A principal can choose to make the allocation of tasks broad (B) or narrrow (N). At the same time an agent can choose to work put in high effort (H) or low effort (L). The payoffs are 20 to the principal and 30 to the agent is the actions chosen are B and L. For all other combinations of actions the payoffs are 0 to both players. Which of the following statements are true? DA Nash equilibrium of the game is (B, H) DA Nash equilibrium is (N. L) There is no Nash equilibrium in pure strategies in this game. DA Nash equilibrium is (N, H) DA Nash equilibrium is (B, L)

A principal can choose to make the allocation of tasks broad (B) or narrrow (N). At the same time an agent can choose to work put in high effort (H) or low effort (L). The payoffs are 20 to the principal and 30 to the agent is the actions chosen are B and L. For all other combinations of actions the payoffs are 0 to both players. Which of the following statements are true? DA Nash equilibrium of the game is (B, H) DA Nash equilibrium is (N. L) There is no Nash equilibrium in pure strategies in this game. DA Nash equilibrium is (N, H) DA Nash equilibrium is (B, L)

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.4P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Within a voluntary contribution game, the Nash equilibrium level of contribution is zero, but in experiments, it is often possible to sustain positive levels of contribution for a long period. How might we best explain this? A) Participants are altruistic, and so value the payoff which other participants receive, benefiting (indirectly) from making a contribution. B) Participants believe that if they make a contribution, then other participants will be more likely to make a contribution. C) Participants in experiments believe that they have to make contributions in order to receive any payoff from their participation. D) Participants have experience of working in situations in which cooperation can be sustained for mutual benefit and so have internalised a social norm of cooperation
parameter z= 1 In the unique subgame perfect Nash equilibrium, what is the sum of the payoffs tothe two players?
Martin has a brother and can take a selfish action, which pays him $10 and his brother $0, or an altruistic action, which pays him $6 and his brother $6. The parents love their children equally and decide how to distribute $20 between them. The parents' payment is the minimum of their two children's payments. Assume that the game is simultaneous. Find the Nash equilibrium.
Please no written by hand Two players bargain over how to split $10. Each player i ∈ {1, 2} choose a number si ∈ [0, 10] (which does not need to be an integer). Each player’s payoff is the money he receives. We consider two allocation rules. In each case, if s1 + s2 ≤ 10, each player gets his chosen amount si and the rest is destroyed. 1. In the first case, if s1 + s2 > 10, both players get zero. What are the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria? 2. In the second case, if s1 + s2 > 10 and s1 6= s2, the player who chose the smallest amount receives this amount and the other gets the rest. If s1 + s2 > 10 and s1 = s2, they both get $5. What are the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria? 3. Now suppose that s1 and s2 must be integers. Does this change the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria in either case?
Question 1 Consider a first-price sealed bid auction of a single object with two biddersj = 1,2 and no reservation price. Bidder 1′s valuation is v1 = 2, and bidder 2′s valuation isv1 = 5. Both v1 and v2 are known to both bidders. Bids must be in whole dollar amounts.In the event of a tie, the object is awarded by a flip of a fair coin.(a) Find an equilibrium of this game.(b) Is the allocation of your answer to (a) efficient?
Game Theory Consider the entry game with incomplete information studied in class. An incumbent politician's cost of campaigning can be high or low and the entrant does not know this cost (but the incumbent does). In class, we found two pure-strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibria in this game. Assume that the probability that the cost of campaigning is high is a parameter p, 0 < p < 1. Show that when p is large enough, there is only one pure-strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibrium. What is it? What is the intuition? How large does p have to be? Note:- Do not provide handwritten solution. Maintain accuracy and quality in your answer. Take care of plagiarism. Answer completely. You will get up vote for sure.
on 8.1 Consider the following game: Player 1 A C D 7,6 5,8 0,0 Player 2 E 5,8 7,6 1, 1 F 0,0 1,1 4,4 a. Find the pure-strategy Nash equilibria (if any). b. Find the mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium in which each player randomizes over just the first two actions. c. Compute players' expected payoffs in the equilibria found in parts (a) and (b). d. Draw the extensive form for this game.
Suppose two bidders compete for a single indivisible item (e.g., a used car, a piece of art, etc.). We assume that bidder 1 values the item at $v1, and bidder 2 values the item at $v2. We assume that v1 > v2. In this problem we study a second price auction, which proceeds as follows. Each player i = 1, 2 simultaneously chooses a bid bi ≥ 0. The higher of the two bidders wins, and pays the second highest bid (in this case, the other player’s bid). In case of a tie, suppose the item goes to bidder 1. If a bidder does not win, their payoff is zero; if the bidder wins, their payoff is their value minus the second highest bid. a) Now suppose that player 1 bids b1 = v2 and player 2 bids b2 = v1, i.e., they both bid the value of the other player. (Note that in this case, player 2 is bidding above their value!) Show that this is a pure NE of the second price auction. (Note that in this pure NE the player with the lower value wins, while in the weak dominant strategy equilibrium where both…