What is known about personal reputation? A systematic literature review

Abstract

This systematic literature review encompassed the results of previous research on personal reputation and found opportunities in state of the literature to guide future research in communication, management, and other disciplines in the social sciences. A content analysis was conducted of 91 manuscripts from 1984 to November 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The findings suggest that the amount of literature on personal reputation has increased since 2006; however, it is still in a developing stage. Due to its scarcity, it is advisable to conduct more qualitative and probability studies. For this review, several of the most cited articles are probably pioneering manuscripts that contributed to building the personal reputation construct. This review establishes a total of six categories for guiding future research opportunities on personal reputation. To facilitate the classification of the different future research opportunities, some types of areas suggested by Gomez-Trujillo et al. were considered. The discussion of future research opportunities includes categories like Causes and Effects, Inventories and Scales, Online and Digital Context, Organizational and Group Environments, Leaders and Top Management Executives, and Theory-building. On the other hand, this study could be considered the first step towards future research on how personal reputation influences audiences' opinions and perceptions in different research fields. It also opens the possibility of conducting more specific systematic literature reviews on this topic. Finally, this manuscript offers an overview of the present and the future of construct of personal reputation in the social sciences.

Highlights

• •This review could be the first step to performing future research on how personal reputation influences the perceptions of audiences in different disciplines.
• •Several of the most cited articles are probably pioneering manuscripts that contributed to building the personal reputation construct.
• •The amount of literature on personal reputation has increased since 2006; however, it is still in a developing stage.
• •A more significant number of qualitative and probability studies must be conducted due to their scarcity in the literature.
• •The study of personal reputation has been extended to different contexts, from traditional business executives to celebrities and online collaboration networks.

1. Introduction

This work is in the line of previous similar works due to the fact that there is an increasing interest in studying personal reputation, and its presence is vital in different activities, environments, and contexts.

The developing stage of literature about personal reputation and its implications in different contexts lead us to examine this bibliography as a start point to work in new premises and hypothesis. In addition, the conceptualization of this concept is evolving. Its meaning depends on the approach and discipline of study, which at the same time challenges the exploration and application of personal reputation study.

In this sense, this literature review is different from others because it is the first step towards develop future research on how personal reputation influences in different fields of study and opens the possibility of conducting more specific systematic literature reviews on personal reputation. First, this work tries to review the articles related to personal reputation as a hot social topic from different approaches and disciplines. Second, this review is linked to the economic implications of personal reputation for either individuals or firms. Third, how social media and the internet are closely linked to creating and managing personal reputation and how communication and ICTs generating powerful messages that strengthen certain perceptions. Finally, in this manuscript is analyzed how personal reputation has moved from traditional business executives to celebrities and online collaboration networks.

For instance, in the case of politicians, personal reputation can be a mechanism for attracting votes from their constituencies [1]. Hence, close attention must be paid to the choice of audiences since an advertising campaign is a slow, costly, and challenging process in which reputation plays a strategic role [2]. For workers, personal reputation may be a way to secure promotions and remain active in the labor market [3], primarily if they correctly communicate their image to the organization's different audiences.

Regarding group dynamics, personal reputation may be a criterion for choosing corporate partners [4]. For companies, the CEO's reputation may be either beneficial or harmful when it comes to their audiences [5]. On the other hand, in the case of children, reputation can play a role in promoting behaviors aligned with pro-sociality, and sometimes they are even more generous when the audiences around them are aware of their actions [6].

Personal reputation has long been inherent to individuals’ activities, environment, and contexts, and it has also earned a place over time as a subject of study, especially for leaders, and authorities. The historical relevance of personal reputation may have been coined at the time of Adam Smith, who suggested that probity or integrity with the outside world builds personal reputation [7].

Personal reputation can be positive or negative, transcendent, or irrelevant to our own or an outsider's criteria. Regardless, there is a fundamental truth: individuals inevitably have reputations. In addition, personal reputations are built from an early age [6,8].

Although the definition of reputation has varied, the concept of personal reputation has evolved through the enrichment of this theoretical construct. Personal reputation refers to inferences based on an individual's information [6,9]. Moreover, through others' (i.e., audiences') perceptions, a perceptive identity is formed which reveals the individual's characteristics, outstanding personal achievements, behaviors, and projection of intentional images [10] that they can be observed directly or by secondary sources [11].

In this sense, people can develop reputations for different reasons, for instance, to please an audience and build a public self-consistent with one's ideal [12]. In addition, people may have different reputations among distinct audiences [5,13], and personal reputation can be measured using different scales. The former refers to a single or one-dimensional scale [14] used in most studies from an organizational approach [15]. The second scale is multidimensional and encompasses three types or dimensions, namely task reputation, social reputation, and integrity reputation, which requires a more in-depth explanation to strengthen its empirical evidence. Also, with the one-dimensional scale, it is not possible to particularize each of these dimensions because it treats them interchangeably [15]. A multidimensional personal reputation inventory could deepen our understanding and the scope of study on this topic.

On the other hand, the audience's perceptions about a leader/authority can be good or bad; therefore, personal reputation can be considered either positive or negative. A positive reputation is a person's attribute indicating they are more likely to be desirable for a given interaction than those without this attribute. Therefore, this attribute can be conferred through a reputation system, which includes formalized or standardized procedures [16]. It can be applied to different context of reputation, e.g. a personal reputation system for cross-platform reputation [128].

These reputation systems exist in contemporary society, and some of them including the awarding of prizes, rewards, credentials, professional titles, or certifications to individuals, making them more likely to become the most suitable for engaging in interactions [16]. For instance, membership in reputable religious groups may give people a reputation for integrity, given the thoroughness of the formal and institutional procedure of membership [17]. In other words, this procedure may actually be a reputation system [16]. Furthermore, the outcomes of positive personal reputation include gaining power, autonomy, professional success, promotions, and rewards [11,13,18,19].

There is some research linked to negative personal reputation. For example, destructive and selfish leaders who disparage their organizations and audiences can cause long-term damage through their narcissistic bid to boost their reputation [20]. Furthermore, attracting new members is more complex due to the leader's negative reputation that and can produce a negative effect in the corporate reputation [21]. Hence, further research is required to deepen our knowledge of this type of reputation.

For this research, personal reputation is the set of perceptions, judgments, evaluations, and beliefs which at least a part of a social group, community, or collectivity form about the personal qualities, specific facts, actions, roles, and relationship status of one of their members [22]. In this sense there are different taxonomies regarding ways of knowing a person that is rooted in the historical development of personality research methods [23]. Thus, personal reputation is the product of social processes in a group, and not an impression in the head of any single individual [24] so it is a phenomenon described in the media or observable in social interaction [25].

In this same sense, in this review, audiences mean the recipients of messages [26], and these recipients may include internal and external groups that are complex and intermingled and have diverse attributes [27]. Hence, individuals such as leaders, authorities, managers, or celebrities try to communicate the right message to their recipients/audiences by employing different tools, such as signaling theory, impression management theory, or communication theories. The outcome is that they come to be perceived in a particular desired manner (reputation-building).

On the other hand, it is crucial to address the difference between personal branding and personal reputation. Personal branding is the process whereby people and their expertise are tagged like commercial brands [28]. A solid personal brand is the human side of branding, understood as a mix of reputation, trust, attention, and execution [29]. Furthermore, branding is analogous to building a reputation since both seek to successfully influence those around us, but in contrast to branding, reputation can happen independently of intent, and people can often have unintentional negative reputations [30].

The objective of this systematic literature review article was to summarize the results of previous research on personal reputation and to find opportunities given the current state of art to guide future research in the social sciences and other disciplines. Likewise, this review is the first step towards develop future research on how personal reputation influences the opinions and perceptions of audiences in different fields of study. This review opens the possibility of conducting more specific systematic literature reviews on personal reputation. The novelties found when reviewing the articles related to personal reputation included in this manuscript are individuals' growing awareness and predetermined behaviors to develop and maintain their reputation, even from an early age. Reputation has become a hot social topic from different approaches and disciplines, from formal evaluations to ostracism and aggrandizement. Furthermore, other novelties found in this review are linked to the economic implications of a personal reputation for either individuals or firms, or both, especially when incorporating social media and the internet and how they are closely linked to creating and managing personal reputation. Another novelty is the extension of this construct in different contexts, ranging traditional business executives to celebrities and online collaboration networks. A final novelty focuses on communication and ICTs generating powerful messages that strengthen certain perceptions about people in audiences. For more details on the novelties of this paper, check sections Future Research Opportunities and Literature Gaps, and Implications.

Hence, it is essential to highlight the question asked in this review: What are the opportunities in the state of the art of personal reputation to guide future research?

2. Method

2.1. Design

To answer this question, this review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [31]. The PRISMA guidelines allow records around systematic reviews and meta-analyses to be identified, screened, included, and tracked (see, e.g. Ref. [32]). In addition, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important in healthcare [33], and the PRISMA guidelines are a valuable tool for conducting reviews for this discipline. Nonetheless, the PRISMA guidelines are standardized protocols employed for many other disciplines, including the social sciences, such as economics, psychology, and linguistics. In this last case, PRISMA guidelines may be used to discover the most effective strategies for English language teaching over time.

The PRISMA statement comprises a 27-item checklist addressing the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and other information in a systematic review report, which is included in supplementary materials file 2. In addition, it presents a detailed explanation of the process for conducting each of its phases, including the review protocol available in supplementary materials file 1.

2.2. Sampling

2.2.1. Phase 1. Choosing the databases

Firstly, searches were conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection database, Scopus, and Communication and Mass Media Complete to compile the articles. These databases are some of the most comprehensive, well-known, and widely used sources of information among academicians, students, and researchers [34,35].

2.2.2. Phase 2. Boolean syntax

The search strategies included a set of keywords. This set considered the following terms: “personal reputation,” “reputation of the individual,” “personal reputations,” "individuals' reputations,” “reputation of the person,” “reputation of persons”. This set of keywords used the Boolean operator “OR.” The authors decided not to use the Boolean operators “AND” and “NOT,” which restricted the number of results [36]. In this sense, the three databases offer many fields that filter the search results. Some of these fields restricted the results (e.g., Title), while others provided unmanageable results in that there were thousands of them (e.g., All fields). For this reason, the authors decided to use the field “Abstract."

The Boolean syntax for Web of Science is (“personal reputation” (Abstract) OR “reputation of the individual” (Abstract) OR “personal reputations” (Abstract) OR "individuals' reputations” (Abstract) OR “reputation of the person” (Abstract) OR “reputation of persons” (Abstract)))

In the same sense, for Scopus the Boolean syntax is (ABS (“personal reputation”) OR ABS (“reputation of the individual”) OR ABS (“personal reputations”) OR ABS (“individuals' reputations”) OR ABS (“reputation of the person”) OR ABS (“reputation of persons”)) AND PUBYEAR >1983 AND PUBYEAR <2023 AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “SOCI”)).

Finally, the Boolean syntax for Communication and Mass Media Complete is (AB “personal reputation” OR AB “reputation of the individual” OR AB “personal reputations” OR AB "individuals' reputations” OR AB “reputation of the person” OR AB “reputation of persons"))

2.2.3. Phase 3. search periods

The first search was conducted from July 1, 2022, to November 25, 2022. The authors got an overall idea of the scope of the topic from these first search exercises [37].

At the same time, the bibliographic references of the final list of articles in this systematic review were carefully reviewed to guarantee that all relevant literature was collected [37,38].

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

2.3.1. Phase 4. Reliability and validity criteria

The systematic review process uses literature assessment methods to include only studies that meet strict, narrow criteria for measuring the reliability and validity of previous research [39]. Therefore, the inclusion criteria accepted studies with any of the keywords mentioned above. Furthermore, the studies had to appear in Web of Science, Scopus, and Communication and Mass Media Complete, and the manuscripts had to be from 1984 to November 2022. The reason for using these criteria is the following: Although the manuscript by Gamson [40] outlines a personal reputation study, the year 1984 was chosen as the starting point for this review because the article by Tsui [13] is possibly the first to introduce the study of personal reputation in the field of organizations [30].

On the other hand, the exclusion criteria rejected articles that mainly studied corporate reputation. Corporate reputation is conceptualized as the overall assessment of a firm by its stakeholders [41]. Some topics addressed during the exclusion process included: the influence of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on corporate reputation, the most reputable industries, or the impact of corporate philanthropy on corporate reputation.

Other exclusion criteria rejected articles that mainly studied group reputation. Group reputation is the set of beliefs that others hold about how powerful a unit is [42]. Some themes addressed during the exclusion process included: reputation distribution among heterogeneous groups, individual trust and group reputation, and media and the reputation of religious groups.

A final exclusion criterion rejected articles that mainly studied topics linked to personal behavior. Personal behavior is described as an individual's attempt to effect a change from one state of affairs to another [43]. Some subjects addressed during the exclusion process included: compassion and care among individuals and institutional reputation, personal behavior and literary reputation, or polarized attitudes and reputations of networks.

2.4. Data collection process

2.4.1. Phase 5. PRISMA flowchart design

As part of the data collection process, the title and abstract were analyzed, and subsequently the complete articles were reviewed. Two reviewers performed this process, and a third reviewer collaborated when necessary. An illustration of the process can be found the flow chart in Fig. 1. PRISMA flow chart of the systematic literature review.

Fig. 1.

PRISMA flow chart of the systematic literature review.

2.5. Analysis and appraisal

2.5.1. Phase 6. Application of the PRISMA guidelines

The team responsible for extracting and evaluating the information from the articles included in the systematic review consisted of two researchers. In case of disagreement, a third author was asked to evaluate. The level of agreement between the two researchers was 96%.

The analysis method used was content analysis. This method provides access to deep structures and is distinguished by not being intrusive and allowing for analytical flexibility [44]. Hence, for these authors, this method allows longitudinal designs to be established, while content analysis offers advantages such as methodological security, scalability, cost-effectiveness, collaboration, triangulation, and replicability [44]. For instance, manuscripts such as that of Gomez-Trujillo et al. [45] applied this method.

However, prior to this phase, 46 duplicated articles were removed from the 298 articles identified in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Communication and Mass Media Complete, leaving 252 manuscripts. The researchers began to analyze each of these 252 articles independently.

In the first round of analysis, the title and abstract were evaluated, and manuscripts that were not linked with the topic of study were disregarded. Some of the topics of the titles and abstracts excluded dealt with the reputations of committees, the reputation of individually-named wines, communal reputation, and the reputation of the country's laws. Discarding manuscripts through title and abstract evaluations is a common practice in systematic reviews (see, e.g. Refs. [45,46]).

The number of articles eliminated based on their title and abstract was 108, leaving 144 articles. Then, the second round of analysis was repeated to find any articles that should be excluded that focused mainly on studying corporate reputation, group reputation, or personal behavior. A detailed discussion about these exclusion criteria can be found in section 2.3, Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

In this step, 79 articles were excluded; the remaining 65 were from the Web of Science, Scopus, and Communication and Mass Media Complete databases. On the other hand, 26 articles were added based on a review of the reference lists of the articles included. Thus, the final sample of the systematic review included 91 articles.

The coding of the studies (application of the content analysis) in the final sample attended to the objective-purpose-research question, the dominant theoretical approach, the research method, findings, gaps, and suggested future research, as in Gomez-Trujillo et al. [45] and Aguilera et al. [47].

3. Results

This section discusses the multiple findings related to the content analysis of the 91 articles that comprise the final sample of this systematic review.

3.1. Production per year

Fig. 2. Systematic review per year, shows the growth in scholarly output related to personal reputation. First, from 1984 (see, e.g. Ref. [13]) to 2000, the output was intermittent or the articles did not meet the requirements for inclusion in the systematic review [45]. There were just two articles or 2.2% of the total manuscripts during this period.

Fig. 2.

Systematic review per year.

Secondly, since 2001 (see, e.g. Ref. [48]) to 2005, there was a constant but small production of manuscripts. In this period, there were five articles, or 5.5% of the total studies reviewed.

From 2006 to 2020, the literature on personal reputation production grew substantially. Seventy-five manuscripts, or 82.4% of the total articles, were produced in this period. At the beginning of this period, Hochwarter et al. [14] proposed a scale that was pioneering in measuring personal reputation, which possibly influenced the scholarly output on this construct.

Finally, during 2021 and 2022, there was a decrease in the production of manuscripts, since just nine articles, or 9.9% of the total manuscripts, were produced in this period. The overall amount of literature on personal reputation produced per year can be found in Table 1. Systematic review per year.

Table 1.

Systematic review per year.

Year	No. Of articles	%	References
1984	1	1.1	[13]
2000	1	1.1	[55]
2001	1	1.1	[48]
2002	1	1.1	[118]
2003	1	1.1	[11]
2004	1	1.1	[107]
2005	1	1.1	[68]
2006	1	1.1	[56]
2007	2	2.2	[10,14]
2008	2	2.2	[22,108]
2009	4	4.4	[52,86,89,121]
2010	3	3.3	[67,93,117]
2011	2	2.2	[69,97]
2012	6	6.6	[53,66,70,95,120,127]
2013	4	4.4	[50,65,119,123]
2014	5	5.5	[58,63,64,90,103]
2015	6	6.6	[30,71,92,96,102,130]
2016	8	8.8	[9,15,54,57,75,82,84,109]
2017	8	8.8	[59,62,72,105,112,124,126,129]
2018	8	8.8	[51,74,78,79,83,106,116,122]
2019	8	8.8	[76,77,80,81,91,94,125,128]
2020	8	8.8	[49,60,61,73,85,87,110,111]
2021	3	3.3	[99,104,113]
2022	6	6.6	[88,98,100,101,114,115]
Total	91	100

3.2. Bibliographic resources in personal reputation

The bibliographic resources in the 91 articles was conducted, and it found that the journals with the most manuscripts were: Journal of Business Ethics, Electoral Studies, Physics Letters A, Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Public Relations Review, Journal of Applied Psychology and Review of Financial Studies. Each of them had two articles, as shown in Fig. 3. Bibliographic resources. The other sources included in this systematic review only have one published article. The sources are shown in Table 2. Bibliographic resources on personal reputation.

Fig. 3.

Bibliographic resources.

Table 2.

Bibliographic resources on personal reputation.

Source	No. Of articles
Journal of Business Ethics	2
Electoral Studies	2
Physics Letters A	2
Japanese Journal of Social Psychology	2
International Journal of Organizational Analysis	2
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management	2
Public Relations Review	2
Journal of Applied Psychology	2
Review of Financial Studies	2
Total	18

Note: Sources with only one manuscript were excluded from this table.

Therefore, considering the information in Fig. 2, Fig. 3, we can infer that the construct of personal reputation has moved from an incipient stage to a developing stage (see, e.g. Refs. [10,30]).

3.3. Author's country affiliation

Fig. 4. Author's country affiliation, shows the country affiliation of the authors of the contributions to the literature on personal reputation. First, the country with the highest affiliations is the United States of America, with 74 records. The country with the second highest number of affiliations is the United Kingdom, with 24 records. China is ranked third in this systematic review, with 19 affiliations, while Italy and Australia have 15 and 11 records, respectively. Complete information can be found in Table 3. Authors' country affiliation.

Fig. 4.

Author's country affiliation.

Table 3.

Authors' country affiliation.

Australia	11
Brazil	2
China	19
Denmark	3
Germany	6
Indonesia	5
Israel	3
Italy	15
Japan	4
Netherlands	2
Portugal	3
South Africa	3
South Korea	3
Spain	9
Thailand	2
Turkey	7
United Kingdom	24
United States of America	74

Note: Countries with only one author affiliation were excluded.

3.4. The main framework or major related theories

Fig. 5. The main framework or major related theories, presents the main framework or the major related theories of the articles linked to this review of personal reputation. Of the 91 manuscripts included in this systematic review, 14 articles, or 15.4%, were mainly focused on a theoretical framework related to personal or individual reputation, as in the research of Ahn et al. [49]. Additionally, seven articles, or 7.7% of the systematic review, were predominantly based on behavior theories, such as that of Klotz and Bolino [50]. Meanwhile, four studies, or 4.4% of the systematic review, addressed the sharing economy, as in the study by Mikołajewska-Zając [51]. On the other hand, there were three manuscripts, accounting for 3.3%, on corporate reputation and corporate issues, like the article by Fang and Yasuda [52]. In addition, integrity, trustworthiness, ethics, and leadership appeared in three articles, or 3.3% of the systematic review. Communication and marketing theories were covered in six manuscripts, or 6.6% of this review, such as the study by Foste and Botero [53]. Other frameworks like political and electoral theories or theories of ingratiation, political skill, and political will had two manuscripts each, or 2.2%.

Fig. 5.

The main framework or major related theories.

The main framework or theories related to delegation, felt accountability, group reputation, networks and alliances, performance, reputation systems, narrative identity and perception of the person, and signaling appeared in one article each, or the equivalent of 1.1%. Furthermore, 23 articles, or 25.3% of the systematic review, covered two previous frameworks/theories. Finally, 19 articles, or 20.9% of the systematic review, examined three of the previous frameworks/theories.

Knowing the most outstanding frameworks is important not only to have a clear idea about the theories around personal reputation of most significant interest to academicians and researchers but also to generate an initial overview of how these frameworks can be included in the study of the audiences, for instance, to analyze how a political-social-business leader uses signaling theory to strengthen his/her reputation among audiences, to examine how personal reputation could influence the development of corporate reputation among audiences and stakeholders, or to study how the personal reputation gained by a celebrity's ethical leadership can generate engagement among different audiences.

Likewise, it can also enable us to identify what communication strategies in the sharing economy are the most effective in building personal reputation. Complete information can be found in Table 4. The main framework or major related theories.

Table 4.

The main framework or major related theories.

Main framework or theory	References	No. Of articles in this systematic review	%
Personal or individual reputation framework	[49,57,64,67,69,75,80,103,108,115,116,[124], [125], [126]]	14	15.4%
Behavior theories	[50,85,86,88,94,121,130]	7	7.7%
Sharing economy	[51,54,81,83]	4	4.4%
Corporate reputation and corporate issues	[48,52,129]	3	3.3%
Communication and marketing theories	[53,77,93,97,105,112]	6	6.6%
Political and electoral theories	[63,65]	2	2.2%
Integrity, trustworthiness, ethics, and leadership	[55,91,92]	3	3.3%
Delegation theory	[96]	1	1.1%
Felt accountability	[119]	1	1.1%
Group reputation	[66]	1	1.1%
Ingratiation, political skill, and political will theories	[61,123]	2	2.2%
Networks and alliances	[117]	1	1.1%
Reputation systems	[128]	1	1.1%
Performance theory	[56]	1	1.1%
Narrative identity and perception of the person	[111]	1	1.1%
Signaling theory	[82]	1	1.1%
Two of the previous frameworks/theories	[9,13,22,58,59,62,[70], [71], [72], [73], [74],78,79,84,89,90,95,[100], [101], [102],104,109,110]	23	25.3%
Three of the previous frameworks/theories	[10,11,14,15,30,60,68,76,87,98,99,106,107,113,114,118,120,122,127]	19	20.9%
Total		91	100%

3.5. The main methods and designs used

Fig. 6. The main methods and designs used, classifies the articles in this systematic review by the type of research method used. Fifty-nine of the manuscripts, or 64.8%, were quantitative; however, a lack of studies of probability was detected. On the other hand, the qualitative method only had 14 manuscripts or the equivalent of 15.4% of the total records. This enables us to pinpoint the need for more research that includes qualitative manuscripts and studies of probability to strengthen the personal reputation construct. Three (3.3%) and 15 (16.5%) articles were identified with mixed and other research methods. It is important to note that the most representative but non-limiting methods for each article were considered in this classification. The principal methods are found in Table 5. The main methods and designs used.

Fig. 6.

The main methods and designs used.

Table 5.

The main methods and designs used.

Method/Design	References	No. Of articles in this systematic review	%
Qualitative	[9,51,55,68,71,74,75,80,98,102,105,113,116,129]	14	15.4
Quantitative	[[13], [14], [15],22,49,[52], [53], [54],[56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67],73,76,78,[81], [82], [83],85,87,88,[90], [91], [92],[94], [95], [96], [97],99,101,104,106,107,109,111,112,114,115,[117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128],130]	59	64.8
Mixed	[77,84,110]	3	3.3
Others	[10,11,30,48,50,69,70,72,79,86,89,93,100,103,108]	15	16.5
Total		91	100

3.6. The most cited articles

Fig. 7. The most cited articles, summarizes the eight most cited manuscripts of the 91 articles analyzed in this systematic literature review until the end of November 2022. The eight articles together add up to a total of 2209 citations in the Web of Science Core Collection.

Fig. 7.

The most cited articles.

The manuscript by Ert et al. [54] published in Tourism Management had 679 citations; this article evaluated whether the perception of sellers' trustworthiness based on their photos affects the consumption of online services. The Treviño et al. [55] study published by California Management Review had 552 citations. This study analyzed how executives build a reputation for ethical leadership. Likewise, the article by Mehra et al. [56], published by the Organization Science, received 279 citations; this research determined that leaders' centrality in internal and external friendship networks is related to group performance measures and to their reputation for leadership among different audiences. The research conducted by Tsui [13] in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance had 207 citations; this manuscript found that the most reputationally effective managers tend to be more successful in their careers than the least reputationally effective managers, and a small percentage of them gain reputational effectiveness among all audiences. The study by Bromley [48], published by the European Journal of Marketing, received 137 citations; this research studied the implications of personal reputation, identity-corporate reputation, and the role of corporate communication. The study by Jiang et al. [57] published by Review of Financial Studies, with 133 citations, determined that highly reputed directors dissent more often. The article published by Hochwarter et al. [14] in the Journal of Applied Psychology received 112 citations and found that political behavior was associated with a decrease in uncertainty and emotional exhaustion and an increase in job-performance ratings for individuals with a favorable reputation, while the opposite occurred for individuals with an unfavorable reputation. The manuscript by Fang and Yasuda [52], published by the Review of Financial Studies, had 110 citations; this research determined that personal and bank reputation are associated with higher quality forecasts; nonetheless, their effectiveness with regard to conflicts of interest differs, so personal reputation is an effective device against conflicts of interest, while bank reputation by itself is not [52]. Therefore, it could be interesting to study the types and channels of communication that favor personal reputation and lower the perception of conflicts of interest among different stakeholders.

Some of these articles determine the outcomes and impact of personal reputation among audiences, as well as the role of communication in developing intangible elements for organizations, such as their identity and reputation. Furthermore, the way personal reputation can influence leadership perceptions among audiences is also analyzed. Hence, we can infer that the most cited articles in this systematic review are probably some of the pioneering manuscripts in the study of personal reputation (e.g. Refs. [13,48]) or ones that gave rise to the development of this construct (e.g. Ref. [14]). For example, the scale proposed in the manuscript by Hochwarter et al. [14] is a pioneer in assessing personal reputation. The complete information can be found in Table 6. The most cited articles.

Table 6.

The most cited articles.

No	Reference	Source	Times Cited	Objective	Main findings
1	Ert et al. (2016)	Tourism Management	679	To evaluate whether the perception of sellers' trustworthiness based on their photos affects the consumption of online services.	The level of hosts' trustworthiness, mostly inferred from their photos, influences listing prices and the likelihood of being chosen. In addition, the host's reputation, communicated by online review scores, does not affect either the listing price or the likelihood of being chosen.
2	Treviño et al. (2000)	California Management Review	552	To analyze how executives build a reputation for ethical leadership.	The development of a reputation for ethical leadership depends on how others perceive the leader on two dimensions: as a moral person and as a moral manager.
3	Mehra et al. (2006)	Organization Science	279	To examine both leaders' external-internal social network ties and how they are related to leaders' reputations for leadership.	The leaders' centrality in internal and external friendship networks is related to group performance measures and their reputation for leadership among their constituents.
4	Tsui (1984)	Organizational Behavior and Human Performance	207	To evaluate managers' effectiveness by analyzing their reputation in the role set.	The most reputationally effective managers tend to be more successful in their careers than the least reputationally effective managers. A small percentage of managers gain reputational effectiveness from all their constituents.
5	Bromley (2001)	European Journal of Marketing	137	To study the implications of personal reputation in the study of corporate identity and reputation.	There are sets of implications around the organizations that members of internal and external groups perceive. In addition, there are implications for the relationships between identity and reputation.
6	Jiang et al. (2016)	Review of Financial Studies	133	To evaluate the voting behavior of independent directors of public companies in China from 2004 to 2012.	The more highly reputed directors dissent more often. In addition, the negative association between the director's age and the tendency to dissent is more pronounced among directors who are already highly reputed.
7	Hochwarter et al. (2007)	Journal of Applied Psychology	112	To conceptualize a favorable personal reputation with the potential to moderate the relationship between political behavior and effectiveness when influencing others, in order to lower strain and increase perceived effectiveness.	Political behavior was associated with decreased uncertainty and emotional exhaustion and increased job performance ratings for individuals with a favorable reputation, while the opposite occurred in individuals with negative reputations.
8	Fang & Yasuda (2009)	Review of Financial Studies	110	To examine whether the quality differentials in earnings forecasts between reputable and non-reputable analysts vary with the severity of conflicts of interest and whether they measure personal-bank reputation.	Personal and bank reputation are associated with higher quality forecasts; nonetheless, their effectiveness related to conflicts of interest differs. Hence, personal reputation is an effective device against conflicts of interest, while bank reputation alone is not.

Note: Citations from WoS until November 2022.

4. Discussion

4.1. Future research opportunities and literature gaps

The content analysis of the 91 articles included in the final sample of this systematic review was carried out from 1984 to November 2022 to find the opportunities and the main gaps in the literature in order to guide future research around personal reputation, as shown in Table 7. Future research opportunities and literature gaps. To facilitate the classification of the different opportunities for future research, some types of areas suggested by Gomez-Trujillo et al. [45] were considered. In summary, the opportunity areas are classified as follows: Causes and Effects, Inventories and Scales, Online and Digital Context, Organizational and Group Environments, Theory-building, and Leaders and Top Management Executives.

Table 7.

Future research opportunities and literature gaps.

Area	Reference	Selected future research opportunities and selected literature gaps
Causes and Effects	Suzuki and Kobayashi (2014), Iwatani and Muramoto (2017), Fidan and Koç (2020), Demirbağ et al. (2020), Zinko et al. (2017b), Anderson and Shirako (2008), André et al. (2014), André and Depauw (2014), André and Depauw (2013), Baum et al. (2012), Crisp et al. (2010), Klotz and Bolino (2013)	1) Predicting individuals' reputations by their counterparts' perceptions of their behavior.
		2) Studying whether reputation relates to the reasons why voters vote for candidates rather than parties.
		3) Analyzing how inter-party and intra-party seat allocation incentivizes legislators to nurture a personal reputation.
		4) Examining the role of reputation, prosocial behavior, and language in achieving human cooperation.
		5) Furthering the study of incentives for legislators to cultivate a personal reputation and the influence of these incentives within international agreements.
		6) Furthering the study of how gossip affects reputation-building in different cultures.
		7) Studying the impact of political will and political skill on online reputation and online network resources.
		8) Investigating the association among personality traits, personal reputation, and organizational outcomes.
		9) Furthering the study of political skill, career satisfaction, and personal reputation at different educational levels and in different countries.
Inventories and Scales	Hochwarter et al. (2007), Zinko et al. (2016)	1) Studying the theoretical and methodological efforts to understand the general personal reputation scale, which may be multidimensional, with unique antecedents and consequences.
		2) Examining the social, task, and integrity dimensions of an individual's reputation and determining which are the most prominent at different levels in the organization, while assessing the relationships among them.
Leaders and Top Management Executives	Hood (2010), Erkmen & Esen (2019), Niap & Taylor (2012), Jiang et al. (2016), Graham et al. (2015), Westphal and Deephouse (2011)	1) Furthering the study of CEOs delegating final decisions and the circumstances that drive variations in delegation.
		2) Furthering the study of CEOs' positions and journalist relationships and the role-impact on personal and corporate reputation.
		3) Assessing the different components of CEO remuneration with their reputations.
Online and Digital Context	Murray and White (2005), Adee (2011), Emelo (2012), Yang (2015), Jamil (2017), Anto et al. (2020), Palos-Sanchez et al. (2018), Ryan et al. (2016), Yang (2016), Bonafé‐Pontes et al. (2019), Wiart (2019), Ert et al. (2016), Centeno et al. (2018), Jamil and Breckenridge (2018), Ryan et al. (2019), Abrate and Viglia (2019), Liu et al. (2016), Mauri et al. (2018), Mikołajewska-Zając (2018), Pera et al. (2016), Wang et al. (2020)	1) Furthering the study of online relational communities where members interact with pre-existing friends, turning offline relationships into online ones to build a digital reputation.
		2) Examining different diseases, contexts and platforms that consider patient-level data collection and include both the study of personal reputation and corporate online reputation.
		3) Including censorship in information practices around personal reputation management for social media users.
		4) Further analyzing the trust mechanism upon which the sharing economy is built and its implications for the host's reputation.
		5) Increasing studies of the personal branding of writers on social media and their online reputations.
		6) Furthering studies of how individuals manage their online reputation on and outside of social media sites.
		7) Examining how people develop identity and reputation by considering online evaluations.
		8) Furthering studies of ethics in online reputations.
		9) Exploring how online personal branding contributes to developing a digital reputation.
		10) Developing an online abuse detection system to protect personal reputation.
Organizational and Group Environments	Estévez and Emler (2009), Potgieter and Doubell (2020), Zhang et al. (2022), Thompson (2009), Bromley (2001), Cavazza et al. (2014), Fang and Yasuda (2009), Jazaieri et al. (2019), Mehra et al. (2006), Neves and Story (2015)	1) Analyzing how the personal construct is related to corporate implications such as identity, reputation, image and culture.
		2) Furthering the research between personal and bank reputation and considering the agency problems.
		3) Including both different leadership styles and a broader range of leaders' social networks in the workplace, as well as establishing relationships with their personal reputations.
		4) Examining the mechanisms that link ethical leadership with employee behaviors, including the role of a reputation in performance.
		5) Analyzing how corporate and personal reputations attract human talent.
		6) Evaluating the multiple dimensions of reputation and their various mediating effects on the relationship between job ostracism and family social support.
		7) Furthering studies of the relationship between employer branding and employee branding on corporate branding and corporate reputation in SMEs.
Theory-building	Schreiber and Rieple (2022), Foster et al. (2021), Machado et al. (2022), Dong et al. (2022), Nicholas et al. (2015), Ferris et al. (2014), Zinko et al. (2007), Kim & Ji (2021), Arendt et al. (2017), Lanis et al. (2018), Ferris et al. (2003), Stiles and Raney (2004), Dunn (2008), Pagliaro et al. (2016), Rodgunphai & Kheokao (2020), Treviño et al. (2000), Dunlop et al. (2020), Hwang et al. (2017), Baquerizo-Neira (2021), Lauring et al. (2022), Shen et al. (2022), Ahn et al. (2020), Dumont, (2018), Ebbers and Wijnberg (2010), Foste and Botero (2012), Johnson et al. (2002), Laird et al. (2013), Laird et al. (2012), Laird et al. (2009), Strese et al. (2018), Tsui (1984), Wu et al. (2013), Xia et al. (2017), Yang et al. (2019), Zinko et al. (2017a), Zinko et al. (2012), Zinko and Rubin (2015), Blömer and Löken (2019), van der Waldt (2017), Cavazza et al. (2015)	1) Studying children's reputation strategies.
		2) Furthering studies of the prior reputation of celebrities/leaders and their charitable behaviors in different cultures and regions.
		3) Exploring the use of multiple audiences' perceptions in studying personal reputation, and including personal reputation dimensions and considering external and internal approaches to studying personal reputation.
		4) Furthering the analysis of how reputation influences ethical leadership development and vice-versa.
		5) Introducing the punishment effect into the study of the reputation mechanism.
		6) Exploring negative personal reputation in organizations.
		7) Studying the use of corporate reputation variables to measure personal reputation.
		8) Analyzing language skills, performance, and personal reputation qualitatively.

Firstly, 12 articles, or 13.18%, of all the manuscripts reviewed for this study were categorized in Causes and Effects (see, e.g. Refs. [22,50,[58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]]). The gaps in this area are linked with the drivers of personal reputation and the effects of personal reputation in different contexts and activities. For instance, the study by Klotz and Bolino [50] established how the effects of morally licensed counterproductive behaviors on personal reputation are influenced by the extent to which audiences are aware of prior morally praiseworthy acts of citizenship.

Secondly, for the Inventories and Scales area, two types of instruments to evaluate personal reputation were found. The research of Hochwarter et al. [14] provided a global personal reputation scale with unique antecedents and consequences. The manuscript by Zinko et al. [15] opened the possibility of examining the social, task, and integrity dimensions of an individual's reputation and determining which are the most prominent among different audiences. This last scale is relatively new and might be used in future studies to generate more empirical evidence for different types of organizations, industries, and cultures. Moreover, for possible future research, it is suggested that both scales be used simultaneously for different audiences and that the results be compared. Furthermore, the study of integrity within the construct of personal reputation should also be further explored.

Twenty-one studies, or 23.07% of the total manuscripts analyzed, were located in the Online and Digital Context opportunity area. The literature gaps are related to digital personal reputation, online audiences, information processes, language analysis, message contents, communication among users via the platforms, and the role of sharing economy platforms (see, e.g., Refs. [9,51,54] [[68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]]). For example, the research by Wang et al. [85] sets out to examine other contexts and platforms and includes patient-level data collection, and it concludes that online communication strategies should be considered since doctors' reputation has a positive effect on the number of reviews posted, while it also impacts the hospital's reputation. In other words, personal reputation impacts the audience's behavior and willingness to post.

Ten studies were coded for the Organizational and Group Environment area, in which the future research gaps link personal reputation and relationships with organizational audiences (see, e.g., Refs. [48,52,56]. For instance, in the context of education it is referred to the gap in the study of formal authority and social reputation among peers [86] that can be extrapolated to the management context. In this context many companies struggle to gain leadership but unaware of their leader's negative reputation for attracting talent. They often find the solution hiring an executive search firm that will bring them the leadership they need [89].

The manuscript by Jazaieri et al. [91] finds that trustworthiness and status potential are essential for developing personal reputation in an audience, and gossip is a form of reputational discourse focused on individuals who are both untrustworthy and have questionable status. Hence, future research should explore the content of reputations in forms of communication other than written narrative, including spontaneous conversations, text messages, and social media posts.

Six articles or 6.6% of the total manuscripts reviewed were considered in the area of Leaders and Top Management Executives. The literature opportunities are focused on the reputation of top managers, the effects of CEOs' reputations, and the relationships between leaders' reputations with different audiences (see, e.g. Refs. [57,[93], [94], [95], [96], [97]]). For example, the research by Niap and Taylor [95] suggested that CEOs' personal reputations have a positive significant impact on their total remuneration during periods of economic instability. On the other hand, 40 articles or 43.9% were categorized in the area of Theory-building (see, e.g., Refs. [10,11,13,30,49,53,55] [[98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130]]). For instance, the study by Ahn et al. [49] suggests comparing the younger children's reasoning about self-focused versus other-focused reputation strategies directly. Another example can be taken from the manuscript by Laird et al. [119]. They recommend using the perceptions of multiple audiences around the study of personal reputation and including its dimensions. Fig. 8. Future research opportunities and literature gaps, shows the number of manuscripts for each research opportunity area.

Fig. 8.

Future research opportunities and literature gaps.

4.2. Implications

On the one hand, the result in this manuscript is in line with previous studies due to it is analyzed the personal reputation construct in organizations (see, e.g. Refs. [10,103]) nonetheless; there are other disciplines and topics addressed in this study by their implications. In other words, this study is different from the previous woks due to the fact that this systematic literature review tracked some key point:

First, the importance of developing and managing personal reputation has generated greater awareness and premeditated behaviors among individuals, even starting in childhood (see, e.g. Refs. [6,49]). Moreover, this review confirmed that this construct has spread to different contexts, probably from the organizational environment to celebrities and CEOs (see, e.g. Refs. [13,104,112]).

Second, the relevance of online reputation in the sharing economy (e.g. Refs. [51,54,83]) and how online reputation makes people more desirable/undesirable for any economic transaction. Additionally, the social media play a strategic role in reputation management and vice-versa (e.g. Refs. [9,70,85]). The social media influence people's perceptions and consequently the trust they may have in other individuals. In other words, perceptions influence not only reputation-building but also trust in general and consumer trust in particular. Therefore, it would be interesting to study personal reputation, consumer trust, and social media.

Third, personal reputation can influence the behavior of audiences and stakeholders and consequently impact firms' reputations. Thus, personal reputation influences corporate reputation and might affect brand equity, financial performance, and firms’ demand function. Therefore, based on this research, it would be worthwhile to analyze how personal reputation influences the quantity demanded by consumers. In addition, another issue to be addressed is the study of personal reputation through the personal finance. In parallel, corporate reputation variables can contribute to measuring personal reputation (see, e.g. Ref. [129]), which would provide a global perspective on the study of reputation.

Finally, the implications around personal reputation are essential for top management in organizations (see, e.g. Refs. [55,88,92,94]) because personal reputation could have effects on professional-personal relationships with different audiences, work climate, team-building, and even leadership style. For instance, people within firms with bad reputations are likely to be excluded from labor and social matters, generating tension and feelings of rejection and a higher degree of vigilance due to their poor or negative reputations.

On the other hand, reputation is primarily built on perceptions, which may or may not be accurate. Consequently, communication through the design of messages, the construction of narratives, and the definition of audiences plays a role in the emergence of “heroes” and “villains” (see, e.g. Refs. [53,68]).

Thus, studying personal reputation has implications in psychology, economics, management, marketing, and communication, and linking this construct to these disciplines is fascinating and challenging.

5. Limitations

This study summarized the prior research findings about personal reputation and its link with the study of audiences. Furthermore, this construct is attracting greater interest by multiple disciplines, including the communication sciences. However, this literature review is not without limitations, including the following: the inclusion of only one set of keywords, only one Boolean operator, and filtering by Abstracts. For this reason, recommendations include using other Boolean operators like “AND” or “NOT”, including other sets of keywords, and using other filter fields. In other words, this article studied personal reputation through a systematic review taking a global approach, which makes it pinpoint the need for a more significant number of specific literature reviews, especially with approaches from communication, psychology, management, and marketing, such as conducting literature reviews related to the study of personal reputation and communication strategies or personal reputation and mass media.

Moreover, this article may be considered the first step in performing future research on how personal reputation affects the opinions and perceptions of audiences in different fields/disciplines of study.

6. Conclusion

In hindsight, as mentioned in this manuscript, the number of scientific studies of personal reputation generated by researchers has increased since 2006, moving this construct from an incipient stage to a developing stage (see, e.g. Refs. [10,30]). Moreover, there is a demand for more manuscripts to deepen our understanding and development of new paradigms in the study of personal reputation. This could entail including other intangibles or positive psychology in the study of reputation management. Additionally, the main framework or major related theories were analyzed, among which those related to personal or individual reputation management stood out.

Due to their scarcity, more qualitative and probability studies should be conducted. Furthermore, the most cited articles in this systematic review are probably some of the pioneering manuscripts in the study of personal reputation, or the ones that gave rise to the development of this construct (see, e.g. Refs. [13,14,48]). Likewise, Hochwarter et al. [14] developed a pioneering scale for assessing personal reputation which probably influenced the literature on this construct. Zinko et al. [15] introduced a multidimensional scale that offers a new perspective on the study of personal reputation.

The future research opportunities and literature gaps found in this research are a representative sample of the path that should be taken in studying personal reputation. In addition, the different future research opportunities and literature gaps in this personal reputation literature review provide a global, structured image of this construct. At the same time, it is essential to note that these future research opportunities and literature gaps are neither exclusive nor limited. Finally, PRISMA guidelines are versatile, as they can be used for a wide range of topics (see e.g. Refs. [131,132]). Therefore, their use is recommended for future systematic reviews on the study of personal reputation.

Funding statement

Funded by Junta de Extremadura (Consejería de Economía, Ciencia y Agenda Digital) and European Union “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional. Una manera de hacer Europa.”

Author contribution statement

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Data availability statement

Data associated with this study has been deposited at Carrillo-Durán, M^a Victoria; Cabrera, Ramses; Sánchez Baltasar, Laura Berenice (2023), “What is known about personal reputation? A systematic literature review”, Mendeley Data, V10, 10.17632/23s9g9gmns.10.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following are the Supplementary data to this article.