Overview

Reputation is typically defined as an “overall actor-level assessment” (p. 141) but often results in confounding with status, identity, celebrity. Instead, we define reputation as attribute-specific based on prior behavior and embed in social systems.

Problems with integrative definitions of reputation

1. Vague, poor discrimination from other constructs
2. What seems like a generalized reputation really is based on some attribute anyway (* Still to be explained: why some attribute-specific reputations dominate other attribute-specific reputations—what do audiences anchor on, and why?) Also, integrative definitions ignore the audiences, and there may be mixed assessments across audiences.
3. Naturally results in disconnect between conceptual definition and measurement

Function of Reputation in Social Exchange

Buyers face two types of uncertainty when quality difficult to discern a priori: ‘type’ of seller is unobserved (lemon or peach: adverse selection (???)); and the ‘effort’ of the seller is unobserved (moral hazard—they may be able, but will they deliver? Williamson (1991)). Shapiro: firm has reputation for quality of past production can indicate future quality (positive or negative).

We go further by arguing that expectations are in social context of statuatses and roles.

• “A role is the enactment of the set of expectations directed at the actors that occupt a particular position, that is, have a particular status, in the social system (Linton, 1936; Merton, 1957; Jensen, 2010; Jensen, Kim & Kim 2011)”. “roles bridge social-level status and individual-level reputation”

TO Read

• Readings listed for role theory
• Bar-Isaac and Tadelis 2008
• Shapiro 1983

References