Cooperation for reputation: Wasteful contributions as costly signals in public goods

By M. van Vugt, Charlotte L. Hardy. 2010

141 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Safety Research, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b4fe224028897af87d1adb66043a745b0540e61d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Safety Research

1. P. V. van Lange
2. Eleanor A. Power
3. Pat Barclay
4. R. Bird
5. Daniel Balliet
6. Junhui Wu
7. Dan Sperber
8. N. Baumard

In Social Psychology

1. Gerben A. van Kleef
2. Daniel Balliet
3. P. V. van Lange
4. B. Beersma
5. Pat Barclay
6. Dan Sperber
7. N. Baumard
8. Junhui Wu

In Sociology and Political Science

1. P. V. van Lange
2. Daniel Balliet
3. Eleanor A. Power
4. Pat Barclay
5. Junhui Wu
6. R. Bird
7. Gerben A. van Kleef
8. B. Beersma

Citations in the corpus

• Moral Reputation: An Evolutionary and Cognitive Perspective (2012, result): “…DeScioli, & O’Brien, 2006; Mifune, Hashimoto, & Yamagishi, 2010; Milinski et al., 2002; Piazza & Bering, 2008a, 2008b; Rigdon, Ishii, Watabe, & Kitayama, 2009; Van Vugt & Hardy, 2010). self-interested, this has been taken as strong evidence in favour of the group-selection account of altruism.”
• Prosocial signaling and cooperation among Martu hunters (2015, background): “…(Fehrler & Przepiorka, 2013), there are also cases where generosity appears to operate more as a conspicuous display of quality, meant to enhance the prestige or social dominance of the donor (Hardy, 2006; Hawkes & Bird, 2002;Mauss, 1954; Milinski, Semmann, & Krambeck, 2002; Vugt & Hardy, 2010).”
• Reputation management: Why and how gossip enhances generosity (2016, background): “The adaptive benefit of reputation-based cooperation is clear (Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van den Bergh, 2010; Sylwester & Roberts, 2010), but the how – the proximate mechanisms underlying this phenomenon – has received less attention.”
• How the Grapevine Keeps You in Line (2011, background): “Participants learned that the purpose of the experiment was to compare computer-mediated interaction with face-to-face interaction in groups (see Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2006).”
• Reputation, Gossip, and Human Cooperation (2016, background): “Contributions increase in publicly visible (vs. anonymous) situations, even when the public good is already provided or not attainable (Van Vugt & Hardy, 2010).”
• Naturally Green: Harnessing Stone Age Psychological Biases to Foster Environmental Behavior (2014, background): “The potlatch is a showy display among the North-West Pacific native tribes in which tribal leaders give away—and sometimes burn—large quantities of valuable goods such as canoes and clothes to signal their prestige and resource holding powers (Bird & Smith, 2005; van Vugt & Hardy, 2010).”
• Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans (2013, background): “In recent years, others have broadened the discussion about human non-kin cooperation beyond reciprocity alone to include mutualisms, stake in others' well-being, and signaling of one's qualities (reviewed by Barclay & Van Vugt, in press).”
• Acting in Solidarity: Cross‐Group Contact between Disadvantaged Group Members and Advantaged Group Allies (2016, unknown): “Even helping that genuinely benefits the disadvantaged group can be partially motivated by a desire to protect the reputation or status of the advantaged in-group (e.g., Van Vugt & Hardy, 2010).”