Volunteer’s Dilemma (measuring burnout)
Welcome to The Volunteer’s Dilemma, a game of social tension and silent expectation. You and a group face a simple task: someone must step up—but at a cost. If one of you volunteers, everyone wins. But if nobody does? You all suffer a worse fate. The twist? Volunteering hurts your own score while helping others, and waiting might save you… if someone else acts. This game captures the delicate balance between self-interest and collective good, where silence can be costly, and bravery uncertain. (a.k.a. many hands make light work.)
Conceptual Discussion: The Volunteer’s Dilemma
Concept:
The Volunteer’s Dilemma models the real-world challenge of diffusion of responsibility, where individuals wait for others to act in group settings—often leading to collective failure.
How It Works:
A group of players must complete a task.
Only one person needs to volunteer (at a personal cost) for everyone to benefit.
If no one volunteers, all players suffer a greater loss.
The game is repeated across rounds, often with AI or real players adopting different behavioral strategies (cooperative, random, selfish, etc.).
Strategic Tension:
Volunteering costs you (e.g., -20 points).
If someone else volunteers, you benefit without paying the cost (+10 points).
If no one volunteers, everyone suffers (-30 points).
The rational player must weigh:
“Should I sacrifice my own score for the group?”
“Will someone else take the hit if I don’t?”
“Can I free-ride this time without consequences?”
Emergent Dynamics:
In large groups, everyone waits, increasing the chance of mutual loss.
In small groups, individuals are more likely to volunteer.
Over time, patterns form—trustworthy volunteers may become targets for exploitation.
Real-World Analogs:
Emergency situations (e.g., calling for help or performing CPR).
Workplace settings (e.g., someone staying late to meet a team deadline).
Public goods problems (e.g., contributing to clean-up efforts or charity).
Why It Matters:
The game teaches that doing nothing isn’t always neutral—it can be harmful. It also exposes the fragility of cooperation when actions aren’t coordinated or rewarded. The dilemma challenges players to consider not just payoff, but moral responsibility, risk tolerance, and reputation.
