Self-Interest, Reciprocity, and Participation in Online Reputation Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reputation systems are emerging as an increasingly important component of online communities, helping elicit good behavior and cooperation among loosely connected and geographically dispersed economic agents. A deeper understanding of the factors that drive voluntary online feedback contribution is crucial to the long-term viability of such systems and of the online communities that rely on them. This paper contributes in this direction by offering what we believe to be the first in-depth study of the motivations of trader participation in eBay's reputation system. To examine these questions, we analyze data from 51,452 eBay rare coin auctions. We find evidence suggesting that the high levels (50-70%) of voluntary online feedback contribution on eBay are not strongly driven by pure altruism. Rather, we analytically and empirically demonstrate that the expectation of reciprocal behavior from partners increases reputation system participation from self-interested eBay buyers and sellers. We develop a random effects probit model that sheds light on the drivers of feedback submission in individual transactions, and find that participation levels rise, then decline as users accumulate experience within the eBay community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".