IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v11y2016i6p589-600_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Partner selection supported by opaque reputation promotes cooperative behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Capraro, Valerio
  • Giardini, Francesca
  • Vilone, Daniele
  • Paolucci, Mario

Abstract

Reputation plays a major role in human societies, and it has been proposed as an explanation for the evolution of cooperation. While the majority of previous studies equates reputation with a transparent and complete history of players’ past decisions, reputations in real life are often ambiguous and opaque. Using web-based experiments, we explore the extent to which opaque reputation works in isolating defectors, with and without partner selection opportunities. We found that low reputation works as a signal of untrustworthiness, whereas medium or high reputations are not taken into account by subjects for orienting their choices. Reputation without partner selection does not promote cooperative behavior; that is, defectors do not turn into cooperators only for the sake of getting a positive reputation. Finally, in a third study, when reputation is pivotal to selection, then a substantial proportion of would-be-defectors turn into cooperators. Taken together, these results provide insights about the characteristics of reputation and about the way in which humans make use of it when selecting partners, and also when knowing that they will be selected.

Suggested Citation

  • Capraro, Valerio & Giardini, Francesca & Vilone, Daniele & Paolucci, Mario, 2016. "Partner selection supported by opaque reputation promotes cooperative behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(6), pages 589-600, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:6:p:589-600_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500004800/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:6:p:589-600_6. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    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.