[Game Theory] A pedestrian is hit by a car. How many people will help?

AI Thread Summary
In this discussion, participants analyze a game theory scenario involving a pedestrian hit by a car and the response of bystanders. Each bystander must decide whether to call for help, with the payoff structure dependent on the actions of others. The Nash equilibrium is determined by setting the payoffs equal for calling and not calling, leading to the conclusion that the probability of not calling, p, is a function of the cost c and the utility v. The probability that at least one person calls for help in equilibrium is expressed as 1-p^n, indicating that this probability increases with the number of bystanders n. The conversation highlights the complexities of collective action and individual incentives in emergency situations.
Dostre
Messages
25
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Consider the following social problem. A pedestrian is hit by a car and lies injured on the road. There are n people in the vicinity of the accident. The injured pedestrian requires immediate medical attention, which will be forthcoming if at least one of the n people call for help. Simultaneously and independently, each of the n bystanders decides whether or not to call for help (by dialing 911 on a cell phone or pay phone). Each bystander obtains v units of utility if someone (anyone) calls for help. Those who call for help pay a personal cost of c . That is, if person i calls for help, then he obtains the payoff v-c. If person i does not call but at least one other person calls, then person i gets v. Finally, if none of the n people calls for help, then person i obtains 0. Assume v>c.

1. The purpose of this question is to find the symmetric Nash equilibrium of this n-player game. This equilibrium is in mixed strategies, i.e. such that each person is indifferent between his/her two possible strategies: to call or not to call. Therefore, each player’s payoff must be equal when he/she calls and when he/she does not call.

a. We already know that player i’s payoff is v-c when he/she calls. Write the payoff of player i when he/she does not call, letting p be the probability that a person does not call for help. Hint: there are n-1 players others than player i. Therefore, with probability p^{n-1}, no one of the other players will call, and with probability 1-p^{n-1} at least one of the other players will call.​
b. By setting player i’s payoff equal when he/she calls and does not call, find the probability that a person does not call p in equilibrium (Hint: this will be a function of c/v and n).
2. Compute the probability that at least one person calls for help in equilibrium 1-p^n.
How does this depend on n? Can you comment? (Hint: to answer the second part of the question you need to differentiate it with respect to n).


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


All I need is to figure out what the payoffs are, and I will be able to solve the rest. For part 1.a the payoff I came up with is (1-p^{n-1})v+p^{n-1}(v-c), but I am leaning towards the fact that it is wrong. Help appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yep. It's wrong. There's a pn-1 probability that no one else calls. What is the payoff in this event?
 
If no one calls it is zero. Then, the payoff of the ith player is p^{n-1}*0+(1-p^{n-1})v . So for part b would it be correct to say that v-c=(1-p^{n-1})v ?
 
Correct. That's your Nash equilibrium.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Hmm... he died in a car crash, how ironic.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top