Trusting the messenger because of the message: feedback dynamics from information quality to source evaluation

  • Fabio Paglieri
  • Cristiano Castelfranchi
  • Célia da Costa Pereira
  • Rino Falcone
  • Andrea Tettamanzi
  • Serena Villata


Information provided by a source should be assessed by an intelligent agent on the basis of several criteria: most notably, its content and the trust one has in its source. In turn, the observed quality of information should feed back on the assessment of its source, and such feedback should intelligently distribute among different features of the source—e.g., competence and sincerity. We propose a formal framework in which trust is treated as a multi-dimensional concept relativized to the sincerity of the source and its competence with respect to specific domains: both these aspects influence the assessment of the information, and also determine a feedback on the trustworthiness degree of its source. We provide a framework to describe the combined effects of competence and sincerity on the perceived quality of information. We focus on the feedback dynamics from information quality to source evaluation, highlighting the role that uncertainty reduction and social comparison play in determining the amount and the distribution of feedback.


Trust Information dynamics Argumentation Information sources Socio-cognitive models 


  1. Abdul-Rahman A, Hailes S (1997) A distributed trust model. In: Proceedings of the 1997 workshop on new security paradigms (NSPW 1997). ACM, New York, pp 48–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Castelfranchi C (1997) Representation and integration of multiple knowledge sources: issues and questions. In: Cantoni V, Di Gesù V, Setti A, Tegolo D (eds) Human & machine perception: information fusion. Plenum, New York, pp 235–254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castelfranchi C, Falcone R (2010) Trust theory: a socio-cognitive and computational model. Wiley, New York CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conte R, Paolucci M (2002) Reputation in artificial societies: social beliefs for social order. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. da Costa Pereira C, Tettamanzi A, Villata S (2011) Changing ones mind: erase or rewind? In: Walsh T (ed) IJCAI. IJCAI/AAAI Press, Menlo Park, pp 164–171 Google Scholar
  6. Demolombe R (2001) To trust information sources: a proposal for a modal logical framework. In: Castelfranchi Y-HTC (ed) Trust and deception in virtual societies. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 111–124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dix J, Parsons S, Prakken H, Simari GR (2009) Research challenges for argumentation. Comput Sci Res Dev 23(1):27–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubois D, Prade H (2008) An introduction to bipolar representations of information and preference. Int J Intell Syst 23:866–877 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Etuk A, Norman T, Sensoy M (2012) Reputation-based trust evaluations through diversity. In: Proceedings of the 15th international workshop on trust in agent societies, pp 13–24 Google Scholar
  11. Fullam K, Barber KS (2004) Using policies for information valuation to justify beliefs. In: AAMAS. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 404–411 Google Scholar
  12. Fullam K, Barber KS (2007) Dynamically learning sources of trust information: experience vs. reputation. In: AAMAS, p 164 Google Scholar
  13. Gambetta D (1988) Can we trust them? In: Trust: making and breaking cooperative relations, pp 213–238 Google Scholar
  14. Koster A, Mir JS, Schorlemmer M (2013) Argumentation and trust. In: Ossowski S (ed) Agreement technologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 441–451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liau C-J (2003) Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems—a modal logic formulation. Artif Intell 149(1):31–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lorini E, Demolombe R (2008) From binary trust to graded trust in information sources: a logical perspective. In: AAMAS-TRUST, pp 205–225 Google Scholar
  17. Matt P-A, Morge M, Toni F (2010) Combining statistics and arguments to compute trust. In: AAMAS, pp 209–216 Google Scholar
  18. Mir JS (2003) Trust and reputation for agent societies. PhD thesis, CSIC Google Scholar
  19. Mui L (2002) Computational models of trust and reputation: agents, evolutionary games, and social networks. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, USA Google Scholar
  20. Paglieri F, Castelfranchi C (2012) Trust in relevance. In: Ossowski S, Toni F, Vouros GA (eds) AT. CEUR workshop proceedings, vol 918, pp 332–346. Google Scholar
  21. Parsons S, McBurney P, Sklar E (2010) Reasoning about trust using argumentation: a position paper. In: ArgMAS Google Scholar
  22. Parsons S, Tang Y, Sklar E, McBurney P, Cai K (2011) Argumentation-based reasoning in agents with varying degrees of trust. In: AAMAS, pp 879–886 Google Scholar
  23. Prade H (2007) A qualitative bipolar argumentative view of trust. In: SUM, pp 268–276 Google Scholar
  24. Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) (2009) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  25. Stranders R, de Weerdt M, Witteveen C (2007) Fuzzy argumentation for trust. In: CLIMA, pp 214–230 Google Scholar
  26. Tang Y, Cai K, Sklar E, McBurney P, Parsons S (2010) A system of argumentation for reasoning about trust. In: EUMAS Google Scholar
  27. Teacy WTL, Patel J, Jennings NR, Luck M (2006) TRAVOS: trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 12(2):183–198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Toulmin S (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  29. Villata S, Boella G, Gabbay DM, van der Torre L (2011) Arguing about the trustworthiness of the information sources. In: ECSQARU, pp 74–85 Google Scholar
  30. Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang Y, Singh MP (2007) Formal trust model for multiagent systems. In: Veloso MM (ed) IJCAI, pp 1551–1556 Google Scholar
  32. Zadeh LA (1978) Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:3–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabio Paglieri
    • 1
  • Cristiano Castelfranchi
    • 1
  • Célia da Costa Pereira
    • 2
  • Rino Falcone
    • 1
  • Andrea Tettamanzi
    • 2
  • Serena Villata
    • 3
  1. 1.Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della CognizioneCNRRomeItaly
  2. 2.Laboratoire I3S, UMR 7271Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis/CNRSNiceFrance
  3. 3.Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et Automatique (INRIA)Sophia Antipolis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations