ArticlePloS one2025
Gradual reputation dynamics evolve and sustain cooperation in indirect reciprocity.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans have achieved widespread cooperation, largely sustained by mechanisms such as indirect reciprocity, which relies on reputation and social norms. People are highly motivated to maintain a good reputation, and social norms play a critical role in reputation systems by defining acceptable behavior, helping prevent exploitation by free-riders. However, there is a gap between theory and experiment in handling reputation information, with experiments often failing to capture the complexity that theoretical models propose. Here, we address two key issues: what kind of information is needed to define reputation as a social norm and the appropriate level of granularity required for reputation information to function effectively. This paper combines scenario-based experiments and evolutionary game theory to investigate the social norms individuals adopt in real-world settings, aiming to uncover the stability of these norms. Our results show that reputations should be categorized into three levels good, neutral, and bad. Results suggest gradual reputation dynamics that increase and decrease gradually due to cooperation or defection. However, a person's reputation remains unchanged only when they defect against a bad reputation. Our experimental and theoretical results support critical insights into the dynamics of reputation and social norms within indirect reciprocity, challenging traditional binary reputational evaluations. The gradual nature of reputation updating and the use of nuanced evaluations provide a more realistic model of reputation dynamics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.