Éditions Perspectives Judging Assistant
← Back to Judging in Dance

Complete example response

A developed demonstration of the Judging Assistant

This example shows how the Judging Assistant can develop an answer: a possible mechanism, useful distinctions, points of vigilance, a short protocol and a practical area for improvement.

Question asked

“I think I may have been influenced by a very visible couple. How can I avoid this at my next competition?”

Response from the Judging Assistant

Your question does not assume that you judged badly. It shows that you are trying to understand what may have happened in the way you observed the competition. This willingness to step back is already useful.

Some couples naturally attract more attention because of their energy, amplitude, clothing, position on the floor, style, stage presence or simply because they enter an area that you observe more easily.

This does not automatically mean that they are better. It first means that they occupied more space in your attention.

1. A possible mechanism

When something is highly noticeable, an adjudicator may devote more mental time to it. The couple then becomes more present in immediate memory and may seem to have made a stronger impression.

This can be linked to attentional bias: the mind gives more weight to what is visible, striking or easy to remember.

The aim is not to remove spontaneous attention, but to become more aware of it.

2. Distinguishing “visible” from “better”

A couple may be very visible without being stronger across all the criteria. They may attract attention because they dance expansively, use the floor effectively or have a powerful presence.

Does what I observed genuinely correspond to the criteria I am evaluating?

It is useful to distinguish:

  • what attracts attention;
  • what impresses;
  • what remains in memory;
  • what genuinely meets the judging criteria.

3. Questions to ask afterwards

  • What attracted my attention first?
  • Did I observe this couple for longer than the others?
  • Do I remember precise observations or mainly the impression they produced?
  • Did I observe less visible couples with the same availability?
  • Did I confuse visual presence with overall quality?
  • Did I compare the couples using the same criteria?

These questions are not intended to invalidate the whole decision. They simply help identify a possible point of vigilance.

4. A short protocol for the next competition

Before the event

“A very visible couple may attract my attention. I will observe them, then deliberately check the less visible couples.”

During the event

Do not try to ignore the visible couple. Observe them, then deliberately return to the others.

“I have seen them. Now I check the others.”

When comparing

“Does this couple meet the criteria more successfully, or are they simply the couple I remember most easily?”

After the event

Retain one point of vigilance. One simple instruction is often more effective than a long list.

5. Avoiding the opposite excess

The purpose is not to penalise a couple for being visible. Their visibility may reflect genuine technical, musical or artistic quality.

“This couple attracts my attention. I now check whether that visibility corresponds to genuine quality in relation to the criteria.”

6. A possible area for improvement

Learning to distinguish what attracts my attention from what genuinely supports my decision.

Conclusion

You cannot prevent your attention from being drawn to a very visible couple. You can, however, notice that moment, deliberately return to the other couples and check whether the impression matches the criteria.

The aim is not to remove the adjudicator’s intuition, but to make it more aware.