Which of the following problems makes it difficult to interpret human experiments using cooperation games based on economic game theory? O If you compare humans from different cultures, you get different results which defeats the purpose. These games do not test human behavior under conditions that are ecologically realistic. Economic game theory assumes that humans are selfish, but actually we are cooperative.

Which of the following problems makes it difficult to interpret human experiments using cooperation games based on economic game theory? O If you compare humans from different cultures, you get different results which defeats the purpose. These games do not test human behavior under conditions that are ecologically realistic. Economic game theory assumes that humans are selfish, but actually we are cooperative.

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter15: Imperfect Competition

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 15.5P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Is the solution to the prisoner’s dilemma game a Nash equilibrium? Why? The solution to the prisoner’s dilemma game is a Nash equilibrium because no player can improve his or her payoff by changing strategy unilaterally. The solution to the prisoner’s dilemma game is not a Nash equilibrium because players do not end up in the best combination for both. The solution to the prisoner’s dilemma game is not a Nash equilibrium because both players can improve their payoffs by cooperating. The solution to the prisoner’s dilemma game is a Nash equilibrium because it is a noncooperative game in which both players have to expect that the other is purely selfish.
Nash equilibrium refers to the optimal outcome of a game where there is no incentive for the players to deviate from their initial strategy. An individual (or player) can receive no incremental benefit from changing actions, assuming other players remain constant in their strategies. Given this premise, can there be a no Nash equilibrium?
Consider trade relations between the United States and Mexico. Assume that the leaders of the two countries believe the payoffs to alternative trade policies are shown in the image attached. a) What is the dominant strategy for the United States? For Mexico? Explain. b) Define Nash equilibrium. What is the Nash equilibrium for trade policy? c) In 1993, the U.S. Congress ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement, in which the United States and Mexico agreed to reduce trade barriers simultaneously. Do the perceived payoffs shown here justify this approach to trade policy? Explain.
Evolutionary game theory provides a framework for understanding the emergence of preferences and behavior. Why are theoretical methodologies that employ the rational actor model an evolutionary stable strategy for economists?
Imagine a game where individuals can be either cooperative (like splitting a resource) or selfish (like grabbing the entire resource). Depending on the relative costs and benefits of interacting and the resource, there might be a variety of possible payoff matrices for such an interaction. Of the following matrices, which one illustrates the largest “temptation to cheat?”
True or false? If a game has a Nash equilibrium, that equilibrium will be the equilibrium that we expect to observe in the real world. False. People don’t always act in the way that a Nash equilibrium requires. People don’t always make the necessary calculations and they take into account the outcome of others. False. A Nash equilibrium is based on very strict assumptions that rarely hold in the real world. No real-world situation leads to a Nash equilibrium. True. As long as people are rational and have their own self-interest at heart, real-life games will result in the Nash equilibrium. True. Nash’s theory of equilibrium outcomes was derived from real-world interactions. The theory holds true for almost all real-world scenarios.
Which of the following is true? A Nash equilibrium is always a perfect subgame equilibrium in a multistage game. A subgame perfect equilibrium is always a Nash equilibrium. A Nash equilibrium is always a subgame perfect equilibrium. Subgame perfect equilibrium and Nash equilibrium are the same concept but with different names.
You have just played rock, paper, scissors with your friend. You chose scissors and he chose paper, so you won. Is this a Nash equilibrium? Explain why or why not.
Select the term that best describes each definition listed in the following table. Definition Nash Equilibrium Dominant Strategy Collusion Tit-for-tat Strategy Payoff Matrix Prisoners' Dilemma Game A player's best choice, if it exists, regardless of his or her opponent's strategy A strategy in which a player cooperates until the other player defects and then defects until the other player cooperates again A set of strategies (one for each player) in which each player's strategy is the best option for that player, given the chosen strategy of the player's opponents A visual representation of a game showing all possible strategies for each player and all potential outcomes and payoffs
In 2003, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela produced an average of 8 million and 3 million barrels of oil a day, respectively. Production costs were about $10 a barrel and the price of oil averaged $28 per barrel. Each country had the capacity to produce an additional 1 million barrels per day. At that time, it was estimated that each country 1-million-barrel increase in supply would depress the average price of oil by $3. A. Draw a normal form representation of a game where Saudi Arabia has 2 possible actions to produce 8 million or 9 million barrels of oil and Venezuela has 2 possible actions: to produce 3 or 4 million barrels of oil. Fill in the payoffs for each player and action. Draw a table. B. What action should each country take and why? C. Does the asymmetry in the countries' sizes cause them to take different attitudes towards expanding out? Explain why or why not.
Which one of the following statements is correct? 1)A supergame must have a unique subgame perfect Nash equilibrium. 2)A supergame can only have finite number of subgame perfect Nash equilibrium points. 3)A supergame cannot have any subgame perfect Nash equilibrium 4)None of the above is correct.
Which of the following statements is true? An outcome cannot be a Nash equilibrium if it is Pareto dominated by every other outcome. If all outcomes of a game are rationalizable, then there is at least one Nash equilibrium in pure strategies. Games with a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium cannot have a pure strategy Nash equilibrium. Adding more players to a game will increase the number of Nash equilibria. None of the above. No Answer