Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reputation for Complex Societies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Simulating Social Complexity

Part of the book series: Understanding Complex Systems ((UCS))

  • 2198 Accesses

Abstract

Reputation, the germ of gossip, is addressed in this chapter as a distributed instrument for social order. In literature, reputation is shown to promote (a) social control in cooperative contexts—like social groups and subgroups—and (b) partner selection in competitive ones, like (e-) markets and industrial districts. Current technology that affects, employs and extends reputation, applied to electronic markets or multi-agent systems, is discussed in light of its theoretical background. In order to compare reputation systems with their original analogue, a social cognitive model of reputation is presented. The application of the model to the theoretical study of norm-abiding behaviour and partner selection are discussed, as well as the refinement and improvement of current reputation technology. The chapter concludes with remarks and ideas for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to the US-based Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), losses as a result of auto-auction fraud exceeded $8.2 million dollars in 2011.

  2. 2.

    A belief or a goal is social when it mentions another agent and possibly one or more of his or her mental states (for an in-depth discussion of these notions, see Conte and Castelfranchi 1995; Conte 1999).

References

  • Abdul-Rahman, A., & Hailes, S. (1997). A distributed trust model. In Proceedings of the 1997 Workshop on New Security Paradigms. Langdale: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof, G. (1970). The market for lemons: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanisms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. (1987). The biology of moral systems. New York: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmann, R. (1998). In T. Malsch (Ed.), Kooperation, vertrauen und macht in systemen verteilter künstlicher intelligenz. Eine vorstudie zum verhältnis von soziologischer theorie und technischer modellierung (Sozionik ed., pp. 197–234). Berlin: Sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkow, J. H. (1996). Beneath new culture is old psychology: Gossip and social stratification. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind. Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps you in line: Gossip increases contributions to the group. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 642–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertino, E., & Matei, S. A. (Eds.). (2014). Roles, trust, and reputation in social media knowledge markets: theory and methods (computational social sciences). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G., Katok, E., & Ockenfels, A. (2004). How Effective Are Electronic Reputation Mechanisms? An Experimental Investigation. Management Science, 50(11), 1587–1602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabral, L., & Hortaçsu, A. (2010). The dynamics of seller reputation: Evidence from ebay. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 58(1), 54–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, V., Giardini, F., Vilone, D., & Paolucci, M. (2016). Partner selection supported by opaque reputation promotes cooperative behavior. Judgement and Decision Making, 11(6), 589–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbo, J., Molina, J. M., & Davila, J. (2002). Comparing predictions of SPORAS vs. a fuzzy reputation agent system. In 3rd International Conference on Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Systems (pp. 147–153). Switzerland: Interlaken.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, J. P. (2007). Punishing free-riders: How group size affects mutual monitoring and the provision of public goods. Games and Economic Behavior, 60(1), 31–51.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi, C. (1998). Modelling social action for AI agents. Artificial Intelligence, 103, 157–182.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi, C., Conte, R., & Paolucci, M. (1998). Normative reputation and the costs of compliance. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1(3). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/1/3/3.html

  • Conte, R. (1999). Social intelligence among autonomous agents. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 5, 202–228.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Conte, R., & Castelfranchi, C. (1995). Cognitive and social action. London: London University College of London Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte, R., & Paolucci, M. (1999). Reproduction of normative agents: A simulation study. Adaptive Behaviour, special issue on Simulation Models of Social Agents, 7, 301–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte, R., & Paolucci, M. (2002). Reputation in artificial societies: Social beliefs for social order. Norwell: Kluwer Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Conte, R., & Paolucci, M. (2003). Social cognitive factors of unfair ratings in reputation reporting systems. In J. Liu, C. Liu, M. Klush, N. Zhong, & N. Cercone (Eds.), Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC International Conference on Web Intelligence-WI 2003 (pp. 316–322). Halifax: IEEE Computer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C., & Dignum, F. (1998). Autonomous norm-acceptance. In Intelligent agents. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cravens, K., Goad Oliver, E., & Ramamoorti, S. (2003). The reputation index: Measuring and managing corporate reputation. European Management Journal, 21(2), 201–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellarocas, C. N. (2003). The digitalization of word-of-mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms (MIT Sloan Working Paper 4296-03).

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Tosto, G., Giardini, F., & Conte, R. (2010). Reputation and economic performance in industrial districts: Modelling social complexity through multi-agent systems. In K. Takadama, C. Cioffi-Revilla, & G. Deffuant (Eds.), Simulating interacting agents and social phenomena (pp. 165–176). Tokyo: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, A., Jann, B., Przepiorka, W., & Wehrli, S. (2014). Reputation formation and the evolution of cooperation in anonymous online markets. American Sociological Review, 79(1), 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreber, A., Rand, D., Fudenberg, D., & Nowak, M. (2008). Winners don’t punish. Nature, 452, 348–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. London: Faber and Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 14, 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fioretti, G. (2005). Agent based models of industrial clusters and districts. In Contemporary issues in urban and regional economics. New York: Nova Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation, in Wiley Encyclopedia of Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2006). How we predict what other people are going to do. Brain Research, 1079(1), 36–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R., Ostrom, E., & Walker, J. (1990). The Nature of Common-Pool Resource Problems. Rationality and Society, 2, 335–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giardini, F., & Conte, R. (2012). Gossip for social control in natural and artificial societies. Simulation, 88(1), 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giardini, F., & Vilone, D. (2016). Evolution of gossip-based indirect reciprocity on a bipartite network. Scientific Reports, 6, 37931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giardini, F., Di Tosto, G., & Conte, R. (2008). A model for simulating reputation dynamics in industrial districts. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 16, 231–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giardini, F., Paolucci, M., Adamatti, D., & Conte, R. (2014). Group size and gossip strategies: An ABM tool for investigating reputation-based cooperation. In MABS 2014: Multi-agent-based simulation XV (pp. 104–118). Cham: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluckman, M. (1963). Gossip and scandal. Current Anthropology, 4, 307–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E. R., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long Rage Planning, 31(5), 695–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greif, A. (1993). Contract enforceability and economic institutions in early trade: the Maghribi traders’ coalition. American Economic Review, 83(3), 525–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hales, D. (2002). Group reputation supports beneficent norms. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 5(4). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/4/4.html

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrikx, F., Bubendorfer, K., & Chard, R. (2015). Reputation systems: a survey and taxonomy. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 75, 184–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huynh, D., Jennings, N. R., & Shadbolt, N. R. (2004). Developing an integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies (AAMAS-04) (pp. 65–74). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 618–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, S., Hudert, S., Eymann, T., & Paolucci, M. (2008). Towards reputation enhanced electronic negotiations for service oriented computing. In R. Falcone, S. K. Barber, J. Sabater-Mir, & M. P. Singh (Eds.), Trust in agent societies—11th International Workshop, TRUST 2008, Estoril, Portugal, May 12–13, 2008. Revised selected and invited papers. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, D., & Wilson, R. (1982). Reputation and imperfect information. Journal of Economic Theory, 27, 253–279.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, S. (1992). Trust and reliance in multi-agent systems: A preliminary report. MAAMAW’92, 4th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, S. (1994a). Formalising trust as a computational concept. Stirling: Department of Computing Science and Mathematics, University of Stirling.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, S. (1994b). Optimism and pessimism in trust. In Proceedings of the Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IBERAMIA-94). Caracas: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melnik, M. I., & Alm, J. (2002). Does a seller’s ecommerce reputation matter? Evidence from ebay auctions. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(3), 337–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2000). The role of evaluation in cognition and social interaction. In K. Dautenhahn (Ed.), Human cognition and social agent technology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski, M. (2016). Reputation, a universal currency for human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1687), 20150100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moukas, A., Zacharia, G., & Maes, P. (1999). Amalthaea and histos: multiagent systems for WWW sites and reputation recommendations. In M. Klusch (Ed.), Intelligent information agents. Agent-based information discovery and management on the internet (pp. 292–322). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, G., & Vercouter, L. (2008). L.I.A.R. achieving social control in open and decentralised multi-agent systems (Technical report). Saint-Étienne: École Nationale SupÉrieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardin, L. G., Brandão, A. A., Sichman, J. S., & Vercouter, L. (2008) SOARI: A service oriented architecture to support agent reputation models interoperability. In R. Falcone, S. K. Barber, J. Sabater-Mir, & M. P. Singh (Eds.), Trust in agent societies: 11th International Workshop, TRUST 2008, Estoril, Portugal, May 12–13, 2008. Revised selected and invited papers, no. 5396 in Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. (pp. 292–307). Berlin: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92803-4_15 .

  • Nardin, L. G., Brandão, A., Kira, E., & Sichman, J. S. (2014). Effects of reputation communication expressiveness in virtual societies. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 20(2), 113–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noë, A., & Hammerstein, P. (1994). Biological markets: Supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 35, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand: Gossip in organizations. Organization Studies, 14, 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998a). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393, 573–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998b). The dynamics of indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 194, 561–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437, 1291–1298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohtsuki, H., Iwasa, Y., & Nowak, M. A. (2009). Indirect reciprocity provides only a narrow margin of efficiency for costly punishment. Nature, 457(7225), 79–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paine, R. (1967). What is gossip about? An alternative hypothesis. Man, 2, 278–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panchanathan, K., & Boyd, R. (2004). Indirect reciprocity can stabilize cooperation without the second-order free rider problem. Nature, 432, 499–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolucci, M. (2000). False reputation in social control. Advances in Complex Systems, 3(1-4), 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolucci, M., & Conte, R. (2009). Reputation: Social transmission for partner selection. In G. P. Trajkovski & S. G. Collins (Eds.), Handbook of research on agent-based societies: Social and cultural interactions (pp. 243–260). Hershey: IGI.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Paolucci, M., & Sichman, J. S. (2014). Reputation to understand society. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 20(2), 211–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolucci, M., Eymann, T., Jager, W., Sabater-Mir, J., Conte, R., Marmo, S., et al. (2009). Social knowledge for e-governance: Theory and technology of reputation. Rome: ISTC-CNR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petroni, F., Querzoni, L., Beraldi, R., & Paolucci, M. (2016). LCBM: A fast and lightweight collaborative filtering algorithm for binary ratings. Journal of Systems and Software, 117, 583–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piazza, J., & Bering, J. M. (2008). Concerns about reputation via gossip promote generous allocations in an economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 172–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinyol, I., & Sabater-Mir, J. (2013). Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: A review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 40(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinyol, I., Paolucci, M., Sabater-Mir, J., & Conte, R. (2008). Beyond accuracy. Reputation for partner selection with lies and retaliation. In L. Antunes, M. Paolucci, & E. Norling (Eds.), Multi-agent-based simulation VIII (pp. 128–140). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76, 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quattrociocchi, W., Paolucci, M., & Conte, R. (2008). Reputation and uncertainty reduction: Simulating partner selection. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies (pp. 308–325). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramchurn, S. D., Huynh, D., & Jennings, N. R. (2004). Trust in multiagent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 19(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rand, D. G., Arbesman, S., & Christakis, N. A. (2011). Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 19193–19198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmusson, L. (1996). Socially controlled global agent systems (Working Paper). Department of Computer and Systems Science, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmusson, L., & Janson, S. (1996). Simulated social control for secure internet commerce. New security paradigms workshop, Lake Arrowhead, California, United States. In Proceedings of the 1996 Workshop on New Security Paradigms (pp. 18–25). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, K., & Cohen, R. (2005). Indirect reputation assessment for adaptive buying agents in electronic markets. In Baseweb workshop at AI 2005 Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, R. (2001). Trust among strangers in internet transactions: Empirical analysis of ebay’s reputation system (Working Paper for the NBER Workshop on Empirical Studies of Electronic Commerce).

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, R. (2002). Trust among strangers in internet transactions: empirical analysis of eBay’s reputation system. In M. R. Baye (Ed.), The economics of the internet and E-commerce, Volume 11 of Advances in Applied Microeconomics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripperger, T. (1998). Ökonomik des vertrauens: Analyse eines organisationsprinzips. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, G. (1998). Competitive altruism: From reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 265(1394), 427–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts G. (2008). Evolution of direct and indirect reciprocity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1631), 173–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocco, E., & Warglien, M. (1995). La comunicazione mediata da computer e l’emergere dell’opportunismo elettronico. Sistemi Intelligenti, 7(3), 393–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, C., & Thomsen, S. (2004). The impact of corporate reputation on performance: Some danish evidence. European Mangement Journal, 22(2), 201–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saam, N., & Harrer, A. (1999). Simulating norms, social inequality, and functional change in artificial societies. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2(1). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/2/1/2.html

  • Sabater, J. (2004). Evaluating the ReGreT system. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 18(9–10), 797–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabater, J., & Paolucci, M. (2007). On representation and aggregation of social evaluations in computational trust and reputation models. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 46(3), 458–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabater, J., & Sierra, C. (2002). Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Bologna, Italy. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabater, J., & Sierra, C. (2004). Review on computational trust and reputation models. Artificial Intelligence Review, 24(1), 33–60.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sabater, J., Paolucci, M., & Conte, R. (2006). Repage: REPutation and ImAGE among limited autonomous partners. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(2). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/2/3.html

  • Schillo, M., Funk, P., & Rovatsos, M. (2000). Using trust for detecting deceitful agents in artificial societies. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 14, 825–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, J., & Wilson, R. (1991). Levels of information and contributions to public goods. Social Forces, 70, 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H., & Milinski, M. (2008). Multiple gossip statements and their effects on reputation and trustworthiness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275, 2529–2536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squazzoni, F., & Boero, R. (2002). Economic performance, inter-firm relations and local institutional engineering in a computational prototype of industrial districts, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(1). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/1/1.html

  • Suzuki, S., & Akiyama, E. (2005). Reputation and the evolution of cooperation in sizable groups. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 272(1570), 1373–1377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilone, D., Giardini, F., & Paolucci, M. (2016). Exploring reputation-based cooperation: Reputation-based partner selection and network topology support the emergence of cooperation in groups. In F. Cecconi (Ed.), New frontiers in the study of social phenomena (pp. 101–114). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Suri, S., & Watts, D. J. (2012). Cooperation and assortativity with dynamic partner updating. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 14363–14368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. S., Wilczynski, C., Wells, A., & Weiser, L. (2000). Gossip and other aspects of language as group-level adaptations. In C. Heyes & L. Huber (Eds.), The evolution of cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2016). Gossip versus punishment: The efficiency of reputation to promote and maintain cooperation. Scientific Reports, 6, 23919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, T., Matsuda, M., Yoshikai, N., Takahashi, H., & Usui, Y. (2004). Solving the lemons problem with reputation. An experimental study of online trading. In eTrust: Forming relationships in the online world. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, B., & Singh, M. P. (2000). A social mechanism of reputation management in electronic communities. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents IV: The Future of Information Agents in Cyberspace. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, G. (1999). Trust management through reputation mechanisms. In C. Castelfranchi, R. Falcone, & B. S. Firozabadi (Eds.). Proceedings of the Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, Seattle (pp.163–167).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, G., Moukas, A., & Maes, P. (1999). Collaborative Reputation Mechanisms in Electronic Marketplaces. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Wailea, Maui.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jordi Sabater and Samuele Marmo for their helpful collaboration. This work was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of University and Scientific Research under the Firb programme (Socrate project, contract number RBNE03Y338) and by the European Community under the FP6 programme (eRep project, contract number CIT5-028575; EMIL project, contract number IST-FP6-33841).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Department of Sociology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, (NL)

    Francesca Giardini

  2. Laboratory for Agent-Based Social Simulation (LABSS), Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, National Research Council, Rome, Italy

    Rosaria Conte & Mario Paolucci

Authors
  1. Francesca Giardini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rosaria Conte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mario Paolucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca Giardini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University, Business School, Manchester, United Kingdom

    Bruce Edmonds

  2. Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University, Business School, Manchester, United Kingdom

    Ruth Meyer

Further Reading

Further Reading

For a more in-depth treatment of the contents of this chapter, we refer the reader to the monograph Reputation in Artificial Societies (Conte and Paolucci 2002). For more on the same line of research, with an easier presentation aimed to dissemination, we suggest the booklet published as the result of the eRep project (Paolucci et al. 2009). More recently, Hendrikx, Bubendorfer and Chard (2014) published a review of existing reputation systems, and the book by Bertino and Matei (2014) illustrated a project for the study of reputation in Wikipedia.

Due to the focus on the theoretical background of reputation, only a narrow selection of simulation models of reputation could be discussed in this chapter. Sabater and Sierra (2004) give a detailed and well-informed overview of current models of trust and reputation using a variety of mechanisms. Another good starting point for the reader interested in different models and mechanisms is the review by Ramchurn and colleagues (Ramchurn et al. 2004).

Further advanced issues for specialized reputation subfields can be found in Jøsang et al. (2007), a review of online trust and reputation systems, and in Koenig et al. (2008), regarding the Internet of Services approach to Grid Computing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Giardini, F., Conte, R., Paolucci, M. (2017). Reputation for Complex Societies. In: Edmonds, B., Meyer, R. (eds) Simulating Social Complexity. Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66948-9_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66948-9_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66947-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66948-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation