While it is wonderful to see scientific theories cited in sport analysis (Guardiola ready to benefit as fellow Cruyff disciple Arteta strays from path, 17 April), Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s Nobel prize-winning paper on prospect theory did not show that “human beings suffer from loss aversion when in a favourable position”. Or that those in pursuit of the favourable position are “much more open to risk taking”.
Prospect theory predicts that people are more highly motivated to avoid losses than to achieve gains of comparable magnitude – which explains why teams facing a disappointing scoreline get more yellow and red cards and use more substitutes, why basketball teams behind by a point at half time win more often than teams ahead by a point, and why golfers hole more par putts than birdie putts at the same distance, but not why a race leader would take less risk than their pursuers.
Prospect theory also predicts that how we “frame” outcomes affects our actions: when contemplating gains, people will be more risk-averse than when contemplating losses, so a race leader preoccupied with losing should be more – not less – willing to take risks than any pursuers contemplating winning.
I welcome the attempt to rectify the curiously conspicuous absence of science in sporting commentary (why are there no professorial pundits?), but on this occasion the science predicts exactly the opposite of your report.
Prof Peter Ayton
Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
