1 / 27

Jens Riegelsberger 1 M. Angela Sasse John D. McCarthy 2 November 2006 University College London

A Framework for Trust Applied to Social Computing. Jens Riegelsberger 1 M. Angela Sasse John D. McCarthy 2 November 2006 University College London Human-Centred Systems Group Department of Computer Science. Current affiliations: 1 Google UK, 2 LBI UK. Trust Research in HCI.

chico
Télécharger la présentation

Jens Riegelsberger 1 M. Angela Sasse John D. McCarthy 2 November 2006 University College London

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Framework for TrustApplied to Social Computing Jens Riegelsberger1 M. Angela Sasse John D. McCarthy2 November 2006 University College London Human-Centred Systems Group Department of Computer Science Current affiliations: 1Google UK, 2 LBI UK

  2. Trust Research in HCI • Trust has gained prominence in HCI research • Trust in web sites (e-commerce: Egger, Sapient, Corritore et al.) • Trust in humans (virtual teams, online advice: Olson et al., Swerts et al.) • … Trust in ambient technologies(CHI 04 Workshop)

  3. Dis-embedding Interaction is stretched over time and space and involves complex socio-technical systems [Giddens, 1990] … pervasive in modern societies (e.g. catalogue shopping) ‘Lack of Trust’ online More risk> Privacy (more data required) > Security (open system) > Own errors … More uncertainty > Inexperienced with decoding cues > Less surface cues are available > Cues might have no significance(“anyone could set up a good-looking site”) Symbols vs. Symptoms

  4. Relevance of Trust Research • Trust is of high importance for individuals and society • Mediating interactions can result in lower trust(widely publicised ‘lack of trust’ online) • Effect may be partially due to lack of familiarity, … • but trust is an ongoing concern in mediated interactions: • Lack of central control • More explicit information required • Decreased number of trust signals

  5. Trust Background > Only required in the presence of risk and uncertainty >“… willingness to be vulnerable based on positive expectations about the actions of others” [e.g. Rousseau et al., 1998; Corritore et al., 2001] > Based on assessment of ability and motivation[Deutsch, 1956] > Assessment can result in cognitive trust[Lahno, 2002, Lewis & Weigert 1985] > But human trust-decisions are also based on immediate pre-rational affective reactions[Corritore et al., 2000, Lewis & Weigert 1985]

  6. TRUSTOR TRUSTEE

  7. TRUSTOR TRUSTEE 1 Signals

  8. TRUSTOR TRUSTEE Separation in Space + UNCERTAINTY 1 Signals

  9. TRUSTOR TRUSTEE Separation in Space + UNCERTAINTY Outside Option 1 Signals 2a Trusting Action 2b Withdrawal RISK

  10. TRUSTOR TRUSTEE Separation in Space + UNCERTAINTY Outside Option 1 Signals 2a Trusting Action 2b Withdrawal RISK 3b Defection 3a Fulfilment

  11. TRUSTOR TRUSTEE Separation in Space + UNCERTAINTY Outside Option 1 Signals 2a Trusting Action 2b Withdrawal RISK Separation in Time + UNCERTAINTY 3b Defection 3a Fulfilment

  12. Current HCI Trust Research • Focused on increasing trust (overcoming ‘lack of trust’) • … but well-placed trust is of high importance for long-term acceptance • Largely concerned with cognitive trust • … but trust is also based on affective reactions to interpersonal cues • No coherent theoretical foundation • Measurement often based on self-reports and Prisoner’s Dilemma studies

  13. Framework for Trust > 1. Step:Focus on incentives for trustworthy behavior > 2. Step: Identify signals >> Design guidelines for systems that allow well-placed trust > Draws on work by >> Bacharach & Gambetta (Dept. of Sociology, Oxford) >> Raub et al. (ISCORE, Utrecht) > Why should a trustee ever fulfill? >Intrinsic and Contextual Properties >> …. support trustworthy action >> …. signal trustworthiness

  14. TRUSTOR TRUSTEE Separation in Space + UNCERTAINTY Outside Option 1 Signals 2a Trusting Action 2b Withdrawal RISK Separation in Time + UNCERTAINTY 3b Defection 3a Fulfilment

  15. TRUSTOR TRUSTEE

  16. Contextual Properties TRUSTOR TRUSTEE Contextual Incentives Trust Temporal Social Institutional Signal Incentive Context

  17. Intrinsic Properties TRUSTOR TRUSTEE Contextual Incentives Trust Temporal Social Institutional Intrinsic Properties Signal Incentive Context

  18. Intrinsic Properties TRUSTOR TRUSTEE Contextual Incentives Trust Temporal Social Institutional Ability InternalisedNorms Benevolence Signal Incentive Context

  19. Types of Trust

  20. > Expectation of futureencounters is an incentivefor trustworthy behaviour > A defrauded trustor might withdraw from future interactions or retaliate > Past experience gives information about trustor’s personal properties Requirements Stable identities, traceability of outcomes to actors and actions TRUSTOR TRUSTEE Temporal Contextual Incentives Trust Temporal Social Institutional Intrinsic Properties Benevolence, InternalisedNorms Costs Benefits

  21. > Trustors share informationabout trustees’ past behaviour in the form of reputation >Reputation is a ‘hostage’ in the trustor’s hand Requirements >Reliable & unbiased reputation aggregation >Incentives for contributingreputation information >Shared understandingof cooperation & defection TRUSTOR TRUSTEE Social Contextual Incentives Trust Temporal Social Institutional Intrinsic Properties Benevolence, InternalisedNorms, Ability Costs Benefits

  22. >Law, Contracts Requirements: >A priori definitions … little flexibility >Low cost of investigation and punishment comparedto risk >Organisations, brands> Trust is vested in roles rather than individuals Requirements: >Clear and reliable signs of institutional affiliation TRUSTOR TRUSTEE Institutional Contextual Incentives Trust Temporal Social Institutional Intrinisc Properties Benevolence, InternalisedNorms, Ability Costs Benefits

  23. Questions of trust in social networking sites • The site as trustee • Respect for privacy (no selling on of personal information, no spam) • Ability to keep personal data secure • Stay in business (to make initial effort of registering worthwhile) • Other users / people as trustees • Respect for boundaries of context • Respect for norms of conduct

  24. Institutional • Legal systems • Consumer protection agencies • Temporal • Interest in repeat business • Depending on presenceof alternative trustees • Social • Depending on presenceof alternative trustees USER SITE Contextual Properties Contextual Incentives Trust Intrinsic Properties Technical Competence,Corporate ethics Costs Benefits

  25. Institutional Legal systems Site’s code of conduct Temporal Interest in repeat interaction Social Reputation system USER OTHER USER ContextualProperties Contextual Incentives Trust Intrinsic Properties Induction into norms of forum Costs Benefits

  26. Trust in Mediated Interactions Jens Riegelsberger [jensr@google.com] M. Angela Sasse [a.sasse@cs.ucl.ac.uk] John D. McCarthy [j.mccarthy@lbi.com] http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/jriegels University College London Department of Computer Science

More Related