I was at the UVa football game on Saturday sitting with some friends on the hill. At one point during the first quarter the people sitting in front of us stood up, obstructing our view. It occurred to me this might be a prisoners' dilemma type situation. The necessary assumption to make is that the Pareto optimal equilibrium would be everyone sitting. The logic behind this assumption is that there are two things people should want at a football game: a view of the field and a general comfort when viewing. Based on what we know about people at sporting events this may not be true, some people may prefer to stand, and others insist it is "a necessary part of the experience." I like to stand when something exciting happens or a tense situation is about to take place, but let's make our equilibrium refer to "normal time" in the game, for example when people are standing on 2nd and 8 and there's little chance for a score. From what we know about people generally (see also: in church), people seem to prefer sitting to standing when given the choice.
Despite everyone sitting being the Pareto optimal equilibrium, individuals can maximize their own utility by improving their view by standing, assuming the benefits from an improved view outweigh the costs of decreased comfort. This act imposes negative externalities, as others' views will be obstructed. To respond, those others will have to stand to restore their view. The first individual who stands starts a domino effect which results in everyone standing. At this equilibrium nobody's view is better than when they started out seated, assuming identical height among individuals, but everyone is less comfortable.
No comments:
Post a Comment