Ailin Leng

The asymmetric matching pennies contradiction posits that contrary to the prediction of mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium, experimental subjects’ choices are, in practice, based heavily on the magnitudes of their own payoffs. Own-payoff effects are robustly confirmed in the literature. Closely following the experimental setups in the literature which support the contradiction, we conduct a series of asymmetric matching pennies games in China, hypothesizing play which is closer to equilibrium frequencies than previously found. Contrary to previous experiments which were conducted in the United States, we find that there are essentially no own-payoff effects among Row players who face large payoff asymmetry. In a Quantal Response Equilibrium framework allowing for altruism or spite, the behavior of our subjects corresponded to a positive spite parameter, whereas the results of previous studies corresponded to altruism. Our results may be consistent with recent psychology literature that finds people from collectivist cultures are substantially more adept at taking the perspective of others compared with people from individualist cultures, a feature of the reasoning needed to obtain mixed-strategy equilibrium.

We conduct an experiment on a minimum effort coordination game in a (quasi-)continuous time-frame, where effort choices can be switched freely during a 60-s period. The cooperation levels of the continuous time treatments are not significantly different from the discrete time treatments. Providing subjects with the information on the effort choices of all group members increases the average effort level in continuous time only. The minimum effort level in continuous time with full information feedback is also substantially higher than that with limited information feedback, but the difference is statistically insignificant. With limited information feedback, subjects rarely coordinate to increase their efforts simultaneously to change the group minimum within a period. Our findings imply that continuous time games are not behaviorally equivalent to infinitely repeated discrete time games.