
ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
14th Edition
ISBN: 9780190931919
Author: NEWNAN
Publisher: Oxford University Press
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question

Transcribed Image Text:5.
Consider a modified version of the ultimatum bargaining game. The proposer's payoff is as in the
standard ultimatum game. The responder's payoff is given by y + 2(y-2), where y is the
responder's monetary reward, z is the proposer's monetary take. Find and report the subgame perfect
equilibrium.
Expert Solution

This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Step by stepSolved in 3 steps with 1 images

Knowledge Booster
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, economics and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.Similar questions
- 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_forwardConsider the game with the payoffs below. Which of the possible outcomes are MORE efficient than the Nash Equilibrium (NE)? Note, they do NOT need to be Nash equilibria themselves, they just need to be more efficient than the NE. Multiple answers are possible, but not necessary. You need to check ALL correct answers for full credit. JILL High Medium LowMAGGIE Left 3,4 2,3 2,2Center 4,8 9,7 8,7Right 7,6 8,5 9,4Group of answer choices (Left, Low) There is no strategy combination that is more efficient than the Nash equilibrium for this game. (Right, Medium) (Left, High) (Center, Medium) (Center, High) (Center, Low) (Left, Medium) (Right, Low) (Right, High)arrow_forwardQuestion 2. Two students are working together to submit their Microeconomics mid-semester group coursework. Each student i can put in the effort x; that costs c(x;), in which x; E [0, 1]. This gives each student the utility of u(x1, x2). Formu- late this situation as a strategic game.arrow_forward
- 1) Consider the following variant of the prisoner's dilemma with altruistic preferences. For simplicity, I'm adding 15 to the payoffs of the baseline normal form representation of the game we describe in class which results in the following: Player I\ Player 2 Cooperate Non-Cooperate Cooperate 8.8 0,15 Non Cooperate 15,0 14,14 Assume now that the players are not “selfish”; rather the preference of each player i are represented by the payoff (utility) function m; (a) + ßm; (a) where mi(a) is the payoff received by player i when the strategy profile is a, j is the other player, and ß is a given non-negative number. Player 1's payoff to the strategy profile (Cooperate, Cooperate), for example, is 8+8ß. A) Assume ß = 1. Write the normal form of the game. Is this game a prisoner's dilemma? What is the Nash equilibria of the game? B) Find the range of values of ß for which the resulting game is the prisoner's dilemma.arrow_forwardJane is interested in buying a car from a used car dealer. Her maximum willingness to pay for thecar is 12 ($12,000). Bo, the dealer, is willing to sell the car as long as he receives at least 9($9,000). What is the Nash bargaining solution to this game?arrow_forwardWithin a voluntary contribution game, the Nash equilibrium level of contribution is zero, but in experiments, it is often possible to sustain positive levels of contribution for a long period. How might we best explain this? A) Participants are altruistic, and so value the payoff which other participants receive, benefiting (indirectly) from making a contribution. B) Participants believe that if they make a contribution, then other participants will be more likely to make a contribution. C) Participants in experiments believe that they have to make contributions in order to receive any payoff from their participation. D) Participants have experience of working in situations in which cooperation can be sustained for mutual benefit and so have internalised a social norm of cooperationarrow_forward
- Note: The answer should be typed.arrow_forwardSuppose that you are a manager. You are considering whether or not to monitor employees with the payoffs in the normal-form accompanying game. Worker Work Shirk Manager Monitor -1,1 1,-1 Don't Monitor 1,-1 -1,1 Which of the following pairs of strategies constitutes a Nash equilibrium? Multiple Choice Manager monitors and worker shirks. Manager does not monitor and worker works. Manager monitors and worker works. O None of the answers is correct.arrow_forwardThe ultimatum game is a game in economic experiments. The first player (the proposer) receives a sum of money and proposes a fair proposal (F - 5;5) or unfair proposal (U - 8;2). The second player (the responder) chooses to either accept (A) or reject (R) this proposal. If the second player accepts, the money is split according to the proposal. If the second player rejects, neither player receives any money. 1 A 5:5 2 F R 0:0 U A 8:2 2 1. Find the subgame perfect Nash Equilibrium using backward induction. R 0;0arrow_forward
- Two supermarkets face the following possibilities. Superstore Advertise Don’t Advertise Megastore Advertise $95, $80 $305, $55 Don’t Advertise $65, $285 $165, $115 47. A Nash equilibrium is Group of answer choices for Megastore to advertise and for Superstore to advertise. for Megastore to advertise and for Superstore not to advertise for Megastore not to advertise and for Superstore to advertise. for Megastore not to advertise and for Superstore not to advertise. There is no Nas equilibrium in this rivalry game.arrow_forward1.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
- Principles of Economics (12th Edition)EconomicsISBN:9780134078779Author:Karl E. Case, Ray C. Fair, Sharon E. OsterPublisher:PEARSONEngineering Economy (17th Edition)EconomicsISBN:9780134870069Author:William G. Sullivan, Elin M. Wicks, C. Patrick KoellingPublisher:PEARSON
- Principles of Economics (MindTap Course List)EconomicsISBN:9781305585126Author:N. Gregory MankiwPublisher:Cengage LearningManagerial Economics: A Problem Solving ApproachEconomicsISBN:9781337106665Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike ShorPublisher:Cengage LearningManagerial Economics & Business Strategy (Mcgraw-...EconomicsISBN:9781259290619Author:Michael Baye, Jeff PrincePublisher:McGraw-Hill Education


Principles of Economics (12th Edition)
Economics
ISBN:9780134078779
Author:Karl E. Case, Ray C. Fair, Sharon E. Oster
Publisher:PEARSON

Engineering Economy (17th Edition)
Economics
ISBN:9780134870069
Author:William G. Sullivan, Elin M. Wicks, C. Patrick Koelling
Publisher:PEARSON

Principles of Economics (MindTap Course List)
Economics
ISBN:9781305585126
Author:N. Gregory Mankiw
Publisher: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

Managerial Economics & Business Strategy (Mcgraw-...
Economics
ISBN:9781259290619
Author:Michael Baye, Jeff Prince
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education