Preference intensities and risk aversion in school choice: a laboratory experiment

We experimentally investigate in the laboratory prominent mechanisms that are employed in school choice programs to assign students to public schools and study how individual behavior is influenced by preference intensities and risk aversion. Our main results show that (a) the Gale–Shapley mechanism is more robust to changes in cardinal preferences than the Boston mechanism independently of whether individuals can submit a complete or only a restricted ranking of the schools and (b) subjects with a higher degree of risk aversion are more likely to play “safer” strategies under the Gale–Shapley but not under the Boston mechanism. Both results have important implications for enrollment planning and the possible protection risk averse agents seek.

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

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

[3]  Salvador Barberà,et al.  Implementability via protective equilibria , 1982 .

[4]  Salvador Barberà,et al.  Protective behavior in matching models , 1995 .

[5]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects , 2002 .

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

[7]  Peter Ockenfels,et al.  Measuring Strategic Uncertainty in Coordination Games , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[8]  Ben Greiner,et al.  The Online Recruitment System ORSEE 2.0 - A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics , 2004 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[15]  Clayton R. Featherstone,et al.  Ex Ante Efficiency in School Choice Mechanisms: An Experimental Investigation , 2008 .

[16]  Pavlo R. Blavatskyy Betting on Own Knowledge: Experimental Test of Overconfidence , 2008 .

[17]  Yeon-Koo Che,et al.  Resolving Conflicting Preferences in School Choice , 2009 .

[18]  Yeon-Koo Che,et al.  Resolving Conflicting Preferences in School Choice: The 'Boston' Mechanism Reconsidered , 2009 .

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

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

[21]  Antonio Miralles,et al.  School Choice: The Case for the Boston Mechanism , 2009, AMMA.

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

[23]  Rómulo A. Chumacero,et al.  School choice and information , 2012 .

[24]  Carmelo Rodríguez-Álvarez,et al.  Transplant quality and patients' preferences in paired kidney exchange , 2012, Games Econ. Behav..

[25]  L. S. Shapley,et al.  College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage , 2013, Am. Math. Mon..