An Experimental Investigation of Preference Misrepresentation in the Residency Match

TL;DR

This study investigates the extent of preference misrepresentation among medical students in the residency match, revealing that nearly a quarter misrepresent their preferences despite strategy-proof mechanisms, influenced by cognitive and psychological factors.

Contribution

It provides empirical evidence on the prevalence of preference misrepresentation in a real-world, strategy-proof matching market and analyzes factors influencing such behavior.

Findings

23% of participants misrepresent preferences

Factors like overconfidence and trust predict misrepresentation

Implications for mechanism design and social welfare

Abstract

The development and deployment of matching procedures that incentivize truthful preference reporting is considered one of the major successes of market design research. In this study, we test the degree to which these procedures succeed in eliminating preference misrepresentation. We administered an online experiment to 1,714 medical students immediately after their participation in the medical residency match--a leading field application of strategy-proof market design. When placed in an analogous, incentivized matching task, we find that 23% of participants misrepresent their preferences. We explore the factors that predict preference misrepresentation, including cognitive ability, strategic positioning, overconfidence, expectations, advice, and trust. We discuss the implications of this behavior for the design of allocation mechanisms and the social welfare in markets that use them.