Who We Trust Under Pressure: What The Traitors Reveals About Bias
by Aoibhe McDaid-Nelis
Like lots of people on New Year’s Day, I spent the evening watching the first episode of the new season of The Traitors UK. as the episode unfolded, what stayed with me wasn’t the gameplay or the twists. It was a growing sense of who seemed to fall under suspicion first, and how quickly those suspicions solidified.
Part of The Traitors’ appeal lies in its relatability. Unlike other reality TV, the cast feels like a genuine cross-section of the public. Viewers are invited to imagine themselves in the castle, navigating alliances, lies and the constant fear of betrayal. But with that familiarity comes something more unsettling. The social dynamics that emerge under pressure are not unfamiliar at all, and that is precisely the problem.
As this season has progressed, many viewers have noticed a recurring pattern: contestants of colour appearing to attract suspicion early, often based on vague, instinctive reasoning. Judy, a Black woman, was the first to be banished after fellow players decided that her demeanour had changed once the game began. She was criticised for taking too long during a challenge, when she merely stopped to catch her breath. Shortly after, Netty became the first contestant to be murdered, while Ross found himself under suspicion almost immediately, criticised for being too emotional and too defensive and, at times, not defensive enough. The accusations were often contradictory, but the result was consistent.
This is not an isolated phenomenon. Across multiple seasons, including the celebrity season, early eliminations have disproportionately affected players from minority ethnic backgrounds. Some viewers have attempted to quantify this trend, suggesting that while contestants of colour make up a smaller proportion of the cast, they account for a noticeably higher share of early banishments. The numbers alone may not constitute definitive proof, but taken alongside repeated patterns of language and behaviour, they do raise some uncomfortable questions.
To be clear, this does not mean that individual contestants are consciously biased, or that every banishment is racially motivated. The Traitors is a game built on uncertainty, and early decisions will be inevitably speculative. But that uncertainty is exactly what makes bias more likely to surface. When evidence is lacking, people fall back on their instincts.
Psychologically, this is unsurprising. Under pressure, people tend to trust those who feel familiar, like those who align with “normal” behaviour, and self-presentation. In a diverse group of strangers, “fitting in” can be the key to success, in a game based on banishing those who are outcasts. Standing out can be read as unpredictability, and unpredictability is dangerous in a game all about deception.
These patterns are not confined to reality TV. They surface in subtler ways in everyday student life, including at Queens. In seminars, group projects, societies, and more, trust is often established quickly. Decisions about whose ideas carry weight, and who is given the benefit of the doubt are frequently made before evidence has time to accumulate. I’m in no way saying that The Traitors should be cancelled, it remains a compelling show. Rather, the question is what we do with what it reveals. Reality TV does not create bias, but it can show the instincts we have in moments of uncertainty. As Benjy Kusi states about this issue, “If we can’t acknowledge bias when its observable and replayable, it becomes even harder to confront it elsewhere.”
Photo Credit – BBC
