English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Humans judge each other's actions, which at least partly functions to detectand deter cheating and to enable helpfulness in an indirect reciprocityfashion. However, most forms of judging do not only concern the action itself,but also the moral status of the receiving individual (to deter cheating itmust be morally acceptable to withhold help from cheaters). This is a problem,when not everybody agrees who is good and who is bad. Although it has beenwidely acknowledged that disagreement may exist and that it can be detrimentalfor indirect reciprocity, the details of this crucial feature of moraljudgments have never been studied in depth. We show, that even when everybodyassesses individually (aka privately), some moral judgement systems (aka norms)can lead to high levels of agreement. We give a detailed account of themechanisms which cause it and we show how to predict agreement analyticallywithout requiring agent-based simulations, and for any observation rate.Finally, we show that agreement may increase or decrease reputations andtherefore how much helpfulness (aka cooperation) occurs.

We both think you did wrong -- How agreement shapes and is shaped by indirect reciprocity