Discussion Paper No. 540

GENDER AND CULTURE IN A
THRESHOLD PUBLIC GOODS GAME:JAPAN VERSUS CANADA

C. Bram Cadsby
Yasuyo Hamaguchi
Toshiji Kawagoe
andElizabeth Maynes

May 2001

The Institute of Social and Economic Research
Osaka University
6-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan

Revised May 21, 2001.

Gender and Culture in a Threshold Public Goods Game:Japan versus Canada
by
C. Bram Cadsby*
Department of Economics
University of Guelph
Yasuyo Hamaguchi
Graduate School of Economics
Osaka University
Toshiji Kawagoe
Future University-Hakodate
Elizabeth Maynes
Schulich School of BusinessYork University
Abstract
We compare male and female behavior in Japan and Canada in the context of a thresholdpublic goods game with both a strong free-riding equilibrium and many socially efficientthreshold equilibria. Although higher rewards produce higher contributions, neither
culture nor gender has any significant impact on the equilibrium selected, the amountcontributed or the provision success rate. Nonetheless, culture and gender do affectbehavior. Japanese females coordinate significantly less closely than Canadian females,
while Japanese males coordinate significantly less closely than either Canadian males or
Canadian females around an equilibrium. Coordination is related both to conforming andless variable behavior.
Keywords: Threshold public goods; gender; culture; free-riding
JEL Classification: H41; C92; Z10; J16*Corresponding author. Department of Economics, University of Guelph,
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
Tel.: +1-519-824-4120 ext. 3320; fax: +1-519-763-8497.
Email Address: bcadsby@uoguelph.ca (C.B. Cadsby)

1. Introduction
Most experimental studies that focus on gender differences in economic behavior use
North American subjects. However, there is some experimental evidence that economic
behavior can differ from one country to another. For example, in the context of public
goods games, Burlando and Hey (1997) find that British subjects free ride more than
Italians, while Cason et al. (1998) find that Japanese behave more spitefully early on,
ultimately achieving more efficiency than Americans, while American behavior moreclosely matches equilibrium predictions. These studies both use mixed male-female
groups to examine cultural differences in the laboratory.
It is also important to consider whether gender differences observed in North America
are culturally specific, or widely present in different cultures. One paper that attempts thisis Croson and Buchan (1999) who use subjects from the United States, China, Japan and
Korea. They examine experimental evidence from a two-person trust game in which a
proposer chooses to send all, some or none of a $10 endowment to an anonymous partner,
the responder. The experimenter then triples any money sent and the responder is allowed
to send some of this money back to the original proposer. No significant gender orculture effects are found among proposers, but among responders, women are
significantly more generous than men. Country dummy variables show no significant
differences between countries. However, as the authors point out, there were very few
female participants in Japan and Korea, making it difficult to draw conclusions about
potential gender differences in those countries.
We compare the behavior of all-male and all-female groups in Japan and Canada in
the context of a threshold public goods game. A threshold public good is provided if and1

only if enough money is raised from game participants who are given the opportunity tomake such contributions, but prohibited from communicating with one another.
Participants lose any money they contribute but obtain a preannounced monetary reward
if enough money is raised from the group as a whole. There is a temptation to free ride
because an individual will earn more money than anybody else if he/she contributes lessthan anybody else, and earn the highest possible amount if the public good is provided by
the group despite his/her zero contribution. This game possesses a pure-strategy strongfree-riding equilibrium in which nobody contributes anything toward the public good.
However, it also contains many pure-strategy threshold equilibria in which the groupcontributes exactly enough to ensure the public good is provided. In the thresholdframework, cooperating to provide the public good, like free riding, is consistent withNash equilibrium behavior. Thus, in contrast to the continuous public good setting, anexamination of free riding versus cooperation is not obscured by being simultaneously atest of equilibrium versus disequilibrium behavior. 1
Japan is a particularly interesting country to compare with Canada. Anthropologist
Edward Hall argues that Japanese culture is primarily high-context, whereas Americanand northern European cultures are mainly low-context (Hall, 1977; Hall and Hall, 1987).
Canada is also classified as a primarily low-context culture (Ogisu-Kamiya, 1997 andTing-Toomey, 1992). According to Hall and Hall (1987), context profoundly affects
communication. In high-context Japan, context is “widely shared” and participants are
deeply involved with each other. Their “shared behavior patterns ... make the Japanesesensitive to even the subtlest of changes in emotional tone” (Hall and Hall, 1987, p. 60).
1

Cadsby and Maynes (1999) provide a more formal theoretical description of this game and its Nashequilibria.

2

“Japanese depend heavily on nonverbal communication and are very sensitive to it” (Halland Hall, 1987, p. 126). In contrast, in a low-context culture like Canada’s, explicit anddirect verbal communication is of paramount importance. If correct, Hall’s ideas suggestthat Japanese might coordinate more readily around an equilibrium outcome, while
Canadians might find their attempts at such coordination thwarted by the prohibition on
direct communication.
Sociologist Geert Hofstede (1991) also proposes that cultures endow individuals withdifferent principles that influence behavior. 2 He argues that one dimension of national
cultures is measured along a continuum from “collectivism” to “individualism,” defining
societies in which the interest of the group prevails over the interest of the individual as“collectivist,” and those in which the interest of the individual prevails over the interest of
the group as “individualist.” Japan is an example of the former; Canada is an example ofthe latter. Along similar lines, Hall and Hall (1987, p.117) argue that when the Japanesenegotiate, “everybody must win.” If group interests and win-win attitudes actually do
prevail over individual interests and individually competitive attitudes in Japan, thetemptation to free ride might be mitigated or even absent when threshold public goods
games are played in that country.
A contrasting point of view is provided by psychologist Toshio Yamagishi and his
various co-authors (e.g. Yamagishi and Yamagishi, 1994; Yamagishi et al., 1998). They
argue that the general level of trust, defined as “an expectation of goodwill and benign

2

Hofstede (1991) analyzes cultures based on a survey of IBM employees in 53 different countries orgroups of countries. Through factor analysis of the responses to his survey questions, he identifies four
dimensions along which he argues cultures may differ from each other: social inequality or power distance,
individualism versus collectivism, gender concepts and roles, and uncertainty avoidance.

3intent” (Yamagishi and Yamagishi, 1994, p. 132), is actually lower among Japanese thanamong Americans. Therefore, Japanese prefer to deal with others through ongoing
relationships. These relationships are necessary precisely because of the low level ofgeneral trust and provide an incentive structure motivating interacting individuals to
behave in a benign manner towards each other, even in the absence of goodwill. Thus,
assurance, defined as “an expectation of benign behavior for reasons other than goodwillof the partner”, and “based on the knowledge of the incentive structure surrounding therelationship” (Yamagishi and Yamagishi, 1994, p. 132) often substitutes for trust inJapan. Participants in our threshold public goods game make their decisions privately inthe context of an ad hoc group brought together for the sole purpose of participating in anexperiment. There is no obvious sanctioning or incentive system available to discourage
self-interested free-riding behavior. Therefore, in contrast to both Hofstede and Hall, one
might expect more of such behavior in Japan than in Canada, whose culture resembles
that of the United States.
A recent paper by Buchan et al. (2000) provides experimental evidence consistent
with relatively low levels of trust in Japan. In an experimental trust game conducted in
the United States, China, Japan and Korea, Japanese subjects send a lower proportion of
their endowments on average than subjects from any of the other countries. The
difference in proportions sent is significant between Japanese and American subjects.
The proportion returned by the recipients to the senders is also lowest among theJapanese subjects. However, this difference is not significant between the Japanese andthe Americans.

4In addition to such hypothesized general cultural differences between Canada andJapan, there is a widely held popular belief that gender relations and gender politics differ
between Japan and North America. For example, Ogasawara (1998) studies the subtle
relationship between males and females in a large Japanese company. This research was
motivated by the difficulties the author encountered explaining the unique position of
women in Japanese society to Americans she met while attending graduate school in the
United States. Ogasawara’s qualitative analysis demonstrates that different gender roles
and positions between societies can produce different gender cultures and behaviors
between societies as well. Such differences between Japan and North America might bereflected in the selection of varying approaches by male and female groups in Japan andCanada to the social dilemma posed by the threshold public goods game.
Kugihara (1999) recently conducted an empirical investigation of gender differencesin social loafing behavior among males and females in Japan. Using a rope-pulling task,
Kugihara (1999) found that while males exerted less individual effort when pulling as agroup than when pulling alone, females exerted a similar effort under both conditions.
Though the sample was small (two groups of nine females and two groups of nine males)
this was interpreted as evidence that social loafing is more prevalent among males thanamong females in Japan. There were no financial incentives in this experiment. In
contrast, when such incentives were present, there was no evidence of more free riding
among men than among women beyond the first few periods of a threshold public goods
experiment in Canada (Cadsby and Maynes, 1998). The question arises as to whether in
an identical threshold public goods framework with salient financial incentives, free5

riding, like social loafing during the rope-pulling task, might be more prevalent among
males than among females in Japan.
Hofstede (1991) also stresses differing gender roles in his discussion of so-called“masculine” versus “feminine” cultures, another one of his four cultural dimensions. In“masculine” societies, “social gender roles are clearly distinct (i.e., men are supposed to
be assertive, tough, and focused on material success whereas women are supposed to be
more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality if life)”. In contrast, in “feminine”
cultures “social gender roles overlap (i.e., both men and women are supposed to bemodest, tender and concerned with the quality of life)” (Hofstede, 1991, p. 82-83).
Hofstede ranks Japan as the most masculine of countries, while Canada is 24th on a list of
53. Thus, if Hofstede (1991) is correct, one might expect a greater difference between
the behavior of male and female groups in Japan than in Canada, supporting the notion
that, though no significant difference was found in Canada beyond the first few periods(Cadsby and Maynes, 1998), Japanese males might free ride significantly more thanJapanese females throughout a threshold public goods game.
Kashima et al. (1995) hypothesize that cultures may differ along Hofstede’s
individualism-collectivism dimension, while males and females across cultures may
differ along a different dimension, termed “relatedness”. Relatedness refers to therelationship between the self and others. Kashima et al. (1995) cite the influential workof Gilligan (1982) who argued that women tend to construct moral problems in terms ofcare and responsibility within relationships while men think of such issues in terms ofabstract rights and rules applicable to themselves as individuals. Gilligan (1982) based
her conclusions on interviews with women and men in the United States. Kashima et al.

6(1995) test their hypothesis by administering a series of questionnaires to males andfemales in Australia, the continental United States, Hawaii, Korea and Japan. As
expected, they find that both males and females in Australia and the United States exhibit
strong individualism while those in Korea and Japan exhibit strong collectivism. Hawaii
is somewhere in between. They also find that within each culture, females scoresignificantly higher than males along the relatedness dimension. American andAustralian females score higher than any other gender/culture grouping. In both theAmerican and Australian cases, female relatedness is significantly higher than male
relatedness. However, Kashima et al. are surprised to find that Japanese females scorelower in relatedness than any other female grouping and lower even than Korean,
Hawaiian and Australian males. American males score only slightly lower than Japanese
females on this characteristic. Japanese males show significantly less relatedness thanJapanese females and less than any other gender/culture grouping in this study.
Cadsby and Maynes (1998) examine the behavior of all-female and all-male groups
playing a threshold public goods game in the laboratory. Both male and female groups
contribute significantly more towards a threshold public good and achieve the thresholdwith significantly greater frequency when the monetary reward from provision is higher
than when it is lower. Canadian female groups initially contribute significantly morethan Canadian male groups, but this significance vanishes as the game progresses.
However, Canadian female groups prove to be significantly better at coordinating arounda selected equilibrium than Canadian male groups, particularly during the last five
periods of the game. Cadsby and Maynes (1998) argue that this result is consistent withthe different orientations of the males and females interviewed by Gilligan (1982). It is7certainly consistent with the high-relatedness found by Kashima et al. (1995) for womenfrom the United States and Australia, countries that are culturally close to Canada.
Kashima et al.’s (1995) finding that Japanese females exhibit much less relatedness than
US and Australian females and about the same degree of relatedness as US andAustralian males suggests that Japanese females could play a threshold public goods
game quite differently than their Canadian counterparts. In particular, they might showmuch less tendency to coordinate closely around a selected equilibrium. Thisphenomenon could well be even more pronounced for Japanese males.
In the current paper, the Canadian experiments are replicated as closely as
possible in Japan in order to compare the behavior of Japanese all-female and all-malegroups with their Canadian counterparts. We examine six hypotheses suggested by theprevious theoretical and empirical work discussed above.
Hypothesis 1: Japanese male and female groups, like Canadian male and female groups,
will contribute more to a threshold public good and achieve provision more often, thehigher is the reward resulting from provision.
Hypothesis 2: “Collectivistic” Japanese males and females will contribute more to a
threshold public good and achieve provision more often than “individualistic” Canadianmales and females.
Hypothesis 3: “Low-trust” Japanese males and females will contribute less to a thresholdpublic good and achieve provision less often than “high-trust” Canadian males andfemales.
Hypothesis 4: Like the social-loafing behavior reported by Kugihara (1999), andconsistent with Hofstede’s (1991) view of males and females in “masculine” cultures,

8

Japanese males will contribute less than Japanese females to a public good, in contrast to
Cadsby and Maynes’ (1998) Canadian results that show no such gender differences.
Hypothesis 5: “High-context” Japanese males and females will coordinate more closelyaround a selected Nash equilibrium than “low-context” Canadian males and females.
Hypothesis 6a: “Low-relatedness” Japanese females will coordinate less closely arounda selected Nash equilibrium than “high-relatedness” Canadian females.
Hypothesis 6b: “Very low-relatedness” Japanese males will coordinate less closelyaround a selected Nash equilibrium than Japanese females, Canadian males and Canadianfemales.
Clearly, both hypotheses 3 and 4 and hypotheses 5 and 6 are inconsistent with eachother and represent alternatives based on different strands of the related literature.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The second section presents theexperimental design. The results are reported in the third section and related to the six
hypotheses stated above. Finally, conclusions are drawn in the fourth section.

2. Experimental Design
Sixteen new experimental sessions were conducted at Osaka University (twelve
sessions) and Future University-Hakodate (four sessions) to generate Japanese data for
purposes of comparison with the Canadian data previously reported in Cadsby andMaynes (1998). The Canadian subjects were first-year undergraduate students randomly
selected and recruited by telephone from those living in residence at the University ofGuelph. Unfortunately, cultural differences between universities made it impossible for
us to recruit Japanese subjects in an identical manner. At Osaka University, the9experiments were first advertised by means of posters. Subsequently graduate student
assistants recruited undergraduate students as subjects at a student cafeteria. At Future
University-Hakodate, the experiments were first publicized and then first-year
undergraduate students were recruited by means of a sign-up sheet. At Guelph and Osaka,
few of the students knew each other. However, the Hakodate student population isrelatively small and the subjects seemed to know each other quite well.
Like the Canadian sessions, the Japanese sessions each involved ten participants
playing a threshold public goods game for 25 periods. 3 Of the 16 experimental sessions
conducted in each country, half employed all-male groups, while the other half employed
all-female groups. At the beginning of each session, an experimenter read the instructions
aloud while the participants followed along on their own written copies. 4 The
instructions informed the participants that each was endowed with an initial income of 10
tokens. The task was to decide individually and privately the number of tokens tocontribute. If the group contributed the preannounced minimum of 25 tokens, eachplayer received an equal number of additional tokens. A player’s earnings equaled theinitial endowment of 10 tokens, minus the contribution, plus the additional tokens.
Treatments were conducted with reward levels of 5, 8, 10 and 15 additional tokens per
player. If the threshold was not reached, contributions were not returned so that eachplayer’s earnings equaled the initial endowment minus the contribution.

3

Cadsby, who conducted many of the Canadian experiments, helped run the first ten sessions at Osaka
University and the four sessions at Future University-Hakodate to ensure that comparable procedures wereused.
4
Hamaguchi translated the English instructions into Japanese. The Japanese instructions were then used ina mock session with several graduate students at Osaka University to test the translation for clarity.
Finally, Kawagoe checked the translation for accuracy. A copy of the instructions is available from theauthors upon request.

10

At each session, a particular game was repeated 25 times. Repetition gives players an
opportunity to learn about the game and the strategies of other players. It also affords theexperimenters an opportunity to see if the players converge to an equilibrium or not.
After each repetition or period, the group contribution for that period was announced
publicly. However, individual contributions were not disclosed. The stage game isconsistent with two types of pure-strategy equilibrium: a strong free-riding equilibrium
in which nobody contributes anything and many threshold equilibria in which the groupcontributes just enough to achieve the threshold and thus receive the reward.
At the end of each session, token holdings were converted into money at apreannounced exchange rate. In the Canadian sessions, the exchange rate was chosen sothat the average of the payoff in the strong free-riding equilibrium with that in thethreshold equilibrium would be equal to about $28.40 Canadian. Undergraduate students
at the University of Guelph could earn between $8.00 and $10.00 per hour at work-study
jobs on the university campus. Since students at the Japanese universities generally earnfrom 800 to 1000 yen per hour in similar part-time positions, the Japanese exchange rate
was chosen so that the comparable average would be about 2840 yen. 5 Each experimental
session lasted between one and a half and two hours.

3. Results
In total, we conducted 32 sessions: 16 Canadian sessions reported previously in
Cadsby and Maynes (1998) and 16 new Japanese sessions. Table 1 summarizes the5

The resulting exchange rates per token depended on the reward as follows: 10.1 yen (when reward
equaled 5), 8.9 yen (when reward equaled 8), 8.27 yen (when reward equaled 10) and 7.0 yen (when reward
equaled 15).

11

results, organizing them into panels by country and gender. For each session, the tableshows the amount contributed in the first period and average group contributions as wellas the number of times the public good was provided both by five-period intervals andover all 25 periods. Sessions fj02, fj08, mj02 and mj08 were conducted at Future
University-Hakodate; the other Japanese sessions were conducted at Osaka University.
The results for a given treatment appear to be very similar between the two Japanese
universities. This impression was corroborated by Chow tests for each of the 25 periods,
all of which failed to reject the null hypothesis that these results came from identical
populations.
Figure 1 illustrates average group contributions for each period by gender and culture,
aggregating across all eight sessions for each gender-culture grouping, regardless ofreward level. All four groupings show a gradual decline in contributions from the earlier
to the later periods. Canadian females contribute more than the other groupings in 19 outof 25 periods and Japanese males contribute less than the other groupings in 14 out of 25
periods. However, in the last five periods, Japanese males actually contribute more thanthe other groupings in two of the five periods.
Table 2 reports regression results for average group contributions measured over all
25 periods and three subintervals. The first subinterval extends from periods 1 to 5, themiddle subinterval encompasses periods 6 to 20 and the final subinterval contains the last
five periods. The independent variables in the regressions include the reward level as wellas dummy variables for Japanese males, Canadian females and Canadian males. Also
included are interaction terms for reward and each of the above three groups. Japanese
females are represented by the intercept term. Since individuals participating in the same12

session may respond to each other’s actions, data from individuals in the same session are
not independent. Therefore, it is necessary to use group averages so that each of the 16
sessions contributes just one observation to each regression. Similarly group data fromone period are not independent of data from the other periods. Therefore, each regression
uses data averaged over several periods.
During the first subinterval, the coefficient on reward level is equal to 0.263, but notsignificant. Canadian females are contributing significantly more than Japanese females(p=.0256), while Japanese males are contributing less (p=.0662). None of the interaction
terms is significant. Thus, the early periods of the experimental sessions seem to lendsome support to hypotheses 3 and 4, but none to hypotheses 1 or 2. This picture changes
as the game progresses. During the middle subinterval, the reward coefficient rises to0.878 and attains significance (p=.0483). However, there are no longer any significant
differences attributable to gender or culture, nor are there any interaction effects between
reward and any of the gender or culture variables. In the final subinterval, the reward
coefficient increases further to 2.024 and becomes even more significant (p=.003). Onceagain there is no evidence that either gender or culture makes any systematic difference
to the amount contributed or interacts with reward in any significant way. The sameconclusion may be drawn when the data from all 25 periods are aggregated into a single
regression. These results corroborate hypothesis 1, but reject hypotheses 2, 3, and 4.
Table 3 reports regression results for the number of times the public good is provided
over all 25 periods and over the three subintervals. The independent variables are
identical to those in the previous regression. During the first subinterval, neither the
reward level nor any of the gender or culture variables are significant. During the rest of13

the game, reward level becomes significantly positive, but neither gender nor culture
appears to affect the frequency with which the public good is provided. Thus, we may
conclude that while after a short learning period, the reward level significantly affects
both the level of contributions and the extent of successful public-good provision, neither
culture nor gender matters. Once again, hypothesis 1 is supported while hypotheses 2, 3,
and 4 are rejected by the data. 6
In Cadsby and Maynes (1998), we found that Canadian all-female groups were better
able to coordinate around a selected equilibrium than Canadian all-male groups.
Equilibrium coordination is calculated as the distance from the nearest equilibrium
achieved by each group of ten players in each period with smaller distances
corresponding to a higher level of coordination. To compare Japanese with Canadianbehavior along this dimension, Figure 2 illustrates these distances by period, averaged
over sessions by gender and culture. The picture suggests that Japanese male and female
groups are both generally farther from an equilibrium in most periods than either
Canadian male or Canadian female groups.
Table 4 reports the illustrated distances from equilibrium, averaged further over all 25
periods and over the three subintervals. On average, for all 25 periods together and overthe middle and final subintervals, Canadian females are closest to an equilibrium,
followed first by Canadian males, then by Japanese females and finally by Japanesemales. This ordering is inconsistent with hypothesis 5, which predicts that Japanese will
coordinate more closely around an equilibrium than Canadians. A t-test of the null
hypothesis that the population means are equal was conducted for each pair of
6

Non-parametric Mann-Whitney tests also show no significant difference in average contributions orprovision rates based on either culture or gender.

14

gender/culture groupings in each time interval. The resulting p-values are also reported
in Table 4. Over all 25 periods, they indicate that Canadian females are significantly
closer to an equilibrium than Japanese females, lending support to hypothesis 6a. This isalso true over the middle and final subintervals. Japanese males are significantly farther
from an equilibrium than either Canadian males or Canadian females over the entire 25period interval. The significant difference between Japanese and Canadian males seems
to be based primarily on the earlier periods of the game: there is strong significance inthe first subinterval, marginal significance in the middle subinterval and no significanceat all in the final subinterval. In three of the final five periods, Japanese male groups are
actually closer to an equilibrium than Canadian male groups. In contrast, the significant
difference between Japanese males and Canadian females appears in the middle
subinterval and endures through the final subinterval. Japanese males are also farther
from an equilibrium than Japanese females, but this difference is significant only during
the first subinterval. Thus, hypothesis 6b receives partial support from the data.
These equilibrium coordination tests do not differentiate between groups of playersthat focused on one type of equilibrium by the time they reached the final subinterval andthose that were still switching between equilibria as the game was drawing to a close. In
fact, all the sessions involving Canadian females focused on either a threshold or a freeriding equilibrium during the final subinterval. However, this was not the case for any of
the other three culture/gender groupings. The group distance from focused equilibrium
measure, also reported in Table 4 for the final subinterval, penalizes switching between afree-riding and a threshold equilibrium. It is calculated by averaging the distances fromthe one equilibrium to which the average group contribution during the last five periods is15

closest. Of course, for the non-switching Canadian female sessions, this makes nodifference. For all the other culture/gender groupings, the average distance from focused
equilibrium is greater than the average distance from the nearest equilibrium in eachperiod, reflecting the switching that took place. Measured by the group distance fromfocused equilibrium, Canadian females are significantly closer than Canadian males,
Japanese females and Japanese males. This result lends further support to hypotheses 6aand 6b.
Cadsby and Maynes (1998, 2000) found that a group’s ability to coordinate around an
equilibrium was apparently related to a tendency of its members to behave alike. There
are an infinite number of pure-strategy equilibria, making coordination potentiallydifficult. However, there are only two pure-strategy symmetric equilibria so that atendency to behave alike may facilitate equilibrium selection, coordination andconvergence. Such conformity is measured by calculating the average of the absoluteindividual differences from the mean group contribution on a period-by-period basis foreach session. Averages by period and culture/gender grouping are illustrated in Figure 3.
Japanese females are most conforming from periods 1 to 7 as well as 25, but Canadianfemales are most conforming during 14 of the 17 remaining periods. Japanese males areleast conforming during 18 of the 25 periods.
Table 5 reports the conformity measure averaged further over all 25 periods and over
the three subintervals. A t-test of the null hypothesis that conformity is equal was
conducted for each pair of gender/culture groupings using session-level data averaged
over each time interval. The resulting p-values are also reported in Table 5. Interestingly,
over all 25 periods, the conformity measure is identical to the third decimal place for16

Japanese and Canadian females. This masks an important difference between the twogroupings. During the first subinterval, Japanese females are significantly more
conforming than Canadian females (p=.0064). However, during the middle and final
subintervals, Canadian females are more (but not significantly) conforming than Japanese
females. It is worth recalling from Table 4 that while during the first subintervalJapanese females are closer (but not significantly) to an equilibrium than Canadianfemales, during the middle and final subintervals Canadian females are significantly
closer to an equilibrium than Japanese females.
Canadian males are somewhat less conforming than either Canadian or Japanese
females over all 25 periods. However, the results are significant only during the middle
subinterval for the comparison with Canadian females (p=.0645). 7 Japanese males are
significantly less conforming than Japanese females (p=.0008), Canadian females(p=.0066) and Canadian males (p=.0475) over all 25 periods. In the case of Japanese
females, this significance extends to all three subintervals while in the case of Canadianfemales it extends only to the middle and final ones. In the case of Canadian males, there
is marginal significance during the first and final subintervals. The nonconforming
nature of Japanese male contributions mirrors their greater distance from equilibrium
when compared to the other groupings. However, there is a sharp and puzzling contrast
between the conformity and coordination results for Japanese males and females.
Japanese female groups were unable to translate their consistently and significantly
greater degree of conformity into significantly greater convergence to an equilibrium

7

In Cadsby and Maynes (1998), Canadian females were also significantly more conforming than Canadianmales during the final subinterval. In that paper, the authors employed data not only from the 16 Canadiansessions reported here, but also from six other sessions that were not replicated in Japan.

17

beyond the first subinterval. It appears that though a stronger tendency toward
conformity may facilitate equilibrium convergence, it is not always enough to ensure
greater convergence. 8
Another factor that may be associated with convergence to a pure-strategy
equilibrium is the extent to which individuals change or mix their strategies from period
to period. Table 6 reports the variances of individual contributions averaged for eachgender/culture grouping and measured over all 25 periods and over the three subintervals.
A t-test of the null hypothesis that the means of these variances are equal is conducted foreach pair of gender/culture groupings using session-level averages of the individual
variances calculated over each time interval. The resulting p-values are also reported inTable 6. Over all 25 periods, Japanese males exhibit significantly higher individual
variances than any of the other groupings. This difference is most pronounced andconsistent between Japanese males and Canadian females, the groupings that are least
conforming and equilibrium-focused and most conforming and equilibrium-focused
respectively.

4. Conclusions
This paper compares the behavior of Japanese males and females with Canadianmales and females in the context of a threshold public goods game possessing both astrong free-riding equilibrium and many socially efficient threshold equilibria. Economic
theory provides little role for either culture or gender in such a framework, predicting

8

All of the equilibrium coordination, focussed equilibrium coordination and conformity tests were repeatedusing non-parametric Mann-Whitney statistics. The inferences were all identical to those based on the ttests reported in the tables and the text.

18

only that players should ultimately select one of the available Nash equilibria. Cadsby
and Maynes (1998) find that there is no significant difference between the amountcontributed to a threshold public good by Canadian males and the amount contributed by
Canadian females. Only reward matters. This paper finds that Japan is no different than
Canada in this respect. Higher rewards lead to higher contributions, but neither culture
nor gender has any significant impact on the equilibrium selected, the amount contributedor the number of times the public good is provided. Thus, our reward hypothesis 1 iscorroborated, while neither of our contrasting culture hypotheses 2 and 3 nor ourJapanese gender hypothesis 4 receives support from the data.
Nonetheless, culture and gender do affect behavior. Cadsby and Maynes (1998) haveshown that females converge significantly closer to a selected equilibrium by the final
five periods of a 25-period game. This is consistent with the greater “relatedness” offemales reported by Gilligan (1882) based on interviews with males and females in the
United States. Kashima et al. (1995) report much lower levels of “relatedness” in Japanfor females and even more dramatically for males, based on data compiled by means of aquestionnaire. This provides the motivation for our hypotheses 6a and 6b, both of which
are supported by the behavior of our subjects. In particular, Japanese females coordinate
significantly less closely than Canadian females, while Japanese males coordinate
significantly less closely than either Canadian males or Canadian females around an
equilibrium. Japanese males also coordinate less closely around an equilibrium thanJapanese females, but this difference is significant only during the early periods of thegame. The contrasting idea that “high-context” Japanese males and females will

19

coordinate better around an equilibrium than “low context” Canadians, embodied in our
hypothesis 5, is strongly rejected.
Coordination around an equilibrium is related both to conforming and less variablebehavior. Canadian females, who coordinate most closely around an equilibrium, arealso the most conforming and the least variable during the middle and final subintervalsof the game. Japanese males, who coordinate least closely around an equilibrium, arealso the least conforming and most variable throughout the game. However, greater
conformity does not guarantee greater convergence. Though Japanese females are
significantly more conforming than Japanese males throughout the game, they are only
significantly closer to equilibrium during the first subinterval.
Both culture and gender do appear to affect group dynamics in a threshold public
goods game, but perhaps in a surprising way. There is no evidence that the “collectivist”
Japanese put more emphasis on group rather than individual welfare when compared with“individualist” Canadians. Rather, as in Cadsby and Maynes (1998), it is the notion of“relatedness” (Gilligan, 1982; Kashima et al., 1995) that seems to explain the greaterlevels of coordination around a Nash equilibrium among Canadian women and the lower
levels of coordination among Japanese women and among both Japanese and Canadian
men.

20

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Tatsuyoshi Saijo for his organizational assistance andTatsuyoshi Saijo, Charles Horioka and other members of the Institute for Social andEconomic Research at Osaka University as well as participants at the Fall 2000 Economic
Science Association meetings in Tucson for their helpful comments and suggestions.
Cadsby would also like to thank the Institute for Social and Economic Research at Osaka
University for providing a warm and stimulating environment during his sojourn as a
Visiting Scholar and Future University-Hakodate for their generous hospitality andsupport during his visit. Cadsby and Maynes also acknowledge with gratitude funding
from the Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada, grant number 410-98-1401.

References
Buchan, N., Croson, R and Dawes, R., 2000, Direct and Indirect Trust and Reciprocity,
unpublished manuscript.
Burlando, R. and Hey, J., 1997, Do Anglo-Saxons Free-Ride More? Journal of Public
Economics, 64, 41-60.
Cadsby, C.B. and Maynes, E., 1998, Gender and free riding in a threshold public goods
game: experimental evidence, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 34,
603-620.
Cadsby, C.B. and Maynes, E., 1999, Voluntary Provision of Threshold Public Goods
with Continuous Contributions: Experimental Evidence, Journal of Public
Economics, 71, 53-73.

21

Cadsby, C.B. and Maynes, E., 2000, Gender, Risk Aversion and the Drawing Power of
Equilibrium in an Experimental Corporate Takeover Game, unpublished manuscript.
Cason, T., Saijo, T. and Yamato, T.,1998, Voluntary Participation and Spite in Public
Good Provision Experiments: An International Comparison, Purdue University,
Discussion Paper.
Croson, R. and Buchan, N., 1999, Gender and Culture: International Experimental
Evidence from Trust Games, American Economic Review, 89, 2, 386-391.
Gilligan, C, 1982, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’sDevelopment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hall, E. T., 1977, Beyond Culture, Anchor Books/Doubleday, Garden City, New York.
Hall, E.T. and Hall, M.R., 1987, Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the Japanese,
Anchor Books/Doubleday, Garden City, New York.
Hofstede, G., 1991, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill,
London.
Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S.D., Gelfand, M, and Yuki, M., 1995,
Culture, Gender and Self: A Perspective from Individualism-Collectivism Research,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 925-937.
Kugihara, N., 1999, Gender and Social Loafing in Japan, Journal of Social Psychology,
139, 4, 516-526.
Ogasawara, Y., 1998, Office Ladies and Salaried Men: Power, Gender, and Work inJapanese Companies, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

22

Ogisu-Kamiya, Motoyo, 1997, HRD in a Multicultural Workplace: The Need forLifelong Learning, in M.J. Hatton (ed.) Lifelong Learning: Policies, Practices, andPrograms, School of Media Studies, Humber College, Toronto.
Ting-Toomey, S., 1992, Cross-Cultural Face-Negotiation: An Analytical Overview,
paper presented at the David See-Chai Lam Pacific Region Forum on Business andManagement Communication, Simon Fraser University.
Yamagishi, T., Cook, K.S. and Watabe, M., 1998, Uncertainty, Trust, and Commitment
Formation in the United States and Japan, American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1,
165-194.
Yamagishi, T. and Yamagishi, M., 1994, Trust and Commitment in the United States andJapan, Motivation and Emotion, 18, 2, 129-166.

23

24

23.7
22.5
23.6
22.3
25.6
23.8
22.7
28.3
19.0
18.5
19.0
18.9
25.8
26.1
23.3
24.3

First
Session Reward Period
Panel A: Japanese Females
fj01
5
28.7
fj02
5
32.1
fj03
8
29.1
fj04
8
30.5
fj05
10
27.8
fj06
10
26.5
fj07
15
25.5
fj08
15
36.6

Panel B: Japanese Males
mj01
5
24.5
mj02
5
33.0
mj03
8
26.3
mj04
8
23.8
mj05
10
29.9
mj06
10
24.2
mj07
15
38.6
mj08
15
24.0
11.1
8.4
17.5
25.2
16.1
21.1
27.5
26.1

23.5
13.4
14.0
17.8
22.4
22.8
26.5
20.4
20.2
7.7
9.7
16.6
6.0
24.8
20.8
25.5

14.0
15.8
14.5
21.1
22.6
20.5
23.5
22.4
9.6
5.2
9.9
23.7
9.7
23.5
28.9
29.4

12.9
11.7
11.9
16.3
18.8
18.3
25.3
22.2
9.1
12.8
20.3
15.7
2.7
20.4
27.2
23.4

6.8
6.6
4.8
9.0
19.8
10.1
26.7
24.3
13.8
10.5
15.3
20.0
12.1
23.2
25.5
25.7

16.2
14.0
13.8
17.3
21.8
19.1
24.9
23.5

Tokens Exchanged
Average by Five-Period Interval
1-5
6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 Overall

0
1
1
0
2
2
1
2

1
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
0
0
1
3
1
1
3
2

1
0
0
0
2
1
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
2
3

0
0
1
0
2
1
2
1

0
0
0
3
0
1
4
2

0
0
0
1
1
0
2
1

0
0
1
0
0
1
3
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2

1
1
3
6
3
8
13
10

2
2
3
3
7
4
12
9

Number of Times Public Good Provided
Average by Five-Period Interval
1-5
6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 Overall

Table 1
Summary of Japanese and Canadian Threshold Public Goods Sessions

25

29.8
26.0
29.7
29.7
26.8
28.3
30.8
27.0
23.3
25.7
23.8
24.1
25.5
23.4
25.4
26.6

Panel D: Canadian Males
mc01
5
39.5
mc02
5
28.3
mc07
8
29
mc08
8 29.25
mc05
10
23
mc06
10
29.5
mc03
15
32.5
mc04
15
23.5

First
PeriodPanel C: Canadian Females
fc01
5
41
fc02
5
42
fc07
8
37.5
fc08
8
39.5
fc05
10 36.75
fc06
10
37
fc03
15
35.5
fc04
15
31.5

Session Reward

14.4
20.5
22.0
20.7
25.2
19.7
25.2
20.4

24.0
9.1
24.3
25.0
23.6
24.3
24.8
24.1
11.0
18.8
17.0
22.1
23.8
17.0
24.6
19.5

15.0
10.3
23.3
22.8
23.5
24.3
26.5
20.7
3.7
11.6
24.6
20.6
25.3
15.8
24.3
17.2

5.9
4.6
25.2
26.9
26.1
24.9
26.0
24.8
2.0
6.6
15.8
9.9
23.2
6.0
25.8
17.7

1.8
0.5
26.1
19.1
22.8
24.3
24.0
23.0
10.89
16.6
20.6
19.5
24.6
16.3
25.1
20.3

15.3
10.1
25.7
24.7
24.5
25.2
26.4
23.9

Tokens Exchanged
Average by Five-Period Interval
1-5
6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 Overall

1
3
2
1
2
1
3
2

4
1
4
3
3
4
4
3
1
0
2
1
3
1
3
2

2
0
2
3
1
2
2
2
1
0
0
1
3
1
2
1

0
0
1
1
1
2
3
1
0
0
2
1
3
0
3
0

0
0
3
3
4
3
5
3

0
0
0
0
1
0
5
1

0
0
3
0
2
0
2
2

3
3
6
4
12
3
16
6

6
1
13
10
11
11
16
11

Number of Times Public Good Provided
Average by Five-Period Interval
1-5
6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 Overall

Table 2
Regression Results for Average Group Contribution Measured over Various Intervals
for Japanese and Canadian Sessions Combined(two-tailed p-values in parentheses)
Periods
1–5

Periods
6 – 20Periods
21 – 25

All 25Periods

Intercept

21.56(<.0001)

10.519(.022)-5.714(.3694)9.481(.0147)JM1-5.23(.0662)-7.382(.2343)9.837(.277)-3.507(.4982)CF1

6.46(.0256)0.280(.9636)5.150(.5653)2.491(.6297)CM1

1.54(.5757)1.841(.7643)3.238(.7172)2.060(.6898)

Reward0.263(.1768)0.878(.0483)2.024(.003)

0.984(.0105)

Reward*JM

0.318(.2452)0.652(.2854)-0.728(.410)

0.309(.5430)

Reward*CF-0.213(.4337)0.222(.7132)-0.102(.907)

0.070(.8897)

Reward*CM-.093(.7321)-0.140(.8161)-.357(.685)-0.174(.7314)

1. JM, CF and CM are dummy variables for Japanese males, Canadian females andCanadian males, respectively.

26

Table 3
Regression Results for Number of Times the Public Good is Provided Measured over
Various Intervals for Japanese and Canadian Sessions Combined(two-tailed p-values in parentheses)
Periods
1–5

Periods
6 – 20Periods
21 – 25

All 25Periods

Intercept

1.104(.2292)-2.071(.3497)-2.208(.0440)-3.175(.2655)JM1-1.100(.3936)-0.991(.7498)1.075(.471)-1.014(.799)

CF1

1.340(.3002)1.656(.5947)1.674(.2654)4.670(.2473)CM1

0.189(.8827)1.778(.5679)0.080(.9569)2.047(.6079)Reward0.093(.294)

0.481(.0336)0.311(.0055)0.887(.0035)

Reward*JM

0.024(.8512)0.2336(.4422)-0.113(.4405)0.146(.7089)Reward*CF-0.009(.9402)0.142(.6434)-0.137(.3527)-0.005(.9904)

Reward*CM-0.033(.7929)-0.042(.889)

0.005(.9742)-0.071(.8565)

1. JM, CF and CM are dummy variables for Japanese males, Canadian females andCanadian males, respectively.

27

Table 4Group Distance from Nearest Equilibrium Each Period, Measured over Various Intervals
and Group Distance From Focussed Equilibrium in the Last Five Periodsby Gender and Culture, and p-values for Pairwise t-tests of Equality of MeansGroup Distance From Nearest Equilibrium
Each Period
Periods
1–5

Periods
6 – 20Periods
21 – 25

All 25Periods

Group Distancefrom Focussed
Equilibrium
Periods
21 – 25

Means for Groupsof:Japanese Females
4.116
5.882
5.338
5.420
(JF)
Japanese Males
6.225
5.979
5.767
5.986
(JM)
Canadian Females
5.359
3.494
2.596
3.688
(CF)
Canadian Males
3.996
4.764
4.839
4.626
(CM)
Two-tailed p-values for t-test of equality of means using session-level data:

5.848
7.061
2.596
5.789

JF vs JM

.0529

.9009

.7174

.4377

.4450

JF vs CF

.2206

.0242

.0226

.0431

.0187

JF vs CM

.9044

.2405

.7198

.3414

.9726

JM vs CM

.0150

.1045

.5035

.0365

.4872

JM vs CF

.2925

.0048

.0094

.0009

.0049

CF vs CM

.0980

.1768

.1003

.1843

.0534

28

Table 5
Average Conformity by Gender and Culture, Measured by Distance From Group Mean,
for Various Intervals and p-values for Pairwise t-tests of Equality of Conformity
Periods
1–5

Periods
6 – 20Periods
21 – 25

All 25Periods

JF vs CF

.0064

.3299

.556

.9999

JF vs CM

.0637

.2892

.5887

.1402

JM vs CM

.0890

.2413

.1069

.0475

JM vs CF

.6677

.0095

.0232

.0066

CF vs CM

.2537

.0645

.3834

.2416

Means for Groupsof:Japanese Females
0.885
1.241
0.997
1.121
(JF)
Japanese Males
1.510
1.556
1.555
1.547
(JM)
Canadian Females
1.436
1.097
0.878
1.121
(CF)
Canadian Males
1.215
1.384
1.105
1.295
(CM)
Two-tailed p-values for t-test of equality of means using session-leveldata:
JF vs JM
.0008
.0417
.0198
.0008

29

Table 6
Average Individual Variances by Gender and Culture, Measured Over Various Intervals,
and p-values for Pairwise t-tests of Equality of Variances
Periods
1–5

Periods
6 – 20Periods
21 – 25

All 25Periods

JF vs CF

.1954

.0562

.1686

.2431

JF vs CM

.6107

.9222

.5342

.8963

JM vs CM

.0368

.1617

.48

.0417

JM vs CF

.0648

.0022

.0444

.0014

CF vs CM

.4851

.0892

.1859

.3024

Means for Groupsof:Japanese Females
1.249
2.539
1.653
2.516
(JF)
Japanese Males
3.343
3.466
3.018
3.791
(JM)
Canadian Females
1.919
1.488
1.018
1.939
(CF)
Canadian Males
1.553
2.595
2.184
2.588
(CM)
Two-tailed p-values for t-tests of equality of means using session-leveldata:
JF vs JM
.0159
.0761
.1520
.0048

30

31

Average Group Contribution (Tokens)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Period

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figure 1
Average Group Contribution by Gender For Japanese and Canadian Sessions

Canadian Females
Canadian Males
Japanese Females
Japanese Males

32

Average Group Distance from Equilibrium(tokens)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Period

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figure 2
Equilibrium Coordination by Gender for Canadian and Japanese Sessions:Average Group Distance from Nearest Equilibrium Each Period

Canadian Females
Canadian Males
Japanese Females
Japanese Males

33

Average Distance from Group Mean Tokens Contributed

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Period

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figure 3
Conformity by Gender for Canadian and Japanese Sessions:Average Distance Between Individual Tokens Contributedand Group Mean Tokens Contributed Each Period

Canadian Females
Canadian Males
Japanese Females
Japanese Males