The Psychology of Deception in The Traitors
- Patrycia Gaszczyk
- 5 minutes ago
- 5 min read
On ‘The Traitors UK’, an award-winning reality TV competition, strangers trust and betray one another for the chance to win up to £120,000 (and one more day in the presence of Claudia Winkleman’s fringe). There may be no official strategy for winning, but the players who last longest all seem to understand one thing: psychology.
Surrounded by the gothic scenery of the Scottish Highlands, ‘The Traitors’ is a game of social deduction, similar to the party game Mafia, hosted by the effortlessly sharp Claudia Winkleman who secretly selects three players as the titular Traitors. By night, the Traitors gather in secret to choose a faithful to “murder”. By day, suspicion rules, as the group attempts to banish whoever they think is a Traitor. If the Faithfuls eliminate all the Traitors, they share the prize – but if even one Traitor reaches the end by convincing the group they are Faithful, they take everything, making trust a dangerous gamble where perception matters more than truth.
With a new season having just aired on New Year’s Day, I’ve found myself watching it with a familiar fascination. As a psychologist - and an avid viewer - I’ve noticed a striking pattern as each new season unfolds: several traits measured by the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) seem to repeatedly surface among the most successful players. Those traits are not inherently bad. In fact, in the game of deception, many of the checklist’s “Items” - from charm, lying to manipulation - can offer strategic advantage, especially for those aiming for the finale.
In this article, I’ll use the PCL-R as a lens to examine how specific traits play out in The Traitors, and why qualities typically viewed as pathological can, in this context, become tools for success.
Items 1 & 9: Superficial Charm & Parasitic Lifestyle
To survive early banishments, players must be likeable - not loud. Research shows that trust is shaped less by how candid someone is, and more by how agreeable they seem. Warmth, cooperativeness, and emotional ease signal safety, while dominance and visibility point to threat. As a result, outspoken contestants are often banished early. Armani’s (Traitor) early banishment from Season 3 illustrates it clearly: her confidence and willingness to speak her mind marked her as a risk that Faithfuls sniffed out long before there was evidence against her.
By contrast, players who appear calm and blend into the group appear trustworthy simply by being socially unthreatening. Charlotte’s (Faithful, Series 3) journey shows how her warmth can protect a player even after becoming a Traitor. This same agreeableness also enables a more passive - what psychologists might call “parasitic” - strategy: contributing just enough to be seen as cooperative, while avoiding leadership and letting others carry the weight of suspicion. That's what led Kasim (Faithful, Season 2) to lose his place in the finale, when he became vocal about his theories. In contrast, the eventual winners consistently minimised their exposure, quietly benefiting from the group’s labour while remaining easy to trust.
Item 4: Lying
Everyone lies in “The Traitors”, but not everyone does it well - the players who last longer do it without showing the strain of deception. According to studies, when people lie, the stress can cause us to sweat, get lost in narratives, or show Freudian slips. That’s why success lies in consistency and calmness.
Participants who can deliver deceit without panic, nervous tics, over-explaining, or becoming defensive stay under the radar longer. Players like Wilf (Traitor, Season 1) and Harry (Traitor, Season 2) survived intense scrutiny not because their stories were flawless, but because their emotional responses matched what honesty is supposed to look like. When lying doesn’t feel stressful, it doesn’t look suspicious. Therefore, remember, the lie matters less than how comfortable you are telling it.
Item 5: Conning / Manipulative
Manipulation in “The Traitors” is rarely obvious. The successful players influence others while coming across as passive, validating suspicions, giving suggestions, and letting someone else take ownership of an idea. Traitors who reach the finale tend to avoid confrontation, whilst positioning others as shields or scapegoats.
This classic indirect manipulation, where social outcomes are shaped without visible control, has led two Traitors to win. In “The Celebrity Traitors” finale, Joe Marler (Faithful) was the outspoken faithful, ultimately banished, after carrying out the plan that Allan Carr so delicately planted. Yet, nothing can compare to the way two Traitors, Harry and Paul (Season 2), led Miles (Faithful turned Traitor) to trust them, solely to use him as a scapegoat and orchestrate his banishment. This kind of quiet influence allows Traitors to shape outcomes while appearing passive - a powerful combination in a game where visibility equals danger.
Items 6 & 8: Lack of Remorse or Guilt & Callousness / Lack of Empathy
In “The Traitors”, guilt is a liability. Those who feel bad about lying often give themselves out by overcompensating - being overly helpful, emotionally incongruent or acting out of character. By contrast, players with reduced remorse maintain behavioural and emotional consistency, which reads as honesty.
This trait is crucial to winning. If not for diminished remorse, moments like Harry’s (Traitor) deception of his close friend, Mollie, in the finale of Season 2 - convincing her he was Faithful until the final vote and taking the prize - would’ve been impossible. Players who can banish confidants and rationalise deceit as “part of the game” avoid showing emotions that might expose them.
However, successful Traitors don’t fully abandon empathy; they use it selectively. Enough to bond, but not enough to hesitate. Whether it’s Wilf turning on his fellow Traitor, Amanda in Series 1, or Alan Carr “murdering” his real-life friend, Paloma, in “Celebrity Traitors”, winning players separate social bonds from strategy, not letting their emotions compromise decision.
Item 7: Shallow Affect
A limited emotional range can sound negative, but in the context of “The Traitors” it warrants emotional control. As per studies in organisational settings, people who show strong emotions when questioned are frequently perceived as less truthful than those who stay calm when things get heated.
Time after time, season after season, emotionally expressive players who cry, get defensive or angry, are viewed as suspicious, no matter the facts. In Season 1, Faithful Matt was ultimately banished not because of evidence, but because his visible frustration and emotional nature were interpreted as signs of guilt - highlighting how, in “The Traitors”, emotional expression is often mistaken for deception.
The Bigger Picture
What “The Traitors” ultimately rewards is not morality, but social perception. Studies show that charm, warmth, agreeableness and emotional control are what we base trust on - even when facts point in the other direction. As a result, players who operate those patterns well - staying calm, appearing approachable and not overly dominant - navigate suspicion far better than emotionally reactive contestants or born leaders. And with a new season now airing, you can enjoy watching more closely, noticing how these small psychological patterns quietly influence who makes it to the end.
Ultimately, winning “The Traitors” is about being psychologically suited to a game where trust is currency. To paraphrase a classic “you don’t have to be mad to win here… but it helps”.