In a classic prisoners\' dilemma example, Larry and Duncan, possible criminals,
ID: 1103089 • Letter: I
Question
In a classic prisoners' dilemma example, Larry and Duncan, possible criminals, will get one year in prison if neither talks, two years in jail if both talk, and if one talks, that one goes free while the other gets five years. (Note: The payoffs are negative because they represent years in jail, which is a negative payoff.) Larry The payoff matrix for Larry and David is illustrated to the right Given this payoff matrix and the payoffs, each criminal Confess Not confess O A. will only confess if the other does O B. has an incentive to rationally confess. O C. seeks to maximize joint payoffs Confess D. OE. does not know the payoffs. can not determine their best response Duncan Not confessExplanation / Answer
A) will only confess if other does.
If every player in a game plays his dominant pure strategy , then the outcome will be a Nash equilibrium.
In this game, both players know that 2 years is better than 5 and 0 years is better than 1; therefore, Confess is their dominant strategy and they will both choose (Confess,Confess). Since both players chose Confess, (-2,-2) is the outcome and also the Nash Equilibrium. If you want to check whether this is a Nash Equilibrium, check whether either player would like to deviate from this position. Larry wouldn't want to deviate, because if he chose NC and Duncan stayed at Confess, then Larry would increase his prison time by 10 years.