The Traitors and a resplendent, though funereal, Claudia Winkleman are back on screens in the UK – and you could cut the tension with a poison-laced dagger.
This time, both intermingled faithful and traitors are not civilians – they’re celebrities. The cast is diverse, featuring actors, comedians, singers, athletes and presenters. Each has their own particular expertise, motives, character and fan club.
They all play for a share of the jackpot for their nominated charity. But how could this new celebrity dynamic affect the state of play? Can neuroscience and psychology foretell what sorts of mind games, alliances, betrayals and downright cunning could go down in the name of completely unmissable entertainment?
It’s going to be another addictive game of smoke and mirrors. No spoilers, I promise!
The prominent status of our celebs means viewers have preconceived ideas about them. But what matters more within the castle walls are the everyday impressions, even before they’re divided into tribes – most as faithfuls whose job it is to catch a few hidden traitors.
The skillsets
Each cast member is a celebrity for a reason, and a professional in their own field. Actors like Celia Imrie and Mark Bonnar may be skilled in reading emotions in others, and have distinct advantages in performance.
The ability to be able to feign upset or distress, plead innocence, or indeed lie convincingly, could prove a distinct asset. Especially since research has suggested that how you act or present yourself is a stronger predictor of being judged credible than the actual truth of your statement.
But acting prowess could be spotted as cover, and prove a disadvantage if cross-examined. Equally, misjudged overreactions or poor acting may also quickly raise suspicion and doubt.
Athletes such as Tom Daley and Joe Marler possess strength and agility, allowing them to excel in physical challenges. This training could facilitate trust, or signal a dominance which might highlight them as leaders.
Athletes have also honed abilities to focus the mind in the face of competition. They know how to repress and conceal signs of anxiety or adrenaline – sweating, shaking, flushing, and the like – that could otherwise manifest as telltale symbols of lying.
Meanwhile, comedians like Joe Wilkinson and Lucy Beaumont are both charming and disarming. We know deception and humour are interrelated social phenomena. Humour can be used for deception but it can also lighten the atmosphere and defuse tense situations. But ill-timed comedy could likewise inflame it, or be seen as attempts at deflection.
All these traits may help paint someone as trustworthy, or equally Machiavellian. Machiavellianism, which involves acting unscrupulously to gain power, is one of the traits encompassing what psychologists refer to as “the Dark Triad”. This could position them as either untouchable, or potential targets – ripe to be murdered or banished.
Pre-existing relationships
Many of the celebs have entered the game already knowing each other. Paloma Faith and Alan Carr are real-life friends. This dimension is not necessarily limited to the celebrity version. In previous series, some relationships were established before entering the castle – mother and son, siblings, and even contestants dating.
With our stars, these prior relationships are already out in the open for all to see. As broadcasters, Clare Balding and Kate Garraway share common ground, as do writers like Stephen Fry and David Olusoga, and singers Charlotte Church and Cat Burns. Such relationships will be taken into account by those playing the game.
As psychology also tells us, birds of a feather flock together – a concept known as homophily. This might lead to the formation of natural alliances and strong pacts. But it may equally lead to stronger feelings of betrayal, if or when they become ruptured.
What of the relative unknowns – Niko Omilana and Ruth Codd – who arrived knowing nobody? Research shows us that our brains rapidly make judgements, within milliseconds, about unfamiliar faces. Whether they can be considered trustworthy or not appears to depend upon independent variables, including facial dimensions, age, sex and personality. Notably female gender and positive social interactions tend to lead to more favourable judgments.
Fame may also be a problem when it comes to tactics. A contestant from the last civilian series with an English accent decided to adopt a Welsh burr instead. It was because they judged a Welsh accent more trustworthy.
Star status makes tactics like these impossible. And with details of their working or private lives potentially under the spotlight, celebrities may find themselves more vulnerable in this game.
Playing for charity
What’s more, playing for oneself versus playing for charity creates another really interesting dynamic. You could argue that ultimately nobody will lose in this game since the jackpot is undoubtedly heading toward a good cause. But it also boils down to a variation in altruism between individuals.
This variation is evident in the brain itself. Research from neuroscience shows distinct cerebral activity patterns are responsible for driving behaviour associated with winning and losing money in a given task. This research also uncovered stronger reactions when winning for oneself versus for charity, but this could vary between individuals.
We’ve also got to look at the desire to win for glory, which is perhaps more evident in athletes and those in business. Public image matters. And it raises the question – how much are these celebrities happy to risk theirs?
It’s remarkable how the concept of The Traitors can give us a glimpse into the psyche, illuminating sides of people we’ve not seen before. Whatever the outcome, this is going to prove another fascinating psychological experiment. Hope you’ve got your popcorn and (non-poisoned) chalice at the ready.
Dan Baumgardt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
