IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jas/jasssj/2005-17-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Repage: REPutation and ImAGE Among Limited Autonomous Partners

Author

Abstract

This paper introduces Repage, a computational system that adopts a cognitive theory of reputation. We propose a fundamental difference between image and reputation, which suggests a way out from the paradox of sociality, i.e. the trade-off between agents' autonomy and their need to adapt to social environment. On one hand, agents are autonomous if they select partners based on their social evaluations (images). On the other, they need to update evaluations by taking into account others'. Hence, social evaluations must circulate and be represented as "reported evaluations" (reputation), before and in order for agents to decide whether to accept them or not. To represent this level of cognitive detail in artificial agents' design, there is a need for a specialised subsystem, which we are in the course of developing for the public domain. In the paper, after a short presentation of the cognitive theory of reputation and its motivations, we describe the implementation of Repage.

Suggested Citation

  • Jordi Sabater-Mir & Mario Paolucci & Rosaria Conte, 2006. "Repage: REPutation and ImAGE Among Limited Autonomous Partners," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(2), pages 1-3.
    • Handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2005-17-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jasss.org/9/2/3/3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary E. Bolton & Elena Katok & Axel Ockenfels, 2004. "How Effective Are Electronic Reputation Mechanisms? An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1587-1602, November.
    2. Kreps, David M. & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Reputation and imperfect information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 253-279, August.
    3. Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, 2003. "Efficiency and Robustness of Binary Feedback Mechanisms in Trading Environments with Moral Hazard," Working papers 4297-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Luis Cabral & Ali Hortacsu, 2004. "The Dynamics of Seller Reputation: Theory and Evidence from eBay," NBER Working Papers 10363, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6685), pages 573-577, June.
    6. M.A. Nowak & K. Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring/ The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity," Working Papers ir98040, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    7. Gary Bolton & Elena Katok & Axel Ockenfels, 2002. "How Effective are Online Reputation Mechanisms?," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2002-25, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luis R. Izquierdo & Doina Olaru & Segismundo S. Izquierdo & Sharon Purchase & Geoffrey N. Soutar, 2015. "Fuzzy Logic for Social Simulation Using NetLogo," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(4), pages 1-1.
    2. Luis G. Nardin & Anarosa A. F. Brandão & Elisabeti Kira & Jaime S. Sichman, 2014. "Effects of reputation communication expressiveness in virtual societies," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 113-132, June.
    3. Mario Paolucci & Jaime Simão Sichman, 2014. "Reputation to understand society," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 211-217, June.
    4. Karin Hansson & Petter Karlström & Aron Larsson & Harko Verhagen, 2014. "Reputation, inequality and meeting techniques: visualising user hierarchy to support collaboration," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 155-175, June.
    5. Westhoff, Joachim, 2008. "Grid computing in small and medium-sized enterprises: An exploratory study of corporate attitudes towards economic and security-related issues," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 32, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    6. Yutaka NAKAI & Masayoshi Muto, 2008. "Emergence and Collapse of Peace with Friend Selection Strategies," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(3), pages 1-6.
    7. Juan Pablo Soto & Aurora Vizcaíno & Mario Piattini, 2017. "Fostering Knowledge Reuse in Communities of Practice by Using a Trust Model and Agents," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(05), pages 1409-1439, September.

    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. Robert Gazzale & Tapan Khopkar, 2011. "Remain silent and ye shall suffer: seller exploitation of reticent buyers in an experimental reputation system," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(2), pages 273-285, May.
    2. Schram, Arthur & Brandts, Jordi & Gërxhani, Klarita, 2010. "Information, bilateral negotiations, and worker recruitment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(8), pages 1035-1058, November.
    3. Gaudeul, Alexia & Keser, Claudia & Müller, Stephan, 2021. "The evolution of morals under indirect reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 251-277.
    4. Engelmann, Dirk & Fischbacher, Urs, 2009. "Indirect reciprocity and strategic reputation building in an experimental helping game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 399-407, November.
    5. Naoki Masuda & Mitsuhiro Nakamura, 2012. "Coevolution of Trustful Buyers and Cooperative Sellers in the Trust Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-11, September.
    6. Rense Corten & Judith Kas & Timm Teubner & Martijn Arets, 2023. "The role of contextual and contentual signals for online trust: Evidence from a crowd work experiment," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Li, Lingfang (Ivy) & Xiao, Erte, 2010. "Money Talks? An Experimental Study of Rebate in Reputation System Design," MPRA Paper 22401, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Gary Bolton & Ben Greiner & Axel Ockenfels, 2018. "Dispute Resolution or Escalation? The Strategic Gaming of Feedback Withdrawal Options in Online Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4009-4031, September.
    9. Christian Siemering, 2021. "The economics of dishonest insurance companies," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 46(1), pages 1-20, March.
    10. Gong, Binglin & Yang, Chun-Lei, 2019. "Cooperation through indirect reciprocity: The impact of higher-order history," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 316-341.
    11. Charness, Gary & Du, Ninghua & Yang, Chun-Lei, 2011. "Trust and trustworthiness reputations in an investment game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 361-375, June.
    12. Jaakko Junikka & Lucas Molleman & Pieter van den Berg & Franz J Weissing & Mikael Puurtinen, 2017. "Assortment, but not knowledge of assortment, affects cooperation and individual success in human groups," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-11, October.
    13. Reeson, Andrew F. & Tisdell, John G. & McAllister, Ryan R.J., 2011. "Trust, reputation and relationships in grazing rights markets: An experimental economic study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 651-658, February.
    14. Marco A. Janssen, 2006. "Evolution of Cooperation when Feedback to Reputation Scores is Voluntary," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17.
    15. Mitzkewitz, Michael & Neugebauer, Tibor, 2020. "Can intermediaries assure contracts? Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-368.
    16. Gary Bolton & Elena Katok & Axel Ockenfels, 2002. "Bridging the Trust Gap in Electronic Markets," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2002-26, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    17. Carattini, Stefano & Gillingham, Kenneth & Meng, Xiangyu & Yoeli, Erez, 2024. "Peer-to-peer solar and social rewards: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 340-370.
    18. 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.
    19. Frauke von Bieberstein & Andrea Essl & Kathrin Friedrich, 2021. "Empathy: A clue for prosocialty and driver of indirect reciprocity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-15, August.
    20. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Reputation; Agent Systems; Cognitive Design; Fuzzy Evaluation;
    All these keywords.

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Rosaria Conte in Wikipedia English

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jas:jasssj:2005-17-3. 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: Francesco Renzini (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.