Returning a Treasure: Revisiting the Asymmetric Matching Pennies Contradiction
Jaimie W. Lien,Lin Zhang,Jie Zheng
2014-01-01
Abstract:1 : The asymmetric matching pennies contradiction posed by Goeree and Holt (2001; “Ten Little Treasures of Game Theory and Ten Intuitive Contradictions”) 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 several separate studies in the literature (Ochs, 1995; McKelvey, Palfrey and Weber, 2000; Goeree, Holt and Palfrey, 2003). However, recent psychology literature finds that people from collectivist cultures are substantially more adept at taking the perspective of others compared to people from individualist cultures, suggesting that such populations may more readily apply the reasoning needed to obtain mixed strategy equilibrium. Closely following the experimental setups of Goeree and Holt (2001) and related studies, we conduct a series of asymmetric matching pennies games in China, hypothesizing play which is closer to equilibrium frequencies. Contrary to previous experiments which were conducted in the United States, we find that the behavior of our subjects is in fact very close to the mixed strategy equilibrium, and there are essentially no own-payoff effects among Row players who face the 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 highlight the importance of testing behavior in games across populations and cultures, before generalizing behavioral anomalies to humans as a whole (Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan, 2010; Henrich, Boyd, Bowles, Camerer, Fehr and Gintis, 2004).