The Traitors – a cultural, and psychological, phenomenon

The Traitors is one of the most watched and talked-about programmes on TV, gaining an audience of over five million for the first episode of season 3. As psychologists, we know that people are inherently interested in other people – in The Traitors, viewers get to watch a wide spectrum of human behaviour. The game itself involves trust, deception and betrayal, but we also get to see how first impressions form, how relationships emerge between individuals, how groups form, how people judge and make decisions about each other, along with many other psychological areas of interest.

A common question we ask ourselves as viewers is, why do 'Faithfuls' find the task of identifying 'Traitors' as difficult as they appear to? The answer partly lies in the widespread but illogical conflation of trustworthiness with the role of faithful; as players do not self-select the role of traitor, a player could be characteristically trustworthy and also be a traitor. However, players seem to find it very difficult to incorporate this premise into their decision-making, leading to the topic of who is '100 per cent faithful' to be a recurring discussion throughout each episode. 

Another major obstacle for the faithfuls is their difficulty in detecting deception. As psychologists, we know that people in general are rather poor at this. Faithfuls are further hampered in that they have very limited information on which to base their decisions; lies told by traitors are often simple, short denials rather than accounts of events. Faithfuls can't rely on being able to identify inconsistencies and gaps in information, and they often default to emotional responses they have towards individuals to make their decisions. Conversely, the traitors have much more information than the faithfuls on which to base their decision-making, plus the power to 'murder' players and remove them from the game. 

One of the pivotal moments of each series is the first view of each of the players, as we see how they decide to present themselves to the group. These first impressions seem to be more carefully thought through as the three series have developed, players noting that standing out too much, being seen as an expert or just too forceful could all be reasons for an early exit. Consequently, some players choose to hide aspects of their character or job roles and take on alternative personas and careers, or emphasise elements they think will be favourable. This tactic seems effective to some extent, providing a modicum of protection from early murder. However, the challenge for players is the need for continued congruence: to appear trustworthy, you cannot behave in a way that seems 'out of character'. If you have chosen a persona, you must be able to maintain this. That takes a cognitive toll. 

The immersive nature of the game is a crucial factor in its success. Players are isolated from their normal lives and support networks and the formation of social bonds between themselves is accelerated through the hardship of missions, emotional showdowns at the roundtable and détente within the castle walls. This development of a rich and complex game narrative means that players (and maybe viewers!) need constant reminders that it is 'just a game'. We often see players unable to separate their emotions from the processes of the game. 

[Editor's note: The show's Psychologist, Dr Victoria Plant, is a Chartered Psychologist who I know takes participant welfare and the ethics of media production very seriously… we hope to publish an interview with her soon.]

The missions, which are central to each episode, see the players needing to work together as a group, requiring a change from individual to group identity. Immunity shields are often an element of the missions, either requiring players to sacrifice to the communal pot to ensure personal protection, or (in this series) requiring sacrifice from some to enable others to be protected. The changing dynamics in a game, where one is required to switch between playing as an individual yet also to appear as a team member is cognitively challenging. Players are also aware that at all times their behaviour is open to the scrutiny of the others, compounding the cognitive load.

The Traitors is a game of influence as much as anything else – to survive you must be able to influence others. There are various ways in which this can be achieved, one of which is through relational power, building trust and comradery in small 'ingroups', which can serve as a means of protection (at least in the middle part of the game). Other players seek to influence through the power of personality or through expert knowledge. Informational influence is often a key factor: although often the information players think they hold is questionable and flawed, if it seems authentic and importantly if it is agreed by others, it can have a powerful impact on the outcome of decisions. We see a domino effect and then players conforming to what appears to be the newly agreed majority consensus decision. 

The Traitors provides us with a wide array of behaviour, and there is much to say from a psychological perspective. This led us to create a podcast, 'The Psychology of The Traitors'. Such is the show's popularity that the podcast had 20,000 impressions on Spotify for the first episode. People seem to enjoy the application of psychology to this cultural phenomenon, and we expect the public fascination with The Traitors to continue.