Activities‎ > ‎talks_calendar‎ > ‎

Online Reputation Dynamics

Brief Presentation:  

The reputational dynamics influence our prosocial behavior in real life in many ways (Simpson & Willer 2008), but the question is: how they affect our virtual life? Duradoni et al., (2017) found a complex relationship regulating the impact of reputation on prosocial behaviour in virtual environments. From one side, they discovered that just the existence of a reputational system enhances prosocial behaviour; from the other side they found that reputation can be biased by a sort of “inertia”.  Despite the literature sheds light on these phenomenon, today a punctual modeling of its size effect is still missing. In order to fill this gap we recruited a sample of 444 high school students through a voluntary census and, after a psychological and socio-demographic assessment, they played an ad hoc modified version of Ultimatum Game. We discovered that when reputation is switched off the donation is higher and when the donor has a good reputation the acceptance rate is generally greater. Furthermore, the feedback coherence is influenced by reputation; sometimes the receivers are willing to like lower donations from high reputation donors and dislike higher donations from low reputation donors. Finally, the donation’s average increases in a non linear way due to reputation. Noteworthy, when the reputation is off people tend to donate like the receiver has good reputation.

Sketch Presentation:

Online Ultimatum Game: the impact of “reputation”

    • Alexander RD (1987) The biology of moral systems. de Gruyter, New York

    • Duradoni, M., Bagnoli, F., & Guazzini, A. (2016). Non-trivial reputation effects on social decision making in virtual environment. In International conference on internet science (pp. 115–122).

    • Duradoni, M., Bagnoli, F., & Guazzini, A. (2017, November). “Reputational Heuristics” Violate Rationality: New Empirical Evidence in an Online Multiplayer Game. In International Conference on Internet Science (pp. 370-376). Springer, Cham.

    • Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 3(4), 367-388

    • Przepiorka, W., Norbutas, L., & Corten, R. (2017). Order without law: Reputation promotes cooperation in a cryptomarket for illegal drugs. European Sociological Review, 33(6), 752–764.

    • Raihani, N. J., & Bshary, R. (2015). The reputation of punishers. Trends in ecology & evolution, 30 (2), 98–103.  

    • Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A., Kraft-Todd, G. T., Newman, G. E., Wurzbacher, O., Nowak, M. A., & Greene, J. D. (2014). Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature communications, 5 , 3677.

    • Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European review of social psychology, 6(1), 161-198.

    • Simpson, B., & Willer, R. (2008). Altruism and indirect reciprocity: The interaction of person and situation in prosocial behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71(1), 37-52.

    • Tisserand, J.-C., et al. (2014). Ultimatum game: A meta-analysis of the past three decades of experimental research. In Proceedings of international academic conferences

    • Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska press.

    • Wu, J., Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. (2016). Gossip versus punishment: The efficiency of reputation to promote and maintain cooperation. Scientific reports, 6, 23919.

    • Wikipedia contributors. (2017, December 3). Ultimatum game. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:35, March 20, 2018, from