Categories
Culture, Society & Family Economics & Statistics Mind & Brain Researcher news SMU In The News

David Sirota Talk Radio: MLB white favoritism lowers minority pitching performance

Best-selling author and progressive talk-radio host David Sirota interviewed SMU’s Dr. Johan Sulaeman, an expert in labor economics and discrimination.

An assistant professor of finance in the Cox School of Business, Sulaeman and his co-authors analyzed 3.5 million Major League Baseball pitches and found that racial/ethnic bias by home plate umpires lowers the performance of Major League’s minority pitchers, diminishing their pay compared to white pitchers.

The study found that minority pitchers reacted to umpire bias by playing it safe with the pitches they throw in a way that actually harmed their performance.

Listen to the full interview.

Categories
Culture, Society & Family Economics & Statistics Mind & Brain Technology

White favoritism by Major League umps lowers minority pitcher performance, pay

Findings important when measuring the extent of wage discrimination not only in baseball, but also in broader labor market

When it comes to Major League Baseball’s pitchers, the more strikes, the better. But what if white umpires call strikes more often for white pitchers than for minority pitchers?

New research findings provide an answer. Analysis of 3.5 million pitches from 2004 to 2008 found that minority pitchers scale back their performance to overcome racial/ethnic favoritism toward whites by MLB home plate umpires, said Johan Sulaeman, a financial economist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas and a study author.

The study found that minority pitchers reacted to umpire bias by playing it safe with the pitches they throw in a way that actually harmed their performance and statistics, said Sulaeman, a labor and discrimination expert.

Specifically, minority pitchers limited the umpires’ discretion to call their pitch a “ball” by throwing squarely across the plate in the strike zone more often. Unfortunately for the pitcher, such throws are also easier for batters to hit.

The finding builds on an earlier study that discovered Major League Baseball’s home plate umpires called strikes more often for pitchers in their same ethnic group — except when the plate was electronically monitored by cameras, Sulaeman said.

While the earlier finding surprised the researchers, they said, the latest results are even more surprising.

Since most MLB umpires are white, the overall effect is that umpire bias pushes performance measures of minorities downward, said Sulaeman, an expert in labor economics and discrimination.

The findings have important implications for measuring the extent of discrimination not only in baseball, but also in labor markets generally, say the authors.

“In MLB, as in so many other fields of endeavor, power belongs disproportionately to members of the majority — white — group,” the authors write.

Findings draw on analysis of pitching in QuesTec-monitored parks
Sulaeman and his co-authors analyzed 3.5 million pitches by Major League Baseball pitchers from 2004 to 2008. All parks are now monitored, but during those four years about one-third of major league ballparks were monitored with computers and cameras to check the accuracy of the umpires’ ball and strike calls.

Four cameras tracked and recorded the location of each pitch, with umpires and pitchers aware that QuesTec was the primary mechanism for gauging umpire performance. MLB considers an ump’s performance sub-standard if more than 10 percent of his calls differ from QuesTec.

Of the 3.5 million pitches, umpire and pitcher were the same race — usually white — for about two-thirds of the 1.89 million pitches that were called strikes or balls. About 89 percent of umpires and 70 percent of pitchers were white.

The researchers looked not only at the race of umpires, pitchers and batters, but also: effects for each pitcher, umpire and batter; presence or absence of QuesTec; importance of the at-bat; when the pitch would terminate the at-bat; whether the pitch came early or later in the game; importance of the game; racial demographics of the neighborhood around the park; umpire age and experience; pitch characteristics, including horizontal pitch distance and pitch height; and whether the throw was a fastball, curveball, slider or cutter.

The study controlled for inning, pitch count, pitcher score advantage and whether the pitcher was playing at home or visiting.

The study, “Strike Three: Discrimination, Incentives, and Evaluation,” is published in the current issue of the scholarly journal The American Economic Review.

In addition to Sulaeman, co-authors were Christopher A. Parsons, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Michael C. Yates, Auburn University; and Daniel S. Hamermesh, University of Texas at Austin.

Findings: Minimal direct impact, but significant indirect influence
The researchers found:

  • In non-monitored parks, the percentage of called pitches that are strikes is higher when the race of both umpire and pitcher match than when it does not. This is true not only of whites, but also Hispanics and blacks.
  • In QuesTec parks, if the race of the pitcher and umpire match, the likelihood that a called pitch is ruled a strike is reduced by more than one percentage point relative to the same setup in non-QuesTec parks. This implies umpires implicitly allow their apparent favoritism to be expressed when not being monitored, the study authors say.
  • Implicit monitoring — for example, an important pitch viewed by a big crowd — also dramatically alters umpire behavior. On the other hand, white and minority umpires at poorly attended games appear to favor pitchers of the same race by calling more strikes.
  • Umpires favor pitchers of the same race only when the pitch won’t terminate the batter’s plate appearance.
  • Little evidence was found to indicate the umpire is influenced by the race of either the batter or the catcher.
  • A higher strike percentage showed umpires exhibited same-race favoritism in non-QuesTec parks. A lower strike percentage indicated negative bias toward pitchers of different races in QuesTec parks.
  • There is some weak evidence that bias is more likely among younger and less experienced umpires.
  • Favoritism was a significant factor for pitches thrown to the edge of the strike zone — where umpires have the most discretion — but not for pitches inside or outside the strike zone. In QuesTec parks, the umpire and pitcher having the same race has virtually no effect on pitch location. In non-QuesTec parks, pitches to the edges significantly increase when umpire and pitcher share the same race. The finding suggests pitchers gamble on the fact that this region can reasonably be called as either balls or strikes and therefore offers them an advantage.
  • In QuesTec parks, matched race is associated with a slight preference for hard-to-hit and hard-to-call curveball pitches. In non-QuesTec parks, that preference quadruples.

The researchers concluded:

  • The direct effects on pitch outcomes are small. The indirect effect on players’ strategies may have larger impacts on the outcomes of plate appearances and games.
  • From the starting pitcher’s perspective, a racial match with the umpire helped his statistics by yielding fewer earned runs, fewer hits and fewer home runs.
  • Because the majority of umpires are white, teams with minority pitchers have a distinct disadvantage in non-monitored parks.
  • There is no evidence that visiting managers adjusted their pitching lineups to minimize exposure of their minority pitchers to the subjective bias of a white umpire.
  • In parks without QuesTec, pitchers of the same race threw pitches that allowed umpires the most discretion, apparently to maximize their advantage stemming from the umpires’ favoritism.
  • A batter who swings is less likely to get a hit when the umpire and pitcher match.
  • Applying the effects of favoritism, and given that the average salary of starting pitchers in MLB was $4.8 million in 2006, the findings suggest minority pitchers were underpaid relative to white pitchers by between $50,000 and $400,000 a year.

“If a pitcher expects favoritism, he will incorporate this advantage into his strategy, perhaps throwing pitches that allow the umpire more discretion,” the authors write. “If the batter expects such pitches to be called strikes, he is forced to swing at worse pitches, which reduces the likelihood of getting a hit.”

Not just Major League Baseball; a factor in all work environments
How many minority pitchers have had their pitching records diminished by this phenomenon is impossible to say, Sulaeman said, adding that one can only guess at the impact over decades of professional baseball. But discovery of the indirect effect of racial bias in MLB pointedly demonstrates how discrimination alters the behavior of a discriminated group, say the authors.

In any workplace where pay is based on measured productivity, the findings of small direct and larger indirect effects of favoritism and negative bias have important implications for measuring the extent of wage discrimination not only in baseball, but also in labor markets generally, say the authors.

Supervisory racial bias must be accounted for when generating measures of wage discrimination, the authors conclude.

The researchers’ earlier analysis of the data found that ethnic bias is virtually eliminated when an umpire knows his calls are being monitored with video cameras to check for accuracy.

“The good news is that all ballparks are now equipped with this technology, likely eliminating this subconscious bias,” said Sulaeman, assistant professor of finance in SMU’s Cox School.

Monitoring suppresses bias when evaluators are observed for bias
That isn’t the case, however, in other workplaces, where monitoring is not the norm, he said. As a result, supervisors have ample opportunity to subconsciously evaluate those of a different race more negatively, he said. Supervisors may be less prone to this subconscious bias if they know they are being monitored.

“When their decisions matter more, and when evaluators are themselves more likely to be evaluated by others, our results suggest that these preferences no longer manifest themselves,” the authors say. — Margaret Allen

SMU is a nationally ranked private university in Dallas founded 100 years ago. Today, SMU enrolls nearly 11,000 students who benefit from the academic opportunities and international reach of seven degree-granting schools. For more information see www.smu.edu.

SMU has an uplink facility located on campus for live TV, radio, or online interviews. To speak with an SMU expert or book an SMU guest in the studio, call SMU News & Communications at 214-768-7650.

Categories
Culture, Society & Family Learning & Education Mind & Brain Researcher news SMU In The News

US News & World Report: Advertising Can Warp Your Memory

American-magazines-400x300-web.jpg

Science writer Chris Gorski has covered the research of Priyali Rajagopal, an assistant professor of marketing in Cox School of Business.

Priyali and Nicole Montgomery, an assistant professor of marketing at College of William and Mary have reported findings in which people who read vivid print advertisements for fictitious products actually come to believe they’ve tried those products.

Gorski’s coverage appeared in an online report distributed by the Inside Science News Service and published by U.S. News & World Report.

The scientific paper “I Imagine, I Experience, I Like: The False Experience Effect” appears in the October 2011 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research.

In it, Priyali and Montgomery explain how exposing consumers to imagery-evoking advertising increases the likelihood that a consumer mistakenly believes he or she has experienced the advertised product, and subsequently produces attitudes that are as strong as attitudes based on genuine product experience.

Read the U.S. News & World Report article.

EXCERPT:

Chris Gorski
U.S. News & World Report

“Advertising is everywhere people look. It’s along the highway, in storefronts, and online. It can be funny or poignant; it can be annoying. New research shows it can also encourage people to recall things that never happened to them.

Nicole Votolato Montgomery, an assistant professor of marketing at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Va., and Priyali Rajagopal, an assistant professor of marketing at Southern Methodist University, in Dallas, Texas, developed an experiment to test the effects of advertisements on memory. They asked people to read a very descriptive print advertisement detailing the taste of a fictional popcorn product made by a familiar brand name, then asked a portion of the subjects to taste popcorn labeled with the fictional name. A week later, those who merely read the detailed advertisement were just as likely to report eating this popcorn as people who actually ate it.

People who read an advertisement with less vivid imagery were far less likely to report eating the popcorn. “What we found is that if consumers falsely believe they have experienced this advertised brand, their evaluations of that product are similar to evaluations of products that they actually experienced. That is a fairly unique finding,” said Montgomery. “Humans are a lot more inaccurate than we think we are,” said Michael Nash, a professor of psychology at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. He said that the phenomenon of false memories is well-known in psychology, and that he found it interesting that the research extends the concept to marketing.

Read the U.S. News & World Report article.

Categories
Culture, Society & Family Learning & Education Mind & Brain Researcher news SMU In The News

Scientific American: Ads Convince Consumers of Nonexistent Experiences

American-magazines-400x300-web.jpg


Science writer Christopher Intagliata has covered the research of Priyali Rajagopal, an assistant professor of marketing in Cox School of Business.

Priyali and Nicole Montgomery, an assistant professor of marketing at College of William and Mary have reported findings in which people who read vivid print advertisements for fictitious products actually come to believe they’ve tried those products.

Intagliata’s coverage appeared in an online report May 10 in the Scientific American feature “60-second science.”

The scientific paper “I Imagine, I Experience, I Like: The False Experience Effect” appears in the October 2011 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research.

In it, Priyali and Montgomery explain how exposing consumers to imagery-evoking advertising increases the likelihood that a consumer mistakenly believes he or she has experienced the advertised product, and subsequently produces attitudes that are as strong as attitudes based on genuine product experience.

Read the Scientific American story or listen to the podcast.

EXCERPT:

Christopher Intagliata
Scientific American

One way advertisers convince us to buy something is to remind us that we’ve enjoyed their product before. Unfortunately, we can have fond memories of a product that we’ve never even had. Or that doesn’t even exist.

A hundred volunteers looked at print ads for Orville Redenbacher’s “Gourmet Fresh” popcorn — a variety that researchers made up. Some subjects saw an ad with a vivid description of the brand’s “big white fluffy kernels.” Others saw a less evocative ad.

A week later, subjects who saw the vivid ad were twice as likely to believe they’d tried this fictional product as were subjects who saw the plain ad. In fact, the believers were as confident that they had tried the popcorn as were people who actually ate popcorn after seeing the fake ads. The study is in the Journal of Consumer Research.

[Priyali Rajagopal and Nicole Votolato Montgomery, “Imagine, Experience, Like: The False Experience Effect”]
Read the Scientific American story or listen to the podcast.

Categories
Culture, Society & Family Economics & Statistics Learning & Education Mind & Brain

Faking It: Vivid print ads create false memories of trying nonexistent product

People who read vivid print advertisements for fictitious products actually come to believe they’ve tried those products, according to a new study by SMU’s Priyali Rajagopal in the Journal of Consumer Research.

“Exposing consumers to imagery-evoking advertising increases the likelihood that a consumer mistakenly believes he/she has experienced the advertised product, and subsequently produces attitudes that are as strong as attitudes based on genuine product experience,” write authors Rajagopal, an assistant professor of marketing in Cox School of Business, and Nicole Montgomery, an assistant professor of marketing at College of William and Mary.

They report their findings in the scientific paper “I Imagine, I Experience, I Like: The False Experience Effect” in the October 2011 issue.

In one study, the researchers showed participants different types of ads for a fictitious product: Orville Redenbacher’s Gourmet Fresh microwave popcorn. Other participants ate what they believed to be Orville Redenbacher’s Gourmet Fresh microwave popcorn, even though it was another Redenbacher product. One week after the study, all the participants were asked to report their attitudes toward the product and how confident they were in their attitudes.

“Students who saw the low imagery ad that described the attributes of the popcorn were unlikely to report having tried the popcorn, and they exhibited less favorable and less confident attitudes toward the popcorn than the other students,” the authors write.

People who had seen the high imagery ads were just as likely as participants who actually ate the popcorn to report that they had tried the product. They were also as confident in their memories of trying the product as participants who actually sampled it.

“This suggests that viewing the vivid advertisement created a false memory of eating the popcorn, despite the fact that trying the fictitious product would have been impossible,” the authors write.

The authors found that decreasing brand familiarity and shortening the time between viewing the ad and reporting evaluations reduced the false memories in participants.

For example, when the fictitious brand was Pop Joy’s Gourmet Fresh instead of the more familiar Orville Redenbacher’s, participants were less likely to report false memories of trying it.

“Consumers need to be vigilant while processing high-imagery advertisements because vivid ads can create false memories of product experience,” the authors conclude. — by University of Chicago