Four Puzzles of Reputation-Based Cooperation : Content, Process, Honesty, and Structure.

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY Human Nature-An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective Pub Date : 2022-03-01 Epub Date: 2021-12-28 DOI:10.1007/s12110-021-09419-3
Francesca Giardini, Daniel Balliet, Eleanor A Power, Szabolcs Számadó, Károly Takács
{"title":"Four Puzzles of Reputation-Based Cooperation : Content, Process, Honesty, and Structure.","authors":"Francesca Giardini, Daniel Balliet, Eleanor A Power, Szabolcs Számadó, Károly Takács","doi":"10.1007/s12110-021-09419-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research in various disciplines has highlighted that humans are uniquely able to solve the problem of cooperation through the informal mechanisms of reputation and gossip. Reputation coordinates the evaluative judgments of individuals about one another. Direct observation of actions and communication are the essential routes that are used to establish and update reputations. In large groups, where opportunities for direct observation are limited, gossip becomes an important channel to share individual perceptions and evaluations of others that can be used to condition cooperative action. Although reputation and gossip might consequently support large-scale human cooperation, four puzzles need to be resolved to understand the operation of reputation-based mechanisms. First, we need empirical evidence of the processes and content that form reputations and how this may vary cross-culturally. Second, we lack an understanding of how reputation is determined from the muddle of imperfect, biased inputs people receive. Third, coordination between individuals is only possible if reputation sharing and signaling is to a large extent reliable and valid. Communication, however, is not necessarily honest and reliable, so theoretical and empirical work is needed to understand how gossip and reputation can effectively promote cooperation despite the circulation of dishonest gossip. Fourth, reputation is not constructed in a social vacuum; hence we need a better understanding of the way in which the structure of interactions affects the efficiency of gossip for establishing reputations and fostering cooperation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47797,"journal":{"name":"Human Nature-An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective","volume":"33 1","pages":"43-61"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8964644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Nature-An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-021-09419-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research in various disciplines has highlighted that humans are uniquely able to solve the problem of cooperation through the informal mechanisms of reputation and gossip. Reputation coordinates the evaluative judgments of individuals about one another. Direct observation of actions and communication are the essential routes that are used to establish and update reputations. In large groups, where opportunities for direct observation are limited, gossip becomes an important channel to share individual perceptions and evaluations of others that can be used to condition cooperative action. Although reputation and gossip might consequently support large-scale human cooperation, four puzzles need to be resolved to understand the operation of reputation-based mechanisms. First, we need empirical evidence of the processes and content that form reputations and how this may vary cross-culturally. Second, we lack an understanding of how reputation is determined from the muddle of imperfect, biased inputs people receive. Third, coordination between individuals is only possible if reputation sharing and signaling is to a large extent reliable and valid. Communication, however, is not necessarily honest and reliable, so theoretical and empirical work is needed to understand how gossip and reputation can effectively promote cooperation despite the circulation of dishonest gossip. Fourth, reputation is not constructed in a social vacuum; hence we need a better understanding of the way in which the structure of interactions affects the efficiency of gossip for establishing reputations and fostering cooperation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于声誉的合作的四个难题:内容、过程、诚信和结构。
各学科的研究都强调,人类能够通过声誉和流言蜚语等非正式机制解决合作问题,这是人类独有的能力。声誉协调着个人对彼此的评价判断。对行动的直接观察和交流是建立和更新声誉的基本途径。在大型群体中,由于直接观察的机会有限,流言蜚语就成了分享个人看法和对他人评价的重要渠道,而这些看法和评价可用来调节合作行动。尽管声誉和流言蜚语可能因此支持大规模的人类合作,但要理解基于声誉的机制的运作,还需要解决四个难题。首先,我们需要关于声誉形成的过程和内容的经验证据,以及这种过程和内容在不同文化背景下的差异。其次,我们缺乏对声誉如何从人们接收到的不完美、有偏见的信息中决定的理解。第三,只有当声誉共享和信号传递在很大程度上是可靠和有效的,个体之间的协调才有可能。然而,交流并不一定诚实可靠,因此需要开展理论和实证工作,以了解尽管存在不诚实的流言蜚语,流言蜚语和声誉如何有效地促进合作。第四,声誉不是在社会真空中构建的;因此,我们需要更好地理解互动结构如何影响流言蜚语建立声誉和促进合作的效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
8.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Human Nature is dedicated to advancing the interdisciplinary investigation of the biological, social, and environmental factors that underlie human behavior. It focuses primarily on the functional unity in which these factors are continuously and mutually interactive. These include the evolutionary, biological, and sociological processes as they interact with human social behavior; the biological and demographic consequences of human history; the cross-cultural, cross-species, and historical perspectives on human behavior; and the relevance of a biosocial perspective to scientific, social, and policy issues.
期刊最新文献
Love as a Commitment Device  : Evidence from a Cross-Cultural Study across 90 Countries. Ecological Threats and Cultural Systems : Epidemics and Natural Disasters Do Not Predict Collectivism. The Nature and Motivation of Human Cooperation from Variant Public Goods Games. The Collector Hypothesis : Who Benefits More from Art, the Artist or the Collector? Hadza Landscape Burning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1