may 21, 2015 // computer-mediated communication trust and trustworthiness in computer-mediated...

April 18, 2023//

Computer-Mediated CommunicationTrust and Trustworthiness In Computer-Mediated Communication

First of all…Why Care about Internet Trust?

04/18/23 Computer-Mediated Communication 2

The Internet04/18/23 3Computer-Mediated Communication

Revisiting Privacy and Security: Issues of Trust


…”trust” others not to share our information

…”trust” systems to route and protect information

…”trust” 3rd parties not to collect/track our information traces and not use them publicly for advertising, targeting potential criminal behavior, non-normative behavior, etc?

Trust and Trustworthiness


Defining TrustworthinessAn assessment of one’s future

behavior

‘Trustworthiness’ is a characteristic that we infer

Theoretically linked to perceived competence and motivations of a given individual

Competence to act in a way we deem appropriate

Motivation to act in our best interests


Competence and Motivation in Online Goods and Services: Which is More Important to Potential Buyers?


04/18/23

High Motivation and Low Competence

High Competence and Low Motivation

Results: Who is the Most Trustworthy Seller?

Competence to act in a way we deem appropriate

Motivation to act in our best interests

Computer-Mediated Communication

Camera (goods)

Photography/Web(Service)

8

04/18/23 Computer-Mediated Communication

Vs.

Competence! Motivation!

9


Signaling Trustworthiness

Symbolsindicators of trust-warranting

properties in a person

(Conventional Signals)

Symptomsby-product of actions that

are associated with trust

(Assessment Signals)

10


The multidisciplinary problem of trust

“Although some philosophers write about trust that is not interpersonal, including ‘institutional trust’… trust in government… and ‘self-trust’… most would agree that these forms of ‘trust’ are coherent only if they share important features of (i.e. can be modeled on) interpersonal trust. This is why I say that the dominant paradigm of trust is interpersonal.”

(McLeod 2006)


Different Definitional Approaches to TrustCognitive Psychology

Trust as “personality trait” (dispositional trust)

Trust as learned experience (learned trust)

Philosophy Trust versus reliance, security

Sociology and Social Psychology Trust as behavior

(situational and relational trust) Trust builds through risk-

taking Assessment of

trustworthiness based on perceptions of others’ characteristics


“to have or place confidence in; depend on”

“to place in the care of another; entrust”

“reliance on something in the future; hope”

“one in which confidence is placed”

“dependence on something future or contingent”

Defining Interpersonal Trust (Sociological Use)

“Trust exists when one party to the relation believes the other party has incentive to act in his or her interest or to take his or her interest to heart.”

13


Trust-Building in the Sociological, Relational Sense

Interpersonal Trust

Trust as an attitude about others’ desire and ability to act in a positive way towards us in a given context

Involves repeated interactions between parties

Theoretically linked to risk-taking

Also distinct from the concept of ‘cooperation’


Conditions for Trust

Trust is optimistic; the opposite is distrust.

The truster accepts some level of risk or vulnerability

There must exist a potential for betrayal

See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/

1/30/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication 16

“Trust on the internet is surely not an attitude at all. It starts with a choice, do you choose to trust your online interactions or not? Then the trust is measured off of what follows…Attitude was the wrong word.Trust is a choice just like the choice to participate in an online community or some sort of virtual interaction.” -Maurice


No noble thing can be done without risks.

“

”— Michel Eyquem de Montaigne


RiskWhat is at stake in a given

situation/interaction?

Risks may be defined by the situation (e.g., a warzone, transition economies, etc.)

Risks may be vary across exchange situations with the same partners (in many cases the participants can change the relative risks)


Uncertainty

Ambiguity about the result of an interaction


Trust, Uncertainty and Commitment

Peter Kollock (1994) – “rice and rubber markets” uncertainty about quality leads to commitment and trust


Sources of Uncertainty in Interpersonal Interaction and Exchange

Quality of ‘goods’ or ‘services’

Structural uncertainty of an exchange

Uncertainty about finding an exchange partner ?

Betrayal…


Building Trust and Role of Agency

Behavioral Components Expected Behavior Observed Behavior

Agency and choice are relevant for both parties in dyadic interpersonal relationships (though trust may not be mutual).


What about Trust in Systems?Nissenbaum 2004

Locus of Betrayal If we trust someone to do

something, if he/she/it does not do so we are disappointed. But can this ‘betrayal’ really

occur with inanimate objects? (computer, online service, software)



“Trust” in Information, Systems, Interfaces?

Trust vs. Credibility

Trust vs. Reliability, Security

Confidence, Credibility, Reliability in Systems

In all fairness, it is increasingly difficult to tell the difference between human interaction versus a human-machine interaction.

04/18/23 26Computer-Mediated Communication

Break



Using Games and Game Theory toUnderstand Trust-Building


Rules for the CMC trust game… Two players

Each player gets 5 items from the experimenter on each round.

Players simultaneously decide whether to ‘entrust’ 0 to 5 of their items to the other player.

Players decide whether to return the items to the partner or not. If player returns the items, the experimenter DOUBLES

the amount returned to the partner (operationalizing benefit of fulfilled entrustment).

But, each player can just keep the entrusted items; then nothing is returned to the partner.

For Example…


Player A entrusts 1 X’s

Player B entrusts 3 X’s

Player A Player BPlayer A returns the 3 X; Player B gets 6X!

Player B returns the 1 X; Player A gets 2X!

At the end of the round, you keep whatever you did not entrust, plus whatever you earned or kept from your partner!!

Let’s play a few rounds…



Debriefing…

What were the risks?

What were the sources of uncertainty?

Does the game play any differently when there are repeated interactions with the same partner, compared to when there are new, random partners?

Bos et. al 2002: Effects of four types of CMC Channels on Trust Development



“Having worked in collaborative offices for almost 20 years, with three of those years being part of a 10-person team with people in 4 locations, the kind of trust measured between students in a social game doesn't seem to me to be AT ALL related to the kinds of trust that support effective work, not even as "a good start on developing trust that [coworkers] will fulfill other obligations." Questions of skill, deadline habits, whether someone has shown themselves to be appropriately detail-oriented on a given task--none of these things are related to the particular flavor of "exploitative and self-protective behaviors" measured by the game.” -Lisa

Other considerations about trust and online social media and

CMC…


Different Forms of Trust and Trustworthiness Matter.

From: Fiore and Cheshire, “Trust and Computer-Mediated Online Relationships”



“Cheshire writes, " Online dating is largely about learning to use the affordances of online communication channels with low personal risk, with the purpose of finding individuals who are, among other things, sufficiently trustworthy to meet in person." Adding to this point, couldn't it be said that much of the trustworthiness of someone on an online dating site be inferred by other real-life interactions with people from the site. For instance, if nothing bad has happened to you or your friends on previous dates coordinated through the site, might you automatically ascribe more trustworthiness to potential partners overall? While this is specific to situations where you have the opportunity to physically meet those who you are interacting online I think it would be interesting to discuss the ebb and flow between human-to-human trust building on and offline.” -Laura


What are the “Solutions” to Uncertainty in CMC Environments?

Proxies and ‘inferred trustworthiness’

Institutional backing

Closed Systems versus Open Systems Experiential, often negative-

only reputations (not explicit)

3rd party (explicit) reputation


“I work on the Open Badges (openbadges.org) project at Mozilla, and I'm particularly attracted to the idea of third-party reputation information as an additional source of data. By seeing that an institution or individual has vouched for a person's competency, I can potentially trust them more in that situation for a given topic. Badges are just one model of how this idea has been implemented -- LinkedIn endorsements is another. And ultimately, I think they're working toward answering a problem that is quite difficult; how can a technical system provide trustworthy signals of an individual's competency?” -Dave

“information systems aren't only comprised of technical components and algorithms. For example, we may trust the results and recommendations from Google, LinkedIn, Amazon, Netflix (this one is questionable.), and blame the system or people associated with the maintenance of the system if they aren't in line with user expectation. But, we forget the ratings and results are in fact not just algorithms--they are the actions of ordinary Internet users. Online activities from the users can influence the results and the degree which something is relevant to us. However, we often times fail to see or remember aspect is a part of the black box.” -Tine

The Downside to Over-Commitment and Trust?

Mizruchi and Stearns (2001) - commercial bankers and customers:

Uncertainty leads to reliance on close relations/colleagues with strong ties

Reliance on trust networks leads banks to be less successful in closing deals, lower organizational effectiveness


“We’ve considered every potential risk except the risks of avoiding all risks.”

The key point is that trust networks are important for a community, but we also have to be willing to take chances and risks– nothing worth having comes without risk.

43

Also…The Downside to Sanctions and Assurance Structures

Reliance on interpersonal mechanisms of trust building often replaced by organizational assurance structures (monitoring and sanctioning)

Paradoxically, these assurance structures reduce possibility of ongoing trust relations


The Certainty-Trust Contradiction


may 21, 2015 // computer-mediated communication trust and trustworthiness in computer-mediated...

Documents

trust philosophy trust

relational trust trust

institutional trust

internet trust

issues of trust

forms of trust

trust assessment signals

information trust systems