# Fairness and Trust in Virtual Environments: The Effects of Reputation
## 5 Results
### Manipulation Check
#### 5.2.3 Hypotheses 3 and 4
The tendency to trust the suggestion (i.e., decide to accept the deal if the Observers suggest to the Receivers to accept it and to refuse the Donors' offer if the hint received was to decline it) was also connected to Gender (both directly than by the interaction Gender*Condition) and Age: the adolescents trusted (called \"Suggestion Followed\") the Observer's suggestions less frequently while the females seemed to be more sensitive about the suggestion. Furthermore, when reputation was not present the males trusted the Observer's information even less. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**General Models**} \\ \hline
**Target** & **Akaike**1 & **F** & **df(1)** & **df(2)** & **Precision** \\ \hline Requested \({}^{d}\) & 47.359 & 12.99 *** & 5 & 1598 & 58.3\% \\ Feedback \({}^{d}\) & 45.874 & 18.60 *** & 5 & 1598 & 72.4\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{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) & 7.5 *** & \(-\)0.360 & \(-\)1.85 \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Fixed Effects and Parameters-Feedback \({}^{d}\)**} \\ \hline
**Parameter** & **F** & **B**2 & **Student t** \\ \hline Reputation (-) & 19.33 * & 0.407 & 1.95 * \\ Age (A)*Reputation (-) & 4.52 *** & \(-\)0.386 & 1.95 * \\ Age (A)*Reputation (0) & 4.52 *** & \(-\)0.929 & \(-\)3.12 *** \\ \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 6: GLMM—Reputation (i.e., number of Like—number of Dislikes) and Age influence upon Suggestion request and Feedback behaviours (0: Ambiguous reputation; : Negative reputation; A: Adolescents). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**General Models**} \\ \hline
**Target** & **Akaike**1 & **F** & **df(1)** & **df(2)** & **Precision** \\ \hline Reputation \({}^{d}\) & 33.184 & 52.01 *** & 2 & 1600 & 65.0\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Fixed Effects and Parameters-Reputation \({}^{d}\)**} \\ \hline
**Parameter** & **F** & **B**2 & **Student t** \\ \hline Age (A) & 76.41 *** & \(-\)1.126 & \(-\)7.29 *** \\ Gender (M) & 4.56 * & \(-\)0.398 & \(-\)2.26 * \\ \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 7: GLMM—Observer’s behaviour: Reputation (i.e., number of Like—number of Dislikes) (A: Adolescent; M: Male). Nevertheless, trust in the reputation of the Observer to decide whether to accept or decline the offers (called \"Acceptance Coherence\") did not result connected to Gender and only seemed to vary as a function of Age. The adolescents appeared to rely less on the Observer's reputation when deciding about the Donor's deal. Receivers could also leave feedbacks about Observers' trustworthiness, deciding between no feedback, a positive one and a negative one. The males were more inclined to feedback the Observer with which they had interact compared to the females, while the adolescents were less prone to leave a feedback.