the importance of adapting communication to the situa­
also demonstrated that American football and soccer officials perceived tion and the needs of the competition (Cunningham et al.). This included
themselves to belong to groups, though these studies did not apply the reading the intentions of the athletes, understanding the context of the
Carron and Eys framework (Nordstrom et al., 2016; Webb et al., 2020). competition (e.g., time and score of the competition), and choosing an
Despite identifying as groups, it was still unclear if typical group appropriate communication style (e.g., assertive versus humorous).
dynamics influenced sport officials in a similar fashion to athletes. As an Following their earlier research, Cunningham et al. (2018) explored
example, among athletes, when group cohesion increases, so does per­ sport officials’ face-work (i.e., actions people take to present and
formance, which leads to further increases in group cohesion (e.g., maintain a certain persona or image; Huang, 2014). The authors argued
Carron et al., 2002). Exploring if this pattern persists among sport offi­ that face-work is at the heart of sport officiating communication, as sport
cials would provide important insights to sport officiating organizations officials are constantly making and then defending their decisions while
that could influence their efforts to facilitate group cohesion, as well as trying to maintain an appearance of impartiality and fairness. A key
assign sport officials to competitions who work together cohesively. result of Cunningham et al.’s study was identifying that skilled sport
Responding to this, Hancock et al. (2024) investigated the officiating communicators anticipated athletes’ reactions, and
cohesion-performance relationship among sport officials from nine pre-planned optimal communication, rather than being reactive. Addi­
sports. Therein, a consistent pattern emerged: as perceptions of group tionally, allowing athletes to save face (e.g., empathizing and gaining
cohesion increased, so too did self-rated performance. Similarly, in­ agreement) was deemed critical, since it helped athletes and sport offi­
creases in group cohesion led to increases in group satisfaction. Another cials to create a synergy around how the competition would be
common group process among athletes is the establishment and imple­ officiated.
mentation of shared mental models (e.g., coordinated plans, actions, and Though less studied, non-verbal communication from sport officials
efforts). Since sport officials operate as groups and have a collective task represents a crucial element of their roles (Mellick et al., 2005).
during their performances, it stands to reason that shared mental models Non-verbal communication can include blowing a whistle, making sig­
are relevant to this population. Supporting this, a number of researchers nals, commanding presence, or displaying body language. Furley and
have demonstrated the salience of shared mental models for efficacious Schweitzer (2016) demonstrated the importance of non-verbal
sport officiating (e.g., Aragão e Pina et al., 2021; Sinval et al., 2020). communication among soccer referees. Specifically, they sought to un­
The identification of sport officials as groups has far-reaching im­ derstand how sport officials’ non-verbal communication behaviors
plications for the psychology of sport officiating. Group constitution and influenced others’ perceptions of the sport officials’ confidence. During
processes are laden with psychological principles, some of which are ambiguous decisions, participants perceived that sport officials’
apparent in sport officiating groups. By establishing this connection, it non-verbal communication behaviors displayed less confidence, and as a
has opened a wealth of opportunities for future research that could result, the participants were more likely to debate the decisions. Given
further identify and explain the influence of psychology on sport offi­ that these results align with general principles of non-verbal commu­
ciating groups. This could include studies related to group performance nication, it is plausible that similar results exist for sport officials outside
(e.g., enhancing shared mental models or exploring the influence of task of soccer as well.
and social cohesion on the group) or group construction (e.g., role Understandably, communication—be it verbal or non-verbal—is a
clarity, role acceptance, and leadership), both of which would enhance critical psychological skill for many sport officials. From the afore­
our knowledge surrounding the psychology of sport officiating groups. mentioned studies, it is evident that skilled sport officiating communi­
cators must display calmness, composure, confidence, and
2.4. Communication respectfulness. Further, the most skilled sport officiating communicators
are able to anticipate athletes’ interactions, enabling proactive and
Communication is a vital skill for many sport officials (Simmons, empathetic communications. Lastly, non-verbal communication is
2010). Especially in team sports, sport officials communicate decisions paramount, as it can enhance others’ perceptions of the sport official’s
(verbally and/or non-verbally), interact with athletes, coaches, and confidence. All of these actions provide a foundation for athletes’ and
other sport officials, and establish their presence through body language coaches’ perceptions of sport officials’ fairness and competence, which
and self-presentation (Mellick et al., 2005; Simmons, 2010). Early work is important in sport (Burgers et al., 2022; Simmons, 2010). Neverthe­
in this field established common principles for sport officials’ effective less, the research on sport officials’ communication is in its infancy, and
use of communication: consistency, unambiguity, calmness, a sense of further studies are warranted that broaden the research to individual
control, and interpersonal skills (e.g., Weinberg & Richardson, 1990). and other team sports. Future topics could include sport officials’ com­
That is, sport officials who possessed these skills were more likely to munications in grassroots sports, interactions between sport officiating
engage in effective communication with athletes and coaches. As teams and other teams (e.g., Video Assistant Referees), as well as
research in the field continued, further exemplar characteristics were training interventions and the acquisition of communication skills.
identified, which included the ability to explain decisions (Mellick et al.,
2005), respectfulness (Simmons, 2010), honesty (Dosseville et al., 2.5. Decision-making
2014), and composure (Furley & Schweitzer, 2016). These studies are
important as they certified the legitimacy of research on sport officials’ Regardless of the sport, decision-making is the crux of sport offici­
communications; further, principles highlighted in these studies (i.e., ating. For many sport officials, this includes decisions on where to po­
posture, hand signals; Mellick et al., 2005; Simmons, 2010) could be sition oneself, how to communicate with athletes, and which infractions
adopted by many sport officials in an effort to improve communication. should be penalized. In other sports, decisions include determining
A few studies on this topic provided further, tangible insights. Cun­ whether a play was in or out, measuring time or distance, and making
ningham et al. (2014), for instance, described sport officials’ skilled judgements on athletes’ form. No matter the context (i.e., from grass­
interactions in detail. There, the authors noted certain personalities roots to professional sport), decision-making is pervasive for sport offi­
(amiable, confident, and in control) facilitated communication, and cials. Documenting the scope of decision-making, Helsen and Bultynck
through such communication, athletes and coaches believed that the (2004) noted that top-tier soccer referees made, on average, 44 solo
sport official was effective, even when disagreements arose. Another observable decisions per match, though this does not account for all the
result from this study was identifying that one-way communication unobserved decisions (e.g., not awarding an infraction, or choosing a
constituted the majority of sport officials’ communications (Cunning­ position on the pitch). To grasp the sheer volume of sport officials’ de­
ham et al.). As such, sport officials needed to ensure concise and cisions, Neville et al. (2017) studied Australian Rules football umpires.

4
D.J. Hancock and A. Pizzera Psychology of Sport & Exercise 80 (2025) 102899

The authors found that, as a crew, umpires had approximately 300 de­ researchers typically create sport-specific videos and have sport offi­
cision moments per match, though again, this did not include decisions cials—sometimes while wearing an eye-tracking device—make de­
on where to position oneself on the pitch. Based on the volume of de­ cisions related to infractions (e.g., soccer penalties) or performance
cisions sport officials must make, combined with the speed at which they judgements (e.g., figure skating technique). Findings included that on­
must make them (e.g., judging a diving performance), Ste-Marie (2003) line training improved assistant soccer referees’ offside decisions (Put
posited that sport officials are likely reaching their limits for effectively et al., 2013) and that viewing slow-motion videos improved the central
processing information. Suffice to say that understanding the psychol­ soccer referees’ decision accuracy (Spitz et al., 2017). The benefit of
ogy that underpins sport officials’ decision-making is imperative. Since video-based methods is an enhanced understanding of decision-making
the literature on sport officials’ decisions is quite substantial, it is processes (e.g., flash-lag effects and visual search behaviors), though the
impractical to attempt to review it all here. Instead, the focus is to (a) ecological validity of such tasks remains problematic. This is an
outline some of the guiding principles behind sport officials’ decisions, important consideration, as Mascarenhas, Collins, Mortimer, et al.
(b) highlight how researchers study sport officials’ decision-making, and (2005) noted that studying sport officials’ decisions in their natural
(c) describe some of the influences on sport officials’ decisions. environment is imperative to understanding the decision-making pro­
Plessner and Haar (2006) applied the social-cognitive approach to cess. This leads into immersive technologies, which includes 360◦ videos
understanding sport officials’ judgements. This approach examines the and virtual reality decision-making tasks (e.g., Kittel et al., 2019, 2021;
way in which individuals construct their realities (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). van Biemen et al., 2023). Here, ecological validity is enhanced, as videos
Since this is a subjective process (e.g., influenced by one’s experiences, are often taken from a sport official’s perspective, and the simulated
demographics, personality, etc.), it is argued that biases exist when environment has a high amount of fidelity to the actual task. Unfortu­
people interpret the world around them. Plessner and Haar reasoned nately, whereas sport officiating research explains how sport officials
that the same principles apply to sport officials’ judgements. That is, can acquire decision-making skills, many sport officials (e.g., grassroots
judgements are subject to a number of influences including home sport officials) do not have access to such training methods, leaving a
advantage (e.g., Dawson et al., 2020), team reputation (e.g., Jones et al., gap in our understanding of how sport officials actually acquire
2002), and the sport officials’ prior history with athletes/teams (e.g., decision-making.
Ste-Marie & Lee, 1991), to name a few. The presence of such influences As referenced above, several psychological factors influence sport
on decision-making should be expected, as sport officials—consciously officials’ decisions. Larkin et al. (2024) categorized these as four types of
or unconsciously—rely on methods to circumvent limits on information biases.1 First is reputation or expectation bias. This was demonstrated in
processing speeds (Ste-Marie, 2003). In fact, MacMahon and Mildenhall judged sports, where previous encounters led judges to have pre-existing
(2012) proposed that sport officials likely employ the use of heuristics expectations for athletes’ performances (Findlay & Ste-Marie, 2004).
(methods to simplify cognitions) to make quick decisions. As an Similarly, judges’ expectations can be shaped by competition order, as
example, when a soccer player who has a reputation for illegal tackles better athletes typically perform last in many aesthetic sports (Plessner
makes forcible contact with an opponent, the referee might use that & MacMahon, 2013). Team sport officials are not immune to such in­
information to simplify their decision-making process and award a foul. fluences, as supported by Jones et al.’s (2002) research showing that
Extending this research, Raab et al. (2021) proposed that interactor soccer referees awarded more cards to athletes with reputations for
sport officials set “decision thresholds” (a form of heuristics) as a means being aggressive. Second is home bias, which seems to be limited to
to determine acceptable/unacceptable acts from athletes. These team sports. Generally, research in this area demonstrated that sport
thresholds are influenced by the context of the competitions, such as officials’ decisions tend to favor the home team, evidenced by home
competition location, score, previous fouls, and remaining time. For teams in soccer being awarded more penalties (Boyko et al., 2007) and
instance, in a field hockey game, the referee might be more likely to additional stoppage time when trailing at the end of a match (Garicano
penalize athletes when the score differential is more than five goals with et al., 2005). Third, sport officials might be influenced by competition
less than 10 min remaining, compared to a scenario where the score is circumstances (e.g., televised competitions), with anxiety playing a role.
tied with 2 min remaining. Whereas the aforementioned studies Specifically, high-anxiety basketball referees were more influenced by
consider the in-competition decision-making approach adopted by sport home crowds during televised competitions (Sors et al., 2019), and
officials, some researchers have also questioned the philosophical role of Australian rules football umpires were more accurate when the score
sport officials’ decisions. Therein, authors contend that—through their difference was larger (Corrigan et al., 2019)—with the implication that
decision-making—sport officials’ main task is to act as moral guardians umpires’ anxiety is likely lower during such competition circumstances.
(Chapron and Rix-Lièvre, 2014) or facilitators (Russell et al., 2025) of Fourth, sequential biases exist for sport officials, whereby previous de­
competitions. Taken together, these studies magnify that cisions influence later decisions. Plessner and Betsch (2001) studied
decision-making for sport officials is a complicated, cognitive process. soccer referees and showed that the decision to award a penalty kick was
Before describing specific influences on sport officials’ decisions, it is influenced by previous match decisions. In particular, referees were less
beneficial to summarize how this knowledge has been created. Three likely to award a second penalty kick to the same team, but more likely
main research methods exist: archival accounts of sport officials’ de­ to award a penalty kick to a team when the opposing team had already
cisions, implementation of video-based decision-making tasks, and use been granted a penalty kick.
of immersive technology. Some of the earliest research (e.g., Faulkner & It is evident that psychological principles influence sport officials’
Loken, 1962) on sport officials leveraged data archives to glean insights decision-making, which is their fundamental task. Through the lens of
into decision-making processes. For this method, researchers typically the social-cognitive approach, it is clear that sport officials adopt heu­
inspect athletes’ outcomes (e.g., judged scores in gymnastics, or number ristics, which enables them to manage the cognitive/information pro­
of penalties in ice hockey) and then make inferences about decision cessing load that coincides with quick decisions. The use of heuristics,
accuracy or influences (e.g., nationality bias in gymnastics or sequential though, might also explain why many biases exist for sport officials.
bias in ice hockey). Over the past several decades, researchers have Researchers have spent considerable efforts to explore and understand
continued to employ such methods (e.g., Anderson & Pierce, 2009). sport officials’ decisions, yet much can be learned with more research on
While resultant studies have contributed to the growing knowledge base this important topic. The increased use of immersive technologies to
on sport officials’ decisions, they are limited by the fact that the studies
do not test decision-making or include sport officials as active partici­
pants. As technology advanced, researchers implemented video-based 1
It is imperative that “bias” is not conflated with “intentional” or even
decision-making tasks for sport officials (e.g., Bard et al., 1980; Cat­ “conscious”. Rather, bias simply indicates there is an existing prejudice, which
teeuw et al., 2010; Hancock & Ste-Marie, 2013). For this paradigm, in sport, might favor one team or athlete.

5
D.J. Hancock and A. Pizzera Psychology of Sport & Exercise 80 (2025) 102899

create ecologically-valid decision paradigms is an important step to Third, due to the special circumstances of competition (e.g., high-
understanding how sport officials make decisions, and what influences pressure, heavily scrutinized, constantly focused), the task of sport
those decisions. As noted elsewhere in this article, expanding research officiating necessitates excellent mental skills. Through effective mental
efforts on monitors’ and reactors’ decisions would also be valuable. skills training, sport officials can acquire and apply relevant skills
Perhaps most important, though, is intervention studies that aim to learn including goal setting, focus/concentration, imagery, confidence, and
how sport officials acquire decision-making skills, particularly for new arousal regulation. Though some researchers have explored sport offi­
and developing sport officials. Though implicit learning likely plays a cials’ mental skills (e.g., Coady & Hancock, 2024; Slack et al., 2015),
role in the acquisition process, understanding how to explicitly train there is a notable absence of studies on applied sport psychology in­
decision-making would be of benefit. terventions with sport officials as the sample. The recent Gold Medal
Profile of Sport Psychology (Durand-Bush et al., 2023) could be a salient
3. Challenges and future directions model to guide researchers as they explore sport psychology principles
among sport officials. However, we urge that this is merely used as a
The attention directed toward research surrounding the psychology guide for the fundamental skills to be investigated and applied. This is
of sport officiating has intensified over the past two decades (Hancock due to the authors’ experiences of doing applied sport psychology with
et al., 2021); nevertheless, several challenges remain. A fundamental sport officials and recognizing that how they implement mental skills
issue is that, worldwide, few academics have sport officiating—let alone often differs from that of athletes. This is not to say sport officials do not
the psychology of sport officiating—as their primary research line. have opportunities to implement mental skills; merely that they some­
Perhaps this is not surprising, since governing bodies and external fun­ times differ in their implementation from that of athletes. For instance,
ders tend to provide more support for examining athletes and coaches. A sport officials might have a more difficult time identifying outcome and
consequence is that the breadth of research is minimal, compounded by performance goals, as their tasks cannot be measured in terms of
limited access to sport officials as participants, which is necessary to wins-losses, and rarely are they provided with statistics such as decision
build sufficient depth of research that would support theories and accuracy. Similarly, sport officials might require more attentional vigi­
frameworks specific to sport officiating. As researchers consider future lance, since—in many sports—they often have fewer breaks compared
studies in the area, we offer four specific suggestions to expand the to athletes. Implementing imagery can sometimes be more challenging
breadth. for sport officials, who are frequently reactive in their actions, rather
First, it is evident that team sports garner the most attention from than pre-planned; as such, sport officials often must be more creative in
researchers, while individual sports are largely overlooked. Supporting how they can design and implement an imagery program. A final
this, Hancock et al. (2021) demonstrated that over 80 % of the studies in example—though others exist—is that arousal regulation could be more
their analysis of literature focused on team sports. Gymnastics and figure challenging for sport officials, who often lack the same support systems
skating were the most studied individual sports (6.5 % and 2.1 % of the as athletes (e.g., often operating with no officiating coach and few or no
studies, respectively). The role of sport officials varies considerably teammates), and again, have fewer breaks during competitions to enact
between team and individual sports. As an example, a central soccer arousal regulation techniques. Ultimately, there a clear need for re­
referee is in the field of play, physically active, in near-constant searchers to dedicate attention to understanding the mental skills sport
communication with athletes and coaches, and typically judges the officials implement during competitions in order to effectively perform
product of athletes’ behaviors, rather than form or technique. Mean­ their duties. This includes broadening the research to include sport of­
while, a gymnastics judge is outside the competition environment, ficials who are not operating at elite levels, as well as those who officiate
physical inactive, rarely communicates with athletes and coaches, and individual sports.
judges form, technique, and execution. To assert that sport officials in The fourth challenge relates to the use of theory as it pertains to the
team and individual sports share identical psychological processes psychology of sport officiating. As noted earlier, researchers have
would be tenuous at best. Clearly there is a need for dedicated research created models relevant to sport officiating—typically directed at
that targets the psychology of sport officiating in individual sports. interactors—while also integrating existing theories in their research.
Second, when exploring the psychology of sport officiating, the These models and theories are valuable. Nevertheless, an all-
studied populations tend to be homogeneous. Overwhelmingly, White encompassing, sport officiating specific theory that helps to explain,
males are the participants of sport officiating research (Hancock et al., predict, and guide sport officials’ acquisition and implementation of
2021), which overlooks the experiences of marginalized and underrep­ psychological skills is warranted. Such a theory could be used to un­
resented groups. The few studies that exist related to female sport offi­ derstand the psychological skills that underpin sport officials’ deci­
cials demonstrated very different experiences (e.g., gendered sions—the fundamental task of a sport official—leading to a better
microaggressions) compared to their male counterparts (Reid & Dal­ understanding of how implementing psychological skills (e.g., arousal
laire, 2019). Meanwhile, very little is known about sport officials who regulation) results in more accurate decisions. Ideally, leading re­
are considered minorities based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, searchers in the field would dedicate resources to studying sport offi­
gender expression, and disability (see Baeth et al., 2023 for an excep­ cials’ psychological skills, and then proposing and testing theories that
tion). Further, while most sport exists at regional levels and below (e.g., are specific to the psychology of sport officiating. Existing models and
recreational leagues), 75 % of the research on sport officiating targeted non-sport officiating theories could be starting points for such
sport officials who operate at national, international, and professional endeavors.
ranks (Hancock et al., 2021). At the regional and recreational levels, the
psychological skills required to be a successful sport official might vary 4. Conclusions
dramatically. For instance, it could be that grassroots sport officials need
to focus more on quality communication strategies (Płoszaj et al., 2020) While the research attention directed toward sport officials is limited
and are not pre-occupied with managing anxiety or stressful compared to athletes and coaches, it is imperative that this vital role is
decision-making scenarios. Contrasting that position, recent upticks in recognized. The task of a sport official necessitates strong psychological
abuse toward youth sport officials might actually mean decision-making performance, so studies exploring this topic are warranted. Models and
is more stressful for these populations. Collectively, these points non-sport officiating specific theories exist to guide researchers in this
demonstrate a clear need for researchers to broaden their samples in an field, and through such approaches, there is an established—albeit
effort to truly understand the psychology of sport officiating across small—literature base surrounding sport officials’ psychology, including
heterogeneous populations. Researchers ought to consider this in future mental skills, motivation, group dynamics, communication, and de­
studies. cisions. For researchers who are interested in studying the psychology of

6
D.J. Hancock and A. Pizzera Psychology of Sport & Exercise 80 (2025) 102899

sport officials, we challenge them to: (a) consider a broad range of sports Corrigan, S. L., Dwyer, D. B., Harvey, B., & Gastin, P. B. (2019). The influence of match
characteristics and experience on decision-making performance in AFL umpires.
that extend beyond popular team sports, (b) include heterogeneous
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 22(1), 112–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
participants, especially those from minority and underrepresented jsams.2018.06.005
groups, (c) allocate time to exploring sport officials’ psychological skills Cunningham, I., Simmons, P., & Mascarenhas, D. (2018). Sport officials’ strategies for
acquisition and implementation through intervention studies, and (d) managing interactions with players: Face-work on the front stage. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 39, 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.08.009
develop theories that explain and predict the psychology of sport offi­ Cunningham, I., Simmons, P., Mascarenhas, D., & Redhead, S. (2014). Skilled
ciating. Through these collective efforts, we believe the field will grow interaction: Concepts of communication and player management in the development
substantively, thereby supporting our knowledge on the psychology of of sport officials. International Journal of Sport Communication, 7(2), 166–187.
https://doi.org/10.1123/IJSC.2013-0098
sport officiating. Dawson, P., Massey, P., & Downward, P. (2020). Television match officials, referees, and
home advantage: Evidence from the European Rugby Cup. Sport Management Review,
23(3), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.04.002
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human
motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. https://
David J. Hancock: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
draft, Conceptualization. Alexandra Pizzera: Writing – review & edit­ Dosseville, F., Laborde, S., & Bernier, M. (2014). Athletes’ expectations with regard to
officiating competence. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(S1), S448–S455.
ing, Conceptualization. https://doi.org/10.1080/17451391.2012.713006
Durand-Bush, N., Baker, J., van den Berg, F., Richard, V., & Bloom, G. A. (2023). The
Gold medal profile for sport psychology (GMP-SP). Journal of Applied Sport
Declaration of competing interest Psychology, 35(4), 547–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2022.2055224
Faulkner, J., & Loken, N. (1962). Objectivity of judging at the national collegiate athletic
association gymnastic meet: A ten-year follow up study. Research Quarterly, 33(3),
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial 485–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/10671188.1962.10616481
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Findlay, L. C., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2004). A reputation bias in figure skating judging.
the work reported in this paper. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26(1), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1123/
jsep.26.1.154
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Data availability Forbes, S. L., & Livingston, L. A. (2013). Changing the call: Rethinking attrition and
retention in the ice hockey officiating ranks. Sport in Society, 16(3), 295–309.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2013.779854
No data were used for the research described in the article.
Fratzke, M. R. (1975). Personality and biographical traits of superior and average college
basketball officials. Research Quarterly, 46(4), 484–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/
References 10671315.1975.10616707
Furley, P., & Schweitzer, G. (2016). Nonverbal communication of confidence in soccer
referees: An experimental test of Darwin’s leakage hypothesis. Journal of Sport &
Anderson, K. J., & Pierce, D. A. (2009). Officiating bias: The effect of foul differential on
Exercise Psychology, 38(6), 590–597. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2026-0192
foul calls in NCAA basketball. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(7), 687–694. https://doi.
Garicano, L., Palacios-Huerta, I., & Prendergast, C. (2005). Favoritism under social
org/10.1080/02640410902729733
pressure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(2), 208–216. https://doi.org/
Aragão e Pina, J., Passos, A. M., Maynard, M. T., & Sinval, J. (2021). Self-efficacy, mental
10.1162/0034653053970267
models and team adaptation: A first approach on football and futsal refereeing.
Giel, T., & Breuer, C. (2023). The general and facet-specific job satisfaction of voluntary
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 52(101787). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
referees based on the model of effort-reward imbalance. European Sport Management
psychsport.2020.101787
Quarterly, 23(4), 1136–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1964090
Baeth, A. C., Tingle, J. K., Jacobs, B. L., & Zvosec, C. C. (2023). “It was my story to tell
Giske, R., Johansen, B. T., & Haugen, T. (2016). Training, mental preparation and
and I wasn’t ready to tell it”: Stigma management amongst LGBTQ+ sport officials.
unmediated practice among soccer referees: An analysis of elite and sub-elite
Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 47(3), 228–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/
referees’ reported practice. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 28(1),
01937235231171368
31–41. https://doi.org/10.24985/ijass.2016.28.1.31
Bard, C., Fleury, M., Carrière, L., & Hallé, M. (1980). Analysis of gymnastics judges’
Gray, C., & Wilson, P. (2008). The relationship between organizational commitment,
visual search. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 51(2), 267–273. https://doi.
perceived relatedness, and intentions to continue in Canadian track and field
org/10.1080/02701367.1980.10605195
officials. Journal of Sport Behavior, 31(1), 44–63.
Barnhill, C. R., Martinez, J. M., Andrew, D. P., & Todd, W. (2018). Sport commitment,
Gray, C. E., & Wilson, P. M. (2013). Exploring the motivations underpinning track and
occupational commitment, and intent to quit among high school sport officials.
field officials’ decisions to volunteer. Athletic Insight, 5(2), 163–179.
Journal of Amateur Sport, 4(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17161/jas.v4i1.6459
Guillén, F., & Feltz, D. L. (2011). A conceptual model of referee efficacy. Frontiers in
Bernal, J. C., Nix, C., & Boatwright, D. (2012). Sport officials’ longevity: Motivation and
Psychology, 2(25), 1–5. h ttps://doi.org/10.3389.fpsyg.2011.00025.
passion for the sport. International Journal of Sport Management, Recreation & Tourism,
Hancock, D. J., Bennett, S., Roaten, H., Chapman, K., & Stanley, C. (2021). An analysis of
10(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.5199/ijsmart-1791-874X-10b
literature on sport officiating research. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 92(4),
Blumenstein, B., & Orbach, I. (2014). Development of psychological preparation program
607–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2020.1756198
for football referees: Pilot study. Sport Science Review, 23(3), 113–125. https://doi.
Hancock, D. J., Dawson, D. J., & Auger, D. (2015). Why ref? Understanding sport
org/10.2478/ssr-2014-0007
officials’ motivations to begin, continue, and quit. Movement and Sports Sciences -
Boyko, R. H., Boyko, A. R., & Boyko, M. G. (2007). Referee bias contributes to home
Science et Motricité, 87(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1051/sm/2014018
advantage in English Premiership football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(11),
Hancock, D. J., Martin, L. J., Evans, M. B., & Paradis, K. F. (2018). Exploring perceptions
1185–1194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410601038576
of group processes in ice hockey officiating. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 30
Burgers, C., van Biemen, T., van Eeghen, R., & Mann, D. L. (2022). Effects of
(2), 222–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2017.1349208.
communication style on competence evaluations of soccer referees: Procedural
Hancock, D. J., Paradis, K. F., Martin, L. J., & Evans, M. B. (2024). Investigating
versus relational framing. Communication & Sport, 11(3), 509–527. https://doi.org/
perceptions of cohesion, performance, and satisfaction in sport officiating groups.
10.1177/21674795211046536
Managing Sport and Leisure, 29(5), 706–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Canada Soccer. (2019). Think globally act locally: Canada soccer 2016 annual report.
23750472.2022.2092536
Canada soccer. https://issuu.com/canadasoccer/docs/20170506_cansoccer_annualr
Hancock, D. J., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2013). Gaze behaviors and decision making accuracy
eport2016.
of higher- and lower-level ice hockey referees. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(1),
Canada Soccer. (2022). Canada soccer 2021 annual report: Golden. Canada soccer. https
66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.08.002
://issuu.com/canadasoccer/docs/2021-cs-annualreport-issu-en.
Helsen, W. F., & Bultynck, J.-P. (2004). Physical and perceptual-cognitive demands of
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and
top-class refereeing in Association football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22(2),
performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24(2),
179–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410310001641502
168–188. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.24.2.168
Hockey Canada. (2011). 2011 Annual report. Hockey Canada. https://pdfs.semanticsch
Carron, A. V., & Eys, M. A. (2012). Group dynamics in sport (4th ed.). Fitness Information
olar.org/5779/e2d65fa1ad343d2c0da2939db1eb45e844e8.pdf.
Technology.
Hockey Canada. (2022). Hockey Canada: Annual report 2021-2022. Hockey Canada. http
Catteeuw, P., Gilis, B., Jaspers, A., Wagemans, J., & Helsen, W. F. (2010). Training of
s://cdn.hockeycanada.ca/hockey-canada/Corporate/About/Downloads/2021-
perceptual-cognitive skills in offside decision making. Journal of Sport & Exercise
22-hockey-canada-annual-report-e.pdf.
Psychology, 32(6), 845–861. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.6.845
Hoffman, T., MacMahon, C., & Brand, R. (2024). The game management framework for
Chapron, T., & Rix-Lièvre, G. (2014). The referee, the moral guardian of the game. In First
sports refereeing: A structured perspective on officiating performance and its development.
international conference on the science and practice of sports refereeing. France:
German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-
Clermont-Ferrand.
024-00978-y
Coady, C. J., & Hancock, D. J. (2024). Exploring elite ice hockey officials’ acquisition and
Huang, Q. (2014). Facework strategies in EFL classroom. Journal of Language Teaching
use of mental skills. In Paper presented at the European congress of sport and Exercise
and Research, 5(1), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.1.175-182
psychology. Innsbruck, Austria.

7
D.J. Hancock and A. Pizzera Psychology of Sport & Exercise 80 (2025) 102899

Jones, M. V., Paull, G. C., & Erskine, J. (2002). The impact of a team’s aggressive Pizzera, A. (2015). The role of embodied cognition in sports officiating. Movement and
reputation on the decisions of association football referees. Journal of Sports Sciences, Sports Sciences - Science et Motricité, 87(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1051/sm/
20(12), 991–1000. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404102321011751 2014013
Kim, M., Zvosec, C. C., Oja, B. D., & Doh, P. Y. (2024). Mental toughness and resilience in Plessner, H., & Betsch, T. (2001). Sequential effects in important referee decisions: The
officiating. In T. Webb, D. J. Hancock, P. Phillips, & J. K. Tingle (Eds.), Managing and case of penalties in soccer. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23(3), 254–259.
developing sports officials (pp. 200–213). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.23.3.254
Kittel, A., Cunningham, I., Larkin, P., Hawkey, M., & Rix-Lièvre, G. (2021). Decision- Plessner, H., & Haar, T. (2006). Sports performance judgments from a social cognitive
making training in sporting officials: Past, present and future. Psychology of Sport and perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7(6), 555–575. https://doi.org/
Exercise, 56, Article 102003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102003 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.03.007
Kittel, A., Larkin, P., Elsworthy, N., & Spittle, M. (2019). Using 360◦ virtual reality as a Plessner, H., & MacMahon, C. (2013). The sport official in research and practice. In
decision-making assessment tool in sport. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 22 D. Farrow, J. Baker, & C. MacMahon (Eds.), Developing sport expertise: Researchers and
(9), 1049–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.03.012 coaches put theory into practice (pp. 71–95). Routledge.
Knight, C. J., Harwood, C. G., & Gould, D. (2017). Sport psychology for young athletes. Płoszaj, K., Firek, W., & Czechowski, M. (2020). The referee as an educator: Assessment
Routledge. of the quality of referee–players interactions in competitive youth handball.
Kostrna, J., & Tenenbaum, G. (2022). Developing and testing the expanded sport International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), 3988.
official’s decision-making model. International Journal of Sport and Exercise https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113988
Psychology, 20(2), 586–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2021.189117 Put, K., Wagemans, J., Jaspers, A., & Helsen, W. F. (2013). Web-based training improves
Larkin, P., Kittel, A., & Cunningham, I. (2024). Sports officials’ decision-making biases. on-field offside decision-making performance. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14,
In T. Webb, D. J. Hancock, P. Phillips, & J. K. Tingle (Eds.), Managing and developing 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.03.005
sports officials (pp. 152–162). Routledge. Raab, M., Avugos, S., Bar-Eli, M., & MacMahon, C. (2021). The referee’s challenge: A
Lirgg, C. D., Feltz, D. L., & Merrie, M. D. (2016). Self-efficacy of sports officials: A critical threshold process model for decision making in sport games. International Review of
review of the literature. Journal of Sport Behavior, 39(1), 39–50. Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(1), 208–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Livingston, L. A., & Forbes, S. L. (2016). Factors contributing to the retention of Canadian 1750984X.2020.1783696
amateur sport officials: Motivations, perceived organizational support, and Rainey, D. W., & Hardy, L. (1997). Ratings of stress by rugby referees. Perceptual and
resilience. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 11(3), 342–355. https:// Motor Skills, 84(3), 728–730. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1997.84.3.728
doi.org/10.1177/1747954116644061 Reid, K., & Dallaire, C. (2019). “Because there are so few of us”: The marginalization of
Livingston, L. A., & Forbes, S. L. (2017). Resilience, motivations for participation, and female soccer referees in Ontario, Canada. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal,
perceived organizational support amongst aesthetic sports officials. Journal of Sport 27(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.2017-0031
Behavior, 40(1), 43–67. Ridinger, L. L., Kim, K. R., Warner, S., & Tingle, J. K. (2017). Development of the referee
MacMahon, C., Mascarenhas, D., Plessner, H., Pizzera, A., Oudejans, R., & Raab, M. retention scale. Journal of Sport Management, 31(1), 514–527. https://doi.org/
Sports officials and officiating: Science and practice Routledge. 10.1123/jsm.2017-0065
MacMahon, C., & Mildenhall, B. (2012). A practical perspective on decision making Russell, S., Renshaw, I., & Davids, K. (2025). Negotiations, agreements, and understandings:
influences in sports officiating. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 7 Reconceptualising football referee decision-making in sport as a social relational activity.
(1), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.7.1.153 Sport, Education and Society. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/
MacMahon, C., Starkes, J., & Deakin, J. (2007). Referee decision making in a video-based 13573322.2024.2448570
infraction detection task: Application and training considerations. International Samuel, R. D., Filho, E., & Galily, Y. (2024). Attention allocation in elite football
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 2(3), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1260/ refereeing: Conceptual, empirical, and applied considerations. Journal of Cognitive
174795407782233164 Psychology, 36(4), 474–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2024.2345407
MacMahon, C., & Weissensteiner, J. R. (2024). Career development of officials. In Schrödter, R., Noël, B., & Klatt, S. (2024). Game management by referees to compensate
T. Webb, D. J. Hancock, P. Phillips, & J. K. Tingle (Eds.), Managing and developing for errors in judgement: A decision flow model. International Journal of Sport and
sports officials (pp. 69–82). Routledge. Exercise Psychology, 22(3), 612–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Mascarenhas, D. R. D., Collins, D., & Mortimer, P. (2005). Elite refereeing performance: 1612197X.2022.2161105
Developing a model for sport science support. The Sport Psychologist, 19(4), 364–379. Simmons, P. (2010). Communicative displays as fairness heuristics: Strategic football
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.19.4.364 referee communication. Australian Journal of Communication, 37(1), 75–94.
Mascarenhas, D. R. D., Collins, D., Mortimer, P., & Morris, B. (2005b). A naturalistic Sinval, J., Aragão e Pina, J., Sinval, J., Marôco, J., Santos, C. M., Uitdewilligen, S.,
approach to training accurate and coherent decision making in Rugby Union Maynard, M. T., & Passos, A. M. (2020). Development of the referee shared mental
referees. The Sport Psychologist, 19(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1123/ models measure (RSMMM). Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 550271. https://doi.
tsp.19.2.131 org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.550271
Mathers, J. F., & Brodie, K. (2011). Elite refereeing in professional soccer: A case study of Slack, L. A., Butt, J., Maynard, I. W., & Olusoga, P. (2014). Understanding mental
mental skills support. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 2(3), 171–182. https:// toughness in elite football officiating: Perceptions of English Premier League
doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2011.609018 referees. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 10(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.53841/
Mellick, M. C., Fleming, S., Bull, P., & Laugharne, E. J. (2005). Identifying best practice bpssepr.2014.10.1.4
for referee decision communication in association and rugby union football. Football Slack, L. A., Maynard, I. W., Butt, J., & Olusoga, P. (2015). An evaluation of a mental
Studies, 8(1), 42–57. toughness education and training program for early-career English football league
Mudian, D., Asmawi, M., Rihatno, T., Lanos, M. E. C., Elisyah, V., & Aji, T. (2021). Trend referees. The Sport Psychologist, 29(3), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2014-
improving soccer professional referees performance in West Java using 0015
psychological skill training and physical fitness. International Journal of Human Sors, F., Tomé Lourido, D., Parisi, V., Santoro, I., Galmonte, A., Agostini, T., & Murgia, M.
Movement and Sports Sciences, 9(3), 595–601. https://doi.org/10.13189/ (2019). Pressing crowd noise impairs the ability of anxious basketball referees to
saj.2021.090328 discriminate fouls. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2380. https://doi.org/10.3389/
Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., Guillén, F., & Dithurbide, L. (2012). Development of, and initial fpsyg.2019.02380, 2380.
validity evidence for, the referee self-efficacy scale: A multistudy report. Journal of Spitz, J., Put, K., Wagemans, J., Williams, A. M., & Helsen, W. F. (2017). Does slow
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(6), 737–765. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.6.737 motion impact on the perception of foul play in football? European Journal of Sport
Nazarudin, M. N., Noordin, H., Suppiah, P. K., Abdullah, M. R., Omar Fauzee, M. S., & Science, 17(6), 748–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2017.1304580
Abdullah, N. M. (2014). Psychological skills assessment and referee rugby sevens Ste-Marie, D. (2003). Expertise in sport judges and referees: Circumventing information-
performance. Jurnal Pemikir Pendidikan (Journal for Educational Thinkers), 5, processing limitations. In J. L. Starkes, & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in
165–184. sports: Advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 169–190). Routledge.
Neville, T. J., Salmon, P. M., & Read, G. J. (2017). Analysis of in-game communication as Ste-Marie, D. M., & Lee, T. D. (1991). Prior processing effects on gymnastic judging.
an indicator of recognition primed decision making in elite Australian rules football Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(1), 126–136.
umpires. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 11(1), 81–96. https:// https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.17.1.126
doi.org/10.1177/1555343416672557 Sunde, J. K., Tharle-Oluk, R., Theriault, A. A., & Hancock, D. J. (2024). Exploring basic
Ng, J. Y., Lonsdale, C., & Hodge, K. (2011). The basic needs satisfaction in sport scale needs, motivation, and retention among female sport officials. Women in Sport &
(BNSSS): Instrument development and initial validity evidence. Psychology of Sport Physical Activity Journal, 32(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.2023-0037
and Exercise, 12(1), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.10.006 van Biemen, T., Müller, D., & Mann, D. L. (2023). Virtual reality as a representative
Niehoff, K. (2021). Officiating shortage reaches crisis levels – all groups must work training environment for football referees. Human Movement Science, 89, Article
together [Video]. National Federation of State High School Associations. https 103091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2023.103091
://www.nfhs.org/articles/officiating-shortage-reaches-crisis-level-all-groups-must- Webb, T., Dicks, M., Thelwell, R., van der Kamp, J., & Rix-Lievre, G. (2020). An analysis
work-together/. of soccer referee experiences in France and The Netherlands: Abuse, conflict, and
Nordstrom, H., Warner, S., & Barnes, J. (2016). Behind the stripes: Female football level of support. Sport Management Review, 23(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
officials’ experiences. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 16 smr.2019.03.003
(3–6), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMM.2016.077934 Webb, T., Hancock, D. J., Phillips, P., & Tingle, J. K. (2024). Managing and developing
Philippe, F. L., Vallerand, R. J., Andrianarisoa, J., & Brunel, P. (2009). Passion in sports officials. Routledge.
referees: Examining their affective and cognitive experiences in sport situations. Weinberg, R. S., & Richardson, P. A. (1990). Psychology of officiating. Leisure Press.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1123/
jsep.2009.31.1.77