EBK MICROECONOMICS
2nd Edition
ISBN: 8220103679701
Author: List
Publisher: YUZU
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 17, Problem 8P
To determine
Equilibrium in a game where the “responder” becomes the first player in the ultimatum game.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionStudents have asked these 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 …
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
Evaluate the following statement. “We shouldn’t generalize from what people do in the ultimatum game because $10 is a trivial amount of money. When larger amounts of money are on the line, people will act differently.”
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- The primary research finding from studies of the “Ultimatum Game” is that when most people make economic decisions they … (choose one) -optimize. -consider the issue of fairness. -meliorate. -apply the availability heuristic.arrow_forwardThe chicken game has often been used to model crises. Recall that in this game, the two players drive straight at each other. They can choose to swerve or keep going straight. If one swerves, and the other goes straight, assume that the one that swerves gets -10 utility and the one that goes straight gets 10 utility, since the one that swerves is deemed the loser. If both swerve, both get 0 utility. If both go straight, they crash and get -50 utility. Assume both players have a discount rate of 0.9 Draw the stage game of date night List all pure strategy Nash equilibria of the single stage game Consider an infinite horizon version of Chicken. Can you get an SPNE in which the both players swerve using a grim trigger type strategy? Consider the following strategies: both players swerve, as long as neither ever went straight. If one player ever plays straight, in all subsequent rounds the player that swerved goes straight and the player that went straight swerves. Can you think…arrow_forwardSuppose Justine and Sarah are playing the ultimatum game. Justine is the proposer, has $140 to allocate, and Sarah can accept or reject the offer. Based on repeated experiments of the ultimatum game, what combination of payouts to Justine and Sarah is most likely to occur?.arrow_forward
- Sophia is a contestant on a game show and has selected the prize that lies behind door number 3.The show’s host tells her that there is a 50% chance that there is a $15,000 diamond ring behindthe door and a 50% chance that there is a goat behind the door (which is worth nothing to Sophia,who is allergic to goats). Before the door is opened, someone in the audience shouts, “I will giveyou the option of selling me what is behind the door for $8,000 if you will pay me $4,500 for thisoption.” [Assume that the game show allows this offer.]a. If Sophia cares only about the expected dollar values of various outcomes, will she buythis option?b. Explain why Sophia’s degree of risk aversion might affect her willingness to buy thisoptionarrow_forwardThe 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 ?arrow_forwardA Nash Equilibrium is the equilibrium of a game in which; Both players get the largest payoff amount Both players get the best payoff independent of what the other players choices are Both player, with the knowledge of what the other players possible moves are, do not have incentive to deviate from their strategy There is incomplete information of the game and each player makes the move that is best for them and their payoff outcomearrow_forward
- Type out the correct answer ASAP with proper explanation of it In the Ultimatum Game, player 1 is given some money (e.g. $10; this is public knowledge), and may give some or all of this to player 2. In turn, player 2 may accept player 1’s offer, in which case the game is over; or player 2 may reject player 1’s offer, in which case neither player gets any money, and the game is over. a. If you are player 2 and strictly rational, explain why you would accept any positive offer from player 1. b. In reality, many players reject offers from player 1 that are significantly below 50%. Whyarrow_forward**Practice*** Amy and Bob are playing the following board game:(I) Amy starts. She has three possible actions: Pass, Attack, or Defend.(II) Bob observes what Amy chose, and then chooses between three actions with the same names: Pass, Attack, or Defend.(III) If either player passes, or one attacks and the other defends, then the game ends. But if either both players attack, or if both players defend, then Amy has to choose between two actions: Respond or Not Respond. The payoffs are as follows:- If both players pass, both players get a payoff of 0.- If a player attacks and the other player defends, the player that attacks gets a payoff of 1, while the player that defended gets a payoff of 2.- If a player passes but the other player attacks or defends, the player who passes gets a payoff of -1, and the player who attacked or defended gets a payoff of 3.- If both players attack or both players defend:– If Amy responds, she gets a payoff of 4, and Bob gets a payoff of 0.– If Amy does…arrow_forwardSome collector has a painting that he no longer values. However, there are two buyers that would be happy to acquire it. Buyer 1 assigns a value of $900 to the painting, and buyer 2 of $1,000. Explain that this situation can be represented as a cooperative game with transferable utility. Obtain the set of players and write down the characteristic function (supposing that the grand coalition’s value is $1000). Find the Core and the Shapley value of the game.arrow_forward
- Consider the following game: you and a partner on a school project are asked to evaluate the other, privately rating them either "1 (Good)" or "0 (Bad)". After all the ratings have been done, a bonus pot of $1000 is given to the person with the highest number of points. If there is a tie, the pool is split evenly. Both players only get utility from money. Mark all of the following true statements: A. The best response to your partner rating you as Good is to rate them as Good as well. Your answer B. There is no best response in this game. C. Your partner's best response to you rating them as Bad is to also rate you as C Bad. D. Your best response to any strategy of your partner is to play "Good".arrow_forwardAccording to behavioral economics, consumers A. do not always behave rationally because they fail to ignore sunk costs. B. always behave rationally because they account for sunk costs. C. always behave rationally because they take into account monetary costs and nonmonetary opportunity costs. D. do not always behave rationally because they take into account nonmonetary opportunity costs. E. do not always behave rationally because they accurately project their future behavior.arrow_forwardTwo athletes of equal ability are competing for a prize of $12,000. Each is deciding whether to take a dangerous performance-enhancing drug. If one athlete takes the drug and the other does not, the one who takes the drug wins the prize. If both or neither take the drug, they tie and split the prize. Taking the drug imposes health risks that are equivalent to a loss of XX dollars. Complete the following payoff matrix describing the decisions the athletes face. Enter Player One's payoff on the left in each situation, Player Two's on the right. Player Two's Decision Take Drug Don't Take Drug Player One's Decision Take Drug , , Don't Take Drug , , True or False: The Nash equilibrium is taking the drug if X is greater than $6,000. True False Suppose there was a way to make the drug safer (that is, have lower XX). Which of the following statements are true about the effects of making the drug safer? Check all that…arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
- Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving ApproachEconomicsISBN:9781337106665Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike ShorPublisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving Approach
Economics
ISBN:9781337106665
Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike Shor
Publisher:Cengage Learning