IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/97604.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Lies Induced Cooperation in "Golden Balls:" A Game-Theoretic Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Brams, Steven J.
  • Mor, Ben D.

Abstract

We analyze a particular episode of a popular British TV game show, “Golden Balls,” in which one of the two contestants lied about what he intended to do, which had the salutary effect of inducing both contestants to cooperate in what is normally a Prisoners' Dilemma (PD), wherein one or both contestants usually defected. This “solution” to PD assumes that the liar desired to be honorable in fulfilling his pledge to split the jackpot if he won but, surprisingly, he achieved this end without having to do so, astonishing the audience and receiving its acclaim. We note that this action has a biblical precedent in King Solomon’s decision to cut a baby in two.

Suggested Citation

  • Brams, Steven J. & Mor, Ben D., 2019. "How Lies Induced Cooperation in "Golden Balls:" A Game-Theoretic Analysis," MPRA Paper 97604, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:97604
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/97604/1/MPRA_paper_97604.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boris Nikolaev, 2014. "Using Experiments and Media to Introduce Game Theory into the Principles Classroom," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 29(Spring 20), pages 149-160.
    2. Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder & Richard H. Thaler, 2012. "Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes Are Large," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 2-20, January.
    3. Uyanga Turmunkh & Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder, 2019. "Malleable Lies: Communication and Cooperation in a High Stakes TV Game Show," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4795-4812, October.
    4. Maxwell N Burton-Chellew & Stuart A West, 2012. "Correlates of Cooperation in a One-Shot High-Stakes Televised Prisoners' Dilemma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-10, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2021. "Nonverbal content and trust: An experiment on digital communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1517-1532, October.
    2. Mujcic, Redzo & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2022. "How Do Humans Respond to Huge Financial Losses?," IZA Discussion Papers 15536, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Adam Zylbersztejn & Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki, 2021. "Predicting trustworthiness across cultures: An experiment," Post-Print hal-03432600, HAL.
    4. von Schenk, Alicia & Klockmann, Victor & Bonnefon, Jean-François & Rahwan, Iyad & Köbis, Nils, 2023. "Lie-detection algorithms attract few users but vastly increase accusation rates," TSE Working Papers 23-1448, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    5. Buser, Thomas & van den Assem, Martijn J. & van Dolder, Dennie, 2023. "Gender and willingness to compete for high stakes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 350-370.
    6. Burnham, Terence C., 2013. "Toward a neo-Darwinian synthesis of neoclassical and behavioral economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(S), pages 113-127.
    7. Alicia von Schenk & Victor Klockmann & Jean-Franc{c}ois Bonnefon & Iyad Rahwan & Nils Kobis, 2022. "Lie detection algorithms attract few users but vastly increase accusation rates," Papers 2212.04277, arXiv.org.
    8. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    9. David Schüller & Thorsten Upmann, 2013. "When Focal Points are Out of Focus: A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Come Dine with Me," CESifo Working Paper Series 4138, CESifo.
    10. Daley, Brendan & Sadowski, Philipp, 2017. "Magical thinking: A representation result," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
    11. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2017. "Anchoring in financial decision-making: Evidence from Jeopardy!," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 164-176.
    12. Marek Hudik, 0. "Equilibrium as compatibility of plans," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    13. Hall, Joshua C. & Podemska-Mikluch, Marta, 2015. "Teaching the economic way of thinking through Op-eds," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 13-21.
    14. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    15. Barber, Luke & Jetter, Michael & Krieger, Tim, 2024. "Foreshadowing Mars: Religiosity and pre-Enlightenment conflict in Europe," VfS Annual Conference 2024 (Berlin): Upcoming Labor Market Challenges 302355, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    16. Uyanga Turmunkh & Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder, 2019. "Malleable Lies: Communication and Cooperation in a High Stakes TV Game Show," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4795-4812, October.
    17. Michael Jetter & Kieran Stockley, 2023. "Gender match and negotiation: evidence from angel investment on Shark Tank," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 64(4), pages 1947-1977, April.
    18. Donja Darai & Silvia Gr�tz, 2010. "Determinants of Successful Cooperation in a Face-to-Face Social Dilemma," SOI - Working Papers 1006, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich, revised Nov 2010.
    19. Marek Hudik, 2020. "Equilibrium as compatibility of plans," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 349-368, October.
    20. Richard H. Thaler, 2016. "Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, and Future," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(7), pages 1577-1600, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Lying in games; Prisoners' Dilemma; King Solomon; Honor;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:97604. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.