Businesses want their customers to self-report information honestly. One increasingly popular way to stimulate desired behavior is by using nudge interventions. But can customers be nudged to self-report information more honestly? This is currently a debate in the literature, where empirical results are inconclusive. Building on related literature on nudges, we add to this debate with a controlled field experiment (N = 5704). We used data from actual customers making real decisions when they file claims online to a large Nordic insurance provider. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the effects of honesty-nudges on self-reported information when filing insurance claims using a controlled field experiment. We designed and tested three honesty-nudges on insurance customers: (1) signing-atthe-beginning, (2) a descriptive social norm message, and (3) a solidarity message.Across five outcome measures, we found that the honesty-nudges, standalone or in any possible combination, do not have significant effects in reducing indicators of insurance claims fraud. But interestingly, customers in all treatment groups used significantly more characters to describe losses than customers in the control group. Also, in post hoc analyses, we found signs that the direction of nudge effects varies across customers' age and customer loyalty. | INTRODUCTIONInsurance companies want their customers to not falsely report or exaggerate damages when they file claims. Fraudulent claims cost the insurance provider because those increase settlement costs. These can also cost honest customers as providers increase premiums to cover extra costs. In 2017, fraudulent claims cost European insurers and customers an estimated 13 billion Euros (Insurance Europe, 2019a). Finance Norway (Finanse Norge, 2019) estimates the total value of detected fraudulent non-life insurance claims in Norway at NOK 495.1 million (approximately 49 million Euros) in 2019. The total value of undetected yearly insurance fraud in Denmark is estimated to be 10 times that of detected-300 million Euros versus 32.75 million Euros 1 (Insurance Europe, 2019b). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (2020) estimates the cost of non-health insurance fraud in the United States at over 40 billion USD. Dealing with insurance claims fraud is difficult because providers rely on self-reported information and customers have economic incentives to report false or exaggerated damages. 1 Estimates were in Euros than in Danish Kroners for uniformity in comparing figures across countries.

The rise of peer-to-peer platforms has represented one of the major economic and societal developments observed in the last decade. We investigated whether people engage in racial discrimination in the sharing economy, and how such discrimination might be explained and mitigated. Using a set of carefully controlled experiments (N = 1,599), including a pre-registered study on a nationally representative sample, we find causal evidence for racial discrimination. When an identical apartment is presented with a racial out-group (vs. in-group) host, people report more negative attitudes toward the apartment, lower intentions to rent it, and are 25% less likely to choose the apartment over a standard hotel room in an incentivized choice. Reduced self-congruence with apartments owned by out-group hosts mediates these effects. Left-leaning liberals rated the out-group host as more trustworthy than the in-group host in non-committing judgments and hypothetical choice, but showed the same in-group preference as right-leaning conservatives when making a real choice. Thus, people may overstate their moral and political aspirations when doing so is costfree. However, even in incentivized choice, racial discrimination disappeared when the apartment was presented with an explicit trust cue, as a visible top-rating by other consumers (5/5 stars). Public Significance StatementIn three experiments (N = 1,599), which included a pre-registered study on a nationally representative sample (Norway), we find causal evidence for racial discrimination against minority Airbnb hosts. When an identical Airbnb apartment was presented with a racial outgroup (vs. in-group) host, people reported more negative attitudes toward the apartment, lower intentions to rent it, and were 25% less likely to choose the apartment over a standard hotel room in a real choice.