IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v81y2019icp56-72.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Solving the simultaneous truel in The Weakest Link: Nash or revenge?

Author

Listed:
  • Gonzalez, Luis J.
  • Castaneda, Marco
  • Scott, Frank

Abstract

The game show The Weakest Link contains a version of the three-way duel, or truel, a strategic situation which historically has attracted considerable attention from economists and mathematicians. Data collected from actual episodes of the show provide an excellent opportunity to test behavioral motivations of this classic problem in a natural laboratory with substantial monetary payoffs. We use data from U.S., French, and British versions of the show and compute the Nash equilibria for each episode based on the maximization of monetary returns. We then analyze whether players play Nash strategies; whether their decisions are motivated by race, gender, or age discrimination; or whether they are motivated by reciprocity/revenge based on player interactions in previous rounds. There is only limited evidence that players play Nash equilibrium strategies or that they engage in race and age discrimination. The strongest predictor of behavior is reciprocity—players taking revenge on those voting against them in previous rounds.

Suggested Citation

  • Gonzalez, Luis J. & Castaneda, Marco & Scott, Frank, 2019. "Solving the simultaneous truel in The Weakest Link: Nash or revenge?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 56-72.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:56-72
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2019.04.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804318305196
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2019.04.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    2. Levitt, Steven D, 2004. "Testing Theories of Discrimination: Evidence from Weakest Link," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(2), pages 431-452, October.
    3. Thierry Post & Martijn J. van den Assem & Guido Baltussen & Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Deal or No Deal? Decision Making under Risk in a Large-Payoff Game Show," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 38-71, March.
    4. Felix Oberholzer-Gee & Joel Waldfogel & Matthew W. White, 2010. "Friend or Foe? Cooperation and Learning in High-Stakes Games," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 179-187, February.
    5. Berk, Jonathan B & Hughson, Eric & Vandezande, Kirk, 1996. "The Price Is Right, but Are the Bids? An Investigation of Rational Decision Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 954-970, September.
    6. Nicolas de Roos & Yianis Sarafidis, 2010. "Decision making under risk in Deal or No Deal," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(6), pages 987-1027.
    7. Bossert, Walter & Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc, 2002. "Cooperative vs non-cooperative truels: little agreement, but does that matter?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 185-202, August.
    8. Mark Walker & John Wooders, 2001. "Minimax Play at Wimbledon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1521-1538, December.
    9. P.-A. Chiappori, 2002. "Testing Mixed-Strategy Equilibria When Players Are Heterogeneous: The Case of Penalty Kicks in Soccer," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1138-1151, September.
    10. Ofer Azar & Michael Bar-Eli, 2011. "Do soccer players play the mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(25), pages 3591-3601.
    11. Rafael Tenorio & Timothy N. Cason, 2002. "To Spin or Not to Spin? Natural and Laboratory Experiments from "The Price is Right"," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(476), pages 170-195, January.
    12. Beetsma, Roel M W J & Schotman, Peter C, 2001. "Measuring Risk Attitudes in a Natural Experiment: Data from the Television Game Show Lingo," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(474), pages 821-848, October.
    13. Healy, Paul & Noussair, Charles, 2004. "Bidding behavior in the price is right game: an experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 231-247, June.
    14. Ganna Pogrebna & Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Coordination, focal points and voting in strategic situations: a natural experiment," IEW - Working Papers 403, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    15. Philip L. Hersch & Gerald S. Mcdougall, 1997. "Decision Making under Uncertainty When the Stakes Are High: Evidence from a Lottery Game Show," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(1), pages 75-84, July.
    16. Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
    17. Dawes, Robyn M & Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "Anomalies: Cooperation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 187-197, Summer.
    18. Kate Antonovics & Peter Arcidiacono & Randall Walsh, 2005. "Games and Discrimination: Lessons From The Weakest Link," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 40(4), pages 918-947.
    19. 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.
    20. Metrick, Andrew, 1995. "A Natural Experiment in "Jeopardy!"," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 240-253, March.
    21. Ganna Pogrebna & Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Coordination, focal points and voting in strategic situations: a natural experiment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 125-143, July.
    22. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, 2001. "Professionals Play Minimax," Working Papers 2001-17, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    23. Belot, Michèle & Bhaskar, V. & van de Ven, Jeroen, 2010. "Promises and cooperation: Evidence from a TV game show," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 396-405, March.
    24. Robert Gertner, 1993. "Game Shows and Economic Behavior: Risk-Taking on "Card Sharks"," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(2), pages 507-521.
    25. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, 2003. "Professionals Play Minimax," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(2), pages 395-415.
    26. Fevrier, Philippe & Linnemer, Laurent, 2006. "Equilibrium selection: Payoff or risk dominance?: The case of the "weakest link"," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 164-181, June.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. Sjögren Lindquist, Gabriella & Säve-Söderbergh, Jenny, 2006. "Testing the rationality assumption using a design difference in the TV game show 'Jeopardy'," Working Paper Series 9/2006, Stockholm University, Swedish Institute for Social Research.
    5. Gabriella Sjögren Lindquist & Jenny Säve-Söderbergh, 2012. "Securing victory or not? Surrendering optimal play when facing simple calculations -- a natural experiment from the Swedish and US Jeopardy," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(6), pages 777-783, February.
    6. Tom Lane, 2020. "Along which identity lines does 21st-century Britain divide? Evidence from Big Brother," Rationality and Society, , vol. 32(2), pages 197-222, May.
    7. Ganna Pogrebna & Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Coordination, focal points and voting in strategic situations: a natural experiment," IEW - Working Papers 403, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    8. Pavlo Blavatskyy & Ganna Pogrebna, 2008. "Risk Aversion when Gains are Likely and Unlikely: Evidence from a Natural Experiment with Large Stakes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 395-420, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Marco Haan & Bart Los & Yohanes Riyanto, 2011. "Signaling strength? An analysis of decision making in The Weakest Link," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 519-537, October.
    11. Nicolas de Roos & Yianis Sarafidis, 2010. "Decision making under risk in Deal or No Deal," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(6), pages 987-1027.
    12. Gee, C., 2007. "Risky Choice and Type-Uncertainty in "Deal or No Deal?"," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0758, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    13. Robert Brooks & Robert Faff & Daniel Mulino & Richard Scheelings, 2009. "Deal or No Deal, That is the Question: The Impact of Increasing Stakes and Framing Effects on Decision‐Making under Risk," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 9(1‐2), pages 27-50, March.
    14. Pogrebna, Ganna, 2008. "Naive advice when half a million is at stake," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 148-154, February.
    15. Stephen Dobson & John Goddard, 2018. "Games of Two Halves: Non-Experimental Evidence on Cooperation, Defection and the Prisoner’s Dilemma," Review of Economic Analysis, Digital Initiatives at the University of Waterloo Library, vol. 10(3), pages 285-312, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Egil Matsen & Bjarne Strøm, 2006. "Joker: Choice in a simple game with large stakes," Working Paper Series 8307, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
    18. Fevrier, Philippe & Linnemer, Laurent, 2006. "Equilibrium selection: Payoff or risk dominance?: The case of the "weakest link"," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 164-181, June.
    19. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    20. Pavlo Blavatskyy & Ganna Pogrebna, 2006. "Loss Aversion? Not with Half-a-Million on the Table!," IEW - Working Papers 274, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.

    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:eee:soceco:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:56-72. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.