Lying through their teeth: Third party advice and truth telling in a strategy proof mechanism

Pablo Guillen and Alexander Hing

European Economic Review, 2014, vol. 70, issue C, 178-185

Abstract: We test the effect of advice on the well-known top trading cycles (TTC) matching algorithm. We compare three treatments involving third party advice [right advice (R), wrong advice (W), and both right and wrong advice (RW)] to a no-advice baseline (B). In line with previous literature the truth telling rate is higher than 70% in B, but it does not even reach 30% in W. Truth telling rates are also significantly lower in the other advice treatments when compared to B. This evidence suggests that the majority of participants in matching experiments fail to understand strategy-proofness, as they can be easily influenced by advice. High truth telling rates may just be the result of participants taking a default option.

Keywords: Matching; Top trading cycles; Strategy-proofness; Confusion; Economic experiments (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C91 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (40)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292114000737
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:70:y:2014:i:c:p:178-185

DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.05.002

Access Statistics for this article

European Economic Review is currently edited by T.S. Eicher, A. Imrohoroglu, E. Leeper, J. Oechssler and M. Pesendorfer

More articles in European Economic Review from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().