Who made the decisions: Human or robot umpires? The effects of anthropomorphism on perceptions toward robot umpires

This study examined how the adoption of robot umpires in baseball alters people's evaluation of ball/strike decisions, the trust in umpires, game enjoyment, and their behavioral consequences. The results indicated that people perceived umpire calls as fairer and more credible, and demonstrated greater trust in human umpires than in robot umpires; however, these negative effects were attenuated when robot umpires were humanized by giving them human-like characteristics. Furthermore, the effects of robot umpires were moderated by age and gender. Younger adults and males generally had more positive perceptions toward robot umpires, while older adults and females had more positive perceptions toward humanized robot umpires.

Automated summary

The study found that people's trust and evaluation of robot umpires and human umpires differ, and giving robot umpires more human-like characteristics can mitigate negative effects. Additionally, perceptions of robot umpires and humanized robot umpires vary based on age and gender.