For the win (or tie): Most avoid risk, despite better chance at reward

February 13, 2018 by Tom Fleischman, Cornell University
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Say you're the coach of a basketball team that's trailing by two points in the dying seconds of a game. Your team has the ball and you call a timeout to set up a play.

Or imagine your football team has just scored a touchdown with three seconds to play to pull to within one point. Instead of immediately sending out the placekicker for the point-after, you call your final timeout to discuss your next move.

In both cases, there are options that will either win the or tie the score and send the game into overtime. A made three-point shot to beat the buzzer will send your team joyously into the locker room; a successful two-point conversion will do the same for your .

Of course, if you choose the option that could potentially win the game without overtime, the other side of that coin is sudden defeat. As it turns out, the specter of losing on the spot - and the blowback a losing coach might face in that situation - is enough to lead most to take their chances in overtime.

The willingness to take that chance is called " aversion" (SDA), and it's the topic of a new study co-authored by Tom Gilovich, professor of psychology at Cornell University. "Sudden-Death Aversion: Avoiding Superior Options Because They Feel Riskier" was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; the authors also wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times.

The authors argue that the phenomenon of SDA reflects a common bias, not limited to sports, that can lead to less than optimal decision-making: When faced with a choice between a "fast" option that offers a greater chance of ultimate victory but also a significant chance of immediate defeat, and a "slow" option with both a lower chance of winning and a lesser chance of immediate defeat, people often opt for the "slow" option because of their aversion to sudden death.

But in so doing, the authors state, they also lower their chances of ultimate success. Gilovich, a longtime fan of the Green Bay Packers, knows this all too well: The paper opens with the story of the Packers' overtime loss to the Arizona Cardinals in the 2016 National Football League playoffs, in which the Packers scored on the final play of regulation time, opted to kick the point-after to send the game to overtime, and promptly lost.

SDA is tied to another phenomenon, myopic loss aversion - too much focus on the potential for sudden loss while giving too little weight to the ultimate objective. It's the coach focusing on the agony of a failed two-point conversion, even though statistically, the authors contend, the chances of winning are better with the riskier two-point try.

The researchers mined all sorts of data, crunched numbers and came to this conclusion: Even when a "fast" strategy has better odds of success, people prefer a slower alternative that minimizes the chance of immediate defeat.

"SDA occurs," they wrote, "because people narrowly focus on the possibility of immediate defeat and believe immediate defeat is especially likely when other 'safer' strategies are available. We suggest that ... an aversion to sudden death can lead you to feel that a strategy with better odds is riskier, and thus give rise to suboptimal decision-making across a host of important contexts."

Explore further: Anxious people worry about risk, not loss

More information: Jesse Walker et al, Sudden-Death Aversion: Avoiding Superior Options Because They Feel Riskier., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2018). DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000106

Related Stories

Anxious people worry about risk, not loss

June 6, 2017
Life is a series of choices. Every time you make a decision, there is a possibility that things won't go as expected (risk) or that something bad will happen (loss). Aversion to risk and loss have powerful influences on how ...

Recommended for you

How we explain the behavior of others depends on our beliefs about their 'true selves'

August 14, 2018
Why did they do that? It's a question we ask every day in attempting to understand the behavior of others and make meaning of the world around us. How we answer the question, however, varies depending on our moral attitudes ...

The science behind rooting for the home team

August 14, 2018
Young children often observe society dividing its members—by ethnicity, religion, gender, or even favorite sports team. But a review by a Yale psychologist published August 14 in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences ...

Study identifies distinct origin of ADHD in children with history of brain injury

August 14, 2018
According to a study in Biological Psychiatry, physical brain injury in children contributes to the development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), distinct from genetic risk for the disorder.

Online solution for OCD treatment

August 14, 2018
Almost 1 in 30 Australians experience Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) at some stage in their life.

Angry people might not be as smart as they think they are

August 13, 2018
People who are quick to lose their temper are more likely to overestimate their own intelligence, a new study from The University of Western Australia and the University of Warsaw in Poland has found.

Rude to your coworker? Think of the children

August 12, 2018
When people are rude to their coworkers or treat them badly, they probably don't realize the unintended victims in that encounter could be the coworkers' children. Women who experience incivility in the workplace are more ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.