Advertisement

Dyadic Attribution: A Theoretical Model for Interpreting Online Words and Actions

  • Shuyuan Mary Ho
  • Shashanka Surya Timmarajus
  • Mike Burmester
  • Xiuwen Liu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8393)

Abstract

This paper presents a theoretical model for interpreting the underlying meaning in virtual dialogue from computer-mediated communication (CMC). The objective is to develop a model for processing dialogues and understanding the meaning of online users’ social interactions based on available information behavior. The methodology proposed in this paper is built on a demonstrated observation that humans – in analogy to “sensors” in social networks – can detect unusual or unexpected changes in humans’ trustworthiness based on observed virtual behaviors. Even with limited resources such as email, blogs, online conversations, etc., humans “sensors” can infer meaning based on observed behaviors, and assign attributes to certain words or actions. The idiosyncratic nature of human observations can be arbitrated by an attribution mechanism that provides the basis for a systematic approach to measuring trustworthiness. In this paper, we discuss a particular trust scenario called the Leader’s Dilemma with the objective of identifying how anomalous online behavior can be interpreted as untrustworthy. We adopt the dyadic attribution model to analyze how a human disposition can be systematically uncovered based on words and actions, as evidenced by information behavior. This model is better suited for computational analysis of attribution engines. The novel goal of this research is to design a sensor system with the ability to attribute meaning to virtual interactions as supported by computer-mediated technologies.

Keywords

Sociotechnical system information behavior psychological theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Austin, J.L.: How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, New York (1962)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Emonds, G., Declerck, C.H., Boone, C., Seurinck, R., Achten, R.: Establishing cooperation in a mixed-motive social dilemma. An fMRI study investigating the role of social value orientation and dispositional trust. Social Neuroscience 9(1), 10–22 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ho, S.M.: Attribution-Based Anomaly Detection: Trustworthiness in an Online Community. In: Liu, H., Salerno, J.J., Young, M.J. (eds.) Social Computing, Behavioral Modeling, and Prediction, pp. 129–140. Springer, Tempe (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ho, S.M.: Behavioral Anomaly Detection: A Socio-Technical Study of Trustworthiness in Virtual Organizations. In: School of Information Studies 2009, pp. 1–437. Syracuse, Syracuse University (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ho, S.M.: A Socio-Technical Approach to Understanding Perceptions of Trustworthiness in Virtual Organizations. In: Liu, H., Salerno, J.J., Young, M.J. (eds.) Social Computing, Behavioral Modeling, and Prediction, pp. 113–122. Springer, Tempe (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ho, S.M., Lee, H.: A Thief Among Us: The Use of Finite-State Machines to Dissect Virtual Betrayal in Computer-Mediated Communications. Journal of Wireless Mobile Networks, Ubiquitous Computing, and Dependable Applications (JoWUA): Special Issue of Frontiers in Insider Threats and Data Leakage Prevention 3(1/2), 82–98 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ho, S.M., Katukoori, R.R.: Agent-based modeling to visualize trustworthiness: A socio-technical framework. Int’l Journal of Mobile Network Design and Innovation, Special Issue of Detecting and Mitigating Information Security Threats for Mobile Networks 5(1), 17–27 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ho, S.M., Benbasat, I.: Dyadic attribution model: A mechanism to assess trustworthiness in virtual organizations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (forthcoming, 2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelley, H.H., Holmes, J.G., Kerr, N.L., Reis, H.T., Rusbult, C.E., Van Lange, P.A.M.: The Process of Causal Attribution. American Psychology 28(2), 107–128 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krueger, F., McCabe, K., Moll, J., Kriegeskorte, N., Zahn, R., Strenzlok, M., Heinecke, A., Grafman, J.: Neural correlates of trust. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krueger, F., Hoffman, M., Walter, H., Grafman, J.: An fMRI investigation of the effects of belief in free will on third-party punishment. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Advance Access (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lieberman, J.K.: The litigious society. Basic Books, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martinko, M.J., Thomson, N.F.: A synthesis and extension of the Weiner and Kelley attribution models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 20(4), 271–284 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rotter, J.B.: Interpersonal Trust, Trustworthiness and Gullibility. American Psychologist 35(1), 1–7 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shuyuan Mary Ho
    • 1
  • Shashanka Surya Timmarajus
    • 1
  • Mike Burmester
    • 1
  • Xiuwen Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations