| Abstract: |
We experimentally test a game theoretical model of researcher-evaluator
interaction à la Di Tillio, Ottaviani, and Sørensen (2017a). Researcher may
strategically manipulate sample selection using his private information in
order to achieve favourable research outcomes and thereby obtain approval from
Evaluator. Our experimental results confirm the theoretical predictions for
Researcher’s behaviour but find significant deviations from them about
Evaluator’s behaviour. However, comparative statics are mostly consistent with
the theoretical predictions. In the welfare analysis, we find that Researcher
always benefits from the possibility of manipulation, in contrast to the
theoretical prediction that he sometimes is hurt by it. Consistent with
theoretical predictions, Evaluator benefits from the possibility of
Researcher’s manipulation when she leans towards approval or is approximately
neutral but is hurt by that possibility when she leans against approval. |