Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

e-Trust and reputation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Ethics and Information Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Trust online can be a hazardous affair; many are trustworthy, but some people use the anonymity of the web to behave very badly indeed. So how can we improve the quality of evidence for trustworthiness provided online? I focus on one of the devices we use to secure others’ trustworthiness: tracking past conduct through online reputation systems. Yet existing reputation systems face problems. I analyse these, and in the light of this develop some principles for system design, towards overcoming these challenges. In providing better evidence for trustworthiness online, so we can also encourage people actually to be trustworthy more often, which is an ethically welcome outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There is little quantitative data available which documents the proliferation of such systems. According to the Pew Internet and American Life project, 32% of American internet users have contributed to online reputation systems (approximately 80 million people), but it is fair to suppose that there is also a non-negligible proportion of people who have bought things on the basis of online reputation without contributing reviews (Pew Research Center 2010). There is better evidence that buyers’ behaviour is influenced by reputation systems. Data indicates that sellers with good reputations are more likely to sell than those without, and they are more likely to get better prices at auction (see Resnick and Zeckhauser 2002; Resnick et al. 2006).

  2. To my knowledge, this point was first made by Horsburgh (1960, p. 343).

  3. This is a point stressed in Holton (1994).

  4. Hardin (2006, p. 17).

  5. This dynamic is developed by Bacharach and Gambetta (2001).

  6. Reid (1983, p. 93).

  7. Pettit (2004, p. 118).

  8. E. g. Ekman and Friesen (1975).

  9. Hirschman (1970).

  10. Whitty and Joinson (2009, p. 19).

  11. The point is made by Resnick et al. (2000, p. 47), and developed by Brennan and Pettit (2004, p. 155).

  12. The problem is noted by Snijders and Zijdeman (2004, p. 164).

  13. Those who use this strategy are labelled ‘whitewashers’ by Marti and Garcia-Molina (2006, p. 475).

  14. Whitty and Joinson (2009, p. 103).

  15. Resnick and Zeckhauser (2002).

  16. The recent conviction of three Google employees by an Italian Court illustrates the problem. See Donadio (2010).

  17. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pressing this point.

  18. Rohrer (2009).

  19. The terms for the distinction are taken from Jøsang et al. (2007, p. 626).

  20. See State of Texas (2009).

  21. Miller et al. (2005); Jurca and Faltings (2006).

  22. For a detailed defence of this recommendation, see Sanchez (2008).

  23. State of New York Attorney General’s Office (2009).

  24. Resnick and Zeckhauser (2002).

  25. Acton (1974, p. 14).

References

  • Acton, H. B. (1974). The idea of a spiritual power. London: Athlone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, M., & Gambetta, D. (2001). Trust in Signs. In K. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 148–184). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, G., & Pettit, P. (2004). Esteem, identifiability and the internet. Analyse und Kritik, 26(1), 139–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donadio, R. (2010). Larger threat is seen in google case. New York Times. Dated February 24, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?_r=1. Accessed September 9, 2010.

  • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurca R., & Faltings, B. (2006). Minimum payments that reward honest reputation feedback. Proceedings of the 7 th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (pp. 190–199). New York: ACM.

  • Hardin, R. (2006). Trust. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, R. (1994). Deciding to trust, coming to believe. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 72(1), 63–76.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Horsburgh, H. J. N. (1960). The ethics of trust. Philosophical Quarterly, 10, 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 618–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marti, S., & Garcia-Molina, H. (2006). Taxonomy of trust: Categorizing P2P reputation systems. Computer Networks, 50(4), 472–484.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, N., Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, R. (2005). Eliciting informative feedback: The peer-prediction method. Management Science, 51(9), 1359–1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. (2004). Trust, reliance and the internet. Analyse und Kritik, 26(1), 108–121.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center. (2010). Trend data. Pew internet and American life project. Dated September 2010, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data/Online-Activites-Total.aspx. Accessed November 19, 2010.

  • Reid, T. (1983). Thomas Reid’s inquiry and essays. In: R. E. Beanblossom & K. Lehrer (Eds.), Indianopolis: Hackett.

  • Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, R. (2002). Trust among strangers in internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBay’s reputation system. In M. R. Baye (Ed.), The Economics of the internet and E-commerce (pp. 127–157). Oxford: JAI.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R., Friedman, E., & Kuwabara, K. (2000). Reputation systems. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 45–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R., Swanson, J., & Lockwood, K. (2006). The value of reputation on eBay: A controlled experiment. Experimental Economics, 9(2), 79–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, F. (2009) The perils of five-star reviews. BBC news magazine. Dated June 25, 2009, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8118577.stm. Accessed February 13, 2010.

  • Sanchez, M. C. (2008). The web difference: A legal and normative rationale against liability for online reproduction of third-party defamatory content. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 22(1), 301–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, C., & Zijdeman, R. (2004). Reputation and internet auctions: eBay and beyond. Analyse und Kritik, 26(1), 158–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • State of New York Attorney General’s Office. (2009). ‘Attorney General Cuomo secures settlement with plastic surgery franchise that flooded internet with false positive reviews.’ Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2009/July/july14b_09.html. Accessed February 15, 2010.

  • State of Texas. (2009). 81st legislature regular session. Sec. 33.07, Online Harassment. Dated September 1, 2009, from http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/HB02003F.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2010.

  • Whitty, M. T., & Joinson, A. N. (2009). Truth, lies and trust on the internet. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Alex Oliver, Simon Blackburn, Daniel Hill, Chris Thomson, and three anonymous reviewers for critical comments on earlier versions of this paper, and to Adam Stewart-Wallace for thought-provoking conversation on this and related topics. The research was financially supported by Microsoft Research Cambridge.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, CAMBS, CB2 1RH, UK

    Thomas W. Simpson

Authors
  1. Thomas W. Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas W. Simpson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simpson, T.W. e-Trust and reputation. Ethics Inf Technol 13, 29–38 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9259-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9259-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation