Private Information and Credible Signaling--论文代写范文精选

罢工的工人一样保留收益实施成本管理,希望能诱导增加工资,抑制个体，可能降低生产力实施成本,希望诱导他们行动的方式更有利。下面的essay代写范文进行讲述。

When to Bargain 
Individuals should attempt to compel assistance when they suffer high costs that can be alleviated by others. Such costs can have many causes but can frequently come in the wake of social losses and failures; when critical social strategies fail, the benefits one is receiving plummet. Increased benefits may be possible, however, if others are willing to provide assistance or make major social changes. In the EEA, individuals could have suffered social losses and failures in numerous ways. 

Important social partners such as mates and allies could have died or severed relations, forcing one to abandon the current strategy; social strategies could have failed to realize fitness benefits, such as when efforts to increase or maintain social status failed, or when a mateship yielded a low viability infant; competitors could have blocked access to critical resources, including key social relationships; one could have been coerced by powerful others; one could have been betrayed by social partners; one could have been prevented from pursuing new, more profitable opportunities; or one could simply have chosen the wrong strategy or executed it poorly. In many such cases, individuals could have unilaterally pursued an alternative strategy, like finding a new mate after the death of a spouse. 

If evidence from contemporary small-scale societies is any guide, however, in many other cases, individuals often required the consent and/or cooperation of group members to mitigate the costs of social failures. If a husband were abandoned by his wife, for example, physical threats might have secured her return, but they might also have been counterproductive (Figueredo et al. 2001). If the husband could have convinced group members to spend political capital in securing the return of the wife or procuring another, chances of success would have been far greater. Unfortunately, there often could have been conflicts of interest between the individual and the group. Group members might not want to spend their political capital securing another mate for someone who had one, but lost her due to his abusive behavior, or because the group preferred using its capital to secure a mate for a higher status individual. In another example, arranged marriages are frequently made with little regard for the personal preferences of those to be married. Those betrothed to an undesirable mate often face formidable opposition from their families and other group members, however, if they resist the marriage (e.g., Shostak 1981). This opposition could exist because there is a genuine conflict of interest between the parties, or because the family and group members simply have little reliable information about the relative quality of the mates (and thus would not want to make costly changes for an unknown benefit).

When the value of cooperation decreases with time, withholding benefits can also credibly signal that one is truly suffering costs to those who might not otherwise recognize those costs. It is difficult for group members to assess the costs and benefits incurred by their social partners accurately: she claims she is not benefiting from a relationship, but perhaps she really is and just wants more than her fair share; her true valuation is private information. The discount factor,  , is the fraction of cooperative benefits still available after each round of bargaining and is thus a measure of delay costs due to multiple rounds of bargaining. Kennan and Wilson (1993) argue that quick agreements are usually possible in most models of bargaining where valuations and discount factors are common knowledge (i.e., no private information). Informally, if each participant knows what the other participants know, each will come to the same conclusions about how any sequence of bargaining rounds will proceed; each participant will also come to the same conclusions about the “optimal” outcome for other participants, and thus this outcome can be offered in the first round. In a simple game of alternating offers by a buyer and seller, if 0 <  < 1, then the maximum benefit decreases as t , where t represents the number of rounds. The seller must make an offer just sufficiently generous such that the buyer cannot do better by waiting another round — when delay is costly, each party has an incentive to minimize the number of rounds of bargaining in order to maximize benefits. It can be shown that if the seller makes the first offer, she will offer a price that gives her 1/(1 +  ) of the benefits, which the buyer accepts immediately (Rubinstein 1982). 

If, however, participants in a cooperative venture do not know how other participants value the potential benefits or the costs they will suffer from delays, as was often likely in the EEA, it will be impossible for all participants to reach the same conclusion about the “optimal” agreement. If participants could credibly signal to other participants their true valuations and discount factors, then an agreement could be reached. Kennan and Wilson (1993) argue that the willingness of a participant to suffer the costs of multiple rounds of bargaining (due to discount factors less than one), coupled with the sizes of the offers made each round, represents credible information about that participant’s true valuation — a greater willingness to delay signals lower valuations (because the more valuable the potential benefits from cooperation are to a participant, the less she can afford to delay). Once each participant acquires a relative level of certainty about the other participants’ private valuation by observing their willingness to incur delays, the bargaining game becomes equivalent to one where valuations and discount factors are public knowledge, and an agreement can be quickly reached.

Abstract
I argue that the costly symptoms of depression have a function, and that function is to impose costs efficiently on other group members by withholding critical benefits, credibly signaling to them that one is suffering costs (Watson and Andrews 2002), and compelling them to provide assistance or make changes. According to this view, depression is an (unconscious) social manipulation strategy that is triggered when individuals perceive that they are suffering costs that can only be alleviated by the actions of fellow group members (Hagen 1996, 1999, 2002; MacKey and Immerman 2000; Watson and Andrews 2002). Much as striking workers withhold benefits to impose costs on management, in the hope of inducing an increase of wages, a depressed individual may be strategically reducing productivity to impose costs on fellow group members, hopefully inducing them to act in ways more beneficial to her. To paraphrase Clausewitz, depression is the continuation of personal politics by other means.（essay代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。（essay代写)
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)