IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esrepo/342352.html

The Role of Signals, Forgiveness, and Reputation for Cooperation (FORGIVE)

Author

Listed:
  • Dannenberg, Astrid
  • Lumkowsky, Marcel

Abstract

The project analyzes how forgiving behavior shapes cooperation in social dilemma settings in which reciprocity is the primary sustaining mechanism. In such environments, individuals rely on signals about others’ behavior to form reputations and guide expectations about future in-teractions. Sustained cooperation depends on rewarding cooperative behavior, punishing de-fections, and restoring relationships after conflict. To study these mechanisms, the project comprised three laboratory experiments with 56 sessions and 860 participants. The experi-ments examine how cooperation emerges under different forms of reciprocity and monitoring. In contrast to much of the literature, particular emphasis was placed on leniency and for-giveness, especially on whether individuals sanction defections immediately and whether co-operation can be restored after retaliation. The first experiment uses an infinitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma with imperfect monitoring, in which signals about a co-player’s behavior can differ from actual actions. Unlike prior work, these discrepancies are endogenous, as participants can deliberately misrepresent their behavior by signaling cooperation while actual-ly defecting. The results show that the possibility of cheating reduces cooperation rates, as many participants engage in misreporting. Forgiveness also declines when cheating is feasi-ble. In the second experiment, we use a more common form of imperfect monitoring, in which false signals are generated by random errors. In this context, we introduce a new set-up in which participants’ histories from earlier supergames are observable in later interactions. We find that participants become more likely to punish defections immediately when such histories are visible, possibly because they do not want to appear exploitable. The third exper-iment focuses on normative evaluations of behavior in the context of indirect reciprocity. The findings indicate that subjects generally view cooperative behavior as good and defective be-havior as bad, regardless of the context of a particular decision. This implies that subjects express limited scope for forgiveness themselves, but also that they do not punish others for being forgiving. Overall, the project shows how signaling, reputation, and forgiveness jointly influence cooperation. The findings advance our understanding of when reciprocity succeeds or fails and provide insights for institutional design under imperfect monitoring and strategic information transmission.

Suggested Citation

  • Dannenberg, Astrid & Lumkowsky, Marcel, 2026. "The Role of Signals, Forgiveness, and Reputation for Cooperation (FORGIVE)," EconStor Research Reports 342352, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esrepo:342352
    Note: Abschlussbericht für DFG-Sachbeihilfe
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/342352/1/Dannenberg_Lumkowsky_FinalReport_Forgive.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Masaki Aoyagi & V. Bhaskar & Guillaume R. Fréchette, 2019. "The Impact of Monitoring in Infinitely Repeated Games: Perfect, Public, and Private," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 1-43, February.
    2. Engelmann, Dirk & Fischbacher, Urs, 2009. "Indirect reciprocity and strategic reputation building in an experimental helping game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 399-407, November.
    3. Arechar, Antonio A. & Dreber, Anna & Fudenberg, Drew & Rand, David G., 2017. "“I'm just a soul whose intentions are good”: The role of communication in noisy repeated games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 726-743.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2002. "Altruistic punishment in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6868), pages 137-140, January.
    5. Seinen, Ingrid & Schram, Arthur, 2006. "Social status and group norms: Indirect reciprocity in a repeated helping experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 581-602, April.
    6. Drew Fudenberg & David G. Rand & Anna Dreber, 2012. "Slow to Anger and Fast to Forgive: Cooperation in an Uncertain World," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 720-749, April.
    7. Gaudeul, Alexia & Keser, Claudia & Müller, Stephan, 2021. "The evolution of morals under indirect reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 251-277.
    8. Simon Gachter & Ernst Fehr, 2000. "Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 980-994, September.
    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. Isamu Okada, 2020. "A Review of Theoretical Studies on Indirect Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Gallo, Edoardo & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Roy, Nilanjan & Teh, Tat-How, 2019. "Cooperation in an Uncertain and Dynamic World," MPRA Paper 97878, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Edoardo Gallo & Yohanes E. Riyanto & Nilanjan Roy & Tat-How Teh, 2022. "Cooperation and punishment mechanisms in uncertain and dynamic networks," Papers 2203.04001, arXiv.org.
    4. 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.
    5. E Lance Howe & James J Murphy & Drew Gerkey & Colin Thor West, 2016. "Indirect Reciprocity, Resource Sharing, and Environmental Risk: Evidence from Field Experiments in Siberia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, July.
    6. Quan, Ji & Feng, Yixin & Nie, Jiacheng & Wang, Xianjia, 2025. "Catalyst strategy for the evolution of cooperation in indirect reciprocity," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 497(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.
    9. Kamei, Kenju, 2016. "Information Disclosure and Cooperation in a Finitely-repeated Dilemma: Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 75100, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Mengyuan Zhou, 2019. "The Effect of the Source of Inheritance on Bequest Attitudes: Evidence from Japan," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2019-018, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    11. Fabian Dvorak & Sebastian Fehrler, 2024. "Negotiating Cooperation under Uncertainty: Communication in Noisy, Indefinitely Repeated Interactions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(3), pages 232-258, August.
    12. DeAngelo, Gregory & Gee, Laura Katherine, 2018. "Peers or Police? Detection and Sanctions in the Provision of Public Goods," IZA Discussion Papers 11540, IZA Network @ LISER.
    13. Giangiacomo Bravo & Lucia Tamburino, 2008. "The Evolution of Trust in Non-Simultaneous Exchange Situations," Rationality and Society, , vol. 20(1), pages 85-113, February.
    14. Alessandro Stringhi & Sara Gil-Gallen & Andrea Albertazzi, 2025. "The Enemy of my Enemy," Working Papers 2025.03, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    15. 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.
    16. Servtka, Maros, 2009. "Separating reputation, social influence, and identification effects in a dictator game," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 197-209, February.
    17. Gallo, Edoardo & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Roy, Nilanjan & Teh, Tat-How, 2022. "Cooperation and punishment mechanisms in uncertain and dynamic social networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 75-103.
    18. Tobias Hahn & Noël Albert, 2017. "Strong Reciprocity in Consumer Boycotts," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 509-524, October.
    19. Arthur Schram & Gary Charness, 2015. "Inducing Social Norms in Laboratory Allocation Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1531-1546, July.
    20. Stringhi, Alessandro & Gil-Gallen, Sara & Albertazzi, Andrea, 2025. "The Enemy of My Enemy," FEEM Working Papers 349168, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:zbw:esrepo:342352. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.