3. Two individuals are involved in a synergistic relationship. If both individuals devote more effort to the relationship, they are both better off. Specifically, an effort level is a nonnegative number, and player 1's payoff function is e₁(1+€₂-e₁), where ei is player i's effort level. For player 2 the cost of effort is either the same as that of player 1, and hence her payoff function is given by e2(1+e₁ - e₂), or effort is very costly for her in which case her payoff function is given by e₂(1 + e₁ — 2e2). 1 Player 2 knows player 1's payoff function and whether the cost of effort is high for herself or not. Player 1, however, is uncertain about player 2's cost of effort. He believes that the cost of effort is low with probability p, and high with probability 1 - p, where 0 < p < 1. Find the Bayesian Nash equilibrium of this game as a function of p.

3. Two individuals are involved in a synergistic relationship. If both individuals devote more effort to the relationship, they are both better off. Specifically, an effort level is a nonnegative number, and player 1's payoff function is e₁(1+€₂-e₁), where ei is player i's effort level. For player 2 the cost of effort is either the same as that of player 1, and hence her payoff function is given by e2(1+e₁ - e₂), or effort is very costly for her in which case her payoff function is given by e₂(1 + e₁ — 2e2). 1 Player 2 knows player 1's payoff function and whether the cost of effort is high for herself or not. Player 1, however, is uncertain about player 2's cost of effort. He believes that the cost of effort is low with probability p, and high with probability 1 - p, where 0 < p < 1. Find the Bayesian Nash equilibrium of this game as a function of p.

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

If the players play pure strategies, the game has no Nash equilibrium. But what if they choose their moves randomly? Let each player instead opt for a mixed strategy instead of a pure strategy. The first will play action Z with probability p, and the second will play action L with probability q. At which pair (p, q) are the mixed strategies of the players in equilibrium? At which pair (p, q) does neither player want to change strategy? When are both strategies simultaneously the best response?
We have a group of three friends: Kramer, Jerry and Elaine. Kramer has a $10 banknote that he will auction off, and Jerry and Elaine will be bidding for it. Jerry and Elaine have to submit their bids to Kramer privately, both at the same time. We assume that both Jerry and Elaine only have $2 that day, and the available strategies to each one of them are to bid either$0, $1 or $2. Whoever places the highest bid, wins the $10 banknote. In case of a tie (that is, if Jerry and Elaine submit the same bid), each one of them gets $5. Regardless of who wins the auction, each bidder has to pay to Kramer whatever he or she bid. Does Jerry have any strictly dominant strategy? Does Elaine?
Two neighborhood kids can play at home or walk to a nearby park. Playing with their toys yields some happiness. However, they would enjoy playing with the other kid at the park even more at the park. But each has a concern that if they go the park the other will not show up. This is an interesting game or situation because neither kid has an incentive to betray the other and not show up, but each kid fears walking to the park and having no one to play with. They also have to fear that if the other kid thinks they won't show up, that other kid will won't show up. All this strategic thinking is a lot for kids to take in. Here is the payoff matrix: Kid 1 Toys at Home Park Toys at Home Kid 2 Park How many Nash equilbria are there? 1,2,3 or 4 There is an option to let Kid 1 move first, but no option for Kid 2 to move first. Should Kid 2 let Kid 1 move first. Yes or No Blank # 1 Blank # 2
Consider two players, designated by i = 1,2, involved in a dynamic bargaining over a perfectly divisible surplus of size 1. At the beginning of the interaction (at timet 1), player 1 chooses x1 in [0, 1]. Player 2 observes this offer and decides whether or not to accept it. If player 2 accepts this offer, the game ends and the utilities of player 1 and 2 equal x1 and 1- x1, respectively. If player 2 does not accept this offer, the game goes into the second round with a probability of \pi = 2|1/2-x11, while with probability 1 -\ pi the game ends and both players get a payoff of 0. If the game reaches the second round, t = 2, player 2 makes a counter-offer x2 in [0, 1] observing the whole past. Player 1 sees this offer and decides whether or not to accept it. If player 1 accepts x2, then the game ends and player 1 gets a payoff of x2 and player 2 a utility of 1 - x2. Both players get a payoff of zero when player 1 rejects player 2's offer x2 and the game ends. We assume that the game is…
Return to the game between Monica and Nancy in Exercise U10 in Chapter 5. Assume that Monica and Nancy choose their effort levels sequentially instead of simultaneously. Monica commits to her choice of effort level first. On observing this decision, Nancy commits to her own effort level. What is the subgame - perfect equilibrium of the game where the joint profits are 5m + 4n+ mn, the costs of their efforts to Monica and Nancy are m2 and n2, respectively, and Monica commits to an effort level first? Compare the payoffs to Monica and Nancy with those found in Exercise U10 in Chapter 5. Does this game have a first-mover or second - mover advantage? Using the same joint profit function as in part (a), find the subgame - perfect equilibrium for the game where Nancy must commit first to an effort level. U10. Return to the game between Monica and Nancy in Exercise U10 in Chapter 5. Assume that Monica and Nancy choose their effort levels sequentially instead of simultaneously. Monica commits…
Suppose that, in an ultimatum game, the proposer may not propose less than $1 nor fractional amounts, and therefore must propose $1, $2, …, or $10 (see image attached below). The responder must Accept (A) or Reject (R). Suppose, first, that this game is played by two egoists, for whom u(x,y)=x. Find all subgame-perfect equilibria in this game. Suppose, second, that this game is played by two altruists, for whom u(x,y) = ⅔(x)1/2 + ⅓(y)1/2. Find all subgame-perfect equilibria in this game.
Olivia is thinking about opening a new bakery (the entrant). There is already a bakery open in her neighborhood (the incumbent), and the owner of the incumbent bakery makes it clear that if Olivia enters the market, they will cut their prices in an attempt to drive the new bakery out of business. Based on the payoff matrix below, is the incumbent’s threat credible? That is, if Olivia opens a new bakery, will the incumbent actually lower their prices? Note: the entrant chooses the row, the incumbent chooses the column High price Low price Enter 1, 2 -1, 1 Don’t enter 0, 10 0, 1 a. Yes, the threat is credible b. No, the threat is not credible
Please help with #1
Consider the following bargaining game with three rounds: Players 1 and 2 divide a pie of size 1. Both players have a common discount factor, δ = 0.9. In the first round (player 1 proposes): player 1 proposes x ∈ [0, 1]. If player 2 accepts the offer, then player 1 gets x, and player 2 gets 1−x. If player 2 rejects the offer, the game proceeds to round 2. In the second round (player 2 proposes): player 2 proposes y ∈ [0, 1]. If player 1 accepts the offer, then player 1 gets δy, and player 2 gets δ − δy. If player 2 rejects the offer, the game proceeds to round 3, the final round. In the third and final round (player 1 proposes): player 1 proposes z ∈ [0, 1]. If player 2 accepts the offer, player 1 gets δ2z, and player 2 gets δ2 − δ2z. If player 2 rejects the offer, everyone gets 0. 1. What would be the SPNE of the game?
Please help with #2