A Socio-Technical Approach to Understanding Perceptions of Trustworthiness in Virtual Organizations

Conference paper

This study adopts a socio-technical approach to examining perceptions of human trustworthiness as a key component for countering insider threats in a virtual collaborative context. The term insider threat refers to situations where a critical member of an organization behaves against the interests of that organization, in an illegal and/or unethical manner. Identifying and detecting how this individual’s behavior changes over time - and how anomalous behavior can be detected - are important elements in the preventive control of insider threat behaviors. This study focuses on understanding how anomalous behavior can be detected by observers. While human observations are fallible, this study adopts the concept of human-observed changes in behavior as being analogous to “sensors” on a computer network. Using online team-based game-playing, this study seeks to re-create realistic situations in which human sensors have the opportunity to observe changes in the behavior of a focal individual — in the case of this research, a team leader. Four sets of experimental situations are created to test the core hypotheses. Results of this study may lead to the development of semi-automated or fully-automated behavioral detection system that attempts to predict the occurrence of malfeasance.

Keywords

Stein Editing Mellon 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), December 1991, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting Dishonest Actions Using the Theory of Planned Behavior, Journal of Research in Personality, 25(3), September 1991, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the Virtual Organization. The Harvard Business Review Book Series: Creating Value in the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1999, 107–120.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hardin, R. (2003). Gaming trust. In E. Ostrom & J. Walker (Eds.), Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research (pp. 80–101). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51, 358–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ho, S. M. (2008). Attribution-based Anomaly-Detection: Trustworthiness in an Online Community. Social Computing, Behavioral Modeling, and Prediction. Springer: January 2008, 129–140.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holmes, J. G., and Rempel, J. K. (1989a). “Trust in Close Relationships.” In Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 10, ed. C. Hendrick. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989b). Trust in close relationship. In C. Hendrick. (Ed.), Close relationship (pp. 187–220). Newbury Park: CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The Connecting Link between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), Apr., 1995, 379–403.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keeney, M., Kowalski, E., Cappelli, D., Moore, A., Shimeall, T., and Rogers, S. (2005). “Insider Threat Study: Computer System Sabotage in Critical Infrastructure Sectors.” National Threat Assessment Center, U.S. Secret Service, and CERT ® Coordination Center/Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon, May 2005, pp.21–34. Obtained from http://www.cert.org/archive/pdf/insidercross051105.pdf on April 10, 2007.
  13. 13.
    Kelley, H.H. (1973). The Process of Causal Attribution, American Psychologist, Feb 1973, 107–128. Obtained from http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/kelly_attrib.html on July 5th, 2007.
  14. 14.
    Randazzo, M. R., Keeney, M., Kowalski, E., Cappelli, D., and Moore, A. (2004). Insider Threat Study: Illicit Cyber Activity in the Banking and Finance Sector. National Threat Assessment Center, U.S. Secret Service, and CERT® Coordination Center/Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon, August 2004. Obtained from http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/its_report_040820.pdf n April 10 2007.
  15. 15.
    Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G., & Zanba, M.D. (1985). Trust in close relationship. Journal of Personality and Socio Psychology, Vol. 49, p. 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richardson, R. (2007). 2007 CSI Computer Crime and Security Survey. Computer Security Institute.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal Trust, Trustworthiness, and Gullibility. American Psychologist, Jan 1980, 35(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rotter, J.B. and Stein, D.K. (1971). Public Attitudes Toward the Trustworthiness, Competence, and Altruism of Twenty Selected Occupations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Dec 1971, 1(4), 334–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rotter, J.B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35 (4), 651–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steinke, G. D. (1975). The prediction of untrustworthy behavior and the Interpersonal Trust Scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information StudiesSyracuse UniversitySyracuseNew York

Personalised recommendations