Academic

Honor Among Thieves? Survivor: Heroes v. Villains and The Prisoner?s Dilemma

By Miriam Cherry

Off and on throughout the years, I have followed that germinal TV Reality show, Survivor.  I thought it was fascinating initially, then sometime around the fourth or fifth season when it simultaneously jumped the shark and got sexist, I became only a sporadic viewer.  But this season has sucked me back in again.  (NB: spoilers to follow, so if you haven?t been watching this season but might want to, skip the rest of this post).

This season (yes, its 20th) they once again brought back past cast members.  They cast the most likeable, honorable players onto "The Heroes," and the most unlikeable, dishonorable players onto "The Villains," and then set them against each other.  Great premise!  I was excited to see what the results would be, but my initial prediction (based on some long-ago reading in the alternative dispute resolution area) would be that on a team where the members worked together and could trust each other (i.e. Heroes), the results would also be better.  

Well, initially, it seemed I was wrong.  The Heroes were losing repeated challenges.  Not only that, but they formed alliances and stuck to them, regardless of ability.  In other words, they were acting like ?villains!   Except that might give them too much credit, because on top of constantly losing, The Heroes were also booooring.  The Villains, on the other hand, were not only winning, but they also had a certain weirdness quotient that made you want to see more.

Then the heroes started winning (although at this point they are so boring I?m not sure why I care) and that brought out some twists on The Villain?s team.  The team voted out Boston Rob and Coach, arguably their strongest players.  The only way I could possibly explain it is that the Boston Rob ouster was payback from Jerri for being voted out on an earlier All-Star Game (in which Boston Rob?s now-wife, Amber, won the million dollars, and Boston Rob had helped keep here there at Jerri?s expense).  So it appears that the current Villain team is actually playing an iterated game, i.e. a version of tit-for-tat.  Things have taken an even further twist as now The Heroes (mistakenly assuming that The Villains have an all-women alliance) handed over their immunity idol to Russell, conniving man that he is.  What will be really interesting, I think, is to see how the jury votes.  Will they go along with voting for who played the game ?honorably,? which would presumably carry more weight with the ex-Heroes, or will they side with those who were most conniving?  Both of these arguments have been deployed before in previous seasons? appeals to the jury, but here we will have almost an equal number of players who have different philosophies of what it means to ?play the game.?

p.s. Lest it be said that the link in this post to either ADR law or law & economics is tenuous, there also have been some law review articles written about Survivor.  See, e.g. John G. Sprankling, Property and Television, 59 Rutgers L. Rev. 97 (2006); Joel Ugolini, So you Want to Create the Next Survivor: What Legal Issues Networks Should Consider Before Producing a Reality TV Show, 4 Va. Sports & Ent. L.J. 68 (2004).

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on April 17, 2010 (boomark / email).