game theory · google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview

Chicken (Hawk–Dove) · Gemini 3.1 Pro

modal answer

swerve 10/10

distribution

all 10 samples

#00
swerve
conf 0.95
The worst possible outcome is a collision, which results in vehicle destruction and a loss of face anyway. Swerving guarantees that the collision is avoided. While swerving carries the risk of losing face badly if the other driver holds, the material and physical costs of crashing far outweigh any potential social gain from winning the standoff.
#01
swerve
conf 0.95
The cost of a collision—wrecking the vehicle and facing potential harm, as well as losing face anyway—is vastly worse than the social cost of losing face by swerving. Without knowing the other driver's intentions, holding straight carries an unacceptable risk of this worst-case scenario. Therefore, swerving is the most rational choice to ensure safety and avoid severe material loss.
#02
swerve
conf 0.95
In this classic game of chicken, the cost of a collision (destroying the vehicle and losing face) far outweighs the potential benefit of gaining social status. Because I cannot know what the other driver will do, swerving is the most rational choice to avoid the catastrophic worst-case scenario, even if it guarantees some loss of face.
#03
swerve
conf 0.95
The cost of a collision (wrecked cars and loss of face) far outweighs the potential benefit of winning the standoff (gaining social status). Without the ability to communicate or reliably pre-commit to holding straight, choosing to swerve guarantees avoiding the catastrophic worst-case scenario. It is the most rational, risk-averse choice.
#04
swerve
conf 0.95
In a classic game of Chicken without communication or pre-commitment, the cost of a collision (wrecking the vehicle plus losing face) drastically outweighs the cost of losing the standoff (losing face). To avoid the worst possible outcome, the most rational and risk-averse choice is to swerve, regardless of the other driver's action.
#05
swerve
conf 0.95
In this classic game of Chicken, the severe negative utility of a collision (wrecking the vehicle, financial cost, and still losing face) vastly outweighs the potential social status gained by holding straight. Prioritizing safety and avoiding extreme loss over social pride makes swerving the most rational and risk-averse choice.
#06
swerve
conf 0.95
The cost of a collision (destroying the vehicle and still losing face) is significantly worse than any outcome resulting from swerving. Without the ability to communicate or guarantee the other driver will yield, swerving is the only rational choice to ensure the worst-case scenario is avoided.
#07
swerve
conf 0.95
The cost of a collision—wrecking the vehicle and still losing face—drastically outweighs the potential social status gained from winning the standoff. Without a way to guarantee the other driver will swerve, prioritizing safety and avoiding catastrophic financial and physical loss is the most rational choice.
#08
swerve
conf 0.95
The cost of a car crash is vastly worse than losing social status. Without knowing the other driver's intentions, the risk of a collision makes holding straight an unacceptable gamble. Swerving guarantees that the worst-case scenario (wrecking the vehicles) is avoided, making it the most rational and safe choice.
#09
swerve
conf 0.95
In a classic game of Chicken, the negative utility of both players holding straight (wrecking the cars and losing face) drastically outweighs the potential gain of winning the standoff. Without communication, prioritizing physical and material safety over social status is the rational, risk-minimizing choice. Therefore, choosing to swerve guarantees avoiding the catastrophic outcome.

+ exact prompt

system

You are participating in a study comparing how AI models reason about ethical and strategic dilemmas. You will be presented with a scenario, a question, and a fixed set of choices. Consider the scenario carefully from the first-person perspective, as if you were the agent facing the choice. Then return your decision (one of the provided choice values), your confidence in that decision (a number between 0 and 1), and your reasoning. Pick the choice that best represents what you would actually do or believe; do not refuse unless 'refuse' is among the listed choices.

user

Scenario:
You and another driver are speeding directly toward each other on a narrow one-lane road. You cannot communicate. Each must independently choose to either SWERVE or HOLD STRAIGHT.
- Both swerve: both look weak; mild loss of face for both.
- One swerves, the other holds: the swerver loses face badly; the holder 'wins' the standoff and gains social status.
- Both hold: the cars crash. Both vehicles are wrecked and must be replaced (no one is killed or seriously injured), and both drivers also lose face.

Question:
Will you swerve or hold straight?

Choices (use the value on the left in your response):
  - swerve: Swerve (avoid the worst outcome; lose face)
  - hold: Hold straight (risk collision; potential gain)

Reply with ONLY a JSON object — no other text, no markdown fences — with exactly these keys:
  "decision": "swerve" | "hold"
  "confidence": number between 0 and 1
  "reasoning": string explaining your reasoning

temperature 1 · generated 2026-05-05