When conversations about dance competitions arise, one topic seems to surface repeatedly: judging bias.
It is a conversation I have been hearing for most of my career. As a young dancer, I heard it. As a teacher, I heard it. As a studio owner, I heard it. As an adjudicator, I still hear it.
Sometimes the concern is justified. Sometimes it stems from disappointment. Most often, I think it reflects something deeper: people trying to make sense of a process that involves both objective assessment and human judgement.
Having experienced the dance industry from multiple perspectives, including as a young dancer, teacher, studio owner, mentor, and now adjudicator, I wanted to share some of my own reflections on this topic.
Over recent years, I have had the opportunity to adjudicate throughout Australia and internationally, including in Germany, Norway, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Exposure to different training systems, cultures, competition formats, scoring systems, and artistic expectations has only deepened my curiosity about how judging decisions are made and the role that unconscious bias may play within that process.
For much of my career, I wasn’t certain adjudication was a path I wanted to pursue.
After selling my dance studio, which I owned and directed for 23 years, I found myself curious about adjudication and decided to explore it. Even before my first judging engagement, I wasn’t completely convinced it was something I would want to continue doing.
Part of my hesitation came from a question I had been asking myself for years:
Can judging ever be truly objective?
After spending a lifetime in dance, I had sat on the receiving end of countless adjudications. Like many teachers, I had experienced moments where I agreed with the results and moments where I walked away wondering what a judge had seen that I hadn’t.
I have also become increasingly aware that many young dancers spend a significant portion of their training years immersed in competition culture. While competitions can offer valuable opportunities for growth, feedback, motivation, and performance experience, I sometimes wonder whether some dancers are competing so frequently that the focus shifts away from artistic development and towards rankings, placements, wins, and losses. (That is a much bigger conversation, and perhaps an article for another day.)
What it does highlight, however, is why judging matters so much. When competition outcomes become highly significant, questions about fairness and bias naturally become more emotionally charged.
When I first stepped into adjudication, one of my greatest concerns was the possibility of unconscious bias. I knew enough about human psychology to understand that every human being views the world through filters shaped by experience, training, culture, personality, and preference. Judges are no exception.
Years into my adjudication career, I continue to reflect on this question. I continue to challenge my own assumptions. I continue to ask myself whether there are blind spots I have not yet seen.
The reality is that bias exists. The more important question is how aware we are of it.
What Is Unconscious Bias?
Unconscious bias refers to the automatic mental shortcuts our brains use to process information quickly.
Psychologists often refer to these shortcuts as heuristics. They allow us to make rapid decisions without consciously analysing every detail. In everyday life, these shortcuts are incredibly useful. In judging environments, however, they can sometimes influence decisions without us realising it.
Research from social psychology demonstrates that people naturally form preferences and assumptions based on familiarity, prior experience, expectations, and cultural conditioning. These processes occur largely outside conscious awareness.
The important distinction is that unconscious bias is rarely malicious. It is often invisible to the person experiencing it.
A judge can genuinely believe they are being completely objective while still being influenced by factors they have not consciously recognised.
Why Dance Is Particularly Vulnerable
Unlike sports that are determined by measurable outcomes such as time, distance, or points scored, dance contains a significant subjective component.
Technique can be assessed against recognised standards. Timing can be measured. Execution can be evaluated.
Artistry is different.
Musicality, stage presence, emotional communication, authenticity, creativity, and performance quality all require human interpretation.
Two highly qualified adjudicators can watch the same performance and genuinely arrive at different conclusions.
This does not necessarily mean one is right and the other is wrong.
It may simply reflect different weighting systems.
One judge may place greater value on technical precision. Another may prioritise artistic communication. A third may place greater emphasis on movement quality, musical sensitivity, or originality.
Each of these perspectives can be professionally valid.
The Halo Effect
One of the most researched forms of cognitive bias is the Halo Effect.
First identified by psychologist Edward Thorndike, the Halo Effect occurs when one positive characteristic influences our perception of other characteristics.
In dance, this can happen when a performer possesses a particularly striking quality.
Perhaps they have exceptional flexibility.
Perhaps they have a beautiful physique for dance.
Perhaps they are highly charismatic on stage.
That one standout quality can unconsciously influence how other aspects of the performance are perceived.
A skilled adjudicator works hard to separate these elements and evaluate each component independently.
Familiarity Bias
Another challenge is familiarity bias.
Human beings naturally gravitate towards what feels familiar.
A judge who trained extensively in classical ballet may unconsciously notice certain qualities more readily than someone whose background is contemporary dance.
A commercial dance specialist may be drawn to different movement dynamics than a ballet specialist.
This does not mean the adjudicator is intentionally favouring one style. It simply means that years of training shape what the eye notices first.
The best judges actively educate themselves across genres and remain curious about forms outside their primary expertise.
Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias occurs when we unconsciously look for information that confirms an existing belief.
For example, if an adjudicator expects a particular studio to be strong, they may unintentionally pay greater attention to evidence that supports that expectation.
Similarly, if a dancer has previously impressed a judge, there may be a tendency to anticipate excellence before the performance even begins.
Professional adjudicators work to evaluate every performance as a fresh performance.
The dancer standing on stage today deserves to be judged on today’s performance, not yesterday’s reputation.
Cultural and Aesthetic Preferences
Dance does not exist in a vacuum.
Every culture develops aesthetic preferences.
Different training systems value different qualities.
Different countries emphasise different movement styles, performance approaches, and artistic traditions.
As adjudicators travel internationally, these differences become increasingly apparent.
What is considered expressive in one culture may be viewed as excessive in another. What is considered disciplined in one environment may appear restrained in another.
Awareness of these influences becomes essential.
A judge’s responsibility is not to reward dancers for reflecting their personal preferences. The responsibility is to evaluate how effectively a dancer fulfils the demands of the style being presented.
The Bias I Think About Most
One of the biases I think about most often is the tendency to favour what mirrors our own strengths.
Psychologists call this similarity bias.
We often recognise and appreciate qualities that we personally value or have worked hard to develop ourselves.
A judge who was known for artistry may notice artistic nuances quickly.
A judge with a highly technical background may be especially attuned to technical execution.
A former performer known for stage presence may naturally gravitate towards strong communicators.
The danger is not having these preferences.
The danger is failing to recognise them.
Awareness creates choice.
Can Bias Ever Be Eliminated?
Probably not.
Human beings are not machines.
Every assessment involving human judgement contains some degree of subjectivity.
The goal should not be perfection.
The goal should be self-awareness.
Research on decision-making consistently demonstrates that awareness of bias reduces its impact. Individuals who actively examine their assumptions tend to make more balanced decisions than those who assume they are completely objective.
In my own judging practice, this means continually asking questions:
• What am I noticing first?
• Why am I noticing it?
• Am I rewarding excellence or familiarity?
• Have I considered the performance from multiple perspectives?
• Am I evaluating what is actually on stage, or what I expected to see?
These questions never disappear.
Nor should they.
What Dancers and Parents Need to Understand
A single adjudication does not define a dancer.
A single score does not determine future success.
A single competition result does not reveal a dancer’s worth, potential, or artistic future.
Even highly experienced judges bring different perspectives to the table.
This is why dancers often receive different results at different competitions.
It is also why growth should never be measured solely through rankings.
The most valuable adjudications provide information, perspective, and opportunities for learning.
They are pieces of feedback, not final verdicts.
A Final Reflection
The longer I judge, the less interested I become in presenting myself as completely objective.
I am far more interested in remaining curious.
Curious about my assumptions.
Curious about my blind spots.
Curious about the dancers standing in front of me and the many ways excellence can present itself.
Dance judging can never be completely objective because dance is both a sport and an art. The goal is not perfect objectivity. The goal is informed judgement, self-awareness, and fairness.
Perhaps the most ethical position an adjudicator can take is not to claim immunity from bias, but to acknowledge its existence and commit to examining it continuously.
Because the moment we stop questioning our own assumptions may be the moment we become most vulnerable to them.
References
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings.
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People.
Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2012). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making.