A Wiggle-Room Reporting Game

Last registered on October 07, 2026
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
A Wiggle-Room Reporting Game
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0019346
Initial registration date
October 02, 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
October 07, 2026, 10:43 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

Name
Iva Parvanova
Affiliation
LUISS Guido Carli
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Giacomo Sillari
PI Affiliation
LUISS Guido Carli
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-09-21
End date
2026-12-31
Keywords
Behavior, Firms & Productivity, Governance, Other
Additional Keywords
Integrity management; corporate management
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Integrity failures can arise when people avoid learning inconvenient facts before making a favourable report. This laboratory experiment examines whether information about social norms encourages accurate reporting and a willingness to establish the facts, or instead changes how false reporting occurs.

Participants complete four Sender rounds before random assignment to one of three information conditions: *Weak*, *Ceremonial* or *Strong*. The messages vary the reported prevalence of truthful reporting and endorsement of truthful reporting in selected pilot samples. Participants then complete six further Sender rounds. In each round, they may reveal a die outcome before sending a Low or High message. They subsequently make two Receiver choices about accepting or checking a message.

The primary outcomes distinguish knowingly false High reports, High reports sent without revealing the die, accurate Low reporting after a true Low outcome, and acceptance of High messages. The study will randomize 216 participants and preregister its analysis. By measuring information acquisition alongside reporting, it tests whether social norms can support integrity management without assuming that non-revelation reveals a particular psychological motive.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Parvanova, Iva and Giacomo Sillari. 2026. "A Wiggle-Room Reporting Game." AEA RCT Registry. October 07. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.19346-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2026-10-25
Intervention End Date
2026-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Knowing false HI (D) — Revealing the die, seeing LO, and still reporting HI.

Uninformed HI (I) — Not revealing the die and reporting HI.

Uninformed false HI (U) — Not revealing the die, where the die is actually LO, and reporting HI.

Total false HI (F) — Reporting HI when the die is actually LO, whether revealed or not.

Truthful LO reporting (T) — Reporting LO when the die is actually LO.

Revelation (R) — Choosing to learn the die outcome before reporting.

Uninformed LO (L) — Not revealing the die and reporting LO.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We will conduct an incentivized laboratory experiment with adult student participants. Each person completes four Sender rounds before being randomly assigned to one of three conditions—Weak, Ceremonial or Strong—that provide different information about earlier participants’ reporting behaviour and judgments of acceptable reporting. They then complete six further Sender rounds, followed by two Receiver choices using the strategy method. One game decision is selected at random for payment. The study examines whether these messages affect information acquisition, reporting accuracy and trust in reports.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Participants will be assigned by a computer-generated randomization algorithm to one of the four experimental conditions with equal probability at first study-screen load. Assignment will be recorded server-side to prevent re-randomization if a participant reloads the study.
Randomization Unit
Randomization will happen on the individual-level.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
N.a
Sample size: planned number of observations
The study will randomize 216 individual participants. Each will complete ten Sender rounds—four before and six after the information message—yielding up to 2,160 Sender decisions if all participants complete the study. Each participant will also make two Receiver choices using the strategy method, yielding up to 432 Receiver choices.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
The study will randomize 72 participants to each of three conditions:

1. Weak - low reported prevalence of truthful Low reporting and low endorsement of that reporting standard — 72 participants.
2. Ceremonial -low reported prevalence of truthful Low reporting and high endorsement — 72 participants.
3. Strong - high reported prevalence of truthful Low reporting and high endorsement — 72 participants.

The total planned sample is 216 participants. There is no fourth, high-prevalence/low-endorsement condition.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan