# Fairness and Trust in Virtual Environments: The Effects of Reputation
## 5 Results
### Manipulation Check
#### 5.2.3 Hypotheses 3 and 4  
To test the effects of age and gender in relation to reputation management and usage we carried out new GLMM analyses. Obviously, such analyzes considered only the game sessions in the Reputation Treatment condition. The results are presented in Table 6.  
Deciding whether to ask for a suggestion appeared influenced by the interaction between the reputation level of the Observer and the Age. The adolescents preferred not to ask Observers with a bad or an ambiguous (e.g., number of Like-number of Dislikes = 0) reputation, but were less inclined to provide a dislike to Observer who had already several, irrespective of their direct experience. Indeed, the adolescents tended to refrain from providing a feedback to Observers who already had a bad or an ambiguous level of reputation. To take into account the effect of gender differences within and between the two samples and among the two conditions (i.e., Reputation Treatment and Control Condition), we run a set of GLMM. However, for those behaviours present only in the Reputation Treatment (i.e., Reputation level, Acceptance Coherence, Feedback) the GLMM considered only Gender, Age and their possible interaction effects as predictors. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**General Models**} \\ \hline
**Target** & **Akaike**1 & **F** & **df(1)** & **df(2)** & **Precision** \\ \hline Requested \({}^{d}\) & 47.359 & 12.99 \({}^{***}\) & 5 & 1598 & 58.3\% \\ Coh. Acc. \({}^{d}\) & 14.985 & 29.18 \({}^{***}\) & 1 & 473 & 77.1\% \\ Feedback \({}^{d}\) & 40.708 & 19.53 \({}^{***}\) & 3 & 798 & 60.6\% \\ Followed \({}^{d}\) & 22.580 & 14.66 \({}^{***}\) & 2 & 619 & 71.1\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Fixed Effects and Parameters-Requested \({}^{d}\)**} \\ \hline
**Parameter** & **F** & **B**2 & Student t \\ \hline Reputation (0)*Age (A) & 7.83 \({}^{***}\) & \(-\)1.036 & \(-\)4.36 \({}^{***}\) \\ Reputation (-)*Age (A) & 7.45 \({}^{***}\) & \(-\)0.360 & \(-\)1.85 \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Fixed Effects and Parameters-Coh. Acc. \({}^{d}\)**} \\ \hline
**Parameter** & **F** & **B**2 & **Student t** \\ \hline Reputation (-) & 29.18 \({}^{***}\) & \(-\)1.258 & \(-\)5.40 \({}^{***}\) \\ \hline
**Fixed Effects and Parameters-Feedback \({}^{d}\)** & & & \\ \hline
**Parameter** & **F** & **B**2 & **Student t** \\ \hline Reputation (0) & 22.13 \({}^{***}\) & \(-\)0.848 & \(-\)5.41 \({}^{***}\) \\ Gender (M) & 13.82 \({}^{***}\) & 0.432 & 7.72 \({}^{***}\) \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Fixed Effects and Parameters-Followed \({}^{d}\)**} \\ \hline
**Parameter** & **F** & **B**2 & **Student t** \\ \hline Reputation (0) & 14.66 \({}^{***}\) & \(-\)1.064 & \(-\)4.35 \({}^{***}\) \\ Reputation (-) & 14.66 \({}^{***}\) & \(-\)1.039 & \(-\)4.94 \({}^{***}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{d}\) : Discretized with respect to the median; \({}^{1}\): Correct Akaike coefficient; \({}^{2}\): Standardized coefficient; \({}^{***}\): \(p<0.001\); \({}^{**}\): \(p<0.01\). \({}^{*}\): \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Reputation (i.e., number of Like—number of Dislikes) influence final model. Suggestion required (Requested), Coherence on Acceptance (Coh. Acc. ), Feedback (Feedback), Suggestion Followed (Followed) (0: Ambiguous reputation; -: Negative reputation; A: Adolescents; M: Male). The average level of reputation obtained by the Observers within the Reputation Treatment condition resulted to be affected directly by both Gender and Age and no interaction effects were found. The adolescents achieved a lower level of reputation while the females succeeded to obtain a higher reputation degree compared to the males (Table 7). Participants' gender and age affected the Receivers' search for information (Table 8), with the adolescents and the females less likely to ask Observers for suggestions.