Fernando P. Santos, Francisco C. Santos & Jorge M. Pacheco
Nature volume 555, pages 242–245 (08 March 2018)
Abstract
Indirect reciprocity is the most elaborate and cognitively demanding of all known cooperation mechanisms, and is the most specifically human because it involves reputation and status. By helping someone, individuals may increase their reputation, which may change the predisposition of others to help them in future. The revision of an individual’s reputation depends on the social norms that establish what characterizes a good or bad action and thus provide a basis for morality. Norms based on indirect reciprocity are often sufficiently complex that an individual’s ability to follow subjective rules becomes important, even in models that disregard the past reputations of individuals, and reduce reputations to either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and actions to binary decisions. Here we include past reputations in such a model and identify the key pattern in the associated norms that promotes cooperation. Of the norms that comply with this pattern, the one that leads to maximal cooperation (greater than 90 per cent) with minimum complexity does not discriminate on the basis of past reputation; the relative performance of this norm is particularly evident when we consider a ‘complexity cost’ in the decision process. This combination of high cooperation and low complexity suggests that simple moral principles can elicit cooperation even in complex environments.
The article is here.
Showing posts with label Reputation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reputation. Show all posts
Monday, April 30, 2018
Monday, October 23, 2017
Reciprocity Outperforms Conformity to Promote Cooperation
Angelo Romano, Daniel Balliet
Psychological Sciences
First Published September 6, 2017
Abstract
Evolutionary psychologists have proposed two processes that could give rise to the pervasiveness of human cooperation observed among individuals who are not genetically related: reciprocity and conformity. We tested whether reciprocity outperformed conformity in promoting cooperation, especially when these psychological processes would promote a different cooperative or noncooperative response. To do so, across three studies, we observed participants’ cooperation with a partner after learning (a) that their partner had behaved cooperatively (or not) on several previous trials and (b) that their group members had behaved cooperatively (or not) on several previous trials with that same partner. Although we found that people both reciprocate and conform, reciprocity has a stronger influence on cooperation. Moreover, we found that conformity can be partly explained by a concern about one’s reputation—a finding that supports a reciprocity framework.
The article is here.
Psychological Sciences
First Published September 6, 2017
Abstract
Evolutionary psychologists have proposed two processes that could give rise to the pervasiveness of human cooperation observed among individuals who are not genetically related: reciprocity and conformity. We tested whether reciprocity outperformed conformity in promoting cooperation, especially when these psychological processes would promote a different cooperative or noncooperative response. To do so, across three studies, we observed participants’ cooperation with a partner after learning (a) that their partner had behaved cooperatively (or not) on several previous trials and (b) that their group members had behaved cooperatively (or not) on several previous trials with that same partner. Although we found that people both reciprocate and conform, reciprocity has a stronger influence on cooperation. Moreover, we found that conformity can be partly explained by a concern about one’s reputation—a finding that supports a reciprocity framework.
The article is here.
Monday, August 28, 2017
Death Before Dishonor: Incurring Costs to Protect Moral Reputation
Andrew J. Vonasch, Tania Reynolds, Bo M. Winegard, Roy F. Baumeister
Social Psychological and Personality Science
First published date: July-21-2017
Abstract
Predicated on the notion that people’s survival depends greatly on participation in cooperative society, and that reputation damage may preclude such participation, four studies with diverse methods tested the hypothesis that people would make substantial sacrifices to protect their reputations. A “big data” study found that maintaining a moral reputation is one of people’s most important values. In making hypothetical choices, high percentages of “normal” people reported preferring jail time, amputation of limbs, and death to various forms of reputation damage (i.e., becoming known as a criminal, Nazi, or child molester). Two lab studies found that 30% of people fully submerged their hands in a pile of disgusting live worms, and 63% endured physical pain to prevent dissemination of information suggesting that they were racist. We discuss the implications of reputation protection for theories about altruism and motivation.
The article is here.
Social Psychological and Personality Science
First published date: July-21-2017
Abstract
Predicated on the notion that people’s survival depends greatly on participation in cooperative society, and that reputation damage may preclude such participation, four studies with diverse methods tested the hypothesis that people would make substantial sacrifices to protect their reputations. A “big data” study found that maintaining a moral reputation is one of people’s most important values. In making hypothetical choices, high percentages of “normal” people reported preferring jail time, amputation of limbs, and death to various forms of reputation damage (i.e., becoming known as a criminal, Nazi, or child molester). Two lab studies found that 30% of people fully submerged their hands in a pile of disgusting live worms, and 63% endured physical pain to prevent dissemination of information suggesting that they were racist. We discuss the implications of reputation protection for theories about altruism and motivation.
The article is here.
Friday, August 26, 2016
Would You Cheat? Cheating Behavior, Human Nature, and Decision-Making
Piotr M. Patrzyk
Published in Student Pulse
Abstract
Cheating is a pervasive behavior among humans. Due to its unethicality, it has captured an attention of many scholars in a wide range of disciplines. Numerous theories have been put forward in order to explain this behavior. In this article I review some of the experimental findings concerning cheating and propose an explanation of how people make decisions about engagement or refraining from it. Underlying mechanisms, as well as their origin are discussed.
Questions concerning human nature provoke controversy across disciplines, particularly when it comes to explaining evil or immoral behaviors. Endeavors to explain actions that are considered immoral strike at a fundamental philosophical issue: whether people are innately good and it is the world that corrupts them; or whether people are innately evil and their tainted proclivities are more or less inevitable.
Here is part of the conclusion:
Moral hypocrisy is the natural state of the human mind because it is the best strategy for reproduction. People develop norms in order to compel others to do what they want, but do not follow them themselves because it would be too costly. Maintaining a good reputation is the essential goal of an individual living in a society based on indirect reciprocity (Alexander, 1987) so decisions concerning ethical issues are sensitive to these considerations. As Akerlof, frequently cited in economical literature on cheating, points out: "[t]here is a return to appearing honest, but not to being honest” (1983, p. 57). It would make no sense if individuals made decisions based on what is objectively moral or immoral. Moral reputation pays, and as such individuals make decisions to maximize their perceived moral reputation, both internally and externally.
The paper is here.
Published in Student Pulse
Abstract
Cheating is a pervasive behavior among humans. Due to its unethicality, it has captured an attention of many scholars in a wide range of disciplines. Numerous theories have been put forward in order to explain this behavior. In this article I review some of the experimental findings concerning cheating and propose an explanation of how people make decisions about engagement or refraining from it. Underlying mechanisms, as well as their origin are discussed.
Questions concerning human nature provoke controversy across disciplines, particularly when it comes to explaining evil or immoral behaviors. Endeavors to explain actions that are considered immoral strike at a fundamental philosophical issue: whether people are innately good and it is the world that corrupts them; or whether people are innately evil and their tainted proclivities are more or less inevitable.
Here is part of the conclusion:
Moral hypocrisy is the natural state of the human mind because it is the best strategy for reproduction. People develop norms in order to compel others to do what they want, but do not follow them themselves because it would be too costly. Maintaining a good reputation is the essential goal of an individual living in a society based on indirect reciprocity (Alexander, 1987) so decisions concerning ethical issues are sensitive to these considerations. As Akerlof, frequently cited in economical literature on cheating, points out: "[t]here is a return to appearing honest, but not to being honest” (1983, p. 57). It would make no sense if individuals made decisions based on what is objectively moral or immoral. Moral reputation pays, and as such individuals make decisions to maximize their perceived moral reputation, both internally and externally.
The paper is here.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Will Your Ethics Hold Up Under Pressure?
Ron Carucci
Forbes
Originally published FEB 3, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
In an ironic appeal to self-interest, for which Haidt readily acknowledges the paradox, he says there are four important reasons “ethics pays.” First, there is the cost of reputation, which most analysts and experts acknowledge links closely to share price performance. Second, ethical organizations have lower costs of capital, as evidenced by Deutsche Bank’s commitment to focus on clients with higher ethical standards. Third, the white-hot war for talent, both recruiting and retaining top talent, takes a painful hit with an ethical scandal. Conversely, the best talent wants to associate with the best reputed companies. And finally, the astronomical cost of cleaning up an ethical mess can soar into the billions after shareholder losses, lawsuits, fines, and PR costs are added up. Still those aren’t the real reasons to focus on this, claims Haidt. The longer-term benefits to a world with greater ethical substance far outweigh the costs of cutting corners for short-term gains. Sadly, unethical choices have paid well for too many executives.
The article is here.
Forbes
Originally published FEB 3, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
In an ironic appeal to self-interest, for which Haidt readily acknowledges the paradox, he says there are four important reasons “ethics pays.” First, there is the cost of reputation, which most analysts and experts acknowledge links closely to share price performance. Second, ethical organizations have lower costs of capital, as evidenced by Deutsche Bank’s commitment to focus on clients with higher ethical standards. Third, the white-hot war for talent, both recruiting and retaining top talent, takes a painful hit with an ethical scandal. Conversely, the best talent wants to associate with the best reputed companies. And finally, the astronomical cost of cleaning up an ethical mess can soar into the billions after shareholder losses, lawsuits, fines, and PR costs are added up. Still those aren’t the real reasons to focus on this, claims Haidt. The longer-term benefits to a world with greater ethical substance far outweigh the costs of cutting corners for short-term gains. Sadly, unethical choices have paid well for too many executives.
The article is here.
Friday, January 29, 2016
Reputation, a universal currency for human social interactions
Manfred Milinski
Philosophical Transactions B
Published 4 January 2016.
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0100
Abstract
Decision rules of reciprocity include ‘I help those who helped me’ (direct reciprocity) and ‘I help those who have helped others’ (indirect reciprocity), i.e. I help those who have a reputation to care for others. A person's reputation is a score that members of a social group update whenever they see the person interacting or hear at best multiple gossip about the person's social interactions. Reputation is the current standing the person has gained from previous investments or refusal of investments in helping others. Is he a good guy, can I trust him or should I better avoid him as a social partner? A good reputation pays off by attracting help from others, even from strangers or members from another group, if the recipient's reputation is known. Any costly investment in others, i.e. direct help, donations to charity, investment in averting climate change, etc. increases a person's reputation. I shall argue and illustrate with examples that a person's known reputation functions like money that can be used whenever the person needs help. Whenever possible I will present tests of predictions of evolutionary theory, i.e. fitness maximizing strategies, mostly by economic experiments with humans.
The article is here.
Philosophical Transactions B
Published 4 January 2016.
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0100
Abstract
Decision rules of reciprocity include ‘I help those who helped me’ (direct reciprocity) and ‘I help those who have helped others’ (indirect reciprocity), i.e. I help those who have a reputation to care for others. A person's reputation is a score that members of a social group update whenever they see the person interacting or hear at best multiple gossip about the person's social interactions. Reputation is the current standing the person has gained from previous investments or refusal of investments in helping others. Is he a good guy, can I trust him or should I better avoid him as a social partner? A good reputation pays off by attracting help from others, even from strangers or members from another group, if the recipient's reputation is known. Any costly investment in others, i.e. direct help, donations to charity, investment in averting climate change, etc. increases a person's reputation. I shall argue and illustrate with examples that a person's known reputation functions like money that can be used whenever the person needs help. Whenever possible I will present tests of predictions of evolutionary theory, i.e. fitness maximizing strategies, mostly by economic experiments with humans.
The article is here.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Microaggression and Changing Moral Cultures
By Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally posted July 9, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
We can better understand complaints about microaggression and the reactions to them if we understand that each side of the debate draws from a different moral culture. Those calling attention to microaggressions have rejected the morality dominant among middle-class Americans during the 20th century — what sociologists and historians have sometimes called a dignity culture, which abhors private vengeance and encourages people to go to the police or use the courts when they are seriously harmed. Less serious offenses might be ignored, and certainly any merely verbal offense should be. Parents thus teach their children to say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."
Microaggression complaints make clear that this is no longer settled morality. Those who see microaggressions as a serious problem and who bring up minor and unintentional slights reject the idea that words can’t hurt, that slights should be brushed off, that even overt insults should be ignored. This attitude reveals the emergence of a new moral culture, one we call victimhood culture, since it valorizes victimhood.
Microaggression complaints are just one manifestation; from the same circles of campus activists also come calls for trigger warnings to alert sensitive students to course material that might disturb them, and the creation of "safe spaces" to shield students from offensive ideas.
The entire blog post is here.
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally posted July 9, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
We can better understand complaints about microaggression and the reactions to them if we understand that each side of the debate draws from a different moral culture. Those calling attention to microaggressions have rejected the morality dominant among middle-class Americans during the 20th century — what sociologists and historians have sometimes called a dignity culture, which abhors private vengeance and encourages people to go to the police or use the courts when they are seriously harmed. Less serious offenses might be ignored, and certainly any merely verbal offense should be. Parents thus teach their children to say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."
Microaggression complaints make clear that this is no longer settled morality. Those who see microaggressions as a serious problem and who bring up minor and unintentional slights reject the idea that words can’t hurt, that slights should be brushed off, that even overt insults should be ignored. This attitude reveals the emergence of a new moral culture, one we call victimhood culture, since it valorizes victimhood.
Microaggression complaints are just one manifestation; from the same circles of campus activists also come calls for trigger warnings to alert sensitive students to course material that might disturb them, and the creation of "safe spaces" to shield students from offensive ideas.
The entire blog post is here.
Friday, May 8, 2015
How Goodness Arises from Evolutionary Competition
By Martin A. Nowak
Big Ideas from Slate.com
Here is an excerpt:
In the human sphere, cooperation means helping each other. In some contexts cooperation can imply “being good.” And suddenly the conundrum disappears. The moral imperative of world religions and philosophical systems seems to make sense. It simply asks us to be true to our cooperative heritage, to cooperate and not only to compete.
The evolutionary process among humans is not only genetic but also cultural. We have language. We write books, articles, and emails, come up with ideas, replicate knowledge. A group of humans learning from each other instantiate a cultural evolutionary process with mutation and selection. And cooperation.
What makes cooperation a possible strategy among humans? The answer is repetition and reputation. Most of our crucial social interactions occur repeatedly with the same people or in situations where we are known, where actions can be observed by others, and thus affect our reputation.
The entire piece is here.
Big Ideas from Slate.com
Here is an excerpt:
In the human sphere, cooperation means helping each other. In some contexts cooperation can imply “being good.” And suddenly the conundrum disappears. The moral imperative of world religions and philosophical systems seems to make sense. It simply asks us to be true to our cooperative heritage, to cooperate and not only to compete.
The evolutionary process among humans is not only genetic but also cultural. We have language. We write books, articles, and emails, come up with ideas, replicate knowledge. A group of humans learning from each other instantiate a cultural evolutionary process with mutation and selection. And cooperation.
What makes cooperation a possible strategy among humans? The answer is repetition and reputation. Most of our crucial social interactions occur repeatedly with the same people or in situations where we are known, where actions can be observed by others, and thus affect our reputation.
The entire piece is here.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Turning To Ethics When Trust In Business Is At An All-Time Low
By Dina Medland
Forbes
Originally posted July 24, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
The latest report from the UK’s Institute of Business Ethics (IBE) sets out why company directors need to be actively involved in setting and maintaining a company’s ethical values. One of the lessons of the 2008 banking crisis has been that ethics matters to business, both in terms of its reputation and its sustainability, writes Peter Montagnon, Associate Director in Ethics, Risk & Governance: a board briefing paper. The challenge for business is how to develop and embed real values in order to regain public trust, needed if they are to secure their franchise for the long term.
The entire article is here.
Forbes
Originally posted July 24, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
The latest report from the UK’s Institute of Business Ethics (IBE) sets out why company directors need to be actively involved in setting and maintaining a company’s ethical values. One of the lessons of the 2008 banking crisis has been that ethics matters to business, both in terms of its reputation and its sustainability, writes Peter Montagnon, Associate Director in Ethics, Risk & Governance: a board briefing paper. The challenge for business is how to develop and embed real values in order to regain public trust, needed if they are to secure their franchise for the long term.
The entire article is here.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Submitting a manuscript for peer review - integrity, integrity, integrity.
Sean P. Murphy, Christopher Bulman, Behnam Shariati and Laura Hausmann-on behalf of the ISN Publications Committee
J Neurochem. 2013 Dec 26. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2013.12644.x.
Abstract
Publication of a flawed manuscript has significant consequences for the progress of science. When this proves to be intentional, science is brought into disrepute and this puts even more pressure on the shrinking resources that society is prepared to invest in research. All scientific journals, including the Journal of Neurochemistry, have witnessed a marked increase in the number of corrections and retractions of published papers over the last 10 years, and uncovered a depressingly large number of fabrications amongst submitted manuscripts. The increase in number of 'spoiled' manuscripts reflects not only the improved methods that journals employ to detect plagiarism in its many forms, but also suggests a measurable change in the behavior of authors. The increased policing of submissions by reviewers, editors and publishers expends time and money. The sanctions imposed by journal editors on authors found guilty of malpractice are transparent and severe.
Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story
Mark Twain
While imagination is the source of vibrant fiction, the ‘stories’ we offer in manuscripts submitted for publication have to be faithful. With the beginning of a New Year, it seems appropriate to re-state current Journal of Neurochemistry policies on submissions and, on behalf of the International Society for Neurochemistry, to demand integrity from authors offering manuscripts for scientific review. While the comments here are directed specifically at corresponding authors, the contract entered into with the submission of any manuscript also demands integrity from reviewers, editors and publishers, who
have to be seen to act impartially and promptly in reaching their decisions.
The entire article is here.
J Neurochem. 2013 Dec 26. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2013.12644.x.
Abstract
Publication of a flawed manuscript has significant consequences for the progress of science. When this proves to be intentional, science is brought into disrepute and this puts even more pressure on the shrinking resources that society is prepared to invest in research. All scientific journals, including the Journal of Neurochemistry, have witnessed a marked increase in the number of corrections and retractions of published papers over the last 10 years, and uncovered a depressingly large number of fabrications amongst submitted manuscripts. The increase in number of 'spoiled' manuscripts reflects not only the improved methods that journals employ to detect plagiarism in its many forms, but also suggests a measurable change in the behavior of authors. The increased policing of submissions by reviewers, editors and publishers expends time and money. The sanctions imposed by journal editors on authors found guilty of malpractice are transparent and severe.
Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story
Mark Twain
While imagination is the source of vibrant fiction, the ‘stories’ we offer in manuscripts submitted for publication have to be faithful. With the beginning of a New Year, it seems appropriate to re-state current Journal of Neurochemistry policies on submissions and, on behalf of the International Society for Neurochemistry, to demand integrity from authors offering manuscripts for scientific review. While the comments here are directed specifically at corresponding authors, the contract entered into with the submission of any manuscript also demands integrity from reviewers, editors and publishers, who
have to be seen to act impartially and promptly in reaching their decisions.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Vignette 26: A Political Donation
Dr. Fair performs child custody evaluations. She is well known in both the legal and psychological communities. Recently, Dr. Fair received solicitations for contributions from a candidate for judge in her county, Deloris True. She has worked with Attorney True on numerous occasions and believes that she would be a real asset as a judge in her community. She clearly wants this individual to be elected as a judge.
However, if Attorney True is elected as judge, Dr. Fair will likely appear before her in court as an expert witness. Will contributing to the campaign of the judicial candidate be contraindicated because it could lead to a perception of bias in future court cases? Is the contribution warranted because Dr. Fair believes that Attorney True is highly qualified for that position?
In her state, political contributions over $50 are in the public domain and anyone could see that Dr. Fair made the contribution. Dr. Fair would like to show her financial support by contributing more than $50. (Dr. Fair has already ruled out giving 10 checks for $49.95.). Concerned about ethics and reputation, Dr. Fair contacts you for a consult.
What are the potential ethical issues involved in the situation?
What are the competing ethical principles?
What are your suggestions for Dr. Fair?
However, if Attorney True is elected as judge, Dr. Fair will likely appear before her in court as an expert witness. Will contributing to the campaign of the judicial candidate be contraindicated because it could lead to a perception of bias in future court cases? Is the contribution warranted because Dr. Fair believes that Attorney True is highly qualified for that position?
In her state, political contributions over $50 are in the public domain and anyone could see that Dr. Fair made the contribution. Dr. Fair would like to show her financial support by contributing more than $50. (Dr. Fair has already ruled out giving 10 checks for $49.95.). Concerned about ethics and reputation, Dr. Fair contacts you for a consult.
What are the potential ethical issues involved in the situation?
What are the competing ethical principles?
What are your suggestions for Dr. Fair?
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Schools drop Mellow’s name
By Andrew Seder
The Times Leader
Originally published April 25, 2013
The name of disgraced ex-state Sen. Robert J. Mellow has been removed from two buildings, a portion of one local college campus and one park.
On Thursday, Marywood University issued a statement saying, “After thoughtful consideration, The Marywood University Board of Trustees made the decision this past Saturday at their spring meeting to rename the university’s athletic center. The center originally named for Senator Robert J. Mellow, will for the foreseeable future be referred to as The Marywood University Center for Athletics and Wellness.”
Also, Lackawanna College President Mark Volk sent an email to all college staff members Thursday informing them that the campus’ Mellow Theater has been renamed.
“The college’s board of trustees met recently and after a serious discussion decided to name the college’s theater. Effective immediately, it is officially The Theater at Lackawanna College,” Volk wrote in the email obtained by The Times Leader.
The entire story is here.
The Times Leader
Originally published April 25, 2013
The name of disgraced ex-state Sen. Robert J. Mellow has been removed from two buildings, a portion of one local college campus and one park.
On Thursday, Marywood University issued a statement saying, “After thoughtful consideration, The Marywood University Board of Trustees made the decision this past Saturday at their spring meeting to rename the university’s athletic center. The center originally named for Senator Robert J. Mellow, will for the foreseeable future be referred to as The Marywood University Center for Athletics and Wellness.”
Also, Lackawanna College President Mark Volk sent an email to all college staff members Thursday informing them that the campus’ Mellow Theater has been renamed.
“The college’s board of trustees met recently and after a serious discussion decided to name the college’s theater. Effective immediately, it is officially The Theater at Lackawanna College,” Volk wrote in the email obtained by The Times Leader.
The entire story is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)