Social Cognition
Meeting Point Game
Also called: battle of the sexes, battle-of-the-sexes game, BoS game
Measure coordination when interests conflict: each round the participant and a simulated partner choose a meeting place that pays one of them more, scored by how often the participant chooses their own.
3-5 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 12
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures how often people choose the meeting place that pays them more when meeting pays both players and each prefers a different place. In each round the participant and a simulated partner choose place A or B; meeting pays 51 or 75 points at one's preferred place and 50 at the other's.
Constructs
- Coordination with conflicting interests
- Expectations about others' choices
- Weighing one's own gain against meeting
- Strategic reasoning
Research uses
- Behavioral economics research on coordination and conventions
- Game theory experiments on equilibrium selection
- Social psychology research on conflicting interests
- Group comparison within a study
How the paradigm works
The Meeting Point Game measures how often people choose the meeting place that pays them more when meeting pays both players but each prefers a different place. It is the coordination game the literature calls the battle of the sexes (Luce and Raiffa, 1957), told here with a neutral story: two players each choose one of two places at the same time. If they choose the same place, both get points, the player whose preferred place it is getting more; if they choose different places, neither gets any. Each player would rather meet at the other's place than not meet, so both meeting outcomes are equilibria, and in the mixed equilibrium each player goes to their own place with a chance that rises with what it pays them. Played once with partners met once, players often failed to meet, and messages before play helped (Cooper, DeJong, Forsythe and Ross, 1989). When meeting paid one player only slightly more ($5.10 against $5), about three quarters of players chose the place that paid their partner more; when it paid $6 or $10 against $5, 60% to 67% chose their own, and the rate of meeting expected from these choices was near the mixed equilibrium's or below it (Crawford, Gneezy and Rottenstreich, 2008).
More about the paradigm
Here the participant plays 20 rounds, each with a new partner, and chooses place A or B. Meeting pays 51 points at one's preferred place and 50 at the other's in 10 rounds, a small gap, and 75 against 50 in the other 10, a large gap, each gap once in every two rounds in an order drawn from the session's seed. Which place the participant prefers changes from round to round, half of each gap's rounds each way. The partners are simulated: each goes to its own preferred place with the mixed-equilibrium chance for the round's points, 51 in 101 with the small gap and 3 in 5 with the large one, from numbers drawn before the session, so nothing the participant does changes them. At these chances both places pay the participant the same on average, so a difference between the gaps comes from the participant, not from the points. The standard instructions say each partner is a computer program that follows set rules; a neutral wording leaves that line out, and the last screen then says so. Studies usually explain the purpose afterwards. One check question with feedback comes first, there is no time limit, and after each choice the participant sees where the partner went and the points. The study decides what the points are worth.
The main score is the share of rounds in which the participant chose their preferred place. It is also reported for each gap, and the gap effect is the large-gap share minus the small-gap share; above 0 means choosing one's own place more often when it pays much more, the direction Crawford and colleagues found. The share of rounds in which the two met and the points won are reported too. Choosing one's preferred place can reflect a wish for more points, a guess that the partner will give way or a guess about a program, so the scores describe choices in a game played for points, never a person's selfishness or kindness, and they do not diagnose. People who know the partners are programs may choose differently from people meeting other people, so compare people who saw the same instructions.
Scores
- Preferred Place Rate%
- Share of rounds in which the participant chose the place that pays them more when the two meet.
- Read across a group; no better direction
- Preferred Place Rate, Small Gap%
- Share of the rounds with 51 against 50 points in which the participant chose their preferred place.
- Informational
- Preferred Place Rate, Large Gap%
- Share of the rounds with 75 against 50 points in which the participant chose their preferred place.
- Informational
- Gap Effect%
- Preferred place rate with the large gap minus the rate with the small gap.
- Above 0 means choosing one's own place more often when it pays much more
- Meeting Rate%
- Share of rounds in which the participant and the partner chose the same place.
- Informational
- Points Wonpoints
- Points over all rounds.
- Informational
- Check Correctflag
- 1 when the check question on the points for meeting at the partner's preferred place was answered correctly, 0 when not.
- 1 supports interpretation
- Median Choice Timems
- Median time from a round's screen to the choice, over choices at or after 100 ms.
- Informational
- Choices Under 100 mscount
- Choices made less than 100 ms after the round's screen appeared.
- 0 expected
- Roundscount
- Rounds played.
- Informational
Use and evidence
12 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 60% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 438 of 495 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 2 |
| 2024 | 1 |
| 2023 | 1 |
| 2022 | 6 |
| 2021 | 2 |
| 2020 | 4 |
| 2019 | 8 |
| 2018 | 9 |
| 2017 | 8 |
| 2016 | 1 |
| 2015 | 2 |
| 2014 | 3 |
| 2013 | 6 |
| 2012 | 4 |
| 2011 | 6 |
| 2010 | 6 |
| 2009 | 1 |
| 2008 | 1 |
| 2007 | 0 |
| 2006 | 1 |
| 2005 | 2 |
| 2004 | 2 |
| 2003 | 3 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 2 |
| 2000 | 3 |
Use grade E
Fewer than 30 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 1
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Note on the counts: includes game-theory papers that run no task.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 3 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Each round
- The participant and a new partner each choose place A or B at the same time. If they choose the same place, both get points: the high points for the player whose preferred place it is and the low points for the other. Different places give both 0.
- Points
- 51 against 50 in half the rounds, a small gap, and 75 against 50 in the other half, a large gap. Each gap comes once in every 2 rounds, in an order drawn from the session's seed and saved. Which place the participant prefers changes from round to round, half of each gap's rounds each way. Points are hypothetical by default; a setting changes the instruction line to say the study pays.
- Rounds
- 10 for each gap (standard; 4 to 20), 20 in all.
- Partners
- Computer programs, a new one in each round. Each goes to its own preferred place with the mixed-equilibrium chance for the round's points: 51 in 101 with the small gap and 3 in 5 with the large one. Their numbers are drawn from the session's seed before the first round and saved, and nothing the participant does changes them. The standard instructions say each partner is a computer program that follows set rules; a neutral wording leaves that line out, and the last screen then says so.
- Results
- After each choice, for 2 seconds: where the partner went and both players' points for the round.
- Check
- One question with feedback before the first round: the points for meeting at the partner's preferred place, with the large gap.
- Scores
- The share of rounds at the participant's preferred place, overall and for each gap; the gap effect, the large-gap share minus the small-gap share; the share of rounds in which the two met.
At these chances both places pay the participant the same on average in every round, so a difference between the gaps comes from the participant, not from the points. Crawford, Gneezy and Rottenstreich (2008) asked paid students once each; here the partners are computer programs, the points are ConductScience's own, and the screens tell a neutral story of two players choosing where to meet. People who know the partners are programs may choose differently from people meeting other people, so compare people who saw the same instructions. Studies usually explain the purpose afterwards. The scores describe choices in a game played for points, never a person's selfishness or kindness, and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the scored run's choices, one point per round, A or B. No choice is right or wrong, so accuracy is not judged against chance, and choosing one's preferred point in every round or in none is accepted. A run short of its planned rounds and a wrong check answer are flagged for review. Choices under 200 ms on at least half the rounds invalidate.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. With the simulated partners at the mixed-strategy equilibrium, both points pay the same on average in every round, so the same choice throughout is a real way to play. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Rounds per points table | 10 | 4 to 20 |
| Partner wording | Computer programs (standard) | Computer programs (standard), Neutral: your partner |
| Payment line | Hypothetical points (standard) | Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Meeting Point Game in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Luce RD, Raiffa H, 1957; Crawford VP, Gneezy U, Rottenstreich Y, 2008), with the standard settings (rounds per points table: 10; partner wording: Computer programs; payment line: Hypothetical points). The main score was preferred place rate (share of rounds in which the participant chose the place that pays them more when the two meet).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. Wiley.
- Cooper, R., DeJong, D. V., Forsythe, R., & Ross, T. W. (1989). Communication in the battle of the sexes game: Some experimental results. RAND Journal of Economics, 20(4), 568-587. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555734The game played once with partners met once, with and without messages before play.
- Crawford, V. P., Gneezy, U., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2008). The power of focal points is limited: Even minute payoff asymmetry may yield large coordination failures. American Economic Review, 98(4), 1443-1458. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.4.1443Small and larger gaps between the two players' points, and which place people choose with each.
Source papers
- Crawford, Gneezy and Rottenstreich (2008): played once for money, about three quarters of 48 students chose the place that paid their partner more when meeting paid $5.10 against $5, and 60% to 67% chose their own when it paid $6 or $10 against $5. Other points, labels and partners will give other rates.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Meeting Point Game take?
About 3 to 5 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Preferred Place Rate, Preferred Place Rate, Small Gap, Preferred Place Rate, Large Gap, Gap Effect, Meeting Rate, Points Won, Check Correct, Median Choice Time, Choices Under 100 ms and Rounds. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Meeting Point Game used in research?
12 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 60% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 438 of 495 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade E). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 3 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Meeting Point Game have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Rounds per points table (4 to 20), partner wording (Computer programs (standard), Neutral: your partner) and payment line (Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.
Related tests