IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2511.20248.html

Realistic gossip in Trust Game on networks: the GODS model

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Majewski
  • Francesca Giardini

Abstract

Gossip has been shown to be a relatively efficient solution to problems of cooperation in reputation-based systems of exchange, but many studies don't conceptualize gossiping in a realistic way, often assuming near-perfect information or broadcast-like dynamics of its spread. To solve this problem, we developed an agent-based model that pairs realistic gossip processes with different variants of Trust Game. The results show that cooperators suffer when local interactions govern spread of gossip, because they cannot discriminate against defectors. Realistic gossiping increases the overall amount of resources, but is more likely to promote defection. Moreover, even partner selection through dynamic networks can lead to high payoff inequalities among agent types. Cooperators face a choice between outcompeting defectors and overall growth. By blending direct and indirect reciprocity with reputations we show that gossiping increases the efficiency of cooperation by an order of magnitude.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Majewski & Francesca Giardini, 2025. "Realistic gossip in Trust Game on networks: the GODS model," Papers 2511.20248, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2511.20248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.20248
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simone Righi & Károly Takács, 2022. "Gossip: Perspective Taking to Establish Cooperation," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1086-1100, December.
    2. Fonseca, Miguel A. & Peters, Kim, 2018. "Will any gossip do? Gossip does not need to be perfectly accurate to promote trust," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 253-281.
    3. Johnson, Noel D. & Mislin, Alexandra A., 2011. "Trust games: A meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 865-889.
    4. Greif, Avner, 1993. "Contract Enforceability and Economic Institutions in Early Trade: the Maghribi Traders' Coalition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(3), pages 525-548, June.
    5. Naoki Masuda & Mitsuhiro Nakamura, 2012. "Coevolution of Trustful Buyers and Cooperative Sellers in the Trust Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-11, September.
    6. Oded Galor & Omer Moav, 2004. "From Physical to Human Capital Accumulation: Inequality and the Process of Development," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 71(4), pages 1001-1026.
    7. Fehr, Dietmar & Sutter, Matthias, 2019. "Gossip and the efficiency of interactions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 448-460.
    8. Laura Schmid & Krishnendu Chatterjee & Christian Hilbe & Martin A. Nowak, 2021. "A unified framework of direct and indirect reciprocity," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(10), pages 1292-1302, October.
    9. Hisashi Ohtsuki & Yoh Iwasa & Martin A Nowak, 2015. "Reputation Effects in Public and Private Interactions," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-11, November.
    10. Shu-Heng Chen & Bin-Tzong Chie & Tong Zhang, 2015. "Network-Based Trust Games: An Agent-Based Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(3), pages 1-5.
    11. Boero, Riccardo & Bravo, Giangiacomo & Castellani, Marco & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2009. "Reputational cues in repeated trust games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 871-877, December.
    12. Emanuele Borgonovo & Marco Pangallo & Jan Rivkin & Leonardo Rizzo & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2022. "Sensitivity analysis of agent-based models: a new protocol," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 52-94, March.
    13. Andreas Flache & Michael Mäs & Thomas Feliciani & Edmund Chattoe-Brown & Guillaume Deffuant & Sylvie Huet & Jan Lorenz, 2017. "Models of Social Influence: Towards the Next Frontiers," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(4), pages 1-2.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fonseca, Miguel A. & Peters, Kim, 2018. "Will any gossip do? Gossip does not need to be perfectly accurate to promote trust," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 253-281.
    2. Campbell, Sandy & Gneezy, Uri, 2024. "Smartphone use decreases trustworthiness of strangers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    3. Paul Rauwolf & Joanna J. Bryson, 2018. "Expectations of Fairness and Trust Co-Evolve in Environments of Partial Information," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 891-917, December.
    4. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2014. "Trust, but verify? When trustworthiness is observable only through (costly) monitoring," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 20, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    5. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2021. "Nonverbal content and trust: An experiment on digital communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1517-1532, October.
    6. Kenju Kamei & Artem Nesterov, 2024. "Endogenous monitoring through voluntary reporting in an infinitely repeated prisoner's dilemma game: experimental evidence," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 91(364), pages 1553-1577, October.
    7. Jin, Shan & Yan, Sibo & Zhang, Xiaomeng, 2025. "Measuring trust across countries: Inconsistencies between experiments and surveys," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    8. Keser, Claudia & Späth, Maximilian, 2021. "The value of bad ratings: An experiment on the impact of distortions in reputation systems," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    9. Sofianos, Andis, 2022. "Self-reported & revealed trust: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    10. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    11. Antonio Cabrales & Irma Clots-Figueras & Roberto Hernán-Gonzalez & Praveen Kujal, 2020. "Instiutions, Opportunism and Prosocial Behavior: Some Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 20-17, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    12. Behrooz Hassani-Mahmooei & Brett W. Parris, 2014. "Dynamics of effort allocation and evolution of trust: an agent-based model," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 133-154, June.
    13. Hassani Mahmooei, Behrooz & Parris, Brett, 2012. "Dynamics of effort allocation and evolution of trust: an agent-based model," MPRA Paper 44919, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Kas, Judith & Delnoij, Joyce & Corten, Rense & Parigi, Paolo, 2022. "Trust spillovers in the sharing economy: Does international Airbnb experience foster cross‐national trust?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 21(3), pages 509-522.
    15. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2020. "Nonverbal content and swift trust: An experiment on digital communication," Working Papers 2008, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    16. Milosav, Đorđe & Nistotskaya, Marina, 2024. "Unpacking the relevance of interpersonal trust in the blockchain era: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    17. Greiff, Matthias & Paetzel, Fabian, 2020. "Information about average evaluations spurs cooperation: An experiment on noisy reputation systems," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 334-356.
    18. Shu-Heng Chen & Bin-Tzong Chie & Tong Zhang, 2015. "Network-Based Trust Games: An Agent-Based Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(3), pages 1-5.
    19. Giuseppe Danese & Luigi Mittone, 2020. "On pledging one's trustworthiness through gifts: an experimental inquiry," CEEL Working Papers 2001, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    20. Wang, Chaoqian, 2024. "Evolution of trust in structured populations," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 471(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2511.20248. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.