Microeconomics (2nd Edition) (Pearson Series in Economics)
2nd Edition
ISBN: 9780134492049
Author: Daron Acemoglu, David Laibson, John List
Publisher: PEARSON
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 18, Problem 2P
To determine
Interpretation of an ultimatum game where the responder ends up negotiating for more or equal to half the share of money with the proposer.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Suppose players A and B play a discrete ultimatum game where A proposes to split a $5 surplus and B responds by
either accepting the offer or rejecting it. The offer can only be made in $1 increments. If the offer is accepted, the
players' payoffs resemble the terms of the offer while if the offer is rejected, both players get zero. Also assume that
players always use the strategy that all strictly positive offers are accepted, but an offer of $0 is rejected.
A. What is the solution to the game in terms of player strategies and payoffs? Explain or demonstrate your answer.
B. Suppose the ultimatum game is played twice if player B rejects A's initial offer. If so, then B is allowed to
make a counter offer to split the $5, and if A rejects, both players get zero dollars at the end of the second round.
What is the solution to this bargaining game in terms of player strategies and payoffs? Explain/demonstrate your
answer.
C. Suppose the ultimatum game is played twice as in (B) but now there…
Boris and Leo are playing an ultimatum bargaining game, with £1000 to share. Boris is the proposer. Suppose Leo has the
following preferences: his utility in monetary terms is the amount of money he gets minus 40 percent of Boris's amount
Which of the following statements is/are correct?
a) If Leo's preferences change so that his utility in monetary terms were the amount of money he gets minus 100 percent of Boris's
amount, his minimum acceptable offer would increase.
b) The minimum offer Leo will accept is larger than £250.
c) The description of Leo's preferences suggest that Leo is altruistic.
Suppose 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?.
Chapter 18 Solutions
Microeconomics (2nd Edition) (Pearson Series in Economics)
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- 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_forwardIn 'the dictator' game, one player (the dictator) chooses how to divide a pot of $10 between herself and another player (the recipient). The recipient does not have an opportunity to reject the proposed distribution. As such, if the dictator only cares about how much money she makes, she should keep all $10 for herself and give the recipient nothing. However, when economists conduct experiments with the dictator game, they find that dictators often offer strictly positive amounts to the recipients. Are dictators behaving irrationally in these experiments? Whether you think they are or not, your response should try to provide an explanation for the behavior.arrow_forwardConsider the following game - one card is dealt to player 1 ( the sender) from a standard deck of playing cards. The card may either be red (heart or diamond) or black (spades or clubs). Player 1 observes her card, but player 2 (the receiver) does not - Player 1 decides to Play (P) or Not Play (N). If player 1 chooses not to play, then the game ends and the player receives -1 and player 2 receives 1. - If player 1 chooses to play, then player 2 observes this decision (but not the card) and chooses to Continue (C) or Quit (Q). If player 2 chooses Q, player 1 earns a payoff of 1 and player 2 a payoff of -1 regardless of player 1's card - If player 2 chooses continue, player 1 reveals her card. If the card is red, player 1 receives a payoff of 3 and player 2 a payoff of -3. If the card is black, player 1 receives a payoff of 2 and player 2 a payoff of -1 a. Draw the extensive form game b. Draw the Bayesian form gamearrow_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_forwardConsider a variant of the ultimatum game we studied in class in which players have fairness considerations. The timing of the game is as usual. First, player 1 proposes the split (100 – x, x) of a hundred dollars to player 2, where x € [0, 100]. Player 2 observes the split and decides whether to accept (in which case they receive money according to the proposed split) or reject (in which case they both get 0 dollars). But now player i's utility equals to her monetary utility minus the disutility from unfairness proportional to the difference in the monetary outcomes. That is, given a final split (m1, m2), let u1(m1, m2) = m1 – B1(m1 -– m2)² u1(m1, m2) = m2 - B2(m1 – m2)², where B1, B2 are parameters of the game indicating how strongly players care about fairness. Note that the case we considered in class corresponds to ß1 = B2 = 0.arrow_forwardAmir and Beatrice play the following game. Amir offers an amount of money z € [0, 1] to Beatrice. Beatrice can either accept or reject. If Beatrice accepts, then Amir receives 1 - z dollars and Beatrice receives a dollars. If Beatrice rejects, then both receive no money. As in the Ultimatum Game, Amir cares only about maximizing the amount of money he receives. Beatrice, on the other hand, detests Amir, and therefore cares about the amount of money that both receive: if Amir receives y dollars and Beatrice receives a dollars, then Beatrice's payoff is a-ay where a > 0. (a) Find all pure strategy Nash equilibria of the game in which the two players choose simultaneously (thus Beatrice accepts or rejects without seeing Amir's offer). Solution: The NE are the strategy profiles in which Beatrice rejects and Amir's offer a satisfies 2-a(1-x) ≤0, i.e. r ≤a/(1+a). (b) Find all subgame perfect equilibria of the sequential game in which Amir first makes the offer and Beatrice observes the offer…arrow_forward
- The 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_forwardConsider an odd type of student who prefers to study alone except when the group is large. We have four of these folks: Melissa, Josh, Samina, and Wei. Melissa and Josh are deciding between studying in the common room in their dorm (which we will denote D) and the library (denoted L). Samina and Wei are choosing between the library and the local cafe (denoted C). If someone is the only person at a location, then his or her payoff is 6. If he or she is one of two people at a location, then the payoff is 2. If he or she is one of three people, then the payoff is 1. If all four end up together, then the payoff is 8.a. Is it a Nash equilibrium for Melissa and Josh to study in the commonroom and for Samina and Wei to study in the cafe?b. Is it a Nash equilibrium for Josh to study in the common room, Saminato study in the cafe, and Melissa and Wei to study in the library?c. Find the Nash equilibria.arrow_forwardSo imagine you are playing this game as the second player and you are both given a 10 dollars and the dictator decides to offer you 25 cents and that she/he will keep $9.25. Your only choice is to accept the 25 cents or reject the offer and get no money at all. What would you do? What would be considered ‘rational’ from the perspective of utility maximization? What would you do if this is a continued game and the same scenario will happen multiple times not just once? Do you think others will react the same way you would?arrow_forward
- UNIT 9 CHAPTER 5 In a gambling game, Player A and Player B both have a $1 and a $5 bill. Each player selects one of the bills without the other player knowing the bill selected. Simultaneously they both reveal the bills selected. If the bills do not match, Player A wins Player B's bill. If the bills match, Player B wins Player A's bill. Develop the game theory table for this game. The values should be expressed as the gains (or losses) for Player A. Is there a pure strategy? Why or why not? Determine the optimal strategies and the value of this game. Does the game favor one player over the other? Suppose Player B decides to deviate from the optimal strategy and begins playing each bill 50% of the time. What should Player A do to improve Player A’s winnings? Comment on why it is important to follow an optimal game theory strategy.arrow_forwardSuppose the players in Rubinstein's three-period bargaining game have the same discount factors: d for player 1 and player 2. At the beginning of the third period, player 1 receives a share s of the dollar, leaving 1-s for player 2, where 0arrow_forwardTwo 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_forwardarrow_back_iosSEE MORE QUESTIONSarrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Principles of Economics (12th Edition)EconomicsISBN:9780134078779Author:Karl E. Case, Ray C. Fair, Sharon E. OsterPublisher:PEARSON
Engineering 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 Learning
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving ApproachEconomicsISBN:9781337106665Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike ShorPublisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial 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