The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reputations in games and markets
Abstract
Introduction The notion of reputation found in common usage represents a concept that plays a central role in the analysis of games and markets with dynamic features. The purpose of this exposition is to describe how mathematical constructs roughly interpretable as reputations arise naturally as part of the specification of equilibria of sequential games and markets. In addition, several examples will be sketched, and a few of the economic applications surveyed. The main theme here is that reputations account for strong intertemporal linkages along a sequence of otherwise independent situations. Moreover, from examples one sees that these linkages can produce strategic and market behavior quite different from that predicted from analyses of the situations in isolation. The economic applications, for instance, indicate that a firm's reputation is an important asset that can be built, maintained, or “milked,” and that reputational considerations can be major determinants of the choices among alternative decisions. The key idea is that one's reputation is a state variable affecting future opportunities; moreover, the evolution of this state variable depends on the history of one's actions. Hence, current decisions must optimize the tradeoffs between short-term consequences and the longer-run effects on one's reputation. As the discussion proceeds, this general idea will be shown to have a concrete formulation derived from the analysis of sequential games. Semantics In common usage, reputation is a characteristic or attribute ascribed to one person (firm, industry, etc.) by another (e.g., “ A has a reputation for courtesy”).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Economic Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility
Kitzmueller, M., & Shimshack, J. (2012) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.50.1.51 · Cited by 1,116
Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers’ retention decisions in services
Nguyen, N., & Leblanc, G. (2001) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/s0969-6989(00)00029-1 · Cited by 1,072
Pavlou, P. A., & Dimoka, A. (2006) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0106 · Cited by 930
Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and management
Riel, C. B. M. V., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/03090569710167574 · Cited by 868
Experimental Tests of a Sequential Equilibrium Reputation Model
Camerer, C., & Weigelt, K. (1988) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1911840 · Cited by 572
Engineering Trust: Reciprocity in the Production of Reputation Information
Bolton, G., Greiner, B., & Ockenfels, A. (2013) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1609 · Cited by 429
Sine, W. D., Shane, S., & Gregorio, D. D. (2003) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.4.478.14416 · Cited by 330
Cooperation among strangers with limited information about reputation
Bolton, G. E., Katok, E., & Ockenfels, A. (2005) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.03.008 · Cited by 305
Smith, S. S. (2010) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102526 · Cited by 254
Certifications and Reputation: Determining the Standard of Desirability Amidst Uncertainty
Graffin, S. D., & Ward, A. J. (2010) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0400 · Cited by 158
Dellarocas, C. N. (2001) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.289967 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Wilson, R.
- Venue
- Game-Theoretic Models of Bargaining
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1985-11-29
- Pages
- 27-62
- OpenAlex
- W2990898347
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.57
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.