May 21, 2015 // Computer-Mediated Communication Trust and Trustworthiness In Computer-Mediated Communication

First of all… Why Care about Internet Trust? 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication1

The Internet 5/21/20152Computer-Mediated Communication

Revisiting Privacy and Security: Issues of Trust 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication3 …”trust” others not to share our information …”trust” systems to route and protect information …”trust” 3 rd 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 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication4

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 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication5

Competence and Motivation in Online Goods and Services: Which is More Important to Potential Buyers? 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication6

5/21/2015 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) 7

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication Vs. Competence!Motivation! 8

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication 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) 9

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication10 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)

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication11 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 risk- taking  Assessment of trustworthiness based on perceptions of others’ characteristics

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication “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.” 12

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication13 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’

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication14 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:

1/30/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication15 “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

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication16 No noble thing can be done without risks. “ ” — Michel Eyquem de Montaigne

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication17 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)

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication18 Uncertainty Ambiguity about the result of an interaction

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication19 Trust, Uncertainty and Commitment Peter Kollock (1994) – “rice and rubber markets”  uncertainty about quality leads to commitment and trust

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication20 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… 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication21

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). 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication22

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) 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication23

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication24 “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. 5/21/201525Computer-Mediated Communication

Break 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication26

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication27 Using Games and Game Theory to Understand Trust-Building

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication28 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… 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication29 Player A entrusts 1 X’s Player B entrusts 3 X’s Player APlayer B Player 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… 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication30

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication31 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 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication32

Bos et. al 2002: Effects of four types of CMC Channels on Trust Development 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication33

1/30/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication34 “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… 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication35

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication36

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication37

Different Forms of Trust and Trustworthiness Matter. From: Fiore and Cheshire, “Trust and Computer-Mediated Online Relationships” 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication38

1/30/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication39 “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

5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication40 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) 3 rd party (explicit) reputation

1/30/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication41 “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. “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 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication “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. 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 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication43

The Certainty-Trust Contradiction 5/21/2015Computer-Mediated Communication44