Static versus dynamic deferred acceptance in school choice: Theory and experiment

In the context of school choice, we experimentally study how behavior and outcomes are affected when, instead of submitting rankings in the student proposing or receiving deferred acceptance (DA) mechanism, participants make decisions dynamically, going through the steps of the underlying algorithms. Our main results show that, contrary to theory, (a) in the dynamic student proposing DA mechanism, participants propose to schools respecting the order of their true preferences slightly more often than in its static version while, (b) in the dynamic student receiving DA mechanism, participants react to proposals by always respecting the order and not accepting schools in the tail of their true preferences more often than in the corresponding static version. As a consequence, for most problems we test, no significant differences exist between the two versions of the student proposing DA mechanisms in what stability and average payoffs are concerned, but the dynamic version of the student receiving DA mechanism delivers a clear improvement over its static counterpart in both dimensions. In fact, in the aggregate, the dynamic school proposing DA mechanism is the best performing mechanism.

[1]  Avinatan Hassidim,et al.  "Strategic" Behavior in a Strategy-proof Environment , 2016, EC.

[2]  Matching Practices for Secondary Schools – Finland , 2014 .

[3]  Inácio Bó,et al.  College Admission with Multidimensional Privileges: The Brazilian Affirmative Action Case , 2020, American Economic Journal: Microeconomics.

[4]  Alex Rees-Jones Suboptimal Behavior in Strategy-Proof Mechanisms: Evidence from the Residency Match , 2016 .

[5]  Onur Kesten,et al.  Chinese College Admissions and School Choice Reforms: A Theoretical Analysis , 2017, Journal of Political Economy.

[6]  Flip Klijn,et al.  Constrained school choice , 2009, J. Econ. Theory.

[7]  Clayton R. Featherstone,et al.  Online Proof Appendix to \Why Do Some Clearinghouses Yield Stable Outcomes? Experimental Evidence on Out-of-Equilibrium Truth-Telling" , 2014 .

[8]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  Sorority Rush as a Two-Sided Matching Mechanism , 1991 .

[9]  Flip Klijn,et al.  On the exhaustiveness of truncation and dropping strategies in many-to-many matching markets , 2012, Soc. Choice Welf..

[10]  R. Hakimov,et al.  The Iterative Deferred Acceptance Mechanism , 2016, Games Econ. Behav..

[11]  Andrew Schotter,et al.  Matching and chatting: An experimental study of the impact of network communication on school-matching mechanisms , 2017, Games Econ. Behav..

[12]  David Gale,et al.  Ms. Machiavelli and the Stable Matching Problem , 1985 .

[13]  Pablo Guillen,et al.  Lying through Their Teeth: Third Party Advice and Truth Telling in a Strategy Proof Mechanism , 2014 .

[14]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  Equilibrium selection and the role of information in repeated matching markets , 2007 .

[15]  Min Zhu Experience Transmission: Truth-Telling Adoption in Matching , 2015 .

[16]  Isa Emin Hafalir,et al.  College admissions with entrance exams: Centralized versus decentralized , 2018, J. Econ. Theory.

[17]  Yan Chen,et al.  School Choice : An Experimental Study ∗ , 2004 .

[18]  Caterina Calsamiglia,et al.  Constrained School Choice: An Experimental Study , 2009 .

[19]  Olivier Tercieux,et al.  Choix d'écoles en France. Une évaluation de la procédure Affelnet , 2014 .

[20]  R. Hakimov,et al.  Iterative versus Standard Deferred Acceptance: Experimental Evidence , 2018, The Economic Journal.

[21]  Alex Rees-Jones,et al.  Suboptimal Behavior in Strategy-Proof Mechanisms: Evidence from the Residency Match , 2016, Games Econ. Behav..

[22]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  The Economics of Matching: Stability and Incentives , 1982, Math. Oper. Res..

[23]  Pablo Guillén,et al.  Not quite the best response: truth-telling, strategy-proof matching, and the manipulation of others , 2017 .

[24]  Alexander Westkamp An analysis of the German university admissions system , 2013 .

[25]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  Incentives in two-sided matching with random stable mechanisms , 1991 .

[26]  A. Roth Misrepresentation and stability in the marriage problem , 1984 .

[27]  J. Pais,et al.  Affirmative Action through Minority Reserves: An Experimental Study on School Choice , 2016 .

[28]  Atila Abdulkadiroglu,et al.  School Choice: A Mechanism Design Approach , 2003 .

[29]  Muriel Niederle,et al.  Boston versus deferred acceptance in an interim setting: An experimental investigation , 2016, Games Econ. Behav..

[30]  Thayer Morrill,et al.  Identifying the Harm of Manipulable School-Choice Mechanisms , 2018 .

[31]  A. Roth,et al.  Turnaround Time and Bottlenecks in Market Clearing: Decentralized Matching in the Market for Clinical Psychologists , 1997, Journal of Political Economy.

[32]  Dorothea Kübler,et al.  Telling the Truth May Not Pay Off : An Empirical Study of Centralized University Admissions in Germany , 2011 .

[33]  U. Fischbacher z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments , 1999 .

[34]  Marco E. Castillo,et al.  Truncation strategies in two-sided matching markets: Theory and experiment , 2016, Games Econ. Behav..

[35]  L. Shapley,et al.  College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage , 1962 .

[36]  Clayton R. Featherstone,et al.  Improving on Strategy-proof School Choice Mechanisms: An Experimental Investigation I , 2014 .

[37]  J. Pais,et al.  Preference intensities and risk aversion in school choice: a laboratory experiment , 2010, Experimental Economics.

[38]  Yan Chen,et al.  Chinese college admissions and school choice reforms: An experimental study , 2019, Games Econ. Behav..

[39]  Joana Pais,et al.  School choice and information: An experimental study on matching mechanisms , 2008, Games Econ. Behav..

[40]  Alistair J. Wilson,et al.  Clearinghouses for two-sided matching: An experimental study , 2016 .

[41]  David A. Freedman,et al.  Machiavelli and the Gale-Shapley Algorithm , 1981 .

[42]  Pablo Guillén,et al.  How to get truthful reporting in matching markets: A field experiment , 2015 .