Social Status and Badge Design
Open accessAbstract
Many websites rely on user-generated content to provide value to consumers. These websites typically incentivize participation by awarding users badges based on their contributions. While these badges typically have no explicit value, they act as symbols of social status within a community. In this paper, we consider the design of badge mechanisms for the objective of maximizing the total contributions made to a website. Users exert costly effort to make contributions and, in return, are awarded with badges. A badge is only valued to the extent that it signals social status and thus badge valuations are determined endogenously by the number of users who earn each badge. The goal of this paper is to study the design of optimal and approximately badge mechanisms under these status valuations. We characterize badge mechanisms by whether they use a coarse partitioning scheme, i.e. awarding the same badge to many users, or use a fine partitioning scheme, i.e. awarding a unique badge to most users. We find that the optimal mechanism uses both fine partitioning and coarse partitioning. When status valuations exhibit a decreasing marginal value property, we prove that coarse partitioning is a necessary feature of any approximately optimal mechanism. Conversely, when status valuations exhibit an increasing marginal value property, we prove that fine partitioning is necessary for approximate optimality.
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
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?
Recent empirical evidence suggests badges can meaningfully change clicks and add-to-cart probabilities, and complementary work studies badge longevity, uniformity, bias across marketplaces, and causal effects of badges in online communities.
“Recent empirical evidence suggests badges can meaningfully change clicks and add-to-cart probabilities [29]; complementary work studies badge longevity, uniformity, and bias across marketplaces, and the causal effects of badges in online communities [3, 22, 28].”
From What Is Your AI Agent Buying? Evaluation, Biases, Model Dependence, & Emerging Implications for Agentic E-Commerce (2025) · cites this paper as [22]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Ashton Anderson, Daniel Huttenlocher, Jon Kleinberg, and Jure Leskovec. Steering user behavior with badges. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web, pages 95-106. Interna- tional World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2013.
- Jeremy Bulow and John Roberts. The simple economics of optimal auctions. The Journal of Political Economy, pages 1060-1090, 1989.
- Shuchi Chawla, Jason D Hartline, and Balasubramanian Sivan. Optimal crowdsourcing contests. In Pro- ceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 856-868. SIAM, 2012.
- Peerapong Dhangwatnotai, Tim Roughgarden, and Qiqi Yan. Revenue maximization with a single sample. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, EC '10, pages 129-138, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
- Dominic DiPalantino and Milan Vojnovic. Crowdsourcing and all-pay auctions. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 119-128. ACM, 2009.
- Pradeep Dubey and John Geanakoplos. Grading exams: 100, 99, 98, or a, b, c? Games and Economic Behavior, 69(1):72-94, 2010.
- David Easley and Arpita Ghosh. Incentives, gamification, and game theory: An economic approach to badge design. In Proceedings of the fourteenth ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 359-376. ACM, 2013.
- Ed Hopkins and Tatiana Kornienko. Running to keep in the same place: Consumer choice as a game of status. American Economic Review, pages 1085-1107, 2004.
- Brian Keegan and Darren Gergle. Egalitarians at the gate: One-sided gatekeeping practices in social media. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pages 131- 134. ACM, 2010.
- Benny Moldovanu, Aner Sela, and Xianwen Shi. Contests for status. Journal of Political Economy, 115(2):338-363, 2007.
- R. Myerson. Optimal auction design. Mathematics of Operations Research, 6(1):58-73, 1981.
- George McArtney Phillips. Interpolation and approximation by polynomials, chapter 7, pages 247-290. CMS books in mathematics. Springer, New York, 2003.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Allouah, A., Besbes, O., Figueroa, J., Kanoria, Y., & Kumar, A. (2025) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5381574 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Allouah, A., Besbes, O., Figueroa, J. D., Kanoria, Y., & Kumar, A. (2025) · arXiv
- Authors
- Immorlica, N., Stoddard, G., & Syrgkanis, V.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2013
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1312.2299
- OpenAlex
- W2951092054
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Auction Theory and Applications
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
- Keywords
- badges, social status, user-generated content, mechanism design, signaling, user participation incentives, optimal mechanisms, approximate optimality
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
