Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40386680›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2025

Reputation-based reciprocity in human-bot and human-human networks.

Ashley Harrell, Margaret L Traeger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. On the optimal integration of intelligent agents into network systems to steer cooperation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Ashley HarrellDepartment of Sociology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0111-6729
Margaret L TraegerDepartment of Information Technology, Analytics, and Operations, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6782-0140

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People help those with a reputation for helping others; as a result, they are more likely to behave generously when reputational concerns are present. Because people are increasingly making helping decisions in the presence of both humans and AI in "hybrid systems," here we ask whether and how reputation-based reciprocity (RBR) promotes generosity in human-bot networks, compared with human-only ones. In two experiments-one where interactants were embedded in a patterned indirect reciprocity network and either knew or did not know that bots were present and another entailing one-shot interactions between humans and bots-we demonstrate that RBR is significantly less effective at fostering generosity in hybrid systems. At the network level, people are less generous when they know bots are present. In line with prior work, our findings suggest that this is driven by altered norms about helping in (known) hybrid networks governed by RBR: people do not believe bots deserve help like humans do, reducing overall generosity. In one-shot dyadic interactions, we likewise demonstrate that people are less willing to help bots even when they can receive reputational rewards for helping and even toward bots that have reputations for helping humans (or bots). People are also less likely to help people who help bots (compared with people who help people) and punish people who fail to help bots (compared with people who fail to help people). Adding bots to RBR networks affects not only humans' prosocial behavior, but also their evaluations of generosity toward human and bot alters.

Indexed as

cooperationgenerosityhuman–robot interactionindirect reciprocitynetwork science

Identifiers

PMID40386680
PMCPMC12084833

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.