Why second place hurts more than failure

London, summer 2012. The North Greenwich Arena is alive with applause. Sixteen year old McKayla Maroney walks toward the vault as if the gold medal were already hers. A dominant force in artistic gymnastics vault, she had led the qualifications and entered the final as the clear favorite. That day, however, after a spectacular first vault, a slight imbalance on the second landing was enough to tip the scoring average and cost her the gold, which went to Romania’s Sandra Izbașa.

Maroney leaves with a silver medal, confirming an exceptional performance, but also with the feeling of having been just a breath away from an even greater triumph. On the podium, her expression became unforgettable. Arms crossed, a visibly tense look on her face, she did not hide her frustration. The image quickly turned into an internet meme, symbolizing the emotional gap between achievement and what the brain had already begun to celebrate.

This same emotional mismatch frequently appears in team sports. When a team reaches a final, especially under strong national expectations, defeat is rarely experienced as simply finishing second. In major continental tournaments, such as the Africa Cup of Nations recently held in Morocco, the reactions of players and supporters illustrate this same dynamic. Being so close to the title can transform a remarkable journey into a painful experience. Once again, it is not objective failure that dominates, but the proximity of victory, mentally experienced before being lost.

In these situations, the brain does not compare the outcome to all possible alternatives, but to a single privileged scenario, the one that already felt written. Whether it is a gymnast on an Olympic podium or a national team carried by collective hope, the psychological mechanism is the same. The more accessible victory appears, the deeper the emotional mark left by its absence.

---

🔗Read also: Beyond appearances: Bridging authentic identity and self worth

---

The psychology of near victory

In life as in sport, we often repeat that the important thing is to take part. However, those who have come close to victory know how much weight the human brain gives to the gap between what was achieved and what was expected. Psychologists describe this phenomenon through counterfactual thinking, the spontaneous tendency of the mind to imagine alternative scenarios, such as if only the landing had been slightly better or the movement more precise. These mental constructions are not simple daydreams. They genuinely alter how an experience is felt.

In a landmark study based on the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games, researchers showed that silver medalists often displayed less satisfaction than bronze medalists, despite objectively superior performances. Second place tends to trigger unfavorable internal comparisons. I could have won. Third place more often comes with a sense of relief. I could have left empty handed.

Counterfactual thinking is rooted in deep cognitive mechanisms. When the brain imagines alternatives close to what actually occurred, it recruits circuits involved in anticipation, reward evaluation, and comparison between possible outcomes. These processes rely heavily on prefrontal regions, particularly the orbitofrontal cortex, a key area for assigning value to events, weighing what was obtained against what could have been obtained, and adjusting future expectations. This evaluative work goes beyond immediate emotional reactions. It shapes how we learn from mistakes, reassess choices, and guide future decisions, sometimes at the cost of regret when the gap between reality and possibility becomes too salient.

---

🔗Explore further: The crowd: A study of the popular mind – A visionary look into group dynamics

---

How close predictions amplify disappointment

This psychological mechanism becomes especially powerful when the difference between what could have been and what actually happened is minimal. A few centimeters on a landing, a judging point, a refereeing decision. Objectively, the difference is small. Subjectively, it is immense. The human brain does not simply register the final result. It immediately compares it to what it had anticipated, sometimes already integrated as a certainty. When this internal prediction narrowly fails, the emotional response intensifies. Disappointment stems less from the loss itself than from the abrupt interruption of a scenario already in progress. The brain had begun to project itself into victory, anticipating reward, recognition, and relief. Reality then forces an adjustment, creating a gap that is difficult to absorb.

It is this closeness to what seemed secured that makes the experience particularly painful. The gap between expectation and outcome generates an error signal that feels especially salient when it concerns a highly invested goal. It is not only the loss that hurts, but the dissonance between what the brain prepared for and what it must finally accept. This explains why second place can sometimes be experienced as more painful than a clearer failure. A decisive defeat leaves little room for illusion and quickly closes the field of possibilities. By contrast, almost keeps an alternative alive, one that felt within reach. It fuels regret, recurring mental simulations, and the persistent feeling that everything came down to a single detail.

This paradox extends far beyond elite sport. It appears in exams, competitive selections, career promotions, and creative projects. Whenever a positive outcome is overshadowed by the proximity of a more valued one, the brain tends to minimize the real achievement in favor of what was missed. A very good result can then leave a sense of incompleteness, sometimes more striking than an accepted failure.

Understanding this dynamic helps explain why some objectively remarkable successes leave mixed feelings. The human brain does not merely record what was obtained. It also evaluates what seemed within reach. Recognizing this mechanism allows for a clearer perspective on our own reactions, helping us distinguish the real value of an achievement from the mental narrative we build around it, and to understand how success and regret can sometimes coexist without contradiction.

References

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), 603–610.

Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136–153.

Schultz W. (2016). Dopamine reward prediction error coding. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 18(1), 23–32.