Full Show Index
Advertise With Us
Write For Us
Predicting Survivor 6: A Theory of Success on Survivorby Jeffrey D. Sadow -- 02/07/2003
View Printable version of this article
Here comes Survivor: The Amazon and a round of predictions about how the players will do. While past articles have identified some general factors concerning success and failure, we now have enough data to predict in a statistical fashion who are likely winners and losers.
This premise is based upon the behaviorialist view of social science. Simply, this states that nothing in the world happens by chance, that attitudes are formed and actions taken because of previous actions and antecedent attitudes. In fact, what appears to us as "chance" is merely a product of undiscovered or unmeasurable causal agents.
Thus, theory may explain why things happen they way they do, and, since Survivor features the actions of human beings, we may predict their success in the game based upon theories we build that determine game success. Further, we may test these theories statistically using quantifiable concepts. So to apply this approach to Survivor, let us first identify the theoretical constructs that promote success or failure. This article shall do so, with succeeding articles focusing on the testing of the model built from these theories, and on using the model to predict the outcome of Survivor: The Amazon.
From the previous five versions, the following factors can be assumed to influence ability in playing the game:
1. Age. While youth probably makes for a less-strenuous time of it, age does bring wisdom, and since the game is more mental than physical we can predict that older players will do better than younger players.
(There is an alternative hypothesis - that the rigors involved do penalize older players. That also can be tested for by running the analysis with age coded to put middle-aged players in one category and the younger and older in another.)
2. Sex. By the winners, final two, final four, and jury slots, men do slightly better than do women, perhaps reflecting the physical aspect of the game as a theoretical explanation.
3. Race. While the percentage of winners (20) actually exceeds the percentage of all minorities who have played (16.25), that one winner (Vecepia, S4) was the only minority to make it into the final four (10%), so possibly a subtle bias exists in favor of the majority ethnic group (it could be that players are more comfortable keeping around people that share their ethnic background, and there is more of the majority).
4. Attitudes about wealth. Some contestants (most recently Helen in S5) have shown they harbor biases against players perceived as wealthier. Thus, we can anticipate that players whose occupations convey a potentially lucrative background to some degree will face sanctions by other players and thus have reduced their chances of going further.
5. Attitudes about religion. Past shows have indicated that players who very publicly express religious attitudes encourage feelings of discomfort among some players. Thus, these players may face sanctions and have less success in the game.
6. Travel experience. Players who have more experience here may do better because of their wider exposure to the world, different people, and to new situations.
7. Degree of fitness. Fitter contestants we can predict will do better, for obvious reasons.
8. Family composition. Those individuals who have a more varied family experience may do better, given the greater diversity of people and situations they deal with, meaning that those married with children will do best, those divorced with children or married (or engaged) only are not as well prepared, and singles are the least prepared (notice that this interacts with age above; younger people are more likely to be single and childless).
These previous factors are fairly easy to quantify, and this information appears on the official CBS web site. Somewhat harder to measure are the following:
9. Occupation. It's easy to know what the contestants do, but harder to rank order their jobs theoretically. One would presume that the occupations and experiences they bring that would best prepare someone to win Survivor would be individuals in positions of authority who must deal with people on a regular basis. The least prepared would be those who work in menial positions unaccustomed to leadership and/or working with others. It would seem those closer to the first endpoint deal with more people in more varied ways potentially necessitating more need to build skills involving teamwork.1 2 Next-->
View Printable version of this article