Check out this video clip from a British game show called Golden Balls, in which contestants at the end of the show must decide whether to split or steal the jackpot. Here the jackpot was rather large for the show, £100,150 which was equivalent to a little over $200,000 US at the time this aired.
I couldn't help but notice how similar this game show is to prisoner's dilemma, except for the fact that they are allowed to discuss the decision before choosing their option. Both can choose split and obviously divvy up the money; one contestant can choose split and the other steal, leaving the split-person with nothing; or they can both choose steal and walk away empty-handed. This makes it so that it's in the best interest of contestants to choose split, barring greed.
For what it counts, Wikipedia says this was the highest amount ever won on the show. These contestants were both previously on the show. In those previous appearances, both of them split, while their opponents stole. This was most likely the motivation behind Sarah choosing steal, after feeling betrayed the first time around. It's surprising though that Stephen didn't make the same move. They talked the decision over, and Sarah convincingly lied to Stephen, leaving him with nothing in the end. I just thought this was a very interesting and somewhat real world example of game theory at work, specifically prisoner's dilemma.
I remember seeing this when I was taking Econ last semester, and noticing the remarkable resemblance to the prisoner's dilemma. It seems as though the woman in this situation is a horrible person, but in reality, she made the choice to give her the most utility since they were only making one deal. It seems likely that if they were going to reappear on the show she would not have stiffed him and taken all the money.
ReplyDelete