1. IS6117 eBusiness Development Project UX and socialisation
Rob Gleasure
robgleasure.com

2. Outline What is trust and why does UX matter?
The social side of trust and the role of language
Bringing together social worlds

3. What is trust?
Image from

4. What is trust? What is trust? Lots of research done in this area…
Several key distinctions
Initial trust vs. long-term trust
‘Trust’ vs. ‘trustworthiness’
Trust vs. risk

5. Why does trust matter?
Some things can be planned out in advance, with accepted contingencies for every important detail
For everything else, we need trust
How many important tasks do you perform where absolutely no uncertainty exists at the outset?
"Trust is the lubrication that makes it possible for organizations to work." --Warren Bennis

6. Trust in physical vs. digital products and services
Apple’s iCloud service was responsible for leaking hundreds of personal images from celebrities
How did that make people feel about buying Apple products?
Images from

7. Why does trust matter so much for digital products and services?
At the heart of digital business is the gathering and analysis of consumers’ data
The degree of trust involved in this gathering and analysis of data may be considered along two dimensions (Morey et al. 2015)
Sensitivity of that data
Beneficiary of that data

8. Trust and sensitivity of data

9. Initial trust vs. long-term trust
Study by Zajonc (1968)
Manipulated an ad on the front page of two American student newspapers
Different Turkish words appeared in the newspapers on different days (with no explanation)
Words appearing most frequently in one newspaper appeared least frequently in the other
After several weeks, readers were sent a questionnaire asking whether they thought each of the words meant something "good", or "bad"
Which did they rate more favourably?
Why?

10. Trust and familiarity More fundamental work by Rajecki (1974)
‘Mere exposure effect’ (Zajonc 2001)
Image from

11. Trust and expectations
Trust evolves over time
We typically gauge something new in terms of three things
Is it useful?
Do we know how to use it?
Can we trust it to do what it says it does?

12. Trust and expectations
Initial trust focuses on the third question (can we trust it?)
Heavily dependent on the truster
Often a feeling or emotion
Some people have greater propensity to trust than others, either because of their personality or previous relatable experience
Over time, experience lets us answer this question more definitively, hence long-term trust focuses on the first two questions (is it useful/useable?)
This means long-term trust tends to be more information-based, more externally-focused, and (arguably) reasoning-based

13. Trust and expectations
Long-term trust also tends to be a little more nuanced and situationally aware
“You can't trust Melanie but you can trust Melanie to be Melanie.” (Quote from Ordell Robbie, from the movie Jackie Brown, 1997)

14. Trust vs trustworthiness and risk
Worth distinguishing between
‘Trust’ as a behaviour (the act of depending on someone or something)
‘Trustworthiness’ as an attribute (the deservingness of the trustee)
Image from

15. Risk and information asymmetry
Trust is something that accumulates between people, however that doesn’t mean the institution providing the environment doesn’t play a role
In many instances, it is institution-based trust that lays the foundation for interpersonal trust
This is particularly true where networks on a platform are large
Image from theheritagecook.com

16. Risk and information asymmetry
Institutions have to mitigate risk and information asymmetry
This means they are typically judged according to three criteria
Feedback mechanisms (are previous consumers satisfied?)
Escrow services and credit card guarantees (is payment safe?)
Trustworthiness of the intermediary (is this a legitimate and credible platform?)
How does eBay compare to an ad in the national paper?
What about an ad in the local paper?
Assuming you don’t know the seller, from whom would you feel most comfortable ordering €10,000 worth of computing hardware?

17. Perceived benevolence
Summary
Perceived benevolence
Perceived ability
Trust in platform
Perceived integrity
Perceived lack of risk

18. Outline What is trust and why does UX matter?
The social side of trust and the role of language
Bringing together social worlds

19. Trust as enabler of a social economy
Trusting is part personal but mostly social (and reactive)
Allows people to act as a superorganism with capabilities that extend beyond those accessible to any one individual
Trust assumes an interaction is at least partly collaborative between trusting actors, rather than purely competitive
What happens when
Actors are collaborating towards different goals?
Some actors are more collaborative than others?

20. Trust vs. social capital
Most systems work on a combination of human capital, material capital, and social capital
Unlike the others, social capital exists only within the relationship between individuals
Social capital is made up of three parts
Social norms
Accepted ways of interacting and principles guiding behaviour
Information channels
Connections between individuals
Obligations and expectations
Accumulated reciprocity-based favours

21. Trust vs. social capital
These systems are mediated by trust (and social closure)
The more individuals trust the social economy, the more willing they will be to expend human capital (e.g. effort) and material capital (e.g. money) to accumulate social capital
This means systems get more powerful as they accumulate social norms, information channels, and obligations and expectations
Over time, these form sustainable social networks

22. Social networks =/= social media
Images from and

23. Trust and identity
The most powerful social networks ultimately determine our sense of identity
Identity is a complex social construct, again with a lot of research behind it
At a fundamental-level
Each person is made up of a stack of many different identities
Each identity corresponds to how you are in one of your social networks
Each social network requires you to take on a slightly different role, ergo to act slightly differently

24. Trust and identity
Images from

25. Trust, identity, and interaction
The more closely you can match your performance of your role with others’ expectations, the more trust they will have in you (for that role)
An individual’s core identity is defined not just by their range of identities, but also by the priorities of those identities
The more salient a particular role is for you, the more likely you will understand the expectations and garner trust within it
Less salient roles will likely get contaminated with perceived expectations from other networks, meaning you will act inappropriately in the less salient network and lose trust

26. Trusting a community? Trust can be one-to-one but also one-to-many
‘Symbolic interactionism’
How we communicate is based on the symbols we have at hand
Interaction is viewed as a performance, based on some vocabulary of symbols
The more closely our vocabulary of symbols match, the more we assume we understand one another
Sharing a group means sharing a common vocabulary

27. Archived contribution
The case of 4Chan
Archived contribution
Named profiles
4chan
Slides draws from hci.stanford.edu/publications/2011/chanthropology/4chan-icwsm.pptx

28. The case of 4Chan
Images from hci.stanford.edu/publications/2011/chanthropology/4chan-icwsm.pptx, images from

29. The case of 4Chan
Interesting discussion of 4chan’s appeal
In-jokes and indiscernible idioms are used to identify new users and established users
Has poured out into the world in unpredicted ways
Wikileaks
Arab springs (kinda… at a push)
Celebrity photo leaks

30. 4Chan
Image from

31. Small worlds in digital communities
The net result of this…
People form clusters, in the real world and online
Trust forms (and is formed within) networks of networks… of networks
This has implications for
Research
Marketing
Sales

32. Small worlds and trust in the flow of information
Anyone can contribute on the web (yay!), but this means the trustworthiness of individual contributions suffers
This means most people don’t search the web passively for new things, it would take too long and there’s too much rubbish out there
People connect with family, friends, colleagues, and other people whom they trust as a source of information, then content spreads among networks
Creates word-of-mouth-like dynamics to filter out informational noise

33. Summary Use of expected/role-appropriate language
Ability to personalise language
Trust in group
Use of expected/role-appropriate connections
Ability to personalise connections

34. Outline What is trust and why does UX matter?
The social side of trust and the role of language
Bringing together social worlds

35. Universal design vs. design for specific groups and cultures
Some things transcend culture (see Bouba and Kiki below) but most things are built up by association
Image from wikipedia

36. Boundary objects
The concept of boundary objects originates in sociology, where it was originally used to describe things such as definitions and maps.
Boundary objects have two major qualities
Robustness, i.e. they maintain enough common meaning across different environments to maintain a common identity
Plasticity, i.e. they can adapt to different environments and perform different roles, as needed
These boundary objects may be ‘abstract’, e.g. a word that means partly different things to different people, or ‘concrete’, e.g. a piece of software used partly differently by different people
From Star and Griesemer (1989)

37. Boundary objects
Boundary objects are often considered ‘weakly structured’ in common use, only becoming ‘strongly structured’ when operationalised within specific social worlds
This means they have different meanings in different social worlds, while still allowing some common structure to maintain coherence
Effectively, boundary objects act as a form of translation
From Star and Griesemer (1989)

38. Boundary objects
The terms has become commonly used to explain how groups collaborate, despite the absence of any true consensus
People have different interest and goals (sometimes even the same person if multiple semi-overlapping social groups are involved)
People interpret according to different backgrounds and experiences
People don’t always want to work closely with other groups
People don’t need true consensus, they need enough consensus in the right places at the right times

39. Boundary objects
Boundary objects allow people from different social worlds to come together for specific tasks and purposes
This effectively links these different groups into a single functional community, provided the boundary object is adequate
Group A
Group D
Boundary object
Group M
Group H

40. Boundary objects Alternative visualisation Social world Social world

41. Identification of social worlds
Lots of ways to conceptualise a ‘social world’
A social group that maintains its core structure over time
An ‘activity system’ united under some common overarching motivation
The most important thing is that people, through interacting, have established accepted roles and norms that allow them to work together on an ongoing basis
Put differently, within-group consensus is already sufficient enough that it can be assumed
Social worlds can always be split further; we stop splitting social worlds when it stops being analytically useful

42. Norms and social worlds
One way to distinguish social worlds is by norms
Again, this is tricky, as the norms are partially dependent on roles, meaning like-for-like comparisons are rarely neat
Once more, the question is whether the norms jar so much that some form of translation is needed to create common ground
It often helps to think of these as local or shared cultures

43. Culture and social worlds
There are famously four major dimensions for culture (national, regional, organisational, or group-specific).
Power distance
To what extent are decisions made autocratically within a pronounced hierarchy vs. collaboratively among peers?
Uncertainty avoidance
To what extent are individuals willing to take risks and break rules based on potential gains?
Individualism vs. collectivism
To what extent are individuals able to act independently?
Masculinity vs. femininity
To what extent are individual behaviours driven by competition and assertiveness vs. nurturance and responsibility?
From Hofstede (1983)

44. Goals and social worlds
Another way to distinguish social worlds is by goals
When one group is interested in one set of outcomes and another group is interested in another, we can consider them separate (in need of a boundary object)
In practice, there will never be absolute overlap of goals between individuals, nor absolute non-overlap
The question is whether they are non-overlapping enough that they are in need of translation to work together

45. Selection of suitable boundary object type
Sometimes these boundaries objects take the form of repositories
These are collections of resources, stored and maintained in some ordered fashion
This allows people with different interests, purposes of use, and different levels of analysis to locate resources and drill down to the level of analysis they find useful, without having to negotiate how or why they want to use that resource
Common boundaries, different use goals
Examples include
The library
Wikipedia

46. Selection of suitable boundary object type
Sometimes these boundaries objects take the form of standardised forms/methods
These are collections of processes that allow common expectations for communication across different social worlds
This allows each social world to ignore the internal processes of other social worlds, while still knowing what to expect from them
Common boundaries, use goals, and perceived internal contents, different internal processing
Examples include
Laws
Validated forms for data input, XML exchanges, APIs, etc.

47. Selection of suitable boundary object type
Sometimes these boundaries objects take the form of coincident boundaries
These are collections of resources and processes, some subset of which are likely to interest each specific social world
This allows different social worlds to work together within a larger system, without needed to understand each individual element
Common boundaries and use goals, different perceived internal contents
Examples include
Organisations
Open source projects

48. Selection of suitable boundary object type
Sometimes these boundaries objects take the form of ideal types
These are incomplete descriptions of resources and processes, i.e. abstractions that need to be contextualised to be useful
This allows each social world to fill in the blanks as they see fit, while still providing some common ground for discussion and information sharing across social worlds
May be different in terms of boundaries, use goals, perceived internal contents, and internal processing
Examples include
Shared terms, visualisation tools
Logos/brands and flags

49. Selection of suitable boundary object type
The characterisation of a boundary object as one type is never exactly neat
More a question of emphasis
Image from

50. Design of robust qualities
The robust qualities tie the whole boundary object together
Makes it essential to find common ground across the social worlds
Has to be strong enough to give object an identity or else integrating the system into each social world won’t link them effectively
Helps to think in terms of people-process-technology
People: what human stuff is common/commonly desired, e.g. interests, norms, roles, groupings/institutions
Process: what behaviours are common/commonly desired, including formal and informal processes/practices
Technology: what stuff is common/commonly desired, including digital and physical objects

51. Design of plastic qualities
The plastic qualities are needed to allow each social world to accept the boundary object and continue existing
This means areas of benign disagreement must be found
Has to identify places where people can ignore differences without coming into too much conflict
Helps to think in terms of people-process-technology
People: what non-shared human stuff can/should be ignored by other social worlds
Process: what non-shared behaviours can/should be ignored by other social worlds
Technology: what non-shared stuff can/should be ignored by other social worlds

52. Boundary objects and trajectories
Some argue whether boundary objects are really designed at all, or whether they emerge and are shaped in use entirely by necessity
The real challenge is trying to design for benevolent ambiguity
Most designs need to have specific uses in mind if they are to avoid bloated and unintuitive tools
Designs that can achieve traction in multiple social worlds often become more effective boundary-spanners organically, as they become entangled in each world simultaneously (so entangling those worlds)
This raises problem of jostling for position..

53. Boundary objects and power
One of the main espoused benefits of boundary objects is their neutrality, i.e. their ability to balance multiple perspectives
Because boundary objects exist at the nexus of different social worlds, and because social groups are always struggling for power and authority, boundary objects are never power-neutral
Because the purpose of a boundary object is to be useful, this means there is always competition regarding for whom the boundary object should be most useful
This creates a constant tension as systems evolve over time, as resources and processes are reinforced by some and undermined by others

54. Summary Identification of suitable social worlds
Selection of suitable boundary object type
Quality of boundaries
Design of robust qualities
Design of plastic qualities

55. Readings
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The Market for 'Lemons': Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3): 488–500
Gefen, D., Benbasat, I., & Pavlou, P. (2008). A research agenda for trust in online environments. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4):
Hoehle, H., Huff, S., & Goode, S. (2012). The role of continuous trust in information systems continuance. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 52(4): 1-9.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3):
Morey, T., Forbath, T. T., & Schoop, A. (2015). Customer Data: Designing for Transparency and Trust. Harvard Business Review, 93(5),
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004). Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Information Systems Research, 15(1):
Rajecki, D. W. (1974). Effects of prenatal exposure to auditory or visual stimulation on postnatal distress vocalizations in chicks. Behavioral Biology, 11(4):

56. Readings (continued)
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of educational research, 81(2),
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1-2),
Marcus, A., & Gould, E. W. (2000). Crosscurrents: cultural dimensions and global Web user-interface design. interactions, 7(4),
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia--a window into perception, thought and language. Journal of consciousness studies, 8(12), 3-34.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology,translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Social studies of science, 19(3),
Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5),

57. Readings (continued)
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95-S120.
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3),
Stryker, S. (2008). From Mead to a structural symbolic interactionism and beyond. Annual Review of Sociology, 34: