Suppose that the proposer in the ultimatum game may not propose fractional amounts, and therefore must propose $0, $1, $2, ..., or $10 (see figure below). As always, the responder must Accept (A) or Reject (R). Supposethat this game is played by two egoists who care only about their money. Which of the following statements are true? (Multiple Choice)XXX$0$1$2$3$4$5$6$7||$8$9$10AR($6,$4)($0,$0)A. Player 2's threat to reject a low offer is not credible; player 1 anticipates this and offers nothing.B. The Nash equilibrium is: Player 2 accepts no offers and Player 1 offers nothing.C. The Nash equilibrium is: Player 2 accepts all offers and Player 1 offers nothing.D. When played with real-world subjects, few people actually play the Nash strategy.

Nash equilibrium is a concept in game theory where the optimal choice of a game is where there is no…

Suppose that the proposer in the ultimatum game may not propose fractional amounts, and therefore must propose $0, $1, $2, ., or $10 (see figure below). As always, the responder must Accept (A) or Reject (R). Suppose that this game is played by two egoists who care only about their money. Which of the following statements are true? (Multiple Choice) $0 $1 $2 $3 $4/ $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 ($6,$4) ($0,$0) O A. Player 2's threat to reject a low offer is not credible; player 1 anticipates this and offers nothing. O B. The Nash equilibrium is: Player 2 accepts no offers and Player 1 offers nothing. OC. The Nash equilibrium is: Player 2 accepts all offers and Player 1 offers nothing. O D. When played with real-world subjects, few people actually play the Nash strategy.

Suppose that the proposer in the ultimatum game may not propose fractional amounts, and therefore must propose $0, $1, $2, ., or $10 (see figure below). As always, the responder must Accept (A) or Reject (R). Suppose that this game is played by two egoists who care only about their money. Which of the following statements are true? (Multiple Choice) $0 $1 $2 $3 $4/ $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 ($6,$4) ($0,$0) O A. Player 2's threat to reject a low offer is not credible; player 1 anticipates this and offers nothing. O B. The Nash equilibrium is: Player 2 accepts no offers and Player 1 offers nothing. OC. The Nash equilibrium is: Player 2 accepts all offers and Player 1 offers nothing. O D. When played with real-world subjects, few people actually play the Nash strategy.

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.7P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Two players play the Ultimatum Game, in which they are to split $20. A purely rational agent would only reject an offer of … Group of answer choices... -$20 -$19 -$1 -$0 -$10
Theo and Addy are deciding what toys to pick out at the toy store. Depending on what toys they pick, they can play different games together, but they can’t coordinate their choices. They can’t talk to one another at all until after that make their choice. Below is their payout matrix which shows their utility for each choice. All the bold figures are for Theo and all the non bold figures are for Addy. Addy Strategies Theo Strategies Toy Gas Pump Jump Rope Toy food 20 10 10 3 Ball 7 3 9 4 a) If Theo chooses Toy Food, what would be the possible outcomes for Addy? What would be best for Addy? b) If Addy chose a Toy Gas Pump, what are the possible outcomes for Theo? What would be best for Theo? c) Does Addy have a dominant strategy? If yes, what is her strategy? If not how can you tell? d) Does Theo have a dominant strategy? If yes, what is her strategy? If not how…
To Vote or Not to Vote Mr. and Mrs. Ward typically vote oppositely in elections and so their votes “cancel each other out.” They each gain two units of utility from a vote for their positions (and lose two units of utility from a vote against their positions). However, the bother of actually voting costs each one unit of utility. Diagram a game in which they choose whether to vote or not to vote. Mrs. Ward vote. don't vote Mr. Ward Vote. -1, -1. 1, -2 don't vote. -2, 1. 0,0?
Suppose that Teresa and Caroline are both in the public eye. They get offers to sell secrets of the other to tabloids. If both keep the secrets, they are both better off than if they get exposed. If only one is exposed, the other person is better off than if no one was exposed. Their payoffs from each option are given in the payoff matrix. Suppose that Caroline and Teresa play the game over four television seasons, where each season is a new game. Consider the scenarios. Remember, a tit‑for‑tat strategy is one where the person starts by cooperating and then plays whatever strategy the other firm played last. Over four seasons, how much will Caroline make if she and Teresa both play tit‑for‑tat? $_______ Over four seasons, how much does Caroline make if she always exposes and Teresa plays tit‑for‑tat? $________
Suppose that Teresa and Caroline are both in the public eye. They get offers to sell secrets of the other to tabloids. If both keep the secrets, they are both better off than if they get exposed. If only one is exposed, the other person is better off than if no one was exposed. Their payoffs from each option are given in the payoff matrix. Suppose that Caroline and Teresa play the game over four television seasons, where each season is a new game. Consider the scenarios. Remember, a tit‑for‑tat strategy is one where the person starts by cooperating and then plays whatever strategy the other firm played last. Over four seasons, how much will Caroline make if she plays a tit‑for‑tat strategy and Teresa always exposes? $_______ Over four seasons, how much will Caroline make if she and Teresa both always expose? $_________ Does Caroline have a dominant strategy when she and Teresa play for four seasons? No, there is no dominant strategy…
The prisoner illustrates that rational, self-interested individuals will natuarally avoid the Nash equilibrium, because it is worse for both of them, true or false and why ?
Consider the following game. There are two payers, Player 1 and Player 2. Player 1 chooses a row (10, 20, or 30), and Player 2 chooses a column (10/20/30). Payoffs are in the cells of the table, with those on the left going to Player 1 and those on the right going to player 2. Suppose that Player 1 chooses his strategy (10, 20 or 30), first, and subsequently, and after observing Player 1’s choice, Player 2 chooses his own strategy (of 10, 20 or 30). Which of the following statements is true regarding this modified game? I. It is a simultaneous move game, because the timing of moves is irrelevant in classifying games.II. It is a sequential move game, because Player 2 observes Player 1’s choice before he chooses his own strategy.III. This modification gives Player 1 a ‘first mover advantage’. A) I and IIB) II and IIIC) I and IIID) I onlyE) II only
Two players play the Ultimatum Game, in which they are to split $20. A purely rational agent would only reject an offer of …
Consider the game tree below (attached). In this game, each player can mover either Up (U) or Down (D). Player 1 moves first, then Player 2, and Player 3 moves last. Using backwards induction, clearly identify the choice that each player will make at each stage in the tree circle the ultimate outcome (payoff) to the game
Player 1 and Player 2 are trying to agree on how to split a pie of size 1 in a two-stage bargaining game. If no agreement is reached after the two stages are complete, the pie is split for them according to a pre-arranged agreement that gives Player 1 and Player 2 one-quarter and three quarters of the pie, respectively. In the first stage, Player 1 makes an offer (x1, x2), where x1 + x2 = 1. Player 2 can either accept this offer (at which point the game ends and the pie is split according to Player 1’s offer), or can make a counter-offer. When Player 2 makes a counter offer, Player 1 can either accept (in which case the pie is split according to Player 2’s offer) or can reject, in which case the pie is split according to the pre-arranged agreement. Both players have a discount factor d – getting dx in the first stage (after Player 1’s proposal) is as good as getting x in the second stage (after Player 2’s proposal). a) In the last stage of the game, Player 1 will accept any offer…
Three politicians are voting on whether to allow themselves a salary increase of$3,500per a year. If they vote in favor of a raise, then they lose some public support, costing them each$1,500 per year. The salary increase passes if two or more politicians vote in favor of it. What is this game’s Nash equilibrium (or equilibria)? Explain. There is no need to draw a payoff matrix.
Suppose Rashard and Alyssa are playing a game that requires both to simultaneously choose an action: Up or Down. The payoff matrix that follows shows the earnings of each person as a function of both of their choices. For example, the upper-right cell shows that if Rashard chooses Up and Alyssa chooses Down, Rashard will receive a payoff of 4 and Alyssa will receive a payoff of 5. Alyssa Up Down Rashard Up 8, 4 4, 5 Down 5, 4 6, 5 In this game, the only dominant strategy is for to choose . The outcome reflecting the unique Nash equilibrium in this game is as follows: Rashard chooses and Alyssa chooses.