2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2021.101800
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of online reputation systems on intergroup inequality

Abstract: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz ge… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 53 publications
(91 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Reputation cascades influence the way we think about indicators of trustworthiness. The main effect of status on trust may be small, but it might be enough to obtain the benefit of the doubt once, and appearing more and more trustworthy in subsequent interactions (Kas, 2022). Reputation systems act as a third-party in the trust problem by substituting the necessity to place trust in promises of the trustee for past proven trustworthiness (Coleman, 1990).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reputation cascades influence the way we think about indicators of trustworthiness. The main effect of status on trust may be small, but it might be enough to obtain the benefit of the doubt once, and appearing more and more trustworthy in subsequent interactions (Kas, 2022). Reputation systems act as a third-party in the trust problem by substituting the necessity to place trust in promises of the trustee for past proven trustworthiness (Coleman, 1990).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%