Consider an infinitely repeated "emotionally charged" Prisoner's Dilemma where Player 1 gets depressed if betrayed, which reduces his payoff beyond the prison time by an amount x.Player 2Confess (C)Deny (D)0, -5Player 1Confess (C)-3, -3Deny (D)-5-х, 0-1, -1How does x affect the players' ability to cooperate?O The lower x is, the more likely it is that they can cooperate.O The higher x is, the more likely it is that they can cooperate.O If the discount factor is greater than x, they can cooperate.O x does not affect cooperation at all.

In an infinitely repeated game, output decisions are simultaneously made for every period.

Consider an infinitely repeated "emotionally charged" Prisoner's Dilemma where Player 1 gets depressed if betrayed, which reduces his payoff beyond the prison time by an amount x. Player 2 Confess (C) Deny (D) 0, -5 Confess (C) Deny (D) Player 1 -3, -3 -5-х, 0 -1, -1 How does x affect the players' ability to cooperate? O The lower x is, the more likely it is that they can cooperate. O The higher x is, the more likely it is that they can cooperate. O f the discount factor is greater than x, they can cooperate. O x does not affect cooperation at all.

Consider an infinitely repeated "emotionally charged" Prisoner's Dilemma where Player 1 gets depressed if betrayed, which reduces his payoff beyond the prison time by an amount x. Player 2 Confess (C) Deny (D) 0, -5 Confess (C) Deny (D) Player 1 -3, -3 -5-х, 0 -1, -1 How does x affect the players' ability to cooperate? O The lower x is, the more likely it is that they can cooperate. O The higher x is, the more likely it is that they can cooperate. O f the discount factor is greater than x, they can cooperate. O x does not affect cooperation at all.

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.9P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Does each individual in a prisoners dilemma benefit more from cooperation or from pursuing self-interest? Explain briefly.
Consider the location game we covered in Lecture 3. Now assume there arethree players (vendors). As we assumed in the lecture, consumers in each area choosethe closest vendor and if there are multiple closest vendors then these vendors receiveequal share of consumers in the area. Notice Si = {1, 2, 3, ...., 9} for i = 1, 2, 3. Here aresome examples of payoffs: u1(1, 1, 1) = 3, u1(1, 1, 9) = u2(1, 1, 9) = 2.25, u3(1, 1, 9) =4.5, u1(1, 5, 9) = u3(1, 5, 9) = 2.5 and u2(1, 5, 9) = 4. (a) Is s′1 = 1 strictly dominated by s′′1 = 2 for player 1?(b) Is s′1 = 1 weakly dominated by s′′1 = 2 for player 1?(c) Can you find a Nash equilibrium in pure strategies?
Consider the following coordination game: Player 2P1 Comedy Show Concert Comedy Show 11,5 0,0 Concert 0,0 2,2 a. Find the Nash equilibrium(s) for this game.b. Now assume Player 1 and Player 2 have distributional preferences. Specifically, both people greatly care about the utility of the other person. In fact, they place equal weight on their outcome and the other person’soutcome, ρ = σ = ½. Find the Nash equilibrium(s) with these utilitarianpreferences.c. Now consider the case where Player1 and Player2 do not like each other. Specifically, any positive outcome for the other person is viewed as anegative outcome for the individual, ρ = σ = -1. Find the Nashequilibrium(s) with these envious preferences.
Consider the extensive form game portrayed below. The top number at aterminal node is player 1’s payoff, the middle number is player 2’s payoff,and the bottom number is player 3’s payoff.a. Derive the strategy set for each player. (Note: If you do not want to listall of the strategies, you can provide a general description of a player’sstrategy, give an example, and state how many strategies are in thestrategy set.)b. Derive all subgame perfect Nash equilibria. c. Derive a Nash equilibrium that is not a SPNE, and explain why it isnot a SPNE.
Choice under uncertainty. Consider a coin-toss game in which the player gets $30 if they win, and $5 if they lose. The probability of winning is 50%. (a) Alan is (just) willing to pay $15 to play this game. What is Alan’s attitude to risk? Show your work. (b) Assume a market with many identical Alans, who are all forced to pay $15 to play this coin-toss game. An insurer offers an insurance policy to protect the Alans from the risk. What would be the fair (zero profit) premium on this policy? can you help me for par (b) plase?
Choice under uncertainty. Consider a coin-toss game in which the player gets $30 if they win, and $5 if they lose. The probability of winning is 50%. (a) Alan is (just) willing to pay $15 to play this game. What is Alan’s attitude to risk? Show your work.(b) Assume a market with many identical Alans, who are all forced to pay $15 to play this coin-toss game. An insurer offers an insurance policy to protect the Alans from the risk. What would be the fair (zero profit) premium on this policy? i need help with question B please.
12. Consider a game where each player picks a number from 0 to 60. The guess that is closest to half ofthe average of the chosen numbers wins a prize. If several peopleare equally close, then they share theprize. The game theory implies that (A) all players have dominant strategies to choose 0 (B) all players have dominant strategies to choose 30 (C) there is a Nash equilibrium where all players pick 0 (D) there is a Nash equilibrium where all players pick positive numbers 13. Behavioral data in such games suggests that (A) most subjects choose 0; (B) most subjects choose 30; (C) common answers include 30, 15, 7.5, and 0; (D) most subjects use randomization. Can you help me answer number 13 please?
6 Two people will select a policy that affects both of them by applying a "veto" in a sequential and alternate manner, that is: person 1 begins to veto a policy and then person 2 exercises his "veto" with the remaining policies; the process repeats until only one policy remains. Assume that there are 3 policies: X,Y,Z, and that person 1 prefers X to Y to Z and person 2 prefers Z to Y to X. a. Represents the game extensively b. Give the number of subgames C. Indicate the total strategies of the players d. find all subgame perfect nash equilibria e. Find all Nash Equilibriums.
Consider the following variation to the Rock (R), Paper (P), Scissors (S) game:• Suppose that the Player 1 (row player) has a single type, Normal.• Player 2 (column player) has two types Normal and Simple.• A player of Normal type plays this zero-sum game as we studied in class whereas a player of type Simple always play P.• Player 2 knows whether he is Normal or Simple, but player 1does not.a) Suppose player 2 is of type Normal with probability 1/3 and of type Simple with probability (2/3). Find all pure strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibria.b) Suppose player 2 is of type Normal with probability 2/3 and of type Simple with probability (1/3). Find all pure strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibria.
Consider a modified Traveler’s Dilemma. In terms of strategy options that the players have and the dollars they earn, it is like the standard Traveler’s Dilemma, but the players do not have endless appetite for money. Up to 100 dollars, each dollar feels like a dollar. But any moneybeyond 100 is psychologically like 100 dollars. Assuming that players are maximizers of ‘psychological’ dollars instead of real dollars, describe all the Nash equilibria of this modified Traveler’s Dilemma.
1) What are the Nash equilibria? Which one is unreasonable/non-credible threat? 2) What are the subgame perfect Nash equilibria? Does SPNE concept eliminate the unreasonable Nash equilibrium?
Describe the Nash equilibrium/a and the mutually-preferred outcome. Finally, consider how people are sometimes able to resolve this social dilemma in the real world. Clearly explain how this method is successful in moving the players to a socially optimal outcome.