Reputation to understand society

  • Mario Paolucci
  • Jaime Simão Sichman


Reputation is commonly defined as “the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone”.1 As such, reputation is the prototypical representative of social artifacts that we use to make sense out of social complexity. It shares with norms, responsibility, power, and trust—to cite our own favorite examples—the characteristic of making sense only in a social context. Reputation places itself in the most abstract position among these social artifacts.

Why is it so? Because when properly defined, reputation loosely connects with the object-level actions of the individual. First, in order to distinguish reputation in the proper sense, one must refer to some kind of majority rule—since it must be “generally held”. Second, reputation needs a model where the agent that elaborates and reasons on it must be endowed with a mind able to hold different levels of beliefs, since this agent must not confuse reputation with experience or evaluation. Third, while norms, power,...


Formal models Social models 



We are very grateful to all of the authors who have submitted their papers to ICORE 2011 and especially to those that have enhanced and extended their work, and patiently awaited for the time necessary in order to be published in this issue.

We would also like to thank our colleagues that acted as reviewers of ICORE 2011.

Mario Paolucci acknowledges support from the PRISMA project (PON04a2 Aunder) within the Italian National Program for Research and Innovation (PON 2007–2013) and from the GLODERS project (EC FP7) under grant agreement No. 315874. Jaime Simão Sichman is partially supported by CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil.

Finally, we would like to thank Kathleen Carley for accepting to publish this special issue in the CMOT journal.

July 2013

Mario Paolucci

Jaime Simão Sichman

Guest Editors

Special issue on “ICORE 2011”


  1. Avegliano P, Sichman JS (2008a) Repart: a reputation-based simulation tool for partnership formation. In: Wainwright RL, Haddad H (eds) SAC. ACM, New York, pp 46–47 Google Scholar
  2. Avegliano P, Sichman JS (2008b) Using the RePart simulator to analyze different reputation-based partnership formation strategies within a marketplace scenario. In: Falcone et al. (2008), pp 226–243 Google Scholar
  3. Ball P (2002) The physical modelling of society: a historical perspective. Phys A, Stat Mech Appl 314(1–4):1–14 Google Scholar
  4. Castelfranchi C, Falcone R (2010) Trust theory: a socio-cognitive and computational model. Wiley series in agent technology, vol 18. Wiley, New York CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conte R, Paolucci M (2002) Reputation in artificial societies—social beliefs for social order. Springer, Berlin CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Falcone R, Barber KS, Sabater-Mir J, Singh MP (eds) (2008) Trust in agent societies, 11th international workshop, TRUST 2008, Estoril, Portugal, May 12–13, 2008. revised selected and invited papers. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5396. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  7. Hassani Mahmooei B, Parris BW (2013) Dynamics of effort allocation and evolution of trust: an agent-based model. Comput Math Organ Theory. doi: 10.1007/s10588-013-9164-z
  8. Hansson K, Karlström P, Larsson A, Verhagen H (2013) Reputation, inequality and meeting techniques: visualizing user hierarchy to support collaboration. Comput Math Organ Theory. doi: 10.1007/s10588-013-9165-y
  9. Helbing D, Johansson A, Abideen HZA (2007) Dynamics of crowd disasters: an empirical study. Phys Rev E 75(4):046109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holbrook JB (2013) What is interdisciplinary communication? Reflections on the very idea of disciplinary integration. Synthese 190(11):1865–1879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Letia IA, Slavescu RR (2012) Logic-based reputation model in e-commerce simulation. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 15(3).
  12. Matzat U, Snijders C (2012) Rebuilding trust in online shops on consumer review sites: sellers’ responses to user-generated complaints. J Comput-Mediat Commun 18(1):62–79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nardin LG, Brandão AAF, Sichman JS (2011) Experiments on semantic interoperability of agent reputation models using the SOARI architecture. Eng Appl Artif Intell 24(8):1461–1471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nardin LG, Brandão A, Sichman JS, Vercouter L (2008) SOARI: a service oriented architecture to support agent reputation models interoperability. In: Falcone et al. (2008), pp 292–307 Google Scholar
  15. Nardin LG, Brandão A, Kira E, Sichman JS (2013) Effects of reputation communication expressiveness in virtual societies. Comput Math Organ Theory. doi: 10.1007/s10588-012-9151-9
  16. Paglieri F, Castelfranchi C, da Costa Pereira C, Falcone R, Tettamanzi A, Villata S (2013) Trusting the messenger because of the message: feedback dynamics from information quality to source evaluation. Comput Math Organ Theory. doi: 10.1007/s10588-013-9166-x
  17. Paolucci M (ed) (2010) Proceedings of the first international conference on reputation: theory and technology, Rome, Italy. ISTC-CNR Google Scholar
  18. Paolucci M, Picascia S, Marmo S (2010) Electronic reputation systems. In: Handbook of research on Web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 411–429. Chap 23 Google Scholar
  19. Sabater J, Paolucci M, Conte R (2006) Repage: REPutation and ImAGE among limited autonomous partners. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 9(2).
  20. Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Takács K (2012) Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Res Policy 42(1):287–294. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Cognitive Sciences and TechnologyISTC/CNRRomeItaly
  2. 2.Laboratório de Técnicas InteligentesEP/USPSão PauloBrasil

Personalised recommendations