Emotion revelation and trust: valence, beliefs and ambiguity attitudes

Last registered on April 13, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Emotion revelation and trust: valence, beliefs and ambiguity attitudes
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0018300
Initial registration date
April 07, 2026

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
April 13, 2026, 9:14 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
April 13, 2026, 10:15 AM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Erasmus University Rotterdam

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2025-12-01
End date
2026-08-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This project studies how the opportunity to reveal emotion affects trust behavior, including trust decisions, beliefs, and ambiguity attitudes. I implement a modified trust game in which trustors may reveal positive or negative emotions, with varying degrees of flexibility over valence and intensity to the trustees, before the trustees decide how much to return. The study identifies the mechanisms through which access to emotion revelation shapes trusting behavior within a rigorous economic framework. It also examines patterns of emotion revelation and the motivations behind them.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
XIAO, Fantine. 2026. "Emotion revelation and trust: valence, beliefs and ambiguity attitudes." AEA RCT Registry. April 13. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18300-2.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Subjects are randomly assigned to one of four conditions that vary access to emotion revelation toward the trustee: a control condition with no message, a positive-valence condition in which they can indicate how happy they would feel if trust is reciprocated, a negative-valence condition in which they can indicate how disappointed they would feel if trust is not reciprocated, and a free-valence condition in which they can choose the valence and intensity of the emotional message sent to the trustee. After answering treatment-specific questions, they all make a trust decision and then choose between lottery pairs to elicit beliefs and ambiguity attitudes.
Intervention Start Date
2026-04-07
Intervention End Date
2026-05-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
-trust decision
-ambiguity aversion index
-a-insensitivity index
-expected return
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
We elicit participants’ ambiguity aversion index, a-insentivitiy index and expected reservation price using the belief-hedge method (Baillon et al., 2018, 2021). From participants’ choices between ambiguous and risky options, we obtain matching probabilities that allow us to construct these three primary outcomes.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
-emotion revelation gap
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
For all the participants, they will need to answer self-reflection question about how happy (disappointed) they would feed if the trustee (does not) reciprocates their trust. The emotion revelation gap is calculated as the difference between the revealed intensity and self-reported intensity of the same emotion, if the treatment applies.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experiment is based on a modified trust game in which all participants act as trustors and are matched with separately recruited trustees. Each trustor chooses between a no-trust option, in which they keep 5 dollars and allocate 5 dollars to the trustee, and a trust option, in which they keep 2 dollars and send 8 dollars to the trustee. The 8 dollars is tripled to 24 dollars, after which the trustee decides how much to return.

Before making the trust decision, participants report how happy they would feel if trust is reciprocated and how disappointed they would feel if trust is not reciprocated, each at one of three intensity levels: slightly, moderately, or very. Participants are then randomly assigned to one of four conditions. In the control condition, no emotional message is sent to the trustee. In the negative-valence treatment, participants are told that if they choose trust, the trustee will see a message stating how disappointed they would feel if the trustee does not reciprocate their trust, before the trustee decides how much to return. Participants are asked to choose the intensity of that message. In the positive-valence treatment, participants are told that if they choose trust, the trustee will see a message stating how happy they would feel if the trustee reciprocates their trust, and participants choose the intensity. In the free-valence treatment, participants are allowed to choose both whether to reveal happiness or disappointment and the intensity of the chosen emotion.

After the trust decision, all participants complete a bi-section choice task, based on the belief-hedge method introduced by Baillon et al. (2018, 2021). Participants make decisions between ambiguous and risky options. The probability in the risky option is varied until indifference is reached within a pre-determined error margin. These choice situations are designed to elicit the matching probability associated with events concerning the trustee's return amount. The resulting matching probabilities allow us to construct three indexes: (i) an ambiguity-aversion index, capturing aversion to ambiguity about the trustee's return amount; (ii) an ambiguity-insensitivity index, capturing how precisely or imprecisely participants perceive this uncertainty; and (iii) an expected return amount, reflecting participants’ beliefs about how much they expect to receive from the trustee.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization is implemented automatically through Qualtrics’ built-in randomizer.
Randomization Unit
individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
No clustering
Sample size: planned number of observations
400 online participants
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
100 online participants per treatment
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Erasmus School of Economics
IRB Approval Date
2025-10-29
IRB Approval Number
ETH2526-0202
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information