Excessively criticizing a perceived unfair decision is considered to be common behavior among people seeking to restore fairness. However, the effectiveness of this strategy remains unclear. Using an ecological environment where excessive criticism is rampant—Major League Baseball—we assess the impact of verbal aggression on subsequent home-plate umpire decision making during the 2010 to 2019 seasons ( N = 153,255 pitches). Results suggest a two-sided benefit of resorting to verbal abuse. After being excessively criticized, home-plate umpires ( N = 110 adults, employed in the United States) were less likely to call strikes to batters from the complaining team and more prone to call strikes to batters on the opposing team. A series of additional analyses lead us to reject an alternative hypothesis, namely that umpires, after ejecting the aggressor, seek to compensate for the negative consequences brought on by the loss of a teammate. Rather, our findings support the hypothesis that, under certain conditions, verbal aggression may offer an advantage to complainants.

中文翻译：

---

对美国职业棒球大联盟裁判的言语攻击会影响他们的决策

过度批评被认为不公平的决定被认为是寻求恢复公平的人们的常见行为。然而，这一策略的有效性仍不清楚。利用过度批评猖獗的生态环境——美国职业棒球大联盟——我们评估了 2010 至 2019 赛季（N = 153,255 个投球）期间言语攻击对随后本垒裁判决策的影响。结果表明，诉诸言语辱骂有两方面的好处。在受到过度批评后，本垒裁判员（N = 110 名成年人，在美国受雇）不太可能对抱怨球队的击球手吹响好球，而更倾向于对对方球队的击球手吹响好球。一系列额外的分析使我们拒绝了另一种假设，即裁判在驱逐攻击者后，寻求补偿因失去队友而带来的负面后果。相反，我们的研究结果支持这样的假设：在某些条件下，言语攻击可能会给投诉人带来优势。