Paper delivered to:
International Communication and Media Conference: i-COME’10
“Communication and Society: Challenge and Engagement”
Malacca, Malaysia, 18-20 June 2010
Peter Simmons (1) and Lee Kuok Tiung (2)
1. Charles Sturt University, School of Communication and Creative Industries
Bathurst, Australia [email protected]
2. Universiti Malaysia Sabah, School of Social Sciences, Kota Kinabalu,
Malaysia [email protected]
Communication and perceptions of fairness, a study of football
players in Australia and Malaysia
Abstract
It is important for communicators to understand fairness because people who perceive
fairness tend to behave more cooperatively, and people who perceive unfairness
behave less cooperatively. Leung (2005) says that perception of fairness is influenced
by styles of interpersonal treatment and processes in all cultures, but the factors that
influence fairness are not necessarily generalisable across cultures. Fairness is central
to expectations of sports referees, however little is known about the relationship
between different communication behaviours and perceptions of fairness, either
across cultures or in the sport context.
Simmons (2007) interviewed teams of Australian football players and identified the
qualities of competence, dependability and respectfulness as the constituent
characteristics of referee fairness. His study found that players attend to a range of
communicative displays they associate with the fairness of the referee including
athleticism, confidence, calm and accountability (Simmons, 2007).
This paper reports an experimental study that measured Australian and Malaysian
player reactions to displays of referee anger, calm and explanation, and interviews
with Malaysian players.
1
The triangulated findings contribute to understanding of the understudied field of
communication, culture and fairness. They are generally consistent with some major
theories of cultural differences in communication (Hall and Reed-Hall, 1990; Triandis,
2009). Perceptions of fairness and decision correctness among players from a highcontext, eastern, collectivist-oriented culture (Malaysia) were significantly (p<0.05)
more positive when communication of a decision was calm (communication tone).
Malaysian players were not significantly (p>0.05) influenced by the provision of an
explanation (communication content) for the decision. Perceptions of fairness and
decision correctness among players from a low-context, western, individualistoriented culture (Australia) were significantly (p<0.05) more positive when an
explanation (communication content) was provided. The display of calm significantly
(p<0.05) influenced Australian perceptions of the fairness of the referee, but did not
influence perception of the correctness of the decision.
Introduction
In all cultures the ability to communicate decisions in ways that enhance acceptance
and cooperation is a valuable skill. In any social or professional contexts individual
decision makers achieve different patterns of reaction and compliance. For example,
some customer service personnel experience more confrontation and complaints,
some teachers are challenged more frequently by their students. Compliance with
decisions is a central communication motive in many professions and contexts
(Barker et al, 2008), and a better understanding of communication practices that
promote compliance will enable training and preparation for professionals that
enhances harmonious decision interactions.
This study uses ‘fairness’ as a conceptual framework for exploring patterns in the way
that communication influences compliance and other reactions to decisions in two
different countries. People who perceive fairness tend to behave more cooperatively,
and people who perceive unfairness behave less cooperatively. According to Leung
(2005) the perception of fairness has positive effects across cultures, but the factors
that influence perceptions of fairness are not necessarily generalisable across cultures.
There is little work available that links communication behaviours, culture and
differences in perception of fairness.
2
This paper uses the context of football (soccer) refereeing to explore the role of
decision maker communication in perceptions of fairness in Australia and Malaysia.
Fairness is central to player expectations of sports referees, and referees make
hundreds of decisions in each game.
Fairness and communication in different cultures
Leung (2005) cites a number of studies showing that styles of interpersonal treatment
and decision implementation processes influence perceptions of fairness differently
across cultures. Just as culture affects perceptions of fairness in other contexts
(Mattila & Patterson, 2004), culture is likely to influence perceptions of fairness in
football.
Although individuals vary within cultures, and generalisations risk inaccurate
stereotyping, there are many ways of categorising cultures that show general
differences in preferences, practices and beliefs. Leung (2005) says that most cross
cultural studies of fairness have used Hofstede’s (1980) power-distance and
individualism-collectivism scales to differentiate cultures. The countries selected for
this study were selected in part for convenience of access to footballers, and in part
because of substantial differences on Hofstede’s (1980) culture dimensions, especially
power-distance. On the power-distance dimension Australia is at the lower end of the
power distance scale, while Malaysia ranks highest on the power-distance scale at
1(Hofstede, 1980).
Leung (2005) argues that where cultures more readily accept differences in power
(high power-distance), lower levels of interpersonal treatment (such as insult, anger,
and not listening) by authority figures are more expected, and result in less anger and
fewer negative consequences (Leung, 2005). Mattila & Patterson (2004) used an
experimental method to measure customer reactions to service failure. They found
that perceptions of fairness increased when an explanation was offered, but that the
reactions of people from the United States to explanation were different to people
from Thailand and Malaysia.
3
The direction of impact of causal accounts was uniformly positive, but the
magnitude seemed to depend on the participant’s cultural background. In
particular, East Asian consumers had higher perceptions of interactional and
distributive justice than their U.S. counterparts both before and after being
provided with a causal explanation (Mattila & Patterson, 2004, p.343).
Australia is at the lower end of Hofstede’s (1980) power–distance scale. Consistent
with this standing on the power-distance scale, a study of Australian football players
showed a strong preference for referees who treat them with respect and talk to them
‘normally’. Referee displays of anger were variously, but always negatively,
interpreted by players as a sign of disrespect, intimidation or inexperience, which
often lead to player anger (Simmons, 2007). This dislike of referee anger is consistent
with low power-distance cultures’ preference for more equal relations with authority
figures.
People make judgements about the costs and benefits associated with different
courses of action (van den Bos, Lind, & Wilke, 2001). But based on available
evidence from cross-cultural organisational justice studies, and assuming that the
referee is perceived to be an authority figure, we would expect that football players
from Malaysia, a country that scores very high on Hofstede’s (1980) power-distance
index, would perceive, and react less negatively to, referee displays of anger and
disrespect, than players from Australia, which has a much lower power-distance score.
Hall & Reed-Hall (1990) say that communication in cultures differs in terms of
‘context’, the amount of information and explanation people desire from people and
situations. ‘Low-context’ cultures such as the US and Great Britain expect more direct
and explicit communication than high-context cultures, such as those found typically
in Latin and Eastern Asian countries, where less explicit information and explanation
is required for effective communication (Koeszegi, Vetschera, & Kersten, 2004).
Football can be conceptualised as a high-context life situation, where rules and
patterns of interaction are well understood by participants, and don’t need explanation.
At the same time we would expect that players from high and low-context cultures
bring different expectations of communication to the football field. Malaysia is
situated in East Asia and would be considered high-context (Koeszegi et al., 2004),
4
Australia is more westernised and considered lower-context. Triandis (2009) contends
that conflict can arise between people from Western individualist cultures, who attend
and react more to the content of communication, and people from Eastern collectivist
cultures who attend more to the context of the communication. He argues that people
from collectivist cultures will react more to how people talk than to what people say.
We might therefore expect that players from Malaysia would react more strongly to
referee displays of anger and calm than players from Australia. This contrasts with
predictions relating to player responses to anger and calm based on Hofstede’s (1980)
concept of power distance.
Simmons’ (2007) study of players from Australia, generally a low-context culture,
found a strong preference for referees who provide a short explanation and
justification for their decisions. One interpretation of this finding is that it is consistent
with a low-context culture’s preference for information. Data about the preferences of
players from high-context cultures is not presently available, so it is not known
whether they have a similar preference for referees who explain decisions. However
we might predict that explanation would have a more positive effect on player
attitudes and behaviours in low-context cultures such as Australia and Great Britain
than in high-context cultures such as Singapore and Malaysia. It is also conceivable
that ‘football’ has its own ‘culture’, somehow transcending national and cultural
boundaries, and that referees and players have similar expectations of their
interactions in all countries. The next section discusses sport referee communication
and related research.
Sports referee communication
A study of ball game players reported that referee calls can have substantial influence
on athletes’ psychological states, and that ‘unnecessary words or actions’ can amplify
negative performance consequences for players. The researchers argued that if
referees had greater awareness of the influence their communication has on players’
performance, and better communication skills, conflicts between referees and players
may be prevented (Bar-Eli et al, 1995 p.77). However there is a lack of empirical
research that examines communication skills in sports officials and a shortage of
evidence-based training tasks available for development of referees’ interpersonal
skills (Mascarenhas et al., 2005).
5
There is a received wisdom in the football community that referee communication
skills play an important part in player reactions to decisions. Several recent studies
provide general support for the projection of calm demeanour, decisiveness and
confidence to increase player acceptance of decisions (Thatcher, 2005; Mellick et al,
2005 and 2007; Simmons, 2006). But most studies have focused on understanding
referee/player interactions through the eyes of expert and elite level referees. The
viewpoint of players and coaches has largely been either assumed or overlooked. An
exception was Simmons’(2007) study of Australian players’ perceptions of referees
and their communication. Simmons (2007) interviewed teams of players to identify
the qualities they esteem in referees, and the way these qualities are communicated to
players. He reported that players have very high expectations of referees to be people
worthy of their authority, and proffered ‘competence’, ‘dependability’ and
‘respectfulness’ as the characteristics of a fair referee. He said that players expect
competence to judge and decide well, and attend to displays of athleticism,
intelligence and self-confidence. Players require referees to be ‘dependable’,
professional, consistent in temperament, and resilient to the various pressures on their
decisions. Finally he said that players esteem the quality of ‘respectfulness’, including
accountability to players and respect for the game (Simmons, 2007).
Simmons’ (2007) study reported the way players interpret the presence and absence of
these qualities in referees. He used theories of fairness to account for the way various
referee displays are interpreted by players. He found that some displays appear to be
very influential. For example a calm manner was interpreted variously as displaying
competence, evenness of temperament and respectfulness. Players esteemed referees
who explain decisions and said that a cogent explanation indicated intellectual
competence and accountability to the players. Further, an explanation indicated that
the decision came from the referee, was less likely to be one suggested by opposing
players or spectators, and therefore indicative of dependability (Simmons, 2007).
Conversely some displays were perceived very negatively by players. Anger
contributed to perceptions of incompetence, undependability, and disrespectfulness.
Arrogance and ignoring players displayed disrespect, sloppy grooming and attire
displayed lack of professionalism and care, and therefore lack of dependability. A
study was designed to measure, compare and explore the influence of these displays 6
explanation (content) and calm (tone) - on players in Australia and Malaysia. The
remainder of the paper reports on the international experiment (part 1), and then on
interviews (part 2) with Malaysian players that explored perceptions of referees and
their communication. The ‘discussion’ section reviews analyses and reflects on the
findings of parts 1 and 2.
Part 1. Measuring Australian and Malaysian player reactions to content and
tone in decision communication
Method
This study was designed to measure the influence that the referee’s communication
style has on player reactions to a negative decision. Stated broadly, the hypotheses
developed from Simmons (2007) findings were:
H1 Players will react more favourably to a negative referee decision when an
explanation is given (versus no explanation)
H2 Players will react more favourably to a negative decision when the referee
displays calm (versus anger).
The dependent variable ‘player reactions’ is defined in sub hypotheses as:
1. Ratings of the fairness of the referee (4 items)
2. Ratings of the correctness of the decision (1 item)
Within each of these broad hypotheses were 2 sub-hypotheses relating to the player
‘reactions’ (the dependent variables). These were the rating (on a Likert-type 1-9
scale) of the fairness of the referee (four items), and the correctness of the decision
(single item).
The study used a between-subjects experimental design in a questionnaire format. An
instrument was produced in English and translated into Bahasa Malaysian, then back
translated to English. Translations and back translations were done by native speakers
in the target languages. Footballers (the subjects) were randomly assigned one of 4
vignettes describing a scene from a football match. The scene was designed to evoke
7
the tension of close and hard fought competition, without conveying referee error,
bias or some other extraneous characteristic that might prejudice or distract the
subjects unintentionally. Apart from the systematic variation of the referee’s age and
communication style (the independent variables), little information is provided about
the referee. Subjects applied their own mental stereotypes (Sleed et al, 2002) based on
the systematically manipulated variables.
This paper reports on amateur and professional adult male players from Australia
(n=675), and Malaysia (n=153). Qualified referees were removed from the sample.
The sample was obtained through football associations and organisations in each
country. In Malaysia the researchers were introduced to teams of players by the
Football Association of Malaysia, the Kuala Lumpur Social Soccer League and the
Sabah Football Association (Sabah Football Association). The Malaysian sample
reported here includes only the surveys completed in Bahasa Malaysian. This was
done to remove ‘expats’, foreign nationals living in Malaysia, from the sample. In
Australia, links to the internet version of the study were posted on state and regional
football federation websites. Data was analysed using SPSS. Hypotheses were tested
using single tail analyses of the variance of means.
Part 1. Results
Hypothesis 1.1 was supported in Australia but not Malaysia. Australian players’
ratings of the fairness of the referee were significantly higher (p<0.05) when they
received an explanation for the decision than when they did not receive an
explanation, as shown in Graph 1 and Table 1.
Hypothesis 1.2 was supported in Australia but not Malaysia. Australian players’
ratings of the correctness of the decision were significantly higher (p<0.05) when they
received an explanation for the decision than when they did not receive an
explanation, as shown in Graph 2 and Table 1.
Hypothesis 2.1 was supported in both countries. Graph 3 and table 2 show that
players’ ratings of the fairness of the referee were significantly higher when the
referee communicated the decision calmly, than when the decision was communicated
angrily.
Hypothesis 2.2 was supported in Malaysia but not in Australia. Graph 4 and Table 2
show that player attitudes to the correctness of the decision were significantly higher
8
(p<0.05) in Malaysia when the referee communicated the decision calmly, than when
the decision was communicated angrily.
9
Table 1. Explanation and perception of referee fairness and
correctness
Country
AUSTRALIA
MALAYSIA
AUSTRALIA
FAIRNESS
FAIRNESS
CORRECTNESS
Variable
Explain No
Explain No
Explain No
explain
explain
explain
N
157
179
37
34
157
179
Mean
22.95 17.92 20.16 20.14 5.04
3.82
Standard
7.21
6.98
7.97
8.33
2.42
2.2
Deviation
t
- Equal
variance
6.492
0.008
4.851
assumed
t
–
Equal
variance
not
assumed
P = significant 0.000
0.497
0.000
<0.05
decision
MALAYSIA
CORRECTNESS
Explain No
explain
37
34
4.76
5.06
2.18
2.31
-0.567
0.286
Table 2. Anger and perception of referee fairness and decision correctness
Country
AUSTRALIA
MALAYSIA
AUSTRALIA
MALAYSIA
FAIRNESS
FAIRNESS
CORRECTNESS CORRECTNESS
Variable
Anger Calm
Anger Calm
Anger
Calm
Anger
Calm
n
174
165
43
39
176
165
43
39
Mean
17.14 21.47 17.26 22.33 3.98
4.17
3.98
5.51
Standard Deviation 6.78
6.82
8.97
8.47
2.24
2.14
2.47
2.54
t - Equal variance
assumed
-5.869
-2.627
-0.809
-2.771
t – Equal variance
not assumed
P = significant 0.000
0.005
0.209
0.0035
<0.05
10
Influence of communicative displays on perception of referee fairness and
decision correctness
Graph 1. Influence of explanation on perception of referee fairness.
Graph 2. Influence of explanation on perception of decision correctness.
Graph 3. Influence of anger (tone) on perception of referee fairness.
Graph 4. Influence of anger (tone) on perception of decision correctness.
.
11
Australian players were more influenced by the content (explanation) of
communication, Malaysian players were more influenced by the tone (anger) of the
communication. When an explanation was provided, Australian players rated the
referee as more fair, and rated the decision as more correct. But the provision of
explanation had no significant influence on Malaysian player ratings of the referee or
the decision. The display of anger lowered both Australian and Malaysian players’
ratings of the fairness of the referee. The display of anger lowered Malaysian players’
ratings of the correctness of the decision, but not Australian player’s ratings of
correctness.
These findings accord with Simmons’ (2007) finding that Australian players prefer
referees to explain decisions, and that they prefer referees to be calm. Two main
differences between the Australian and Malaysian data here are, first, that Malaysian
players were unaffected by explanation. Second, is that the display of calm lowered
Malaysian players’ ratings of the correctness of the decision, but did not influence
Australian ratings. Thus the data indicate that Malaysian players were differently
influenced by the display of anger than Australian players.
These findings accord with contextual notions of communication preference asserted
by Hall & Reed-Hall (1990), that lower-context cultures place greater value on
explicit communication, and Triandis (2009), that collectivist cultures are more
concerned by how people say things than what they say. The notion that players from
a high power-distance country such as Malaysia (Hofstede, 1980) would be more
accepting of referee displays of anger is not supported by this data. Malaysian player
reactions to anger in the communication of the decision were more negative than
Australian players. This is discussed below, and possibly explained by an incorrect
assumption that referees be considered ‘authority figures’.
Part 2. Exploring Malaysian player perceptions of referees and their
communication
Method
To triangulate and improve understanding of the findings in the experimental study,
the study reported here used Simmons (2007) interpretive interview method and line
12
of questioning to explore Malaysian football player perceptions of referees. In
particular the interviews sought to identify and compare the qualities that Malaysian
players esteem in referees, and influential communicative displays.
Four one on one interviews and one focus group were conducted in the state of Sabah
with Malaysian footballers in Bahasa Malaysia language. The interviewees were all
male, Malaysian nationals who either presently or previously had played at
professional or semi-professional levels of the game. Interviews ran for about an hour
each and used both grounded and impositional question strategies (Barbour and
Schostak, 2005). Players were encouraged to raise what was important to them in
words of their choosing, the words ‘communication’ and ‘fair’ were avoided by the
interviewer unless they were raised by player. Questions in the early stages of the
interviews were general, open-ended questions about soccer and refereeing (‘tell me
about a time when you thought “yes, that was good refereeing”). Subsequently a set
of standardised open-ended questions related to preconceived themes were used if
required (‘Do you think there are better and worse ways to give a card?’) (Amis,
2005).
These interviews were recorded, transcribed and then translated into English before
analysis. Simmons (2007) used a grounded-style (Daymon & Holloway, 2002)
analysis and emergent thematisation of interview data. This project used Simmons’
(2007) emergent themes – competence, dependability and respectfulness - to guide the
analysis of data gathered from interviews with Malaysian players.
Part 2. Findings
Most of the matters raised by Malaysian players had previously been raised in
Simmons’ (2007) interviews with Australian players. The importance of treating
teams equally, appearing confident, and knowledge of the rules, were frequently
mentioned or alluded to. However there were differences in priorities and emphasis,
and different interpretations of particular communicative displays.
This section reports on the Malaysian interviews and reflects on the similarities and
differences with Simmons’ (2007) interviews. Players cannot be sure of a referee’s
13
motivations or prejudices, or their worthiness of the authority they have been given.
As one Malaysian interviewee said:
..we never know if a person is good or bad, we cannot read their heart.
(Interview B)
The concepts of competence, dependability and respectfulness interrelate. However
this report suggests that in assessing the worthiness of a referee the Malaysian players,
relative to the Australians, were more inclined to interpret referees’ behaviours and
displays as indicators of respectfulness towards players. Australians were, relative to
Malaysians, more concerned by displays of competence and dependability.
Fit and active
‘Fitness’ and refereeing ‘actively’ were repeatedly mentioned. Players referred to the
need for referees to be fit to be able to stay within 10 metres of play and make
accurate calls. Several also said referees need to be ‘active’ and ‘energetic’, referring
to a style of refereeing that shows willingness to referee energetically and keep up
with the play, rather than (lazily) refereeing from a distance. Australian players
frequently mentioned the need to be fit, and not to referee from a distance. However
the issue of ‘energy’ was not raised in Simmons (2007) interviews. Malaysians
seemed much more concerned by a phenomenon of lethargic refereeing. For
Malaysians, the willingness to referee energetically was also a display of respect for
the players and game.
Decisiveness was often mentioned. In both Malaysian and Australian interviews
players said referees need to be seen to decide quickly, to decide for themselves, and
to stand by their decisions. Australians said that quick decisions were an indication of
a quick mind and intelligence required to make good decisions. Malaysians
emphasised the need to decide quickly and stand firmly by one’s decision. To be seen
to waiver would mean a loss of face for the referee, and increase the likelihood that
they would not be able to control the game.
14
Not what they say but what they do
Australian players were much more likely to stress the importance of verbal
communicative skills than the Malaysian players. Some Malaysian players said that it
is important for referees to explain controversial decisions (especially to the team
captain), and to respond to player questions. Some also said they admired the
explanatory style of referees in the English Premier League. But Malaysian players
also said:
A good referee talks less because he is judged not on what he says but what he
does. (Focus group)
Talking leads to less respect from players. The more talk, the more argument.
(Focus group)
Refs don’t normally talk – a talking ref is an emotional ref. (Interview C)
Individual differences are expected in any culture, but negative sentiments relating to
‘talk’ were not expressed at all in the Australian interviews. The importance of
explanation was a very salient theme in the Australian interviews. Australian players
described ‘talk’, and particularly explanation, very positively for a range of reasons.
Frequently Australian players said a short explanation that made sense of a decision
displayed the intelligence required to decide and judge well, indicated that the
decision was the referee’s own and not one suggested by opponents, and that it
showed respect and accountability to players.
Diplomacy and respect
Malaysian players emphasised the importance of referee displays of interpersonal
respect, and frequently mentioned the importance of ‘diplomacy’ and ‘reading’ player
reactions. They emphasised the need for referees to be sensitive and able to adapt to
players’ circumstances, including fatigue and the match score. Malaysian players said
that referees need to consider players’ egos, and that referees should adapt their style
to the way the teams play. The opposite of this respectful diplomacy is the attempt to
take control of a game through aggression and punitive discipline. Several Malaysians
said that referees are wrong to try to ‘stamp their authority’ on games:
15
Trying to create a fear among players toward the referee is wrong. [The
referee is there] to make the game smooth, referees are not the actors, not the
star the audiences want to watch. (Interview A)
What makes me most frustrated or angry is referees telling the player that he
is the referee and I’m player. (Interview A)
I don’t agree with referees intentionally being more strict in early stage of the
game to make players more careful for the whole game. No. If he’s strict,
normally the whole game is like that. If he does it like that, we say he’s not
consistent. He’ll lose control of his game. (Interview B)
Malaysian and Australian players stated the importance of refereeing in ways that
help the game to flow. They mentioned ‘not blowing the whistle too often’ and
‘playing advantage’ for minor offences.
if they blow the whistle too frequently, it’ll spoil the tempo of the game, the
game becomes slow .. in Malaysia [the referees are] too frequently looking for
trivial (ridiculous) mistakes. (Interview C)
Several Malaysian players attributed frequent whistle blowing to the referee ‘looking
for player wrongdoing’. Australian players were more likely to attribute frequent
whistle blowing to inexperience or the referee seeking to attract attention to
themselves. The difference is subtle, but one interpretation is that Malaysian players
are more sensitive to interpersonal respect.
An example of different attitudes concerned the issue of warnings to players.
Australian players said that referees should do what they say they will do. Several
Australian players said that repeated warnings by a referee displays an inconsistency
between word and deed, and that this display of inconsistency made them wonder
about the referee’s consistency in decision-making (Simmons, 2007). Malaysian
players also said that referees should do as they say they will do, but in separate
16
interviews players said that a referee should issue two or three warnings before
punishment.
.. don’t give a card straight away, start with a warning.. first warning, second,
third .. then give a card .. (Focus group)
If the foul is not really serious, he should give several warnings, first warning,
second warning, then third time he should give the card .. so that the players
also feel happy ..After twice being warned the players will be more careful ..
But if the referee doesn’t use any diplomacy then the players are likely to
revolt and the team can become stressed .. (Focus group)
There are referees that like to give warning until three to four times .. that’s
not a good referee. Give two warnings, third time show the card. But there are
cases when the first time the player makes a rough tackle, the (referee) should
show a card. (Interview B)
There are differences among the Malaysian players’ attitudes to warnings, and subtle
differences between the Australians and Malaysians. The main point here relating to
warnings is that Australians, relative to the Malaysians, were more concerned with the
display of consistency between word and deed. The Malaysians were relatively more
concerned with ‘diplomacy’ as a display of consideration for the players.
Players in both countries said they disliked arrogance and anger in referees. They
expect referees to listen to their comments and answer reasonable questions, and very
much dislike being ignored by the referee.
..during a game a referee should be able to listen to players’ opinions,
especially the captain .. but it’s a problem when the referee is just a few
metres away and signals the player not to come over to him. (Focus group)
Malaysian players in these interviews displayed an acute sensitivity to referee bias.
Frequently they mentioned the need for referees to avoid being seen to be talking with
the opponents before the game, or having their decisions influenced by opponents
during a game. They stressed the importance of exercising diplomacy, being seen to
17
listen to players (not ignoring), but not being seen to be influenced (especially by
opponent players and supporters). Australian players also mentioned the need to avoid
such perceptions of bias, but referred to such occurrences as the exception. The issue
seemed to be more salient for Malaysian players (especially for games played away
from home), but it’s not clear if that is because they are more sensitive to the
phenomenon, or because they experience the breeches more frequently.
Malaysian players mentioned the importance of smiling as a display of respect for
players.
A good referee must be fair to both sides, and his facial expressions play an
important role.. If players can always see his smile they will feel at ease, and if
the players feel at ease there normally won’t be any problems. (Focus group)
I give you an example, the best referee in the world, Collina, and the
impression he made to people ... Look at his face .. He has his own character ..
He is not fierce, but always smiles and makes his decisions right. That’s why
he’s known as the best referee. (Focus group)
Malaysian players often made direct connections between the referee’s behaviour and
their own reactions. They said that referees should not ‘scold’ players in addition to
punishing them. The award of a free kick or card is sufficient.
The referees I dislike most are the ones who scold us after penalising us ...
When he blows the whistle, for me that tells me I am at fault .. then they scold
us (more) for the fault .. Sometimes, if we’re already tired, and we get that, we
easily get angry. (Interview B)
Sometimes when it’s a good referee, even if he’s wrong, we still smile back at
him and think ‘it’s give and take’ .. But [we behave differently] with bad
referees .. Sometimes we can be aware he is calling us, but just ignore him
and walk away. (Focus group)
18
Other comments
Some Malaysian interviewees emphasised the importance of referees displaying an
even manner from the beginning to the end of the game, as an indicator of consistency.
One player referred to the importance of the standing or reputation of the referee:
Normally in society here, players like to see [the referee’s] position. This
means his post. If he is well known for his sure/ firm position in the football
body, most of us will respect him. I think that will influence the player.
(Interview B)
This form of influence is consistent with Malaysia’s standing in Hofstede’s (1980)
power-distance index, but was a single comment rather than a theme of the
discussions.
Limitations and strengths of study
Part 1. Experiment
The Malaysian data was collected in person from teams based in Kuala Lumpur,
Sabah and Kedah and therefore should not be considered nationally representative.
Australian data was collected online from all Australian states. The sample therefore
excluded people without internet access. The participants imagined themselves
involved in a single 140 word hypothetical. It’s important to remember that they were
given limited information about the scene and the interactants, and were not told the
research was concerned with communication or fairness. It is conceivable that this
simulation would not evoke feelings as strong as those experienced in a real match,
yet significant differences were found in responses. It is also conceivable that the
perceptions and attitudes evoked by real matches, might, relatively, be so powerful as
to render single exposures to the stimuli simulated here negligible in real exchanges.
The between-subject experimental design adds credibility to the findings.
Part 2. Interviews
For convenience, the qualitative interviews were conducted with players in Sabah,
and the sample were mostly professional or ex-professional players. Consequently the
views of ‘grass roots’ players are not included.
19
Discussion
Hall and Reed-Hall’s (1990) contextual explanations for cultural communication
differences help to explain the findings of this study. Explanation was shown in both
stages of the study to be more influential with players from Australia, a low-context
country. In the experiment, Malaysian ratings of fairness and correctness were
uninfluenced by the provision of an explanation. In the interviews, Malaysian
attitudes to explanation were mixed, some players indicating that referees would be
judged by what they did, not what they said, and that ‘talk’ diminished respect for the
referee. In contrast, Australian players’ ratings of fairness and correctness were
significantly improved when the hypothetical referee gave an explanation, and in
interviews they expressed strong preference for referees who explain.
This study also supports the assertion that people in collectivist cultures tend to be
more concerned by how people say things than what they say (Triandis, 2009).
Malaysians tend to be more collectivist in their orientation. In the experiment they
were uninfluenced by explanation, and strongly influenced by tone. Australians tend
to be more individualist in their orientation, and they were more influenced by content
than tone. The interviews indicated that Malaysians interpret a range of referee
displays through a prism of interpersonal respect. The salience of interpersonal
respect is illustrated by Malaysians’ very negative reactions in the hypothetical to
referee displays of anger. Malaysians rated the referee significantly less fair and the
decision significantly less correct when the referee displayed anger. Australians rated
the referee less fair, but ratings of the correctness of the decision were not affected.
This study found that players in Malaysia, a high power-distance country, were more
sensitive to displays of anger from referees than players in Australia, a low powerdistance country. One Malaysian player made explicit reference to the influence In
hindsight it may have been incorrect to identify Malaysian football referees as
‘authority figures’, and thus incorrect to expect that Hofstede’s (1980) power-distance
index would help to predict player reactions to referee communication. The stronger
negative influence of referee anger on Malaysian player reactions may be unrelated to
Hofestede’s (1980) power distance index because the notion of authority figure is
confused.
20
The interview data give credibility to the experimental findings and vice versa. The
differences between the Australian and Malaysian players reported here are generally
consistent with theories of difference in cultural communication (Hall and Reed-Hall,
1990; Triandis, 2009). The findings contribute to understanding of the understudied
field of communication, culture and fairness. Perceptions of fairness and decision
correctness among players from a high context, eastern, collectivist-oriented culture
were more positive when communication was calm, and the decision maker displayed
interpersonal respect. They were not significantly (p>0.05) influenced by the
provision of an explanation. Perceptions of fairness and decision correctness among
players from a low context, western, individualist-oriented culture were more positive
when an explanation was provided. The display of calm significantly (p<0.05)
influenced perception of the fairness of the referee, but did not influence perception of
the correctness of the decision.
The similarities in the data gathered from players in Australia and Malaysia, and the
issues the players chose to focus on, suggest that there is a strong culture of football
that is international. Individual player references to the English Premier League (EPL)
as a model or benchmark, especially by Malaysian players, suggest that
internationally televised games may be globalizing a culture of football.
As Koeszegi et al (2004) claimed, effective communication in low-context cultures
may require more explicit communication and more attention to content. As Triandis
(2009) advises, effective communicators in collectivist should be more mindful of the
tone of their communication.
There are individual differences in all cultures, so it would be unwise to use
aggregated data to guide the conduct of individual interactions. However there are
distinct patterns in the differences between the Australian and Malaysian player
perceptions that are evident in the two stages of the research and are supported by the
theories of cultural difference in communication. There are many potential directions
for future research into the intentional and unintentional influences of communication
on perceptions of fairness in different cultures and contexts. Understanding of these
differences will aid the planning and management of relationships and communication
in an increasingly interconnected world.
21
References
Barbour, R.S. & Schostak, J. (2005). Interviewing and focus groups. In B. Somekh &
C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 41-48). London: Sage.
Bar-Eli, M., Levy-Kolker, L., Pie, J. S., & Tenenbaum, G., (1995). A crisis-related
analysis of perceived referees' behavior in competition. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 7, 63-80.
Barker, V., Giles, H., Hajek, C., Hiroshi, O., Noels, K., Lim, T-S. & Somera, L.
(2008). Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1(2), 93-112.
Hall, E. and Reed-Hall, M. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences: Keys to
Success in West Germany, France and the United States. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural
Press.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Motivation, Leadership and Organization: Do American
Theories Apply Abroad? Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 42-63.
Koeszegi, S., Vetschera, R., & Kersten, G. (2004). National Cultural Differences in
the Use and Perception of Internet-Based NSS: Does high or low Context Matter?
International Negotiation, 9(1), 79 – 109.
Leung, K. (2005). How generalizable are justice effects across cultures? In J.
Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 555586). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mascarenhas, D., Collins, D., & Mortimer, P. (2005). Elite refereeing performance:
Developing a model for sport science support. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 364-379.
Mattila, A. S. & Patterson, P. G. (2004). Service recovery and fairness perceptions in
collectivist and individualist contexts. Journal of Service Research, 6, 336-346.
Mellick, M. C., Fleming, S., Bull, P., & Laugharne, E. J. (2005). Identifying best
practice for referee decision communication in association and rugby union football.
Football Studies, 8(1), 42-57.
Simmons, P. (2006). Tackling abuse of officials: Attitudes and communication skills
of experienced football referees. Paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand
Communication Association Conference. University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/anzca2006/conf_proceedings/simmons_peter_tackling_ab
use_football_referees.pdf
Simmons, P. (2007). Fair call: Player perceptions of justice in football referee
communication. Paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand Communication
Association Conference. Melbourne University, Melbourne, Australia.
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/anzca2006/conf_proceedings/
22
Sleed, M., Durrheim, K., Kriel, A., Solomon, V., & Baxter, V. (2002). The
effectiveness of the vignette methodology: A comparison of written and video
vignettes in eliciting responses about date rape. South African Journal of Psychology,
32, 21-28.
Thatcher, J. (2005). Stress, challenge, and impression management among sports
officials. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 1(1), 26-35.
Triandis, H. C. (2009). Culture and Conflict. In L. A. Samovar, R. E. Porter & E. R.
McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural Communication: A reader (12th ed.). (pp.18-28).
Boston: Wadsworth.
23