Published May 27, 2026 | Version 1
Working paper Open

Algorithmic reputation: toward a theory of the construct in the era of generative models

Authors/Creators

  • 1. Indepent Researcher

Description

Working paper — conceptual anchor of the research program on algorithmic reputation. The empirical companion piece (10.5281/zenodo.18802347) develops the exploratory application to AI search engines.

This article introduces the construct of algorithmic reputation and argues for its theoretical autonomy. It is defined as the representation of an entity that is constructed and reproduced by an algorithmic mediator, and is thus distinct from both the aggregate human judgment studied by corporate reputation research (Fombrun, 1996; Ponzi et al., 2011) and the message–source dyad examined in source credibility studies (Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Pornpitakpan, 2004).

The shift in evaluator—from the human stakeholder to the statistical model—renders neither of these classical constructs isomorphic to the new object of study. The contribution is fourfold. First, it traces the conceptual genealogy of algorithmic authority as a direct antecedent (Gillespie, 2014; Caplan & boyd, 2018; Bucher, 2018; Diakopoulos, 2016) and connects this tradition to large language models. Second, it proposes two analytically distinguishable dimensions—entity authority and entity credibility—and explicitly confronts them with the bidimensional model of organizational reputation by Rindova et al. (2005). Third, it delineates the boundaries of the construct vis-à-vis corporate reputation and source credibility, and formulates three falsifiable propositions that specify the conditions under which it could be refuted. Fourth, it maps three modalities of the construct—synthetic, search-engine, and platform reputation—with the synthetic modality as the object of a subsequent contribution currently in preparation, while the platform modality is incorporated as a boundary case whose full inclusion within the umbrella construct is deliberately left open.

Files

Files (31.1 kB)

Name Size
md5:78756744ec9c0ed1c717357c3d6a6ff8
31.1 kB Download

Additional details

Related works

Cites
Working paper: 10.5281/zenodo.18802347 (DOI)

Dates

Created
2026-05-27

References

  • Aggarwal, P., Murahari, V., Rajpurohit, T., Kalyan, A., Narasimhan, K., & Deshpande, A. (2024). GEO: Generative engine optimization. Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637528.3671900
  • Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '21), 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
  • Bucher, T. (2018). If…then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press. Caplan, R., & boyd, d. (2018). Isomorphism through algorithms: Institutional dependencies in the case of Facebook. Big Data & Society, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718757253
  • Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2844110
  • Eisenegger, M., & Imhof, K. (2008). The true, the good and the beautiful: Reputation management in the media society. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research: European and international perspectives and innovation (pp. 125–146). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
  • Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Harvard Business School Press.
  • Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. M. (2000). The Reputation Quotient: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 7(4), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2000.10
  • Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). MIT Press.
  • Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1086/266350
  • Introna, L. D., & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). Shaping the Web: Why the politics of search engines matters. The Information Society, 16(3), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240050133634
  • Kamruzzaman, M., Nguyen, H. M., & Kim, G. L. (2024). "Global is good, local is bad?": Understanding brand bias in LLMs. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 12695–12702. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.707
  • Khan, M. A., Amani, M., Das, S., Ghosh, B., Wu, Q., Gummadi, K. P., Gupta, M., & Ravichander, A. (2026). In agents we trust, but who do agents trust? Latent source preferences steer LLM generations. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15456
  • Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310390963
  • Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W., Rocktäschel, T., Riedel, S., & Kiela, D. (2020). Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 9459–9474.
  • Ponzi, L. J., Fombrun, C. J., & Gardberg, N. A. (2011). RepTrak Pulse: Conceptualizing and validating a short-form measure of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 14(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2011.5
  • Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.
  • Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1033–1057. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.19573108
  • Shah, C., & Bender, E. M. (2022). Situating search. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR '22), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505816
  • Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). MIT Press
  • Wilson, P. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Greenwood Press.
  • Yánez Blum, S. (2026). Gestión de la reputación en la era de los buscadores con IA: una aplicación exploratoria de la Teoría de la Autoridad Algorítmica [Reputation management in the era of AI search engines: an exploratory application of the Theory of Algorithmic Authority] (Version 1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18802347
  • Yánez Blum, S. (in preparation). Algorithmic reputation management: A framework for the synthetic modality of algorithmic reputation [Manuscript in preparation].
  • Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Nothhaft, H., & Werder, K. P. (2018). Strategic communication: Defining the field and its contribution to research and practice. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 487–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1493485
  • Zerfass, A., Hagelstein, J., & Tench, R. (2020). Artificial intelligence in communication management: A cross-national study on adoption and knowledge, impact, challenges and risks. Journal of Communication Management, 24(4), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-10-2019-0137