IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v77y2024i3d10.1007_s00199-023-01514-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing under information manipulation

Author

Listed:
  • Silvia Martinez-Gorricho

    (Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción)

  • Carlos Oyarzun

    (University of Queensland)

Abstract

A principal makes a binary decision based on evidence that can be manipulated by a privately informed agent. The principal’s objective is to minimize the expected loss associated to type I and II errors. When the principal can commit to an acceptance standard, the optimal test features ex-post inefficient standards, to internalize the agent’s manipulation incentives. We provide conditions for the principal to set soft or harsh standards, that is, lower or higher standards, respectively, than the ex-post optimal standard. When misaligned manipulation (i.e., manipulation by the low type) is dominant, the principal sets soft standards when the prior probability that the candidate is low type is relatively small. In contrast, when aligned manipulation (i.e., manipulation by the high type) is dominant, the principal sets soft standards when the prior probability that the candidate is low type is relatively large. In both scenarios, these soft standards result in that the non-commitment equilibrium outcome is Pareto dominated by the equilibrium outcome under commitment. We also provide conditions for the optimal revelation mechanism to Pareto dominate commitment when the prior probability that the agent is low type is relatively large.

Suggested Citation

  • Silvia Martinez-Gorricho & Carlos Oyarzun, 2024. "Testing under information manipulation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 77(3), pages 849-890, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:77:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s00199-023-01514-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s00199-023-01514-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00199-023-01514-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00199-023-01514-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raphael Boleslavsky & Christopher Cotton, 2015. "Grading Standards and Education Quality," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 248-279, May.
    2. Alfredo Di Tillio & Marco Ottaviani & Peter Norman Sørensen, 2017. "Persuasion Bias in Science: Can Economics Help?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 266-304, October.
    3. Emeric Henry & Marco Ottaviani, 2019. "Research and the Approval Process: The Organization of Persuasion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(3), pages 911-955, March.
    4. Matthew C. Stephenson, 2008. "Evidentiary Standards and Information Acquisition in Public Law," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 10(2), pages 351-387.
    5. Eduardo Perez‐Richet & Vasiliki Skreta, 2022. "Test Design Under Falsification," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(3), pages 1109-1142, May.
    6. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    7. Curtis R. Taylor & Huseyin Yildirim, 2011. "Subjective Performance and the Value of Blind Evaluation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(2), pages 762-794.
    8. Paul R. Milgrom, 1981. "Good News and Bad News: Representation Theorems and Applications," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(2), pages 380-391, Autumn.
    9. Andriy Zapechelnyuk, 2020. "Optimal Quality Certification," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 161-176, June.
    10. Florian Ederer & Richard Holden & Margaret Meyer, 2018. "Gaming and strategic opacity in incentive provision," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(4), pages 819-854, December.
    11. Wayne A. Grove & Stephen Wu, 2007. "The Search for Economics Talent: Doctoral Completion and Research Productivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 506-511, May.
    12. Dominique Demougin & Claude Fluet, 2008. "Rules of proof, courts, and incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(1), pages 20-40, March.
    13. Alex Frankel & Navin Kartik, 2022. "Improving Information from Manipulable Data," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 79-115.
    14. Hao Li & Wing Suen, 2004. "Delegating Decisions to Experts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages 311-335, February.
    15. Emeric Henry & Gianmarco Ottaviano, 2019. "Research and the Approval Process: the Organization of Persuasion," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/1gr6n3t28b9, Sciences Po.
    16. Mungan, Murat C. & Samuel, Andrew, 2019. "Mimicking, errors, and the optimal standard of proof," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 18-21.
    17. Herresthal, Claudia, 2022. "Hidden testing and selective disclosure of evidence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    18. Heiko Gerlach, 2013. "Self-Reporting, Investigation, and Evidentiary Standards," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 1061-1090.
    19. Arianna Degan & Ming Li, 2021. "Persuasion with costly precision," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(3), pages 869-908, October.
    20. Elias Tsakas & Nikolas Tsakas & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2021. "Resisting persuasion," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(3), pages 723-742, October.
    21. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    22. Emir Kamenica, 2019. "Bayesian Persuasion and Information Design," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 249-272, August.
    23. Hao Li, 2001. "A Theory of Conservatism," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(3), pages 617-636, June.
    24. Andrew McClellan, 2022. "Experimentation and Approval Mechanisms," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(5), pages 2215-2247, September.
    25. Alfredo Di Tillio & Marco Ottaviani & Peter Norman Sørensen, 2017. "Persuasion Bias in Science: Can Economics Help?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 266-304, October.
    26. Emir Kamenica & Kyungmin Kim & Andriy Zapechelnyuk, 2021. "Bayesian persuasion and information design: perspectives and open issues," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(3), pages 701-704, October.
    27. de Haan, Thomas & Offerman, Theo & Sloof, Randolph, 2011. "Noisy signaling: Theory and experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 402-428.
    28. Louis Kaplow, 2011. "On the Optimal Burden of Proof," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1104-1140.
    29. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/1gr6n3t28b94tafji6op8tlqs1 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Herresthal, Claudia, 2022. "Hidden testing and selective disclosure of evidence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    2. Maximilian Kasy & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Optimal Pre-Analysis Plans: Statistical Decisions Subject to Implementability," Papers 2208.09638, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    3. Maximilian Kasy & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Rationalizing Pre-Analysis Plans:Statistical Decisions Subject to Implementability," Economics Series Working Papers 975, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    4. Gerardi, Dino & Grillo, Edoardo & Monzón, Ignacio, 2022. "The perils of friendly oversight," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    5. Tan, Teck Yong, 2023. "Optimal transparency of monitoring capability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    6. Dahm, Matthias & González, Paula & Porteiro, Nicolás, 2018. "The enforcement of mandatory disclosure rules," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 21-32.
    7. Tsakas, Elias & Tsakas, Nikolas, 2021. "Noisy persuasion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 44-61.
    8. Hedlund, Jonas, 2024. "Signaling through Bayesian persuasion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 15-27.
    9. Emir Kamenica & Kyungmin Kim & Andriy Zapechelnyuk, 2021. "Bayesian persuasion and information design: perspectives and open issues," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(3), pages 701-704, October.
    10. Vladimir Asriyan & Dana Foarta & Victoria Vanasco, 2023. "The Good, the Bad, and the Complex: Product Design with Imperfect Information," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 187-226, May.
    11. Alex Frankel & Navin Kartik, 2022. "Improving Information from Manipulable Data," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 79-115.
    12. Li Hao & Wing Suen, 2009. "Viewpoint: Decision-making in committees," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 359-392, May.
    13. Yichuan Lou, 2023. "Private Experimentation, Data Truncation, and Verifiable Disclosure," Papers 2305.04231, arXiv.org.
    14. Felgenhauer, Mike, 2021. "Experimentation and manipulation with preregistration," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 400-408.
    15. Yeon-Koo Che & Navin Kartik, 2009. "Opinions as Incentives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 117(5), pages 815-860, October.
    16. Bruce Carlin & Christopher Cotton & Raphael Boleslavsky, 2017. "Competing For Capital: Auditing And Credibility In Financial Reporting," Working Paper 1377, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    17. Ricardo Alonso & Odilon Câmara, 2024. "Organizing Data Analytics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(5), pages 3123-3143, May.
    18. Maryam Saeedi & Ali Shourideh, 2020. "Optimal Rating Design under Moral Hazard," Papers 2008.09529, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    19. Hao Li & Sherwin Rosen & Wing Suen, 2001. "Conflicts and Common Interests in Committees," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1478-1497, December.
    20. Terstiege, Stefan & Wasser, Cédric, 2020. "Buyer-optimal extensionproof information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Information manipulation; Commitment; Moral hazard; Soft standards; Harsh standards; Standard of evidence;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • D86 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Economics of Contract Law

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:77:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s00199-023-01514-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.