The game of chicken pits two parties who hurtle towards one another: the one who swerves first loses, but if neither swerves, everyone crashes. In negotiation, the aim is to convince the other side that you will never yield, so as to force them to yield first.
Grounding in the source schoolSchool grounded in research and field practice
Indicative profile: it situates the “Time pressure” family as the Game theory school practises it, not this technique taken in isolation. Techniques from the same family and school therefore share the same profile. NEGOCOACH editorial rating out of 10, non-experimental · the higher the “relational risk” value, the more costly the technique is to the relationship.
NEGOCOACH assessment
How to read this rating
Tactical potential 6.3/10 (effectiveness, impact, discretion) and vigilance high (relational and ethical risk): two distinct readings, deliberately never merged into a single score that would reward risk. NEGOCOACH editorial rating calibrated from the “Time pressure” family and the “Game theory” school. Each criterion is rated out of 10; click to understand what it measures.
Effectiveness7/10 · High
How far the technique can carry the negotiation in the intended direction when it is well executed.
Psychological impact7/10 · High
Strength of the effect produced on the counterpart's perceptions, emotions and decisions.
Discretion5/10 · Moderate
How hard it is for the other party to notice the technique is being used. A high value = very discreet.
Preparation4/10 · Moderate
The information, analysis and rehearsal required upfront to use it effectively.
Relational risk6/10 · High
Potential cost to the relationship and to trust if the technique is spotted, refused or fails. A high value = riskier.
Ethics4/10 · Moderate
Moral acceptability: fairness, transparency and respect for the counterpart's autonomy. A high value = more defensible.
Level of evidence
School grounded in research and field practice
The school this technique stems from combines academic work with long field practice. This indicator qualifies the school, not this technique taken in isolation.
Indicative NEGOCOACH editorial rating, for teaching purposes. For “Relational risk”, a high value signals a cost to the relationship, not a quality.
Overview of the GAME OF CHICKEN
Origin & history
The game of chicken was formalised by game theory and illustrated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell in connection with the arms race during the Cold War, before being analysed by Thomas Schelling. Its name comes from a youthful dare (two cars speeding towards one another). Its paradoxical lesson: the advantage goes to whoever manages to appear credibly “irrational” or incapable of swerving, for instance by ostentatiously throwing their steering wheel out of the window. Power arises from the visible surrender of one's own freedom to back down.
Definition and principle
The technique consists in signalling credibly that you will not swerve, so as to shift onto the other side the responsibility for averting the shared catastrophe. It differs from brinkmanship by its symmetry: both parties are equally exposed to the collision.
Concrete examples of application
Application by context
The same technique, across several negotiation settings
Two partners dig in on their terms at the risk of breaking a contract vital to both; the one who appears least willing to yield prevails.
Context 2 / 6
Labour negotiation
Management and strikers each hold firm at the brink of total stalemate, until one gives way to avoid the shared disaster.
Context 3 / 6
Crisis management
Two parties clash in a confrontation where mutual immobility leads to everyone's loss, pushing one of them to bend.
Context 4 / 6
Political negotiation
Two states embark on a test of wills (sanctions, ultimatums) where backing down is costly, but confrontation would cost more.
Context 5 / 6
Real-estate negotiation
Seller and buyer both refuse to budge at the risk of losing the deal, one eventually yielding so as not to lose everything.
Context 6 / 6
Family negotiation
Two heirs dig in on their positions at the risk of a court-ordered sale ruinous to both.
Counter-techniques
Spot and neutralise this technique
Negotiation is also played on defence. Here is how to recognise this technique when it is used against you, and turn it around.
Detect
The signals that give it away
"It's now or never"
A sudden, unverifiable deadline
You are denied time to think
Neutralise
The counters that defuse it
Name the pressure out loud
Ask for it in writing, or for more time
Test the ultimatum by offering to postpone
Turn around
Turn it into an advantage
Take the time back for yourself: "If it's urgent for you, it's because you need it, let's talk about that."
The trap to avoid
Deciding in the heat of urgency without checking that the deadline is real.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The game of chicken can force a determined opponent to bend. But it is one of the most dangerous strategies of all: if both hold firm, everyone is crushed; it rests on the credibility of irreversibility and can trigger the very catastrophe it sought to avoid.
When should this technique be used?
Reserve it for the rare situations where the stakes justify an extreme risk and where your resolve is credible. Rule it out as soon as a reasonable compromise remains possible.
Aims of the technique
Force the opponent to yield first by making your own determination not to swerve credible, even at the risk of provoking a mutually catastrophic outcome.
Shift onto the other party the entire responsibility for averting disaster (“if this breaks, it will be your fault”).
Lock in your position through a visible and hardly revocable commitment (point of no return) so as to make backing down impossible and therefore deterring.
Exploit the opponent's loss aversion and fear of the worst to obtain a concession that a conventional negotiation would not secure.
Signal superior resolve in order to win the division of the stakes without actually going as far as the collision.
Famous cases
Diplomatic · The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962): In October 1962, the discovery of Soviet missiles in Cuba triggered a direct confrontation between Kennedy and Khrushchev. Both leaders publicly committed themselves (the American naval blockade, Soviet ships en route) to a collision course where backing down meant political humiliation and pressing on meant nuclear war. It is the historic illustration of the “game of chicken” on a strategic scale: each tested the other's resolve at the edge of the abyss. The way out of the crisis came through a partly secret compromise (withdrawal of the Soviet missiles in exchange for the discreet withdrawal of American missiles from Turkey and a pledge not to invade Cuba), showing that beyond the posture of firmness, a negotiated exit ramp remains necessary to avert catastrophe.
Commercial · The supplier who threatens to cut the supply line: A representative scenario. A sole supplier of critical components, in dispute over prices with a major client, announces that it will halt deliveries on a fixed date if the new tariff is not accepted, while publicising the deadline internally to make backing down costly for itself. The client knows that a breakdown would halt its production lines, but yielding would establish a lasting balance of power. Each is betting that the other “will flinch first”. The outcome depends on who has the most to lose from a collision and on the real credibility of the threat: if the supplier itself needs the revenue, its commitment is a bluff the client can call.
Limitations and ethics
The game of chicken is the hardest technique in the repertoire to defend, and its internal logic is enough to show it. The winning strategy consists in convincing the other side that you will never swerve, in other words in making your own unreason credible: in the model, the one who ostentatiously tears off their steering wheel wins. The technique therefore rewards neither the soundness of the position nor the quality of the preparation, but the willingness to be the most irresponsible, and one must weigh what that means when it is being taught. Two consequences follow. The first is that it turns negotiation into a contest of blindness, where yielding to avoid the worst becomes a defeat, which is the exact reversal of what an agreement ought to value. The second is that the collision, when it occurs, strikes not only the two players: employees, customers and partners pay for a confrontation they did not choose. There is a boundary with a legitimate stance, and it is clear-cut: holding a position because you believe it just and stating it plainly is firmness. Charging ahead so that the other side swerves is turning irresponsibility into an argument, and on the day no one swerves, everyone pays.
Scientific foundations
Thomas C. Schelling (1960) The Strategy of Conflict Harvard University Press
Bertrand Russell (1959) Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare George Allen & Unwin
Anatol Rapoport & Albert M. Chammah (1966) The Game of Chicken American Behavioral Scientist, 10(3), DOI: 10.1177/000276426601000303
Quick exercise
Test yourself before answering
Answer in your head, then reveal the solution. Memory is built through active recall.
1Quels signaux doivent vous alerter ?
"It's now or never"
A sudden, unverifiable deadline
You are denied time to think
2Quelles parades appliquer ?
Name the pressure out loud
Ask for it in writing, or for more time
Test the ultimatum by offering to postpone
Frequently asked questions
The questions we get most
What is the "The Game of Chicken Technique" technique?
The game of chicken pits two parties who hurtle towards one another: the one who swerves first loses, but if neither swerves, everyone crashes. In negotiation, the aim is to convince the other side that you will never yield, so as to force them to yield first.
Is the "The Game of Chicken Technique" technique ethical?
It sits on the line: effective, but it can tip into manipulation if it exploits an information asymmetry. Use it with measure and without deliberate deceit.
How do you defend against "The Game of Chicken Technique"?
Deciding in the heat of urgency without checking that the deadline is real. The right reflex: name the pressure out loud.
What is the "The Game of Chicken Technique" technique based on?
NEGOCOACH does not assess the experimental validation of this technique in isolation. What we document is the grounding of its source school (Game theory): school grounded in research and field practice. Full detail is in the "At a glance" section of this page.
Practise with AI
Three ready-to-use prompts
Copy, paste into your assistant, replace the [brackets]. Works with ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral, Perplexity.
Prepare
Build your plan before the meeting
You are an expert negotiation coach. Help me prepare to use the "The Game of Chicken Technique" technique in the following situation: [describe your situation]. Give me: the conditions for success, a 3-step script, my counterpart's likely objections and how to answer them.
Play the role of my counterpart in a negotiation. I am going to test the "The Game of Chicken Technique" technique. React realistically and with resistance, do not give in too quickly, then at the end analyse my performance and suggest 3 concrete improvements.
Here is how my negotiation went: [paste the exchanges]. Analyse whether the "The Game of Chicken Technique" technique was used well, what worked, the mistakes made, and spell out precisely what I could have done better.
Founding works of the ⚔️ Game theory school this technique belongs to.
The Strategy of Conflict
Book
T. Schelling · 1960
A classic of game theory applied to conflict and negotiation. Schelling analyses the credible threat and shows how tying your own hands can become a strategic advantage.
The Evolution of Cooperation
Book
R. Axelrod · 1984
How does cooperation emerge among self-interested actors? Through his iterated prisoner's-dilemma tournaments, Axelrod establishes the superiority of "tit for tat": cooperate first, then respond in kind.
The Bargaining Problem (Econometrica)
Article
J. Nash · 1950
The 1950 paper in which John Nash sets out the bargaining problem mathematically and its optimal solution. A cornerstone of negotiation theory.
T. Schelling, "The Strategy of Conflict", 1960; R. Axelrod, "The Evolution of Cooperation", 1984.
The author
Author
On video
See the technique in action
Videos to picture The Game of Chicken Technique and anchor it through examples.
The game of chicken pits two parties who hurtle towards one another: the one who swerves first loses, but if neither swerves, everyone crashes. In negotiation, the aim is to convince the other side that you will never yield, so as to force them to yield first.
The right reflex
Take the time back for yourself: "If it's urgent for you, it's because you need it, let's talk about that."
Never do this
Deciding in the heat of urgency without checking that the deadline is real.
6.3/10 tactical potential High vigilance School grounded in research and field practice
Master this technique in real situations?
Our programmes turn theory into a concrete advantage.
