We investigate how individuals react to different types of asymmetries in experimental two-player Tullock contests where contestants expend resources to win a prize. We compare the effects of three different sources of asymmetry: resources, abilities and possible outcomes. We find that overall competitive effort is greatest in the presence of asymmetric abilities. Unlike other forms, asymmetry in abilities elicits a very aggressive reaction from disadvantaged players relative to their advantaged opponents. The Quantal Response Equilibrium (QRE) suggests that financial incentives are less salient in the presence of a biased contest procedure. We explore asymmetric abilities further in a second study that varies the degree of asymmetry. We find that advantaged players exploit their privileged position while disadvantaged players exhibit volatile behavior, either giving up or matching their opponents. We conclude that a desire to win drives behavior in this asymmetric setting.

我们在实验性的两人塔洛克（Tullock）竞赛中调查个人如何应对不同类型的不对称性，在竞赛中，参赛者会花费资源来赢得奖品。我们比较了三种不对称来源的影响：资源，能力和可能的结果。我们发现，在存在不对称能力的情况下，总体竞争努力是最大的。与其他形式不同，能力上的不对称会引起弱势玩家相对于其有利对手的非常激进的反应。量化反应均衡（QRE）表明，在存在有偏见的竞争程序的情况下，财务激励措施的重要性不高。在第二项研究中，我们进一步探讨了不对称能力，该能力会改变不对称程度。我们发现，优势玩家会利用自己的特权地位，而劣势玩家则表现出不稳定的行为，要么放弃要么与对手匹敌。我们得出结论，在这种不对称的情况下，渴望获胜会驱动行为。