Consider the following games which are commonly used in laboratory exper- iments on social preferences. For each: describe the game, explain how the game would be played by selfish players and summarise the main findings from the experimental evidence. i. Dictator game ii. Ultimatum bargaining game iii. Trust game Carefully comment on the figure below, which shows the percentage of third parties who punish in the dictator game and is taken from Fehr and Fischbacher (2004), "Third party punishment and social norms", Evolution and Human Behavior 25(2).. Percentage of punishers E. Fehr, U. Fischbacher/Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004) 63-87 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 A D percentage of third parties who punish -percentage of recipients who belief that third parties punish 0 10 20 30 Dictator's transfer to recipient Fig. 1. Percentage of third parties who punished in the dictator game. 40 50 Explain why anonymity of the subjects is an important feature of public good game experiments.

Consider the following games which are commonly used in laboratory exper- iments on social preferences. For each: describe the game, explain how the game would be played by selfish players and summarise the main findings from the experimental evidence. i. Dictator game ii. Ultimatum bargaining game iii. Trust game Carefully comment on the figure below, which shows the percentage of third parties who punish in the dictator game and is taken from Fehr and Fischbacher (2004), "Third party punishment and social norms", Evolution and Human Behavior 25(2).. Percentage of punishers E. Fehr, U. Fischbacher/Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004) 63-87 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 A D percentage of third parties who punish -percentage of recipients who belief that third parties punish 0 10 20 30 Dictator's transfer to recipient Fig. 1. Percentage of third parties who punished in the dictator game. 40 50 Explain why anonymity of the subjects is an important feature of public good game experiments.

ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

14th Edition

ISBN:9780190931919

Author:NEWNAN

Publisher:NEWNAN

Chapter1: Making Economics Decisions

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1QTC

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

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.
Grim Trigger: Consider the infinitely repeated game with discount factor 8 < 1 of the following variant of the Prisoner's Dilemma: Player 2 с R L T 6, 6 -1, 7 -2, 8 Player 1 M 7, –1 4, 4 -1, 5 B 8, –2 5, -1 0, 0 a. For which values of the discount factor 8 can the players support the pair of actions (M, C) played in every period? b. For which values of the discount factor 8 can the players support the pair of actions (T, L) played in every period? Why is your answer different from that for (a)?
In experiments in which participants voluntarily contribute to the provision of a public good, we often find a reduction in contributions in successive rounds of the experiment. We can explain this as Group of answer choices Evidence of participants reaching satiation and not wanting such high levels of the public good. Evidence of participants working out the Nash equilibrium outcome of the voluntary contribution game. Evidence of participants reducing cooperation to punish free riding. Evidence of participants learning how to play the game more effectively.
See attachments
Kindly solve Question 2 only please solve it within 40 minutes
Within 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 cooperation
To achieve Pareto optimum in a Prisoner's Dilemma, we assume that the players confess pick the best individual payoff I choose to use one of my three skips on this question. work together
Define the Various Mathematical Implications of Homoskedasticity?
PLEASE CHECK THIS HOW TO SOLVE PLEASE TEACH EXPLAIN STEP BY STEP
In a standard economic model, we generally assume the individual only cares about their own payoff. So, for example, utility of individual i is given by u = pi, where pi is the individual’s payoff. Suppose the individual is playing a dictator game with another partner j. How would you modify the utility function to explain the non-zero allocations to the partner that are typically observed?
1.
None