IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/apmaco/v486y2025ics0096300324005034.html

The reputation-based reward mechanism promotes the evolution of fairness

Author

Listed:
  • Deng, Lili
  • Wang, Rugen
  • Liao, Ying
  • Xu, Ronghua
  • Wang, Cheng

Abstract

In real life, a good reputation generally brings positive returns to individuals. For example, merchants with numerous good reviews usually gain higher profits. Considering this in the ultimatum game, we propose a reputation-based reward mechanism to investigate the evolution of fairness. Specifically, individuals' reputations evolve dynamically based on the outcomes of games. At the same time, we set a reputation threshold in the population. When individuals' reputations exceed the reputation threshold, they are considered excellent. Otherwise, they are ordinary. The excellent individuals can receive extra rewards compared to the ordinary ones. Finally, individuals' total payoffs determine their fitness within the population. Based on these settings, this paper mainly explores how reputation threshold, weight factor and reward strength affect the evolution of fairness. Through a series of simulations, the reputation-based rewards mechanism is proved to effectively promote the fairness in the population. To be specific, we find that higher reputation thresholds and smaller values of weight factor significantly enhance the promotion effect of reward on fairness. Simultaneously, there is a specific correspondence between the reputation threshold and the weight factor. When reward strength is fixed, for different reputation thresholds, the optimal value of weight factor to achieve maximum fairness levels also varies. Additionally, increasing reward strength can significantly promote fairness.

Suggested Citation

  • Deng, Lili & Wang, Rugen & Liao, Ying & Xu, Ronghua & Wang, Cheng, 2025. "The reputation-based reward mechanism promotes the evolution of fairness," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 486(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:apmaco:v:486:y:2025:i:c:s0096300324005034
    DOI: 10.1016/j.amc.2024.129042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0096300324005034
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.amc.2024.129042?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guth, Werner & Tietz, Reinhard, 1990. "Ultimatum bargaining behavior : A survey and comparison of experimental results," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 417-449, September.
    2. Pan, Qiuhui & Wang, Linpeng & He, Mingfeng, 2020. "Social dilemma based on reputation and successive behavior," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 384(C).
    3. Deng, Lili & Wang, Hongsi & Wang, Rugen & Xu, Ronghua & Wang, Cheng, 2024. "The adaptive adjustment of node weights based on reputation and memory promotes fairness," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Zhou, Tianwei & Ding, Shuai & Fan, Wenjuan & Wang, Hao, 2016. "An improved public goods game model with reputation effect on the spatial lattices," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 130-135.
    6. Quan, Ji & Cui, Shihui & Chen, Wenman & Wang, Xianjia, 2023. "Reputation-based probabilistic punishment on the evolution of cooperation in the spatial public goods game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 441(C).
    7. Hu, Qi & Jin, Tao & Jiang, Yulian & Liu, Xingwen, 2024. "Reputation incentives with public supervision promote cooperation in evolutionary games," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 466(C).
    8. Zhao, Yakun & Xiong, Tianyu & Zheng, Lei & Li, Yumeng & Chen, Xiaojie, 2020. "The effect of similarity on the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    9. Wang, Chengjiang & Wang, Li & Wang, Juan & Sun, Shiwen & Xia, Chengyi, 2017. "Inferring the reputation enhances the cooperation in the public goods game on interdependent lattices," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 293(C), pages 18-29.
    10. Zhang, Yanling & Yang, Shuo & Chen, Xiaojie & Bai, Yanbing & Xie, Guangming, 2023. "Reputation update of responders efficiently promotes the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Chen, Ya-Shan & Yang, Han-Xin & Guo, Wen-Zhong & Liu, Geng-Geng, 2018. "Prisoner’s dilemma game on reputation-based weighted network," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 64-68.
    13. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    14. Feng, Kehuan & Han, Songlin & Feng, Minyu & Szolnoki, Attila, 2024. "An evolutionary game with reputation-based imitation-mutation dynamics," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 472(C).
    15. Croson, Rachel T. A., 1996. "Information in ultimatum games: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 197-212, August.
    16. Berger, Ulrich & Grüne, Ansgar, 2016. "On the stability of cooperation under indirect reciprocity with first-order information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 19-33.
    17. Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "The Ultimatum Game," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 195-206, Fall.
    18. Wang, Jianwei & He, Jialu & Yu, Fengyuan, 2021. "Heterogeneity of reputation increment driven by individual influence promotes cooperation in spatial social dilemma," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    19. Greiff, Matthias & Paetzel, Fabian, 2016. "Second-order beliefs in reputation systems with endogenous evaluations – an experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 32-43.
    20. Chu, Chen & Zhai, Yao & Mu, Chunjiang & Hu, Die & Li, Tong & Shi, Lei, 2019. "Reputation-based popularity promotes cooperation in the spatial prisoner's dilemma game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 362(C), pages 1-1.
    21. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    22. Jian, Qing & Li, Xiaopeng & Wang, Juan & Xia, Chengyi, 2021. "Impact of reputation assortment on tag-mediated altruistic behaviors in the spatial lattice," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 396(C).
    23. Yanling Zhang & Jian Liu & Aming Li, 2019. "Effects of Empathy on the Evolutionary Dynamics of Fairness in Group-Structured Systems," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-13, November.
    24. John M. McNamara & Polly Doodson, 2015. "Reputation can enhance or suppress cooperation through positive feedback," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, May.
    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. Chen, Xiaoyu & Wu, Chaoxian & Fan, Suohai, 2025. "The dual effect of regret on cooperation in spatial prisoner’s dilemma game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 201(P1).
    2. Deng, Lili & Li, Weiwei & Wang, Rugen & Wang, Cheng, 2025. "The impact of reputation-based dynamic reward mechanism on the evolution of fairness," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 199(P3).
    3. Wu, Binjie & Shen, Shaofei & Wang, Jiafeng & Wan, Haibin, 2025. "Q-learning promotes the evolution of fairness and generosity in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 200(P2).

    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. Deng, Lili & Wang, Hongsi & Wang, Rugen & Xu, Ronghua & Wang, Cheng, 2024. "The adaptive adjustment of node weights based on reputation and memory promotes fairness," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    2. Deng, Lili & Li, Weiwei & Wang, Rugen & Wang, Cheng, 2025. "The impact of reputation-based dynamic reward mechanism on the evolution of fairness," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 199(P3).
    3. Zheng, Lei & Li, Youqi & Zhou, Jingsai & Li, Yumeng, 2022. "The effect of celebrity on the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 585(C).
    4. Lv, Ran & Qian, Jia-Li & Hao, Qing-Yi & Wu, Chao-Yun & Guo, Ning & Ling, Xiang, 2024. "The impact of reputation-based heterogeneous evaluation and learning on cooperation in spatial public goods game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    5. Zhao, Yakun & Xiong, Tianyu & Zheng, Lei & Li, Yumeng & Chen, Xiaojie, 2020. "The effect of similarity on the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    6. Christian Korth, 2009. "Reciprocity—An Indirect Evolutionary Analysis," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Fairness in Bargaining and Markets, chapter 0, pages 35-55, Springer.
    7. Binmore, Ken & McCarthy, John & Ponti, Giovanni & Samuelson, Larry & Shaked, Avner, 2002. "A Backward Induction Experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 48-88, May.
    8. Zhang, Yanling & Yang, Shuo & Chen, Xiaojie & Bai, Yanbing & Xie, Guangming, 2023. "Reputation update of responders efficiently promotes the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    9. Xiaofeng Wang & Xiaojie Chen & Long Wang, 2020. "Evolution of egalitarian social norm by resource management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, January.
    10. Werner G³th, 2001. "How Ultimatum Offers Emerge: A Study in Bounded Rationality," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 18, pages 91-110.
    11. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    12. 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.
    13. Khalil, Elias, 2007. "Emotions and International Conflicts: Sociological, Evolutionary and Rational Views," MPRA Paper 2279, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Gonzalez-Sanchez, Eric & Loyola, Gino, 2024. "Ultimatum bargaining with envy under incomplete information," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-11.
    15. Wu, Binjie & Shen, Shaofei & Wang, Jiafeng & Wan, Haibin, 2025. "Q-learning promotes the evolution of fairness and generosity in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 200(P2).
    16. Alex Lehr & Jana Vyrastekova & Agnes Akkerman & René Torenvlied, 2018. "Horizontal and vertical spillovers in wage bargaining: A theoretical framework and experimental evidence," Rationality and Society, , vol. 30(1), pages 3-53, February.
    17. Ignacio Tamarit & Angel Sánchez, 2016. "Emotions and Strategic Behaviour: The Case of the Ultimatum Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-12, July.
    18. Chen, Peikun & Li, Jianbiao & Pan, Jingjing & Zhu, Chengkang, 2025. "Expectations matter in bottom-line setting: Theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    19. Bhattacharya, Haimanti & Dugar, Subhasish & Sarkar, Sumit, 2025. "Bargaining over taking from a powerless third party: The role of social preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    20. Caginalp, Gunduz & Ho, Shirley J., 2018. "Does competition inhibit fairness and altruism?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 54-64.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:apmaco:v:486:y:2025:i:c:s0096300324005034. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/applied-mathematics-and-computation .

    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.