I listened to your silver vs. bronze episode Friday morning, and it really altered the lens through which I watched the games on Friday and Saturday. In particular, I did start to notice more (as would be expected) that silver medalists seemed less happy than bronzers.

But a couple of races made me think about it a different way.

1. The women’s marathon.

Gold – 2:26:44
Silver – 2:27:06
Bronze – 2:27:07

And the gap between gold and silver was really much greater than those times indicate, as the winner coasted for the last mile. The race wasn’t really in doubt after the 22 mile mark or so. But the race for silver was intense. Four runners entered the stadium almost dead even and two really gutted it out in a sprint to the finish.

2. The men’s 100 meters.

Gold – 9.69
Silver – 9.89
Bronze – 9.91

First place was never really in doubt. So for seven of the eight runners, silver essentially became gold in the very early stages of the race.

I’ll bet that, in addition to simply silver vs. bronze, another significant determining factor in medalist satisfaction is the relationship to the closest competitor (either ahead or behind). That is, I’d guess that silver medalist satisfaction is higher — and bronze medalists’ lower — in races like the women’s marathon and the men’s 100 meters where the gold medalist just killed everyone. Similarly, I’d expect bronze medalists to be happier if they were significantly behind the #2 finisher and just ahead of #4 than if they were just a fraction behind #2.

I guess this is essentially the same effect as the one that the authors noticed with whether or not the bronze medalist had just won a match (as in wrestling or tennis).