Communication in Bargaining under the Shadow of Conflict

Last registered on May 11, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Communication in Bargaining under the Shadow of Conflict
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0018563
Initial registration date
May 05, 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
May 11, 2026, 8:50 AM EDT

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

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Shandong University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-05-14
End date
2026-05-29
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
We experimentally study how pre-play communication shapes bargaining under the shadow of conflict when one party is privately informed about her fighting strength. Building on a two-stage model, we ask: when private information about fighting strength is one-sided, does one-way unverified communication facilitate agreement, or does it instead sustain strategic misrepresentation in the form of bluffing (weak types posing as strong) and feigning weakness (strong types posing as weak)? The model predicts both forms of misrepresentation in equilibrium and yields point predictions on demand frequencies, conflict rates, and posterior beliefs.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Huang, Lingbo. 2026. "Communication in Bargaining under the Shadow of Conflict." AEA RCT Registry. May 11. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18563-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We implement a 3x2 between-subjects design. The three asymmetric-information environments are crossed with the presence/absence of one-way pre-play communication from Player~1 to Player~2, yielding six treatment cells
Intervention Start Date
2026-05-14
Intervention End Date
2026-05-29

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
conflict rate, feign rate, bluff rate
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We summarize the elements of the model needed to define the experimental design Two risk-neutral players play a two-stage game with prize V=1000. In Stage~1 they simultaneously submit demands; if compatible, the pie is split as demanded, otherwise the game proceeds to Stage~2, a conflict in which Player~1's effort cost is fixed at c_1=80 and Player~2 chooses between low (c_L=80) and high (c_H=180) effort. Winning probabilities for Player~1 are (p_W^L,p_W^H,p_S^L,p_S^H)=(1/2,9/20,7/8,3/4), where the W/S index denotes weak/strong Player~1 type and L/H denotes Player~2's effort. Player~1 is strong with prior probability \pi (only she observes her type). Three asymmetric-information environments are studied: 1) Bluffing PBE: symmetric demand menu {200,500,800} for both players, prior \pi=3/5.
2) Feigning PBE: asymmetric demand menus, Player~1 from {200,650,800} and Player~2 from {200,350,800}, with d^1_M=650 and d^2_M=350; prior \pi=3/5. 3) Feigning PBE under alternative prior: same demand menus and payoffs as (2) but with prior lowered to \pi=3/10. We implement a $3\times 2$ between-subjects design. The three asymmetric-information environments above are crossed with the presence/absence of one-way pre-play communication from Player~1 to Player~2, yielding six treatment cells.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
randomization by software
Randomization Unit
Treatment randomization is employed at session level. Pairing is randomized in each round with roles fixed throughout the session.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Each treatment has 4 sessions of 10 subjects each. 24 sessions in total.
Sample size: planned number of observations
24 sessionsm, 240 participants in total.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
40 participants per treatment.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
CER Lab of SDU
IRB Approval Date
2026-05-06
IRB Approval Number
N/A
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information