1 / 20

By Lindsey Hock

Thin is In: A Game Theoretic Analysis of the Trend of Unnaturally Thin Models, Its Consequences and Possible Future. By Lindsey Hock. Description.

darice
Download Presentation

By Lindsey Hock

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Thin is In: A Game Theoretic Analysis of the Trend of Unnaturally Thin Models, Its Consequences and Possible Future By Lindsey Hock

  2. Description • The concepts of beauty and ideal weight are dynamic in society; it is obvious that in recent years, the advertising industry has promoted rail-thin models who exhibit a body-type far from the idyllic voluptuous figure of the mid-twentieth century. • This level of “thinness” extends beyond a promotion of fitness and has been taken to such a degree that it can rarely be achieved by natural means. • This effect is not only injurious to models (forced to incur the emotional, health-related, or financial costs of maintaining a low-body weight) but also consumers, who may incur similar costs by attempting to achieve the “ideal” or suffer the emotional costs of not being able to achieve it. • I ask, then, can society do better? • Attempts have been made to alleviate this problem within the modeling industry, but a game-theoretic analysis will demonstrate the difficulty in achieving a long-term positive outcome as well as provide insight as to the possible future of this trend.

  3. Appendix A: Two Brands Simultaneously Determine the Weight of Their Models A.1 The First Order Condition for Profit-Maximization • Firms receive profit according to the level of their brand’s “Esteem” which they are able to generate among consumers • E = level of esteem • Π = Profit • Π = f(E) • Cost of E = c(E) • Π = E – c(E) [1] • E = α(wc–wm) [2] • C(E) = -βwm [3] • Π = α(wc–wm) -(-βwm) [from equations 1,2,3] • Π = α(wc–wm) + βwm [4] • First order condition: dΠ/dw = -αwm+βwm=0 [using equation 4] • αwm=βwm • α=β

  4. A.2 The relationship of α and β • α is constant but β is a functions of wm • Figure A.2.1

  5. β′(w)<0, β″(w)>0 • Figure A.2.2

  6. A.3 α, β and Stable Equilibrium

  7. Appendix B: The Preferences of Society • B.1. Utility of Consumers • Uc=f(wm-wc) • (∂Uc/∂wm)>0 • Uc=λ(wm-wc) [5] • B.2. Utility to Brands • Ub=f(Π)= Π [6] • B.3. Welfare Maximization • W=Uc+Ub • W= λ(wm-wc) + Π [from equations 5 and 6] [7] • B.4. Welfare Maximization • W = λ(wm-wc)+α(wc – wm)+ βwm [from equations 4 and 7] [8] • First order condition: • (∂W/∂wm)= λ-α+β=0 [using equation 8] • α= β+λ [9]

  8. Graphical implication of equation 9

  9. Appendix C: Decision of Cities - Following a Set Limit Results in A Prisoner’s Dilemma • C.1. Set-up • 2 players are 2 cities • Each can either cooperate (C) by setting a limit or defect (D) by not setting a limit • C.2 Payoffs • If a city unilaterally defects, they will take all profits (Π(high)) • If they cities employ the same strategy, they will split the profit. • If both cooperate, they will receive [Π(high)]/2. • If both defect, they will receive [Π(low)]/2.

  10. C.3. Calculating [Π(high)] and [Π(low)] • According to Assumption 3, profit to the city is proportional to profit of brands. In this case the proportion coefficient will be μ. • Πc= μΠb. [10] • Πc(low)= μ[α(wc – wm*′)+ βwm*’] [from equations 4 and 10] • Πc(low)= μ[αwc - αwm*′+ βwm*′] • Πc(low)= μ[αwc + (-α+β)wm*′] [11] • α= β+λ [equation 9, welfare-maximizing condition] • λ= α- β • -λ= -α+β [12] • Πc(low)= μ[αwc + (-λ)wm*′] [from equations 11 and 12] [13] • By a similar process, • Πc(high)= μ[αwc + (-λ)wm*] [14] • Note: Πc(low) is necessarily lower than Πc(high) since wm*′> wm* as explained in Appendix one. • [Πc(low)/2]= (μ/2)[αwc + (-λ)wm*′] [15] • [Πc(high)/2]= (μ/2)[αwc + (-λ)wm*] [16]

  11. C.4 The Payoff Matrix

  12. C.5. A consideration of the move from {(D,D)} to {(C,C)} • So long as the city maximizes profits with a consideration of welfare, moving to {(C,C)} under this payoff structure would not be optimum. • However, as demonstrated in Appendix B, a move to {(C,C)} would maximize welfare. If cities set the limit we would observe wm*′, the optimum from Appendix B. • The necessary condition for this move to take place, would be that Πc(high) must equal [Πc(low)/2], since if this were true there would be no incentive to defect. • [Πc(low)/2]= Πc(high) [17] • (μ/2)[αwc + (-λ)wm*′]= (μ)[αwc + (-λ)wm*] [from 14,15,17] • (1/2)αwc-(λ/2) wm*′= αwc-λwm* • λwm*-(λ/2) wm*′=(αwc/2) • λ(wm*-.5wm*′)=(αwc/2) • (wm*-.5wm*′)=[(αwc/2)/ λ] [18] • For indifference between C and D, the relationship expressed in equation [18], which exhibits the relationship between wm* and wm*′ must hold. • The equation thus states that a degree of the difference between these two parameters depends on the level of λ, which recall parameterizes the degree to which consumers incur a cost associated with their weight straying from the “ideal.”

  13. C.6. Discussion of λ (=α-β) and β • (wm*-.5wm*′)=[(αwc/2)/(α-β)] [substituting into equation] [19] • Lim(β∞) (wm*-.5wm*′)=0 • wm*=.5wm*′ • wm*′=2wm*

  14. Appendix D. The Market For Models • D.1. The market for modelsModels create output “weight” and face demand from brands.Brand’s demand function: Equation for inverse demand: p=M-w [10]

  15. They create output “weight.” • The cost of “weight” is c(w), a decreasing function in weight. c(w)=K-w [11]

  16. Profit to the model • Π = Revenue – costs • Π = pw-c(w) [12] • Π = (M-w)w-c(w) [from 10,11,12] • Π = Mw- w2-c(w) [13] • First-order Condition [using 13] • (∂Π /∂w)=M-2w-c′(w)=0 • c′(w)=M-2w [14] • Implications of first order condition (cost structure may vary from country to country and thus c′(w) may vary) c′(w)=M-2w=-1 2w=C+2 W=(C+2)/2 [16] c′(w)=M-2w=-2 2w=C+1 W=(C+1)/2 [15]

  17. Appendix E. Decision-making of models in a one-shot interaction • 2 players are 2 models • Each has the strategies “unnatural” (U) in which they maintain a lower weight by unhealthy or unnatural means or “natural” (N) in which they do not. • Assumptions: • The brand will hire only one of the two models. • If they employ different strategies, the thinner model will get the job and receive all profit, while the other receives a payoff of 0. • If they employ the same strategy, each has a 50% chance of being hired. • Payoffs: • EP(N|N) = EP(high) = .5(Π)+.5(0) = .5Π [17] • EP(U|U) = EP(low) = .5(Π-C)+.5(C) = .5Π-C [18]

  18. Appendix F. Evolutionarily Stable Strategies in the modeling industry • 2 species of models in the industry: those who are prone (P) to being swayed by the pressures put on them by the industry and those who are not (N). • F.1. Formation of the Payoff Matrix • Payoffs = advantage gained (Π) – costs (C) • No advantage exists if both players are of the same “species” • Species P incurs a cost (C) but species N does not.

  19. Mixed Evolutionarily Stable Strategies • Solving for p*: • EP(P|p) = -Cp+( Π-C)(1-p) [19] • EP(N|p)= 0 [20] • EP(P|p)= EP(N|p) [21] • -Cp+( Π-C)(1-p)=0 (from equations 19,20,21) • Cp=( Π-C)(1-p) • Cp= Π-pΠ-C+pC • pΠ=Π-C • p = (Π-C)/ Π • p=1-(C/ Π) [22]

  20. Future of the Trend? • F.2 Effect of decreasing Π (holding C constant) • Lim (Π0) p = 1- (C/0+) [using equation 22] • Lim (Π0) p = 1- ∞ • Lim (Π0) p = 0 (since p is bounded below by 0) • F.3 Effect of changing C (holding Π constant) • p=1-(C/ Π) [equation 22] • (∂p/∂C) = (-1/ Π) • As cost increases, p declines. The lower the value of Π, the faster this decline occurs. • As cost decreases, p increases. • Lim(C0)p=1 **Fate may rest on changes in culture, social structure, financial cost and accessibility to medical procedures**

More Related