Skip to main content
Log in

Reputation is valuable within and outside one’s own social group

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To find conditions under which humans cooperate within groups of unrelated individuals has been of major interest in the behavioral sciences. The experimental paradigm for studying potential cooperation in social dilemmas is the public goods game. Here humans regularly fail to sustain a public resource cooperatively. However, the need to maintain good reputation for other social interactions, such as indirect reciprocity, has been identified as an effective mechanism to sustain cooperation in public goods situations. As a side effect of building a good reputation through cooperative actions, an individual provides direct benefits to members of his/her own social group. These benefits could be an incentive to reward a good reputation of group members. Here we show experimentally that building a good reputation through cooperative behavior in a public goods situation is rewarded in future social interactions, not only within one’s own social group but also, at a similar level, in other social groups: humans regard cooperative behavior of others as an honest signal irrespective of past direct personal benefits. Reputation gained within as well as outside one’s own social group can be a driving force for selfish individuals to cooperate in public goods situations, and thereby sustain any public resource.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander RD (1987) The biology of moral systems. de Gruyter, New York

  • Berkes F, Feeny D, McCay BJ, Acheson JM (1989) The benefits of the commons. Nature 340:91–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton GE, Katok E, Ockenfels A (2001) What’s in a reputation? Indirect reciprocity in an image scoring game. University of Wisconsin, Working paper. http://www.ise.ufl.edu/scmec/katok.pdf

  • Boyd R, Richerson PJ (1992) Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups. Ethol Sociobiol 13:171–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes RM (1980) Social dilemmas. Annu Rev Psychol 31:169–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelmann D, Fischbacher U (2002) Indirect reciprocity and strategic reputation building in an experimental helping game. IEW Working Paper no. 133. University of Zurich

  • Fehr E, Gächter S (2000) Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Am Econ Rev 90:980–994

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr E, Gächter S (2002) Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415:137–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischbacher U, Gächter S, Fehr E (2001) Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econ Lett 71:397–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishman MA (2003) Indirect reciprocity among imperfect individuals. J Theor Biol 225:285–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getty T (1987) Dear enemies and the Prisoner’s Dilemma: why should territorial neighbors form defensive coalisions? Am Zool 27:327–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Gintis H (2000) Strong reciprocity and human sociality. J Theor Biol 206:169–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin G (1968) Tragedy of commons. Science 162:1243–1248

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin G (1998) Extensions of “the tragedy of the commons”. Science 280:682–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauert C, De Monte S, Hofbauer J, Sigmund K (2002) Volunteering as red queen mechanism for cooperation in public goods games. Science 296:1129–1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman E, McCabe K, Smith VL (1996) Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. Am Econ Rev 86:653–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer MK, Brewer MB (1984) Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. J Pers Soc Psychol 46

  • Ledyard JO (1995) Public goods: a survey of experimental research. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE (eds) Handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 111–194

  • Leimar O, Hammerstein P (2001) Evolution of cooperation through indirect reciprocity. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 268:745–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotem A, Fishman MA, Stone L (1999) Evolution of cooperation between individuals. Nature 400:226–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M, Semmann D, Bakker TCM, Krambeck HJ (2001) Cooperation through indirect reciprocity: image scoring or standing strategy? Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 268:2495–2501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M, Semmann D, Krambeck HJ (2002a) Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Nature 415:424–426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M, Semmann D, Krambeck HJ (2002b) Donors to charity gain in both indirect reciprocity and political reputation. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 269:881–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohtashemi M, Mui L (2003) Evolution of indirect reciprocity by social information: the role of trust and reputation in evolution of altruism. J Theor Biol 223:523–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak MA, Sigmund K (1998b) The dynamics of indirect reciprocity. J Theor Biol 194:561–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1999) Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Ostrom E, Burger J, Field CB, Norgaard RB, Policansky D (1999) Sustainability—revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284:278–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panchanathan K, Boyd R (2003) A tale of two defectors: the importance of standing for evolution of indirect reciprocity. J Theor Biol 224:115–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seinen I, Schram A (2001) Social status and group norms: indirect reciprocity in a helping experiment. Discussion Paper TI2001–003/1. Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Semmann D, Krambeck HJ, Milinski M (2003) Volunteering leads to rock-paper-scissors dynamics in a public goods game. Nature 425:390–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semmann D, Krambeck HJ, Milinski M (2004) Strategic investment in reputation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:248–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers RL (1971) Evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46:35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedekind C, Braithwaite VA (2002) The long-term benefits of human generosity in indirect reciprocity. Curr Biol 12:1012–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedekind C, Milinski M (2000) Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science 288:850–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the students at the universities of Kiel, Bonn and Hamburg for their participation; T. Bakker, H. Brendelberger, E. Heinz and K.-P. Sauer for support; the Max-Planck-Institute of Meteorology Hamburg for hospitality, and I. König for calculating the binary logistic regression model. We thank the referees for insightful comments. The experiments described in this paper were conducted in accordance with local and federal laws in Germany.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dirk Semmann.

Additional information

Communicated by T. Czeschlik

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Semmann, D., Krambeck, HJ. & Milinski, M. Reputation is valuable within and outside one’s own social group. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57, 611–616 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-004-0885-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-004-0885-3

Keywords

Navigation