IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/6zfju_v1.html

The emergence of sharing networks through indirect signaling

Author

Listed:
  • Pérez Velilla, Alejandro

    (University of California, Merced)

  • Ready, Elspeth

Abstract

Communities around the world rely on networks of resource sharing to buffer households against hardship. Yet, under such informal insurance schemes, some needy families can be systematically left out. By modeling sharing and reputational spread on a network, we show how generosity can be sustained when reputational benefits spread across a community’s communication network, but also how network density and position shape who receives transfers---well-connected households become priority receivers due to their ability to spread givers' reputation more effectively. Our analysis, combining mathematical modeling with food sharing data from an Inuit community, reveals that communication network sparsity incentivizes broader sharing, but also more selectivity. The correlation of communication network structure and resource endowment is critical for stabilizing needs-based transfers. If need status does not perfectly (negatively) correlate with social influence, marginal households in need may still be excluded from sharing. By linking individual incentives to community-wide patterns, our framework clarifies when indirect reciprocity can stabilize outcomes that show the signatures of need-based transfers.

Suggested Citation

  • Pérez Velilla, Alejandro & Ready, Elspeth, 2025. "The emergence of sharing networks through indirect signaling," SocArXiv 6zfju_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:6zfju_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/6zfju_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6941bbbb86e7ebe16e02c46f/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/6zfju_v1?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isamu Okada, 2020. "A Review of Theoretical Studies on Indirect Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Harbaugh, William T., 1998. "What do donations buy?: A model of philanthropy based on prestige and warm glow," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 269-284, February.
    3. Manfred Milinski & Dirk Semmann & Hans-Jürgen Krambeck, 2002. "Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6870), pages 424-426, January.
    4. Lee Cronk & Athena Aktipis, 2021. "Design principles for risk-pooling systems," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(7), pages 825-833, July.
    5. Andreoni, James & Petrie, Ragan, 2004. "Public goods experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fund-raising," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(7-8), pages 1605-1623, July.
    6. Amihai Glazer & Kai A. Konrad, 2008. "A Signaling Explanation for Charity," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Kai A. Konrad & Arye L. Hillman (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 2, pages 713-722, Springer.
    7. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 2005. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity," Nature, Nature, vol. 437(7063), pages 1291-1298, October.
    8. Karthik Panchanathan & Robert Boyd, 2004. "Indirect reciprocity can stabilize cooperation without the second-order free rider problem," Nature, Nature, vol. 432(7016), pages 499-502, November.
    9. Moshe Hoffman & Christian Hilbe & Martin A. Nowak, 2018. "The signal-burying game can explain why we obscure positive traits and good deeds," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(6), pages 397-404, June.
    10. Mitsuhiro Nakamura & Naoki Masuda, 2011. "Indirect Reciprocity under Incomplete Observation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-10, July.
    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. Fang, Xing, 2022. "Why we hide good deeds? The selfless and anonymous donation behavior in crowdfunding," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    2. Guttman, Joel M. & Goette, Lorenz, 2015. "Reputation, volunteering, and trust: Minimizing reliance on taste-based explanations," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 375-386.
    3. Jochimsen, Beate, 2019. "Christmas lights in Berlin: New empirical evidence for the private provision of a public good," FiFo Discussion Papers - Finanzwissenschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 19-04, University of Cologne, FiFo Institute for Public Economics.
    4. Lambarraa, Fatima & Riener, Gerhard, 2015. "On the norms of charitable giving in Islam: Two field experiments in Morocco," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 69-84.
    5. Stefano Barbieri & David A. Malueg, 2014. "Increasing Fundraising Success by Decreasing Donor Choice," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(3), pages 372-400, June.
    6. Emrah Arbak & Marie Claire Villeval, 2013. "Voluntary Leadership: Selection and Influence," Post-Print halshs-00664830, HAL.
    7. Paul J Zak & Angela A Stanton & Sheila Ahmadi, 2007. "Oxytocin Increases Generosity in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(11), pages 1-5, November.
    8. Aronsson, Thomas & Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Wendner, Ronald, 2019. "Charity, Status, and Optimal Taxation: Welfarist and Paternalist Approaches," Umeå Economic Studies 959, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    9. Emel Filiz-Ozbay & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2010. "Social Image in Public Goods Provision with Real Effort," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 1026, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.
    10. Laura Schmid & Farbod Ekbatani & Christian Hilbe & Krishnendu Chatterjee, 2023. "Quantitative assessment can stabilize indirect reciprocity under imperfect information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Tamas David-Barrett, 2022. "Clustering Drives Cooperation on Reputation Networks, All Else Fixed," Papers 2203.00372, arXiv.org.
    12. Emel Filiz-Ozbay & Erkut Ozbay, 2014. "Effect of an audience in public goods provision," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(2), pages 200-214, June.
    13. Xiaoting Zheng & Jiayue Chen & Yipeng Li, 2021. "The association between charitable giving and happiness: Evidence from the Chinese General Social Survey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(6), pages 2103-2138, December.
    14. Tatsuya Sasaki & Satoshi Uchida & Isamu Okada & Hitoshi Yamamoto, 2024. "The Evolution of Cooperation and Diversity under Integrated Indirect Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-16, April.
    15. Dannenberg, Astrid & Weingärtner, Eva, 2023. "The effects of observability and an information nudge on food choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    16. Giovanna d’Adda, 2012. "Leadership and influence: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment on local public good provision," ECON - Working Papers 059, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    17. Astrid Dannenberg & Olof Johansson‐Stenman & Heike Wetzel, 2022. "Status for the good guys: An experiment on charitable giving," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(2), pages 721-740, April.
    18. Feine, Gregor & Groh, Elke D. & von Loessl, Victor & Wetzel, Heike, 2023. "The double dividend of social information in charitable giving: Evidence from a framed field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    19. Karlan, Dean & McConnell, Margaret A., 2014. "Hey look at me: The effect of giving circles on giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 402-412.
    20. Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann, 2008. "Reciprocity, culture, and human cooperation: Previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment," Discussion Papers 2008-14, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    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:osf:socarx:6zfju_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.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.