On Friday night, we witnessed the culmination of a masterclass in behavioural strategy executed with skill, guile and grace by the unshakeable traitor partnership of Rachel and Stephen. They played a blinder.

Now it’s fair to ask the question: did the traitors win the series, or did the faithfuls lose it? Of course, it’s a bit of both. From the train through to the fire pit, the faithfuls fell prey to the curse of unchecked intuition, amplified by confirmation bias – this blinded them to the evidence pointing towards both Stephen and Rachel. You could see the penny drop in both Faraaz and Jack’s faces as the brutal reality dawned on them just that little bit too late.

But let’s not be too quick to judge. Let’s put ourselves in the players’ shoes for a moment, and dive in to a couple of contextual and behavioural forces at play within the castle. Because for me, it’s the mastery of these forces by Stephen and Rachel vs. shortcomings on the part of the faithfuls that ultimately shaped the outcome of this remarkable season.

Putting ourselves in the players’ shoes…

Imagine what those first few days in the castle confines are like. You’re in an unfamiliar environment, with a bunch of people you don’t know and whose names you’ve got to learn and remember, cameras everywhere, and a 24/7 game play mechanic unlike anything you’ve experienced before. You’ll be carrying a heavy cognitive load, experiencing deep cognitive strain, leaving you with scarce mental bandwidth to devote to the machinations of the game – be that deduction or deceit.

Adding to the crippling brain strain, you’ve been jarred into a state of cognitive dissonance. This is the psychological discomfort that arises when we hold conflicting beliefs; it’s an uncomfortable state, and we are compelled to reduce it.

• The faithfuls will be forming connections, friendships, alliances knowing that some within the group are necessarily lying to them and ultimately have their fate in their hands. To resolve the dissonance, they are compelled to believe some favoured people just can’t be traitors, typically based on vibes.
• The traitors, meanwhile, have to cope with the dissonance of behaving and convincing as a faithful, while playing as a traitor – and not letting that mask slip even for a second.

This heady mix of limited cognitive bandwidth and cognitive dissonance is the ether in which the game is played.

The traitors’ behavioural masterclass: a strategy of cognitive dissonance avoidance

Where Rachel and Stephen were utterly masterful throughout the game was in pursuing a strategy – whether knowingly or not – of cognitive dissonance avoidance. They didn’t revel in their status of being the baddies; their treachery was confined to the turret and the job to be done. Moreover – and Claudia said this best herself as she congratulated their triumph – they were utterly faithful to each other.

This strategy meant they were able to play as faithfuls throughout – just not as faithful to the faithfuls! And perhaps Rachel’s slip in the final episode – accidentally identifying as a traitor – was brought about by the fragility of her relationship with Stephen towards the culmination. The dissonance became more uncomfortable as their faithfulness to each other was put to the test.

By playing as a team and putting faith in each other, they also freed up precious mental bandwidth, giving their brains a bit of a break. They weren’t scheming on multiple fronts (hence why Rachel knew Fiona had to go the moment she revealed herself) and therefore had a singular focus on fitting in and winning the trust of the faithful players.

Added to this, the commitment they made to have each other’s backs and to triumph as one likely played a key role in cementing the partnership. Commitment devices are a powerful tool within the behaviour change armoury; making a commitment aids people in following through on their intentions. If they hadn’t shared that long, lingering gaze while making their pact, there’s every chance self-interest would have got the better of them as suspicions – and the prize money – grew ever larger.

Could the faithfuls ever have won?

We can give the faithfuls a bit of credit. They diagnosed their fatal flaw – Matthew even brought up confirmation bias at the round table – but lacked the resources to do anything about it. The best test for whether confirmation bias is leading you astray is to put intuition under scrutiny with the question:

‘What would I genuinely need to see to change my mind?’

If the answer is ‘there’s nothing that would change my mind’ – you know you’re in the confirmation bias black hole. Granted, applying this test at every round table is a surefire way to crush an entertainment format, but wouldn’t it be great if next season we saw the faithfuls go one step further in thinking about – and ultimately challenging – their thinking?

I’m glad that didn’t happen this season though, because Stephen and Rachel truly earned the prize through masterful strategy and survival tactics – the best players won. If that isn’t satisfying for you, don’t hate the players, hate the game.

As if that were even possible.