In 1950, mathematicians Melvin Dresher and Merrill Flood conducted an experiment at the Rand Corporation to test “The Nash Equilibrium”. Considered to be “the most famous and troubling game in game theory”, as said by Dixit and Nalebuff in The Art of Strategy, “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” has since become one of the best known models in social sciences as “scientists across many disciplines have found prisoner’s dilemmas helpful in thinking about phenomena ranging from ecological degradation to arms races.” – Holt and Roth
What Is The Prisoner’s Dilemma?
“The Prisoner’s Dilemma” game is a “well-known non-cooperative game involving two players, or defendants, who are kept in separate rooms and thus are unable to communicate. Players must decide, by themselves in isolation, whether to cooperate with the other player or to betray them and confess to law authorities. Prisoner’s Dilemma games arise in various contexts where individual ‘defections’, at the expense of others, lead to overall less desirable outcomes – each player’s best counter to either of the other’s choices is to defect, but both players earn more if they cooperate than if they chose their equilibrium decision and defect.” – Prisoner’s Dilemma
Thomas C. Schelling provides his own definition of the game in The Strategy of Conflict: “Prisoner’s dilemma refers, in game theory, to a configuration of payoffs that gives both players dominant incentives – in the absence of an enforceable agreement to the contrary – to choose strategies that together yield both players a less desirable outcome than if both had made opposite choices. The name derives from the problem of two prisoners, separately interrogated, who may confess to a moderate crime in common or accuse each other of a heavy crime, an accuser goin free unless himself accused, the accused one or ones receiving heavy sentences.”
Dixit and Nalebuff, in The Art of Strategy, also give an excellent description of “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” “The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a special game in that not just one player, but both (or all) players have dominant strategies. When both players use their dominant strategies, both do worse than they would have if somehow they could have jointly and credibly agreed that each would choose the other, dominant strategy… Each person acts in his or her self-interest, and the result is a disaster for the group. In a prisoner’s dilemma, if the other player is in a position to make you a promise to reciprocate your choice of cooperation, then you should try to enable him to make that promise credibly. Even a threat, deployed mutually, may be in the combined interests of the players.”
The Prisoner’s Dilemma Of Melvin Dresher & Merrill Flood
Melvin Dresher and Merrill Flood conducted the first experimental test of what would later be called “The “Prisoner’s Dilemma” at RAND Corporation in 1950. Their experiment was groundbreaking because it moved game theory from pure mathematical abstraction to empirical testing with real human subjects, and showed that human behavior in strategic situations is far more complex and nuanced than simple mathematical models suggest.
The experiment involved two participants playing a repeated game for 100 rounds. Unlike the classic prisoner’s dilemma story (which was actually created later by Albert Tucker), Dresher and Flood used a payoff matrix with monetary rewards. Players chose between two strategies each round, with payoffs structured to create the dilemma situation where mutual cooperation was better than mutual defection, but individual defection was tempting, and players couldn’t communicate directly – but could observe each other’s past choices.
The findings departed significantly from theoretical predictions. While pure game theory predicted players would always defect, the experimental subjects frequently cooperated, with cooperation occurring about 60% of the time over the 100 rounds. Players developed strategies over time, attempting to signal cooperative intent, punish defection, and establish mutual cooperation patterns. They often reciprocated their partner’s previous move, anticipating what would later be formalized as the tit-for-tat strategy. Notably, the subjects rarely settled into the Nash equilibrium of constant mutual defection, instead cycling through various strategy combinations as they learned and adapted.
This experiment holds tremendous historical significance as one of the first behavioral game theory experiments, predating the field by decades – it challenged the fundamental assumption that people would always play according to strict rational self-interest, revealing that human behavior in strategic situations incorporates elements like trust-building, signaling, and reciprocity that weren’t captured in the original theoretical framework. In addition, the results influenced later work on cooperation, reciprocity, and the evolution of social behavior, demonstrating the importance of repeated interaction and reputation in fostering cooperation.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma Of Albert Tucker
Albert Tucker didn’t actually experiment with “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” – rather, his genius was in packaging the Dilemma in a way that made its profound implications about cooperation and conflict accessible to audiences without the need for mathematics. In fact, Tucker created the famous story and framing that gave the game its name.
In 1950, Tucker was tasked with explaining Dresher and Flood’s experimental game to an audience of psychologists at Stanford University. To make the abstract mathematical concept more accessible and memorable, he invented the now-classic narrative of two prisoners facing a prosecutorial deal.
In Tucker’s formulation, two members of a criminal gang are arrested and held in separate cells with no way to communicate. Each prisoner faces a choice: confess and testify against their partner (defect) or remain silent (cooperate). If both remain silent, they each serve a short sentence on a minor charge. If both confess, they each receive a moderate sentence. But if one confesses while the other remains silent, the confessor goes free while the silent prisoner receives the harshest sentence. This narrative brilliantly captured the essence of the mathematical dilemma – that rational self-interest leads both players to confess, even though mutual silence would produce a better outcome for both.
Tucker’s contribution was purely conceptual rather than experimental – he transformed an abstract payoff matrix into a vivid scenario that could be immediately grasped by non-mathematicians. The prisoner story became so compelling and intuitive that it completely overshadowed the original Dresher-Flood experiment in popular consciousness. Today, when people refer to the “prisoner’s dilemma,” they almost always mean Tucker’s formulation rather than the original experimental setup. His narrative framework has been applied to countless situations beyond criminal justice, from nuclear arms races to climate change negotiations, making it one of the most influential teaching tools in game theory.
Final Thoughts
The prisoner’s dilemma stands as one of the most elegant and enduring concepts in human thought, transcending its origins in Cold War-era mathematics to become a universal lens for understanding cooperation and conflict.
From its birth in Dresher and Flood’s RAND laboratory, to Tucker’s inspired storytelling, the dilemma has revealed a fundamental tension at the heart of social life: the clash between individual rationality and collective wellbeing. What began as an abstract mathematical puzzle has illuminated everything from evolutionary biology to climate negotiations, from market economics to personal relationships.
Perhaps the dilemma’s greatest insight is its demonstration that rationality alone cannot solve our deepest social challenges. The mathematically “correct” solution – mutual defection – is also the worst collective outcome, suggesting that pure logic must be supplemented by trust, communication, and institutions that align individual incentives with group welfare. The experimental findings that humans often cooperate despite theoretical predictions offers hope that we are not prisoners of narrow self-interest. Our capacity for reciprocity, reputation-building, and long-term thinking provides escape routes from the dilemma’s tragic logic.
Yet the prisoner’s dilemma also serves as a warning. In an increasingly interconnected world facing challenges like climate change, nuclear proliferation, and global health crises, we find ourselves in countless prisoner’s dilemmas writ large. The temptation to free-ride on others’ cooperation remains powerful, whether in reducing carbon emissions or contributing to public goods. The dilemma reminds us that cooperation is fragile and must be actively cultivated through repeated interaction, credible commitments, and institutions that reward collaboration over defection.
Ultimately, the prisoner’s dilemma endures because it captures something essential about the human condition: we are individuals capable of transcending our individuality.
Thanks for reading!