Loss aversion under pressure Analyzing decision-making in high-stakes tennis through Grand Slam big data
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examines loss aversion behaviour in professional tennis, with a focus on players’ responses to high-stakes situations such as game points and break points. While prior research has provided valuable insights, it has predominantly relied on limited match samples, often confined to select tournaments or individual players. To address this limitation and enhance the generalizability of findings, the present study employs a comprehensive dataset comprising ten years (2010–2020) of five-set matches from all four Grand Slam tournaments. Anchored in Prospect Theory—which suggests that individuals are more motivated to avoid losses than to acquire equivalent gains—the analysis investigates key performance indicators including scoring success rate, serve ace rate, and double fault frequency. The results indicate that players exhibit loss-averse behaviour in specific contexts, notably by reducing double faults during break points. However, other performance metrics, such as ace rates and serve accuracy, do not consistently reflect loss-averse tendencies. A post-hoc analysis based on point differentials further elucidates the nuanced manifestations of loss aversion across varying match contexts. These findings contribute to a more robust understanding of risk-related decision-making in elite sports and offer implications for performance optimization and athlete management.
Downloads
Article Details
Section

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Each author warrants that his or her submission to the Work is original and that he or she has full power to enter into this agreement. Neither this Work nor a similar work has been published elsewhere in any language nor shall be submitted for publication elsewhere while under consideration by Journal of Human Sport and Exercise (JHSE). Each author also accepts that the JHSE will not be held legally responsible for any claims of compensation.
Authors wishing to include figures or text passages that have already been published elsewhere are required to obtain permission from the copyright holder(s) and to include evidence that such permission has been granted when submitting their papers. Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors.
Please include at the end of the acknowledgements a declaration that the experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed. The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the abovementioned requirements. The author(s) will be held responsible for false statements or failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements.
This title is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
-
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
-
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
-
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
- You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
- No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
How to Cite
References
Anbarci, N., Arin, K. P., Kuhlenkasper, T., & Zenker, C. (2018). Revisiting loss aversion: Evidence from professional tennis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 153, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.10.014
Anbarci, N., Arin, K. P., Okten, C., & Zenker, C. (2017). Is Roger Federer more loss averse than Serena Williams? Applied Economics, 49(35), 3546-3559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1262527
Anderson, A., & Green, E. A. (2018). Personal bests as reference points. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(8), 1772-1776. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706530115
Apesteguia, J., & Palacios-Huerta, I. (2010). Psychological pressure in competitive environments: Evidence from a randomized natural experiment. American Economic Review, 100(5), 2548-2564. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.5.2548
Cary, M., & Stephens, H. (2023). Gendered consequences of COVID-19 among professional tennis players. Journal of Sports Eco-nomics, 24(2), 241-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/15270025221120591
Elmore, R., & Urbaczewski, A. (2021). Loss aversion in professional golf. Journal of Sports Economics, 22(2), 202-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002520967403
Greve, H. R., Rudi, N., & Walvekar, A. (2021). Rational fouls? Loss aversion on organizational and individual goals influence decision quality. Organization Studies, 42(7), 1031-1051. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619878462
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 363-391. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making: Part I (pp. 99-127). World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814417358_0006
Kowalik, Z., & Lewandowski, P. (2021). The gender gap in aversion to COVID-19 exposure: Evidence from professional tennis. PLOS ONE, 16(3), e0249045. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249045
Krawczyk, M. (2019). Unforced Errors: Tennis serve data tells us little about loss aversion. Econ Journal Watch, 16(1), 114.
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2008). Homo economicus evolves. Science, 319(5865), 909-910. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153640
List, J. A. (2003). Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 41-71. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360535144
Liu, J., Huang, S., Xu, H., Li, D., Zhong, N., & Liu, H. (2021). Cooperation promotion from the perspective of behavioral economics: An incentive mechanism based on loss aversion in vehicular Ad-Hoc networks. Electronics, 10(3), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10030225
Lowrance, M., Miller, J., & Price, J. (2020). Game, set, match and loss aversion in tennis. In Outcome Uncertainty in Sporting Events (pp. 51-62). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839102172.00009
Mallard, G. (2016). Loss aversion and decision fatigue at the Wimbledon tennis championship. International Journal of Behavioural Accounting and Finance, 6(1), 70-91. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBAF.2016.079880
Medvec, V. H., Madey, S. F., & Gilovich, T. (1995). When less is more: Counterfactual thinking and satisfaction among Olympic medalists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.603
Pawlowski, T. (2021). Reference point behavior and sports. In Behavioural Sports Economics (pp. 172-185). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003080824-12
Pope, D. G., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2011). Is Tiger Woods loss averse? Persistent bias in the face of experience, competition, and high stakes. American Economic Review, 101(1), 129-157. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.1.129