The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
Multiple gossip statements and their effect on reputation and trustworthiness
Open accessAbstract
Empirical and theoretical evidence from various disciplines indicates that reputation, reputation building and trust are important for human cooperation, social behaviour and economic progress. Recently, it has been shown that reputation gained in games of indirect reciprocity can be transmitted by gossip. But it has also been shown that gossiping has a strong manipulative potential. We propose that this manipulative potential is alleviated by the abundance of gossip. Multiple gossip statements give a better picture of the actual behaviour of a person, and thus inaccurate or fake gossip has little power as long as it is in the minority. In addition, we investigate the supposedly strong connection between reciprocity, reputation and trust. The results of this experimental study (with 11 groups of 12 students each) document that gossip quantity helps to direct cooperation towards cooperators. Moreover, reciprocity, trust and reputations transferred via gossip are positively correlated. This interrelation might have helped to reach the high levels of cooperation that can be observed in humans.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This matches previous findings on the effects of social influence in terms of gossip on the behavior, which seems to be stronger if gossip comes from fewer sources (34).”
From How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect (2011) · cites this paper as [34]
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
Cites
The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.117.3.497 · Cited by 23,245
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
Trivers, R. L. (1971) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/406755 · Cited by 11,010
Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation
Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355300555475 · Cited by 7,484
Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1995.1027 · Cited by 5,548
Trust: making and breaking cooperative relations
Gambetta, D. (1989) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.26-3664 · Cited by 4,045
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02043 · Cited by 3,475
Zak, P. J., & Knack, S. (2001) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00609 · Cited by 2,810
Elinor Ostrom, B. (2010) · Public Administration Issues · doi:10.17323/1999-5431-2010-0-1-5-52 · Cited by 2,787
Evolution of indirect reciprocity
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04131 · Cited by 2,762
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 · DOI · Paper page
- Emler N. 2001 Gossiping. In The new handbook of language and social psychology (eds W. P. Robinson & H. Giles) pp. 317–338. Chichester UK: Wiley.
- Goodman R.F& Ben-Ze'ev B. 1994 Good gossip. Lawrence KS:University Press of Kansas.
- Sugden R. 1986 The economics of rights cooperation and welfare. Oxford UK:Basil Blackwell.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect
Lorenz, J., Rauhut, H., Schweitzer, F., & Helbing, D. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1008636108 · Cited by 1,017
Xia, C., Wang, J., Perc, M., & Wang, Z. (2023) · Physics of Life Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2023.05.002 · Cited by 354
How is human cooperation different?
Melis, A. P., & Semmann, D. (2010) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0157 · Cited by 335
Political Fact-Checking on Twitter: When Do Corrections Have an Effect?
Margolin, D., Hannák, A., & Weber, I. G. (2017) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1334018 · Cited by 305
Who are the objects of positive and negative gossip at work?
Ellwardt, L., Labianca, G., & Wittek, R. P. M. (2011) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2011.11.003 · Cited by 297
Metadata
- Authors
- Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H.-J., & Milinski, M.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology (DE)
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- ORCID
- Milinski, Manfred
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2008-07-29
- Volume
- 275
- Issue
- 1650
- Pages
- 2529-2536
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- PMC
- PMC2603203
- OpenAlex
- W2125299127
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 27.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Keywords
- gossip, reputation, trustworthiness, indirect reciprocity, cooperation, trust, reputation building
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Austria, Cooperative Behavior, Germany, Humans, Social Behavior, Social Desirability, Observation, Information Dissemination, Trust
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
