Why We Groan at Injustice: Lessons from a $100,000 Prisoner’s Dilemma

At a recent presentation by Pauline Tessler, one of the pioneers of collaborative family law, she played a clip from a game show built around the classic Prisoner’s Dilemma. Two contestants sat across from each other with $100,000 at stake. Each had to secretly choose between two options—Split or Steal—and the final outcome depended on the combination of their choices:

• If both choose Split: They share the money evenly. Each gets $50,000.

• If one chooses Split and the other chooses Steal: The person who chose Steal takes the entire $100,000. The person who chose Split gets nothing.

• If both choose Steal: They both lose. No one gets any money.

It should have been easy. But humans are human. Before locking in their choices, both contestants looked each other in the eyes and sincerely promised to choose Split. Then one of them chose Steal.

The reaction in the room

The entire audience groaned—audibly, viscerally.  One person even yelled, “Noooo!” Except for one attendee, who cheered loudly for the person who stole.

That moment hit like a punch in the gut.

Why this moment matters

Most people—but not everyone—feel physically uncomfortable when they witness someone being cheated.  That’s not softness. It’s biology.

Our nervous systems evolved for social life. We are calibrated to seek:

• fairness

• cooperation

• reciprocity

• trust

For hundreds of thousands of years, our survival depended on them.

So when we see one person:

• keep their word,

• act cooperatively,

• take the vulnerable risk of trusting…

…and the other person seize the chance to benefit at that person’s expense, it feels like a violation.

We aren’t just thinking, “That’s unfair.”  Our bodies react.

Why this matters in divorce

Divorce negotiations are full of small-scale prisoner’s dilemmas:

• “If I’m transparent, will they be?”

• “If I offer something reasonable, will they take it—or take advantage of it?”

• “If I compromise now, will they meet me in the middle later?”

These fears are why traditional adversarial litigation so frequently fractures families beyond repair—especially when lawyers approach divorce as a battle, complete with arms thrust in the air and cheering at every perceived victory. What feels like a “win” to one person often comes at the cost of long-term devastation to the family system.

Collaborative divorce, on the other hand, is specifically designed to prevent fear, mistrust, or the desire to “win at all costs” from dominating the process. In this setting, spouses can focus on fairness, problem-solving, and long-term solutions, rather than reacting automatically to perceived threats or betrayals. It creates an environment where:

• trust can be rebuilt (or at least structured),

• information flows openly,

• incentives are aligned, and

• both spouses can choose “split” without fear.

This isn’t idealism. It’s neuroscience-informed practice.

Fairness isn’t optional. It’s foundational.

When people feel treated fairly, problem-solving becomes possible. When they feel betrayed or exploited, even minor issues become explosive.

That game-show moment—paired with Pauline Tessler’s insights—is a powerful reminder: if you want durable resolutions, you can’t ignore human biology. You must create a process that supports fairness, dignity, and safety.

That is exactly what collaborative family law is designed to do.

Pauline Tessler's presentation entitled "Neuroliteracy 101: 21st Century Brain Science-- Expanding Your Toolbox for Dealing with Challenging Clients and Attorneys" was held on November 14, 2025 in Seattle, Washington and sponsored by the Collaborative Professionals of Washington.

The information provided in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal, financial, or tax advice. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and may change over time, affecting the accuracy and applicability of the information provided. Always consult with a qualified attorney, accountant, or financial advisor to discuss your specific situation before making any decisions. This post does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and the author or their firm.