The Emergence of Trust Networks under Uncertainty – Implications for Internet Interactions

Abstract

Computer-mediated interaction on the Internet provides new opportunities to examine the links between reputation, risk, and the development of trust between individuals who engage in various types of exchange. In this article, we comment on the application of experimental sociological research to different types of computer-mediated social interactions, with particular attention to the emergence of what we call ‘trust networks’ (networks of those one views as trustworthy). Drawing on the existing categorization systems that have been used in experimental social psychology, we relate the various forms of computer-mediated exchange to selected findings from experimental research. We develop a simple typology based on the intersection of random versus fixed-partner social dilemma games, and repeated versus one-shot interaction situations. By crossing these two types of social dilemma games and two types of interaction situations, we show that many forms of Internet exchange can be categorized effectively into four mutually exclusive categories. The resulting classification system helps to integrate the existing research on t rust in experimental social psychology with the emerging field of computer-mediated exchange.

Risky Business: Social Trust and Community in the Practice of Cybersecurity for Internet Infrastructure

“…Since our concern is with interdependence in social-technical systems, we adopt a model of trust which takes human relationships as its primary building block [4][5] [6]. In this model, trust is conceived of as a three part relation, in which one person trusts another in relation to a specific action.…”

General and Familiar Trust in Websites

“…Online trust has been the focus of a wide variety of research in computer-mediated communication, human-computer interaction, and related fields (Grabner-Krauter and Kaluscha 2003;Olson and Olson 2000a, b;Riegelsberger et al 2003). However, this literature uses the term "trust" to refer to several related but somewhat distinct concepts that often confuse or conflate many different ideas (Cheshire and Cook 2004;Grabner-Krauter and Kaluscha 2003;Grabner-Krauter et al 2006). In online contexts, the conflation of trust with related terms such as credibility, security, surety, and reliability has led to a surplus of complex conceptual models at the expense of consistency and clarity in the use of trust-like ideas (Nissenbaum 2004).…”

Internet Exchange and Forms of Trust

“…Recent years have seen the rapid proliferation of online reputation and recommender systems, which rely on individuals sharing information about their experiences with individual sellers (Cheshire & Cook, 2004;Resnick et al, 2000). Such systems provide low-cost reliability information from peers consistent with interpersonal trust (Kollock, 1999), despite the vast size of the network and the limited availability of personally identifying information online.…”

“…Some argue that reputation systems could be the basis for all trusted Internet-based communication and exchange (e.g., Camp et al, 2002). In the large, open transaction system of the Internet, however, interpersonal trust is likely to become less effective over time, as suggested by Güth and Kliemt (2004;see also Yamagishi & Matsuda, 2003) because reputation systems work best in closed networks (Cheshire & Cook, 2004) and online reputations are vulnerable to strategic abuse (David & Pinch, 2005). However, new institutionalized sources of information that can overcome the limitations of interpersonal trust have yet to be established online.…”

“…Uncertainty is even greater on the Internet because potential exchange partners may be anonymous or at least have no fixed identity (Friedman & Resnick, 2001). Given such high levels of uncertainty and the unique opportunity to observe exchange in a new environment, it is not surprising that much research across many disciplines has been devoted to the question of trust in online exchange (Baye, 2002;Camp, 2000;Cheshire & Cook, 2004;Falcone et al, 2001;Friedman & Resnick, 2001;Kollock, 1999;Lunn & Suman, 2002).…”