IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jftint/v13y2021i5p110-d544426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reviewing Stranger on the Internet: The Role of Identifiability through “Reputation” in Online Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Mirko Duradoni

    (Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures and Psychology, University of Florence, 50135 Firenze, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Stefania Collodi

    (Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures and Psychology, University of Florence, 50135 Firenze, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Serena Coppolino Perfumi

    (Department of Sociology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Andrea Guazzini

    (Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures and Psychology, University of Florence, 50135 Firenze, Italy
    Center for the Study of Complex Dynamics (CSDC), University of Florence, 50121 Firenze, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

The stranger on the Internet effect has been studied in relation to self-disclosure. Nonetheless, quantitative evidence about how people mentally represent and perceive strangers online is still missing. Given the dynamic development of web technologies, quantifying how much strangers can be considered suitable for pro-social acts such as self-disclosure appears fundamental for a whole series of phenomena ranging from privacy protection to fake news spreading. Using a modified and online version of the Ultimatum Game (UG), we quantified the mental representation of the stranger on the Internet effect and tested if people modify their behaviors according to the interactors’ identifiability (i.e., reputation). A total of 444 adolescents took part in a 2 × 2 design experiment where reputation was set active or not for the two traditional UG tasks. We discovered that, when matched with strangers, people donate the same amount of money as if the other has a good reputation. Moreover, reputation significantly affected the donation size, the acceptance rate and the feedback decision making as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Mirko Duradoni & Stefania Collodi & Serena Coppolino Perfumi & Andrea Guazzini, 2021. "Reviewing Stranger on the Internet: The Role of Identifiability through “Reputation” in Online Decision Making," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:13:y:2021:i:5:p:110-:d:544426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/13/5/110/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/13/5/110/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefania Collodi & Sara Panerati & Enrico Imbimbo & Federica Stefanelli & Mirko Duradoni & Andrea Guazzini, 2018. "Personality and Reputation: A Complex Relationship in Virtual Environments," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Marcello Basili & Maria Alessandra Rossi, 2018. "Platform-mediated reputation systems in the sharing economy and incentives to provide service quality: the case of ridesharing services," Department of Economics University of Siena 787, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    3. Paul J Zak & Robert Kurzban & Sheila Ahmadi & Ronald S Swerdloff & Jang Park & Levan Efremidze & Karen Redwine & Karla Morgan & William Matzner, 2009. "Testosterone Administration Decreases Generosity in the Ultimatum Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-7, December.
    4. Marios Kokkodis, 2021. "Dynamic, Multidimensional, and Skillset-Specific Reputation Systems for Online Work," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 688-712, September.
    5. Jolivet, Grégory & Jullien, Bruno & Postel-Vinay, Fabien, 2016. "Reputation and prices on the e-market: Evidence from a major French platform," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 59-75.
    6. Roth, Alvin E. & Vesna Prasnikar & Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara & Shmuel Zamir, 1991. "Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1068-1095, December.
    7. Solomiia Fedushko & Tomáš Peráček & Yuriy Syerov & Olha Trach, 2021. "Development of Methods for the Strategic Management of Web Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Michael Anderson & Jeremy Magruder, 2012. "Learning from the Crowd: Regression Discontinuity Estimates of the Effects of an Online Review Database," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(563), pages 957-989, September.
    9. Solnick, Sara J, 2001. "Gender Differences in the Ultimatum Game," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 189-200, April.
    10. Fehr, Ernst & Henrich, Joseph, 2003. "Is Strong Reciprocity a Maladaptation? On the Evolutionary Foundations of Human Altruism," IZA Discussion Papers 712, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Mirko Duradoni & Mario Paolucci & Franco Bagnoli & Andrea Guazzini, 2018. "Fairness and Trust in Virtual Environments: The Effects of Reputation," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    12. Leslie K. John & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2011. "Strangers on a Plane: Context-Dependent Willingness to Divulge Sensitive Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(5), pages 858-873.
    13. Jean-Christian Tisserand, 2014. "Ultimatum game: A meta-analysis of the past three decades of experimental research," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 0802032, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    14. Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004. "Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 171-188, June.
    15. Hoffman, Elizabeth & McCabe, Kevin A & Smith, Vernon L, 1996. "On Expectations and the Monetary Stakes in Ultimatum Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 25(3), pages 289-301.
    16. Cameron, Lisa A, 1999. "Raising the Stakes in the Ultimatum Game: Experimental Evidence from Indonesia," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 37(1), pages 47-59, January.
    17. David G. Rand & Alexander Peysakhovich & Gordon T. Kraft-Todd & George E. Newman & Owen Wurzbacher & Martin A. Nowak & Joshua D. Greene, 2014. "Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, May.
    18. Stefania Collodi & Maria Fiorenza & Andrea Guazzini & Mirko Duradoni, 2020. "How Reputation Systems Change the Psychological Antecedents of Fairness in Virtual Environments," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Casandra López-Marcos & Pilar Vicente-Fernández, 2021. "Fact Checkers Facing Fake News and Disinformation in the Digital Age: A Comparative Analysis between Spain and United Kingdom," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    2. Gizatulina, Alia & Gorelkina, Olga, 2021. "Selling “Money” on eBay: A field study of surplus division," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 19-38.
    3. Burnham, Terence C., 2013. "Toward a neo-Darwinian synthesis of neoclassical and behavioral economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(S), pages 113-127.
    4. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    5. Aina, Chiara & Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Gamba, Astrid, 2020. "Frustration and anger in the Ultimatum Game: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 150-167.
    6. Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Hoffmann, Robert & Jones, Martin & Williams, Geoffrey, 2009. "An economic anatomy of culture: Attitudes and behaviour in inter- and intra-national ultimatum game experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 732-744, October.
    7. Cochard, François & Le Gallo, Julie & Georgantzis, Nikolaos & Tisserand, Jean-Christian, 2021. "Social preferences across different populations: Meta-analyses on the ultimatum game and dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    8. Neelanjan Sircar & Ty Turley & Peter van der Windt & Maarten Voors, 2018. "Know your neighbor: The impact of social context on fairness behavior," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-11, April.
    9. Emin Karagözoğlu & Ümit Barış Urhan, 2017. "The Effect of Stake Size in Experimental Bargaining and Distribution Games: A Survey," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 285-325, March.
    10. Griffin, John & Nickerson, David & Wozniak, Abigail, 2012. "Racial differences in inequality aversion: Evidence from real world respondents in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 600-617.
    11. Damon Tomlin, 2015. "Rational Constraints and the Evolution of Fairness in the Ultimatum Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    12. Ofra Amir & David G Rand & Ya'akov Kobi Gal, 2012. "Economic Games on the Internet: The Effect of $1 Stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-4, February.
    13. Zhang, Yanling & Chen, Xiaojie & Liu, Aizhi & Sun, Changyin, 2018. "The effect of the stake size on the evolution of fairness," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 321(C), pages 641-653.
    14. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    15. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    16. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    17. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2013. "Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-100.
    18. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    19. Chesney, Thomas & Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Hoffmann, Robert, 2009. "Virtual world experimentation: An exploratory study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 618-635, October.
    20. Declerck, Carolyn H. & Kiyonari, Toko & Boone, Christophe, 2009. "Why do responders reject unequal offers in the Ultimatum Game? An experimental study on the role of perceiving interdependence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 335-343, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:13:y:2021:i:5:p:110-:d:544426. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.