Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Nash Equilibrium

Nash Equilibrium

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by Hans Ramírez

More info:

Published by: Hans Ramírez on Oct 17, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





tors and despots (e.g., Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin), havebeen described as narcissistic. In addition narcissism hasbeen examined as a potential factor in political terrorism.In criminology narcissistic personality traits are thoughtto predict criminal behavior, including murder, rape,assault, spousal abuse, and white-collar crime. Narcissismis also a key feature of a psychopathic personality, which isperhaps the most important personality profile for pre-dicting serious criminal behavior.Several significant issues remain unresolved in the sci-entific study of narcissism. First, there remains debate overthe definition of narcissism. While there is strong agree-ment on key features of narcissism like grandiosity andlow empathy, there is disagreement about the link between narcissism and feelings of depression or unhappi-ness. Some theorists argue that narcissism contains a com-ponent of depression or low self-esteem; others argue thatnarcissism is related to positive emotions. Still othersargue that narcissism is linked to negative emotions andself-perceptions but that these feelings are experiencedonly at an unconscious level. Second, while there are sev-eral theories about the development of narcissism in indi-viduals, there is no firm conclusion about its etiology.Some researchers argue that narcissism results from per-missive parenting, while others argue that narcissism is a reaction to cold, controlling parents. Finally, the role of culture in maintaining narcissism is not well understood.Some researchers and theorists have identified a rising tideof narcissism, but the cause of this remains unclear.
Freud, Sigmund; Individualism; Leadership; Neuroticism; Obsession; Personality; Political Science; Psychology 
 American Psychiatric Association. 1994.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 
. 4th rev. ed. Washington, DC: Author.Freud, Sigmund. [1914] 1957. On Narcissism: An Introduction.In
The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of  Sigmund Freud 
, ed. and trans. James Strachey, vol. 14,67–104. London: Hogarth.Lasch, Christopher. 1978.
The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectation
. New York:Norton.Morf, Carolyn C., and Frederick Rhodewalt. 2001. Unraveling the Paradoxes of Narcissism: A Dynamic Self-regulatory Processing Model.
Psychological Inquiry 
12 (4): 177–196.
W. Keith Campbell  Joshua D. Miller 
Nash equilibrium is a fundamental concept in the theory of games and the most widely used method of predicting the outcome of a strategic interaction in the social sci-ences. A game (in strategic or normal form) consists of thefollowing three elements: a set of players, a set of actions(or pure-strategies) available to each player, and a payoff (or utility) function for each player. The payoff functionsrepresent each player’s preferences over action profiles, where an action profile is simply a list of actions, one foreach player. A 
 pure-strategy Nash equilibrium 
is an actionprofile with the property that no single player can obtaina higher payoff by deviating unilaterally from this profile.This concept can best be understood by looking atsome examples. Consider first a game involving two play-ers, each of whom has two available actions, which we call
. If the players choose different actions, they eachget a payoff of 0. If they both choose
, they each get 2,and if they both choose
, they each get 1. This “coordi-nation” game may be represented as follows, where player1 chooses a row, player 2 chooses a column, and the result-ing payoffs are listed in parentheses, with the first compo-nent corresponding to player 1’s payoff:The action profile
is an equilibrium, since a unilateral deviation to
by any one player would result ina lower payoff for the deviating player. Similarly, theaction profile (
) is also an equilibrium. As another example, consider the game “matching pennies,” which again involves two players, each with twoactions. Each player can choose either heads (
) or tails
 Nash Equilibrium
Figure 1
Figure 2 
iess_B3_H-O 4/12/07 4:13 PM Page 540
); player 1 wins a dollar from player 2 if their choicesare the same, and loses a dollar to player 2 if they are not.This game has no pure-strategy Nash equilibria.In some cases, instead of simply choosing an action,players may be able to choose probability distributionsover the set of actions available to them. Such randomiza-tions over the set of actions are referred to as
mixed strate-  gies 
. Any profile of mixed strategies induces a probability distribution over action profiles in the game. Under cer-tain assumptions, a player’s preferences over all such lot-teries can be represented by a function (called a 
von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function 
) that assigns a realnumber to each action profile. One lottery is preferred toanother if and only if it results in a higher expected valueof this utility function, or expected utility. A mixed strat-egy Nash-equilibrium is then a mixed strategy profile withthe property that no single player can obtain a highervalue of expected utility by deviating unilaterally from thisprofile.The American mathematician John Nash (1950)showed that every game in which the set of actions avail-able to each player is finite has at least one mixed-strategy equilibrium. In the matching pennies game, there is a mixed-strategy equilibrium in which each player choosesheads with probability 1/2. Similarly, in the coordinationgame of the above example, there is a third equilibrium in which each player chooses action
 with probability 1/3and
 with probability 2/3. Such multiplicity of equilib-ria arises in many economically important games, and hasprompted a large literature on equilibrium refinements with the purpose of identifying criteria on the basis of  which a single equilibrium might be selected.Nash equilibria can sometimes correspond to out-comes that are inefficient, in the sense that there existalternative outcomes that are both feasible and preferredby all players. This is the case, for instance, with the equi-librium (
) in the coordination game above. An evenmore striking example arises in the prisoner’s dilemma game, in which each player can either “cooperate” or“defect,” and payoffs are as follows:The
unique Nash equilibrium 
is mutual defection, anoutcome that is worse for both players than mutual coop-eration. Now consider the game that involves a repetitionof the prisoner’s dilemma for
periods, where
is com-monly known to the two players. A pure strategy in thisrepeated game is a plan that prescribes which action is tobe taken at each stage, contingent on every possible his-tory of the game to that point. Clearly the set of purestrategies is very large. Nevertheless, all Nash equilibria of this finitely repeated game involve defection at every stage. When the number of stages
is large, equilibriumpayoffs lie far below the payoffs that could have beenattained under mutual cooperation.It has sometimes been argued that the Nash predic-tion in the finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma (and inmany other environments) is counterintuitive and at odds with experimental evidence. However, experimental testsof the equilibrium hypothesis are typically conducted with monetary payoffs, which need not reflect the prefer-ences of subjects over action profiles. In other words, indi-vidual preferences over the distribution of monetary payoffs may not be exclusively self-interested.Furthermore, the equilibrium prediction relies on thehypothesis that these preferences are commonly known toall subjects, which is also unlikely to hold in practice.To address this latter concern, the concept of Nashequilibrium has been generalized to allow for situations in which players are faced with incomplete information. If each player is drawn from some set of types, such that theprobability distribution governing the likelihood of eachtype is itself commonly known to all players, then we have
Bayesian game 
. A pure strategy in this game is a functionthat associates with each type a particular action. A 
Bayes- Nash equilibrium 
is then a strategy profile such that noplayer can obtain greater expected utility by deviating to a different strategy, given his or her beliefs about the distri-bution of types from which other players are drawn. Allowing for incomplete information can have dra-matic effects on the predictions of the Nash equilibriumconcept. Consider, for example, the finitely repeated pris-oner’s dilemma, and suppose that each player believes thatthere is some possibility, perhaps very small, that his or heropponent will cooperate in all periods provided that nodefection has yet been observed, and defect otherwise. If the number of stages
is sufficiently large, it can beshown that mutual defection in all stages is inconsistent with equilibrium behavior, and that, in a well-definedsense, the players will cooperate in most periods. Hence,in applying the concept of Nash equilibrium to practicalsituations, it is important to pay close attention to theinformation that individuals have about the preferences,beliefs, and rationality of those with whom they are strate-gically interacting.
 Nash Equilibrium
Figure 3 
iess_B3_H-O 4/12/07 4:13 PM Page 541

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->