Learning and Mechanism Design: An Experimental Test of School Matching Mechanisms with Intergenerational Advice

While the mechanisms that economists design are typically static, one-shot games, in the real world, mechanisms are used repeatedly by generations of agents who engage in them for a short period of time and then pass on advice to their successors. Hence, behaviour evolves via social learning and may diverge dramatically from that envisioned by the designer. We demonstrate that this is true of school matching mechanisms—even those for which truth-telling is a dominant strategy. Our results indicate that experience with an incentive-compatible mechanism may not foster truthful revelation if that experience is achieved via social learning.

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

[2]  Barry Sopher,et al.  Advice and behavior in intergenerational ultimatum games: An experimental approach , 2007, Games Econ. Behav..

[3]  Barry Sopher,et al.  Social Learning and Coordination Conventions in Intergenerational Games: An Experimental Study , 2003, Journal of Political Economy.

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

[5]  Barry Sopher,et al.  Trust and trustworthiness in games: An experimental study of intergenerational advice , 2006 .

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

[7]  Dorothea Kübler,et al.  Implementing Quotas in University Admissions: An Experimental Analysis , 2011 .

[8]  Andrew Schotter,et al.  An Experimental Test of Advice and Social Learning , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[9]  Tayfun Sönmez,et al.  Games of school choice under the Boston mechanism , 2006 .

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

[11]  M. Balinski,et al.  A Tale of Two Mechanisms: Student Placement , 1999 .

[12]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  What Really Matters in Designing School Choice Mechanisms , 2017 .

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

[14]  Charles O. Kile,et al.  An Experimental Test , 2016 .

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

[16]  Aytek Erdil,et al.  What's the Matter with Tie-Breaking? Improving Efficiency in School Choice , 2008 .

[17]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  The New York City High School Match , 2005 .

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

[19]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  The Mechanism Design Approach to Student Assignment , 2011 .

[20]  Onur Kesten,et al.  The Equitable Top Trading Cycles Mechanism for School Choice , 2018, International Economic Review.

[21]  Pablo Guillen,et al.  Monkey see, monkey do: Truth-telling in matching algorithms and the manipulation of others , 2014 .

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

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

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

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

[26]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Strategy-Proofness versus Efficiency in Matching with Indifferences: Redesigning the NYC High School Match , 2009 .

[27]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Experience‐weighted Attraction Learning in Normal Form Games , 1999 .

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

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

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

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

[32]  Min Zhu,et al.  Matching in the Large: An Experimental Study , 2017, Games Econ. Behav..

[33]  Barry Sopher,et al.  Talking Ourselves to Efficiency: Coordination in Inter-Generational Minimum Effort Games with Private, Almost Common and Common Knowledge of Advice , 2009 .

[34]  Alan W. Beggs,et al.  On the convergence of reinforcement learning , 2005, J. Econ. Theory.

[35]  Jaimie W. Lien,et al.  Preference submission timing in school choice matching: testing fairness and efficiency in the laboratory , 2014 .

[36]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  The Boston Public School Match , 2005 .

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

[38]  Barry Sopher,et al.  On the informational content of advice: a theoretical and experimental study , 2006 .

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

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

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

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