I have to say I’m puzzled, since I’m not sure I understand why you disagree with my observation about the reason why people leave value on the table in this game.

If I instructed people to “focus first on what they could achieve by coordinating their actions”, as you suggested, it would undermine the purpose of the game.

The directions are intentionally vague to allow for many possible outcomes: “If you win, I’ll pay you $1000″. The game is designed to test what people will do when left to their own devices. What the game reveals are the limits of our own imaginations and our assumptions about what it means to win.

What is interesting is that of all possible outcomes, the one that occurs most rarely is the one which enables both partners in a pair to get the $1000.

In every debrief, when people are asked to reflect on the reasons why, they all report the same thing: they assumed that only one of them could win. Classic zero-sum thinking!

When I first read of the experiment, I immediately came to the conclusion that each party should immediately run to the other side. (The example I was give was board room table in which you had to convince the other party to stand behind your chair. The instructions did not require that you were in the chair.)

But I disagree with your observation that the reason people don’t see this solution is that they focus on the zero sum aspect.

I tell parties to focus first on what they could achieve by coordinating their actions. Next, how do the individuals credibly commit to the actions required by coordinated agreement?

Both steps are important in a problem solving mediation.