The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reputation Mechanism Design in Online Trading Environments with Pure Moral Hazard
Abstract
This paper offers a systematic exploration of reputation mechanism design in trading environments with opportunistic sellers of commonly known cost and ability parameters, imperfect monitoring of a seller's actions, and two possible seller effort levels, one of which has no value to buyers. The objective of reputation mechanisms in such pure moral hazard settings is to induce sellers to exert high effort as often as possible. I study the impact of various mechanism parameters (such as the granularity of solicited feedback, the format of the public reputation profile, the policy regarding missing feedback, and the rules for admitting new sellers) on the resulting market efficiency. I find that maximum efficiency is bounded away from the hypothetical first-best case where sellers can credibly precommit to full cooperation by a factor that is related to the probability that cooperating sellers may receive “unfair” bad ratings. Furthermore, maximum efficiency is independent of the length of past history summarized in a seller's public reputation profile. I apply my framework to a simplified model of eBay's feedback mechanism and conclude that, in pure moral hazard settings, eBay's simple mechanism is capable of inducing the maximum theoretical efficiency independently of the number of recent ratings that are being summarized in a seller's profile. I derive optimal policies for dealing with missing feedback and easy online identity changes. Finally, I show that if the number of buyers is large, the results obtained in the monopoly case are also approximately valid in settings where multiple sellers of different reputations simultaneously offer auctions for identical goods.
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
Cites
The Role of Market Forces in Assuring Contractual Performance
Klein, B., & Leffler, K. B. (1981) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/260996 · Cited by 3,653
Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E. (2000) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/355112.355122 · Cited by 2,190 · cited 5×
“…2005, pp. 209–230 issn 1047-7047 eissn 1526-5536 05 1602 0209 informs ® doi 10.1287/isre.1050.0054 ©2005 INFORMS Reputation Mechanism Design in Online Trading Environments with Pure Moral Hazard Chrysanthos Dellarocas R. H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland…”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
Pavlou, P. A., & Dimoka, A. (2006) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0106 · Cited by 930
On Product Uncertainty in Online Markets: Theory and Evidence1
Dimoka, A., Hong, Y., & Pavlou, P. A. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41703461 · Cited by 682
Social interaction and continuance intention in online auctions: A social capital perspective
Wang, J.-C., & Chiang, M.-J. (2009) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2009.04.013 · Cited by 133
Reputation in Online Auctions: The Market for Trust
Brown, J., & Morgan, J. (2006) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41166371 · Cited by 113
The Sustainability of Polycentric Information Commons1
Mindel, V., Mathiassen, L., & Rai, A. (2018) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2018/14015 · Cited by 90
Metadata
- Authors
- Dellarocas, C.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 209-230
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W1998698248
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 25.63
- Type
- journal article
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reputation Mechanism Design in Online Trading Environments with Pure Moral Hazard. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/isre.1050.0054
- The paper
- Dellarocas, C. (2005). Reputation Mechanism Design in Online Trading Environments with Pure Moral Hazard. Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0054
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.