Principles of Microeconomics
7th Edition
ISBN: 9781305156050
Author: N. Gregory Mankiw
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 22, Problem 5PA
To determine
The validation of the statement based on Arrow's impossibility theorem.
Expert Solution & Answer
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Students have asked these 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.
Two players play the Ultimatum Game, in which they are to split $20. A purely rational agent would only reject an offer of …
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.”
Chapter 22 Solutions
Principles of Microeconomics
Knowledge Booster
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 -$10arrow_forwardText of the problem from 'An introduction to decision theory' by Martin Peterson: You prefer a fifty-fifty chance of winning either $100 or $10 to a lottery in which you win $200 with a probability of 1/4, $50 with a probability of 1/4, and $10 with a probability of 1/2. You also prefer a fifty-fifty chance of winning either $200 or $50 to receiving $100 for sure. Are your preferences consistent with von Neumann and Morgenstern’s axioms? The book proposes as solution 'No. Your preferences violate the independence axiom.' without proposing the steps to reach that solution and I don't know why it is correct.arrow_forwardWhy might the multiple-play ultimatum game have a different result than the single-play ultimatum game? In the multiple-play ultimatum game, the first player generally offers less money to the second player than in the single-play ultimatum game. The multiple-play ultimatum game leads to a simpler equilibrium: the first player offers exactly half of the total sum to the second player. The multiple-play ultimatum game allows for players to send signals. Therefore, the receiver can punish a player who doesn’t share enough. The multiple-play ultimatum game generally results in less cooperation because both players fall into a back-and-forth pattern of trying to punish the other player.arrow_forward
- Two friends are deciding where to go for dinner. There are three choices, which we label A, B, and C. Max prefers A to B to C. Sally prefers B to A to C. To decide which restaurant to go to, the friends adopt the following procedure: First, Max eliminates one of three choices. Then, Sally decides among the two remaining choices. Thus, Max has three strategies (eliminate A, eliminate B, and eliminate C). For each of those strategies, Sally has two choices (choose among the two remaining). a.Write down the extensive form (game tree) to represent this game. b.If Max acts non-strategically, and makes a decision in the first period to eliminate his least desirable choice, what will the final decision be? c.What is the subgame-perfect equilibrium of the above game? d. Does your answer in b. differ from your answer in c.? Explain why or why not. Only typed Answerarrow_forwardWhose work on decision making received a 2002 Nobel Prize?arrow_forwardAlice and Bob are each confronted with the choice between: A. Purchasing a set of headphones at the bookstore on campus for $25. OR B. Purchasing an identical set of headphones downtown for $10. If Alice chooses option A, but Bob chooses option B, which of the following must be true if Alice and Bob are both rational? - Alice and Bob face the same inconvenience associated with going downtown - for Bob, the inconvenience associated with traveling downtown was less than $15 - for Alice, the inconvenience associated with traveling downtown was greater than $10 - for Bob, the inconvenience associated with traveling downtown was greater than $15arrow_forward
- Economic agents for example consumers or firms often do things Economic agents (for example, consumers or firms) often do things that at first glance seem to be inconsistent with their self-interest. People tip at restaurants and when they are on vacation even if they have no intention to return to the same place. Firms, sometimes, install costly pollution abatement equipment voluntarily. How can these deviations from Nash predictions be explained? Economic agents for example consumers or firms often do thingsarrow_forwardWe learned that we can use choice between a gamble over someone's best and worst outcomes and getting an outcome of interest (like getting pizza) for certain as a way to assign numeric values to utility (on a scale of 0 to 1). Using this method, if you are indifferent between the following: A gamble that has a 0.3 chance of your best possible outcome (and no lower chance), and a 0.7 chance of your worst possible outcome. Getting pizza for certain. it means that your utility for getting pizza is:arrow_forwardBy means of two examples,explain the principle that economic agents take decisions at the marginarrow_forward
- Which of the following about emotional influence on decision making is true? People generally make rational decisions that maximize desirable outcomes in the absence of emotions Only emotions that are relevant to the decision at hand have any influence on that decision People tend to overestimate their predicted negative emotions resulting from a decision's outcomes People are equally angry about unfair offers in the ultimatum game from computers and from other human playersarrow_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_forwardUnfortunately, the answer is option B. Why is your response different with answer?arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Principles of MicroeconomicsEconomicsISBN:9781305156050Author:N. Gregory MankiwPublisher:Cengage Learning
Economics (MindTap Course List)EconomicsISBN:9781337617383Author:Roger A. ArnoldPublisher:Cengage Learning
Principles of Microeconomics
Economics
ISBN:9781305156050
Author:N. Gregory Mankiw
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Economics (MindTap Course List)
Economics
ISBN:9781337617383
Author:Roger A. Arnold
Publisher:Cengage Learning