A Business Framework for Evaluating Trust in IoT Technology

  • Fen ZhaoEmail author
  • Britt Danneman
Part of the Women in Engineering and Science book series (WES)


Trust in the entity that provides a technology plays an important role in the development of user trust in that technology. By focusing on the suitability of a given technology to the values of its users, the fields of human–computer interaction (HCI) and value sensitive design (VSD) presently touch on, but do not fully explore, this role. VSD evaluates design choices for a technology; in this chapter, we evaluate design choices for a business (such as business model), in particular Internet of Things (IoT) businesses, in an effort to reach a more nuanced understanding. We discuss frameworks for understanding trust in a provider-centered context based on the three pillars of ability, integrity, and benevolence, and then suggest a methodology for quantifying the business value of consumer trust in a company based on fluctuations in stock price after a trust violation. Finally, we examine how this trust relationship may impact adoption of IoT technologies specifically and apply the ability, integrity, and benevolence framework to case studies of three IoT companies.


Internet of Things (IoT) Consumer trust in companies Business value of trust Adoption of IoT technology 



This research was supported by Alpha Edison. We are thankful to Nathalie Lagerfeld for contributing significantly to the writing of this chapter and Kim Ledgerwood for improving the form of the manuscript. We thank Sam Bogen for his assistance on the trust violation analysis. We also have to express our appreciation to Nate Redmond for sharing his pearls of wisdom with us during the course of this research.


  1. 1.
    Friedman B, Kahn PH Jr, Howe DC (2000) Trust online. Commun ACM [Internet] 43(12):34–40 [cited 16 Nov 2018]. Available from:
  2. 2.
    Botsman R (2017) Who can you trust?: how technology brought us together–and why it could drive us apart. Penguin, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Molla R (2018) Americans seem to like ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft. But it’s hard to say exactly how many use them. Recode [Internet]. Vox Media, Washington, DC [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 4 screens]. Available from:
  4. 4.
    Barinka A, Newcomer E (2018) Uber valued at $120 billion in an IPO? Maybe. Bloomberg [Internet] [cited 16 Nov 2018]; Technology: [about 4 screens]. Available from:
  5. 5.
    Crunchbase [Internet]. San Francisco: Crunchbase Inc. c2018 [cited 16 Nov 2018]. Uber; [about 15 screens]. Available from:
  6. 6.
    Susan LS (2018) Fowler’s plan after Uber? Tear down the system that protects harassers. Guardian [Internet] [cited 16 Nov 2018]; Technology:[about 5 screens]. Available from:
  7. 7.
    O’Brien SA, Black N, Devine C, Griffin D (2018) CNN investigation: 103 Uber drivers accused of sexual assault or abuse. CNN [Internet]. Cable News Network, New York [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 11 screens]. Available from:
  8. 8.
    Friedman B (ed) (1997) Human values and the design of computer technology. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman B, Kahn PH Jr, Borning A (2002) Value sensitive design: theory and methods. Seattle, WA: University of Washington: UW CSE Technical Report 02-12-01. Supported by NSF Awards IIS-9911185, SES-0096131, EIA-0121326, and EIA-0090832. Available from:
  10. 10.
    Manders-Huits N (2011) What values in design? The challenge of incorporating moral values into design. Sci Eng Ethics 17(2):271–287. Scholar
  11. 11.
    McKnight DH, Cummings LL, Chervany NL (1998) Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Acad Manag Rev 23(3):473–490.. Available from: Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schlosser AE, White TB, Lloyd SM (2006) Converting web site visitors into buyers: how web site investment increases consumer trusting beliefs and online purchase intentions. J Mark 70(2):133–148. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20(2):195–203. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hinchliffe E (2017) Check the numbers, it’s true: People really like Lyft over Uber, even before #DeleteUber. Mashable [Internet]. Mashable, New York. [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 4 screens]. Available from:
  15. 15.
    McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002) The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: a trust building model. J Strateg Inf Syst 11(3–4):297–323. Available from: Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prusak L, Cohen D (2001) How to invest in social capital. Har Bus Rev [Internet] [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 18 screens]. Available from:
  17. 17.
    Aspiration [Internet]. Marina Del Rey: Aspiration Partners c2018 [cited 16 Nov 2018]. Who we are; [about 4 screens]. Available from:
  18. 18.
    Redmond N, Danneman B. Trust: building intimacy at scale. ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhao F, Danneman B. Quantifying the value of consumer trust in companies. ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Constine J 2018 Facebook shares climb despite Q3 user growth and revenue. TechCrunch [Internet]. Oath Tech Network, San Francisco; [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 6 screens]. Available from:
  21. 21.
    Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Florea DL (2015) The relationship between branding and diffusion of innovation: a systematic review. Procedia Econ Finance 23:1527–1534. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muniz AM Jr, O’Guinn TC (2001) Brand community. J Consum Res [Internet] 27(4):412–432. [cited 16 Nov 2018]. Available from:
  24. 24.
    Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal 20(3):353–362. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Crunchbase [Internet]. San Francisco: Crunchbase Inc. c2018 [cited 16 Nov 2018]. Rover; [about 15 screens]. Available from:
  26. 26.
    Crunchbase [Internet]. San Francisco: Crunchbase Inc. c2018 [cited 16 Nov 2018]. Wag; [about 14 screens]. Available from:
  27. 27.
    Lieber C (2018) The startup world’s cuddly, cutthroat battle to walk your dog. Vox [Internet]. Vox Media, Washington, DC; [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 22 screens]. Available from:
  28. 28.
    Kahneman D, Egan P (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Phelan C, Lampe C, Resnick P (2016) It’s creepy, but it doesn’t bother me. In: Mental models of privacy. CHI conference on human factors in computing systems; 2016 May 7–12; San Jose, CA. New York: ACM; 2016. Available from:
  30. 30.
    Barth S, de Jong MD (2017) The privacy paradox—investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior—a systematic literature review. Telematics Inform [Internet] 34(7):1038–1058 [cited 16 Nov 2018]. Available from:
  31. 31.
    Enkin A (2012) Privacy [Internet]. [cited 16 Nov 2018]. Legacy: Torah Musings: [place unknown: Torah Musings. [about 2 screens]. Available from:
  32. 32.
    Zhao F (2018) Will smart home tech make us care more about privacy? TechCrunch [Internet]. Oath Tech Network, San Francisco; [cited 2018 Nov 16]; [about 6 screens].
  33. 33.
    Gao L, Bai X (2014) A unified perspective on the factors influencing consumer acceptance of internet of things technology. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 26(2):211–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bird [Internet]. [place unknown]: Bird. [cited 16 Nov 2018]. Cities; [about 7 screens]. Available from:
  35. 35.
    Lorenz T (2018) Electric scooter charger culture is out of control. Atlantic [Internet]. The Atlantic Monthly Group, Washington, DC; [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 12 pages]. Available from:
  36. 36.
    Griswold A (2018) Bird is the fastest startup ever to reach a $1 billion valuation. Quartz [Internet]. [place unknown]: Quartz; [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 4 screens]. Available from:
  37. 37.
    All things Alexa [Internet]. [place unknown]:; c1996–2018 [cited 16 Nov 2018]. Amazon Echo and Alexa Devices; [about 6 screens]. Available from:
  38. 38.
    Shulevitz J (2018) Alexa, should we trust you? Atlantic [Internet]. The Atlantic Monthly Group, Washington, DC; [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 36 screens]. Available from:
  39. 39.
    Murdock J (2018) Is Alexa spying on you? Amazon responds after rogue Echo device leaks couple’s private chat. Newsweek [Internet]. Newsweek, New York; [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 3 screens]. Available from:
  40. 40.
    Kessler S (2017) A timeline of when self-driving cars will be on the road, according to the people making them. Quartz [Internet]. [place unknown]: Quartz; [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 10 screens]. Available from:
  41. 41.
    Dietvorst BJ, Simmons JP, Massey C (2015) Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. J Exp Psychol Gen [Internet] 144(1):13 p. [cited 16 Nov 2018]. Available from:
  42. 42.
    Siddiqui F (2017) #DeleteUber will have lasting fallout for ride-hailing app, study says. The Washington Post [Internet]. [cited 16 Nov 2018]; Gridlock: [about 6 screens]. Available from:
  43. 43.
    Elmerraji J (2018) In Tesla we trust, new study reveals. The Street [Internet]. The Street, Inc., New York; [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 5 screens]. Available from:
  44. 44.
    Stewart J (2018) Tesla’s self-driving autopilot was involved in another deadly crash. Wired [Internet]. Condé Nast, New York; [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 7 screens]. Available from:
  45. 45.
    Hull D (2018) ‘There’s something wrong’: Tesla’s rapid executive turnover raises eyebrows as Musk thins the ranks. Financial Post [Internet]. Post Media Network, Toronto; [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 6 screens]. Available from:
  46. 46.
    Redmond N (2018) Why most investors get market size wrong over and over again. Forbes [Internet]. Forbes Media, LLC, New York; [cited 16 Nov 2018]; [about 8 screens]. Available from:

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alpha EdisonLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations