IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/apmaco/v486y2025ics0096300324005034.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The reputation-based reward mechanism promotes the evolution of fairness

Author

Listed:
  • Deng, Lili
  • Wang, Rugen
  • Liao, Ying
  • Xu, Ronghua
  • Wang, Cheng

Abstract

In real life, a good reputation generally brings positive returns to individuals. For example, merchants with numerous good reviews usually gain higher profits. Considering this in the ultimatum game, we propose a reputation-based reward mechanism to investigate the evolution of fairness. Specifically, individuals' reputations evolve dynamically based on the outcomes of games. At the same time, we set a reputation threshold in the population. When individuals' reputations exceed the reputation threshold, they are considered excellent. Otherwise, they are ordinary. The excellent individuals can receive extra rewards compared to the ordinary ones. Finally, individuals' total payoffs determine their fitness within the population. Based on these settings, this paper mainly explores how reputation threshold, weight factor and reward strength affect the evolution of fairness. Through a series of simulations, the reputation-based rewards mechanism is proved to effectively promote the fairness in the population. To be specific, we find that higher reputation thresholds and smaller values of weight factor significantly enhance the promotion effect of reward on fairness. Simultaneously, there is a specific correspondence between the reputation threshold and the weight factor. When reward strength is fixed, for different reputation thresholds, the optimal value of weight factor to achieve maximum fairness levels also varies. Additionally, increasing reward strength can significantly promote fairness.

Suggested Citation

  • Deng, Lili & Wang, Rugen & Liao, Ying & Xu, Ronghua & Wang, Cheng, 2025. "The reputation-based reward mechanism promotes the evolution of fairness," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 486(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:apmaco:v:486:y:2025:i:c:s0096300324005034
    DOI: 10.1016/j.amc.2024.129042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0096300324005034
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.amc.2024.129042?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deng, Lili & Wang, Hongsi & Wang, Rugen & Xu, Ronghua & Wang, Cheng, 2024. "The adaptive adjustment of node weights based on reputation and memory promotes fairness," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    2. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    3. Zhou, Tianwei & Ding, Shuai & Fan, Wenjuan & Wang, Hao, 2016. "An improved public goods game model with reputation effect on the spatial lattices," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 130-135.
    4. Zhang, Yanling & Chen, Xiaojie & Liu, Aizhi & Sun, Changyin, 2018. "The effect of the stake size on the evolution of fairness," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 321(C), pages 641-653.
    5. Berger, Ulrich & Grüne, Ansgar, 2016. "On the stability of cooperation under indirect reciprocity with first-order information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 19-33.
    6. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    7. Greiff, Matthias & Paetzel, Fabian, 2016. "Second-order beliefs in reputation systems with endogenous evaluations – an experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 32-43.
    8. Yanling Zhang & Jian Liu & Aming Li, 2019. "Effects of Empathy on the Evolutionary Dynamics of Fairness in Group-Structured Systems," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-13, November.
    9. Guth, Werner & Tietz, Reinhard, 1990. "Ultimatum bargaining behavior : A survey and comparison of experimental results," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 417-449, September.
    10. Pan, Qiuhui & Wang, Linpeng & He, Mingfeng, 2020. "Social dilemma based on reputation and successive behavior," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 384(C).
    11. Zhang, Yanling & Yang, Shuo & Chen, Xiaojie & Bai, Yanbing & Xie, Guangming, 2023. "Reputation update of responders efficiently promotes the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    12. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    13. John M. McNamara & Polly Doodson, 2015. "Reputation can enhance or suppress cooperation through positive feedback," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, May.
    14. Hu, Qi & Jin, Tao & Jiang, Yulian & Liu, Xingwen, 2024. "Reputation incentives with public supervision promote cooperation in evolutionary games," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 466(C).
    15. Wang, Chengjiang & Wang, Li & Wang, Juan & Sun, Shiwen & Xia, Chengyi, 2017. "Inferring the reputation enhances the cooperation in the public goods game on interdependent lattices," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 293(C), pages 18-29.
    16. Chen, Ya-Shan & Yang, Han-Xin & Guo, Wen-Zhong & Liu, Geng-Geng, 2018. "Prisoner’s dilemma game on reputation-based weighted network," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 64-68.
    17. Croson, Rachel T. A., 1996. "Information in ultimatum games: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 197-212, August.
    18. Wang, Jianwei & He, Jialu & Yu, Fengyuan, 2021. "Heterogeneity of reputation increment driven by individual influence promotes cooperation in spatial social dilemma," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    19. Jian, Qing & Li, Xiaopeng & Wang, Juan & Xia, Chengyi, 2021. "Impact of reputation assortment on tag-mediated altruistic behaviors in the spatial lattice," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 396(C).
    20. Quan, Ji & Cui, Shihui & Chen, Wenman & Wang, Xianjia, 2023. "Reputation-based probabilistic punishment on the evolution of cooperation in the spatial public goods game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 441(C).
    21. Zhao, Yakun & Xiong, Tianyu & Zheng, Lei & Li, Yumeng & Chen, Xiaojie, 2020. "The effect of similarity on the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    22. Feng, Kehuan & Han, Songlin & Feng, Minyu & Szolnoki, Attila, 2024. "An evolutionary game with reputation-based imitation-mutation dynamics," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 472(C).
    23. Chu, Chen & Zhai, Yao & Mu, Chunjiang & Hu, Die & Li, Tong & Shi, Lei, 2019. "Reputation-based popularity promotes cooperation in the spatial prisoner's dilemma game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 362(C), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Deng, Lili & Wang, Hongsi & Wang, Rugen & Xu, Ronghua & Wang, Cheng, 2024. "The adaptive adjustment of node weights based on reputation and memory promotes fairness," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    2. Lv, Ran & Qian, Jia-Li & Hao, Qing-Yi & Wu, Chao-Yun & Guo, Ning & Ling, Xiang, 2024. "The impact of reputation-based heterogeneous evaluation and learning on cooperation in spatial public goods game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    3. Werner Güth & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler & Alexandra K. Zaby, 2017. "Blindfolded vs. Informed Ultimatum Bargaining – A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 18(4), pages 444-467, November.
    4. Zheng, Lei & Li, Youqi & Zhou, Jingsai & Li, Yumeng, 2022. "The effect of celebrity on the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 585(C).
    5. Zhao, Yakun & Xiong, Tianyu & Zheng, Lei & Li, Yumeng & Chen, Xiaojie, 2020. "The effect of similarity on the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    6. Eckel, Catherine & Gintis, Herbert, 2010. "Blaming the messenger: Notes on the current state of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 109-119, January.
    7. Hoppe, Eva I. & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2015. "Do sellers offer menus of contracts to separate buyer types? An experimental test of adverse selection theory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 17-33.
    8. Thomas Neumann & Sabrina Kierspel & Ivo Windrich & Roger Berger & Bodo Vogt, 2018. "How to Split Gains and Losses? Experimental Evidence of Dictator and Ultimatum Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, October.
    9. Lisa Bruttel & Werner Güth & Juri Nithammer & Andreas Orland, 2022. "Inefficient Cooperation Under Stochastic and Strategic Uncertainty," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(4-5), pages 755-782, May.
    10. Zhang, Yanling & Yang, Shuo & Chen, Xiaojie & Bai, Yanbing & Xie, Guangming, 2023. "Reputation update of responders efficiently promotes the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    11. Gonzalez-Sanchez, Eric & Loyola, Gino, 2024. "Ultimatum bargaining with envy under incomplete information," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-11.
    12. Burks, Stephen V. & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Verhoogen, Eric, 2003. "Playing both roles in the trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 195-216, June.
    13. Christian Korth, 2009. "Reciprocity—An Indirect Evolutionary Analysis," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Fairness in Bargaining and Markets, chapter 0, pages 35-55, Springer.
    14. Binmore, Ken & McCarthy, John & Ponti, Giovanni & Samuelson, Larry & Shaked, Avner, 2002. "A Backward Induction Experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 48-88, May.
    15. van Damme, Eric & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Roth, Alvin E. & Samuelson, Larry & Winter, Eyal & Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel & Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg & Gneezy, Uri & Kocher, Martin G, 2014. "How Werner Güth's ultimatum game shaped our understanding of social behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 292-318.
    16. Gulyás, Attila, 2011. "Diktátor a barátom? A barátság és a méltányosság kapcsolata [Is my friend a dictator? The relation between friendship and impartiality]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(5), pages 430-444.
    17. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    18. Eva I. Hoppe & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2013. "Contracting under Incomplete Information and Social Preferences: An Experimental Study," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(4), pages 1516-1544.
    19. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    20. Aina, Chiara & Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Gamba, Astrid, 2020. "Frustration and anger in the Ultimatum Game: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 150-167.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:apmaco:v:486:y:2025:i:c:s0096300324005034. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/applied-mathematics-and-computation .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.