Computer-Mediated
Communication
Trust and Trustworthiness
In Computer-Mediated Communication
//
April 13, 2015
First of all…
Why Care about Internet Trust?
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
1
The Internet
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
2
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?
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
3
TRUST AND
TRUSTWORTHINESS
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
4
Defining Trustworthiness
An 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
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
5
Competence and Motivation in Online Goods and Services:
Which is More Important to Potential Buyers?
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
6
Results: Who is the Most Trustworthy Seller?
High
Competence
and Low
Motivation
High
Motivation
and Low
Competence
Competence to act
in a way we
deem
appropriate
Motivation to act in
our best
interests
Camera
(goods)
4/13/2015
Photography/
Web(Service)
Computer-Mediated Communication
7
Competence!
Motivation!
Vs.
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
8
Signaling Trustworthiness
Symbols
indicators of trust-warranting
properties in a person
(Conventional Signals)
Symptoms
by-product of actions that
are associated with trust
(Assessment Signals)
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
9
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)
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
10
Different Definitional Approaches to Trust
Cognitive 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 risktaking
 Assessment of
trustworthiness based on
perceptions of others’
characteristics
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
11
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.”
“one in which
confidence is
placed”
“to have or place
confidence in;
depend on”
4/13/2015
“to place in the care
of another; entrust”
“dependence on
something future or
contingent”
“reliance on
something in the
future; hope”
Computer-Mediated Communication
12
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’
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
13
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/
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
14
“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
1/30/12
Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication
15
“
No noble thing
can be done
without risks.
”
— Michel Eyquem de Montaigne
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
16
Risk
What 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)
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
17
Uncertainty
Ambiguity about the result of an interaction
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
18
Trust, Uncertainty and Commitment
Peter Kollock (1994) – “rice and rubber markets”
 uncertainty about quality leads to commitment and trust
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
19
Sources of Uncertainty in Interpersonal
Interaction and Exchange
Quality of ‘goods’ or
‘services’
Structural uncertainty of
an exchange
Uncertainty about finding
an exchange partner
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
?
20
Betrayal…
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
21
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).
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
22
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)
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
23
“Trust” in Information, Systems,
Interfaces?
Trust vs. Credibility
Trust vs. Reliability,
Security
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
24
Confidence, Credibility, Reliability in Systems
 In all fairness, it is
increasingly difficult to tell
the difference between
human interaction versus
a human-machine
interaction.
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
25
Break
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
26
Using Games and Game Theory to
Understand Trust-Building
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
27
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.
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
28
For Example…
Player A
entrusts 1 X’s
Player A
Player A returns the
3 X; Player B gets
6X!
Player B
Player B returns the
1 X; Player A gets
2X!
At the end of the round, you keep
Player
whatever
you didBnot entrust, plus
whatever
you earned
or kept from your
entrusts
3 X’s
partner!!
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
29
Let’s play a few
rounds…
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
30
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?
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
31
Bos et. al 2002: Effects of four types of
CMC Channels on Trust Development
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
32
Bos et. al 2002: Effects of four types of
CMC Channels on Trust Development
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
33
“Having worked in collaborative offices for almost 20
years, with three of those years being part of a 10person 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
1/30/12
Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication
34
Other considerations about trust
and online social media and
CMC…
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
35
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
36
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
37
Different Forms of Trust and Trustworthiness Matter.
From: Fiore and Cheshire, “Trust and Computer-Mediated Online Relationships”
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
38
“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
1/30/12
Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication
39
What are the “Solutions” to Uncertainty in CMC
Environments?
Proxies and ‘inferred
trustworthiness’
Institutional backing
Closed Systems versus
Open Systems
 Experiential, often negativeonly reputations (not explicit)
3rd party (explicit) reputation
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
40
“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
1/30/12
Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication
41
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
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.
4/13/2015
“We’ve considered every potential
risk except the risks of avoiding all
risks.”
Computer-Mediated Communication
42
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
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
43
The Certainty-Trust Contradiction
4/13/2015
Computer-Mediated Communication
44