The Divorce Fairness Question

The situation

You're separating. You want the process to be amicable. Your ex wants the house, most of the savings, and primary custody. You want shared custody and the savings; you're willing to give up the house. Both of you have lawyers.

Background

Divorce negotiations combine the structure of a zero-sum bargaining game with intense emotional stakes and asymmetric information about assets. Research on negotiation consistently finds that people who anchor on 'fairness' as their primary criterion do worse than people who anchor on their genuine interests, because fairness is subjective and the other side will define it to their advantage.

What this reveals

The fairness trap in adversarial negotiation

In any negotiation where the other party has defined interests and is represented by counsel, 'I want to be fair' is not a negotiating strategy, it's an undefined concession waiting to happen. Fairness is subjective and the opposing party will define it to their advantage. Research on divorce negotiations finds that people who anchor on fairness end up with worse objective outcomes than people who anchor on clearly stated interests, while often achieving no better relationship outcomes.

How to counter it: Before any high-stakes negotiation, write down three things: what you genuinely need, what you genuinely want, and what you're willing to concede. Negotiate from those specifics, not from 'I want to be fair.'

A question to sit with

When have you been 'fair' in a negotiation and then felt taken advantage of?

Frequently asked questions

What game theory concept does The Divorce Fairness Question illustrate?

The Divorce Fairness Question illustrates Bargaining, Asymmetric Information. The person who enters a negotiation trying to be "fair" often ends up with less.

What is the situation in The Divorce Fairness Question?

You're separating. You want the process to be amicable. Your ex wants the house, most of the savings, and primary custody.

What does The Divorce Fairness Question reveal about how people decide?

The fairness trap in adversarial negotiation. In any negotiation where the other party has defined interests and is represented by counsel, 'I want to be fair' is not a negotiating strategy, it's an undefined concession waiting to happen. Fairness is subjective and the opposing party will define it to their advantage. Research on divorce negotiations finds that people who anchor on fairness end up with worse objective outcomes than people who anchor on clearly stated interests, while often achieving no better relationship outcomes.

How do you avoid the trap in The Divorce Fairness Question?

Before any high-stakes negotiation, write down three things: what you genuinely need, what you genuinely want, and what you're willing to concede. Negotiate from those specifics, not from 'I want to be fair.'

What is the research behind The Divorce Fairness Question?

Divorce negotiations combine the structure of a zero-sum bargaining game with intense emotional stakes and asymmetric information about assets. Research on negotiation consistently finds that people who anchor on 'fairness' as their primary criterion do worse than people who anchor on their genuine interests, because fairness is subjective and the other side will define it to their advantage.

How long does The Divorce Fairness Question take to play?

About 10 min, at advanced difficulty, across 4 decision points. It runs in your browser with no account and no sign-in.

Keep exploring

More Personal Decisions scenarios, or browse all scenarios. New to this? Start with how DecisionPlay works or the game theory glossary.

Topics: negotiation, bargaining, fairness, divorce