Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30287848›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Experimental evidence of selective inattention in reputation-based cooperation.

Isamu Okada, Hitoshi Yamamoto, Yoshiki Sato, Satoshi Uchida, Tatsuya Sasaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Social norms and group-bounded indirect reciprocity.Evolutionary human sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Isamu OkadaDepartment of Business Administration, Soka University, Tangi 1-236, Hachioji, Tokyo, 192-8577, Japan. okada@soka.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9943-2668
Hitoshi YamamotoDepartment of Business Administration, Rissho University, Osaki 4-2-16, Shinagawa, Tokyo, 141-8602, Japan.
Yoshiki SatoThe United Graduate School of Education, Tokyo Gakugei University, Nukuikita 4-1-1, Koganei, Tokyo, 184-8501, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2401-9924
Satoshi UchidaResearch Center for Ethi-Culture Studies, RINRI Institute, Kioicho 4-5, Chiyoda, Tokyo, 102-8561, Japan.
Tatsuya SasakiFaculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, 1090, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4635-1389

Funding

Austrian Science Fund (FWF Der Wissenschaftsfonds) P27018-G11Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) 16H03120Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) 17H02044
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reputation-based cooperation is often observed in modern society. People gain several types of information by assessing others. Among these, the most important information is the actions of people and those of their recipients. However, almost all studies assume that people consider all of the information they receive. This assumption is extreme, and people engaging in reputation-based cooperation may not pay attention to some information, i.e., they may display selective inattention. We demonstrate that subjects' decision-making in relation to cooperative action depends on the content of the information they receive about their recipients. Our results show that subjects either consider or ignore information depending on the content of that information. When their recipients had cooperated previously, subjects cooperated without considering the information they received. When the recipients had played before with those who had bad reputations, subjects did not use that information, regardless of whether it was disclosed proactively. In other cases, subjects considered information on both the previous actions of recipients and those of the recipients' own recipients. We found that subjects did not always use the information to make decisions, although they willingly received information about their recipients. This supports the proposition that selective inattention occurs in reputation-based cooperation.

Indexed as

AttentionCooperative BehaviorDecision MakingInterpersonal RelationsAdultFemaleHumansMaleModels, PsychologicalYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30287848
PMCPMC6172233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.