What is it?

• Prisoner’s Dilemma is a game that demonstrates whether people display win-win (co-operative) or win-lose (selfish competitive) behaviour in a situation where both are possible.
• It contrasts actual behaviour with stated intentions. Participants see whether those who say they support collaboration actually act that way when it matters.

Why is it useful?

• Explores risk, trust, and the impact of betrayal.
• Shows competition between teams.
• Highlights the advantages of collaboration.
• Demonstrates the importance of establishing purpose.

Objective

To encourage more co-operative behaviour between team members pursuing shared goals.

Resources Required

• About 1 hour.
• Maximum 16 participants (8 per team). With more than 16, split into four groups (two play, two observe).
• Enough space for teams to meet separately without disturbing each other.
• Two chairs in the centre facing each other (for team reps).

Game setup

1. Prepare the room

Set up as per the resources section with two separate team areas and two chairs in the centre.

2. Introduce the concept

Explain this is a simulation inspired by interrogation tactics where prisoners are separated and pressured to confess. Avoid discussing learning objectives at this stage.

3. Explain the dilemma

Teams must decide whether to “confess” or not, with outcomes depending on both sides’ choices.

4. Form teams

Divide into Team A and Team B, seat separately, and instruct no communication except when allowed by the facilitator.

5. State the objective

Each team must achieve the highest positive score after 10 rounds, aiming to beat the other team.

Instructions for participants

1. Two teams (A and B) play 10 rounds.
2. Each round, choose Red or Blue.
3. Scores are based on the table:
   • Both Blue = –6 each.
   • One Red, one Blue = Red –12, Blue +12.
   • Both Red = +6 each.
4. First 8 rounds last 3 minutes each.
5. After round 4, teams may request a 3-minute conference (if both agree).
6. After round 8, another optional conference (max 3 minutes).
7. Rounds 9 and 10 score double; 5 minutes allowed per round.

Process

1. Play four rounds

Teams decide independently; facilitator reveals decisions and scores after each round.

2. Pause for conference

Teams may meet via representatives if both sides agree.

3. Play four more rounds

Continue with scoring and decisions.

4. Pause for second conference

Optional, max 3 minutes.

5. Play final two rounds

Rounds 9 and 10 score double.

Plenary review

1. Announce results

Facilitator totals team points and compares with the maximum possible (72 points).

2. Lead discussion

Ask:

• Did your attitude shift between wanting to win and wanting to collaborate? Why?
• Were there differences in approach across the three phases of the game?
• How did the conferences affect decisions?
• What did you learn about trust, competition, and collaboration?
• How did it feel to win? To lose?
• What would you do differently if you played again?

Secret Sauce

• Emphasise that negative scores mean automatic loss. This prevents teams from playing Blue continuously.
• If both teams stick with Red, remind them that always choosing Red only leads to a draw.
• Aim for the teams to fluctuate between cooperation and competition, creating an emotional rollercoaster to reflect on later.
• Avoid sharing plenary questions until the end.
• Tell participants they may not fully understand until after a couple of rounds — this is expected.
• Consider adding a prize (e.g. money) for the team with the highest positive score to boost competitiveness.
• Push teams toward holding conferences — they often reveal the most powerful learning points.
• Always end with a thorough plenary to consolidate insights.