Computer-Mediated Trust in Self-interested Expert Recommendations

  • Jonathan Ben-Naim
  • Jean-François Bonnefon
  • Andreas Herzig
  • Sylvie Leblois
  • Emiliano Lorini


Important decisions are often based on a distributed process of information processing, from a knowledge base that is itself distributed among agents. The simplest such situation is that where a decision-maker seeks the recommendations of experts. Because experts may have vested interests in the consequences of their recommendations, decision-makers usually seek the advice of experts they trust. Trust, however, is a commodity that is usually built through repeated face time and social interaction, and thus cannot easily be built in a global world where we have immediate Internet access to a vast pool of experts. In this article, we integrate findings from experimental psychology and formal tools from Artificial Intelligence to offer a preliminary roadmap for solving the problem of trust in this computer-mediated environment. We conclude the article by considering a diverse array of extended applications of such a solution.


Global Index Reputation System Expert Recommendation Standard Deontic Logic Malicious Agent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Åqvist, L. (2002). Deontic logic. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Geunther (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  2. Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Castelfranchi, C., & Paglieri, F. (2007). The role of beliefs in goal dynamics: prolegomena to a constructive theory of intentions. Synthese, 155, 237–263. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chellas, B. F. (1980). Modal logic: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 213–261. MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conte, R., & Castelfranchi, C. (1995). Cognitive and social action. London: London University College of London Press. Google Scholar
  7. Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 736–748. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Emerson, E. A. (1990). Temporal and modal logic. In J. van Leeuwen (Ed.), Handbook of theoretical computer science, volume B: formal models and semantics. Amsterdam/Cambridge: North-Holland/MIT Press. Google Scholar
  9. Ferrin, D. L., Dirks, K. T., & Shah, P. P. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of third-party relationships on interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 870–883. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gino, F., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2008). Blinded by anger or feeling the love: how emotions influence advice taking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1165–1173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harel, D., Kozen, D., & Tiuryn, J. (2000). Dynamic logic. Cambridge: MIT Press. MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Harvey, N., & Fischer, I. (1997). Taking advice: accepting help, improving judgment, and sharing responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 117–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief. New York: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar
  14. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7, 174–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ito, T. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2005). Variations on a human universal: individual differences in positivity offset and negativity bias. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 1–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson-George, C. E., & Swap, W. C. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1306–1317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as social reality. Social Forces 63, 967–985. Google Scholar
  19. Lorini, E., & Demolombe, R. (2008). Trust and norms in the context of computer security. In LNCS: Vol. 5076. Proc. of the ninth international conference on deontic logic in computer science (DEON’08) (pp. 50–64). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lorini, E., & Herzig, A. (2008) A logic of intention and attempt. Synthese, 163(1), 45–77. MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lorini, E., Herzig, A., & Castelfranchi, C. (2006). Introducing “attempt” in a modal logic of intentional action. In LNAI: Vol. 4160. Logics in artificial intelligence: 10th European conference (JELIA 2006) (pp. 280–292). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maddux, W. W., Mullen, E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 461–468. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. Google Scholar
  24. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1991). Modelling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’91) (pp. 473–484). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
  26. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. D. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rousseau, M., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schweitzer, M. E., Hershey, J. C., & Bradlow, E. T. (2006). Promises and lies: restoring violated trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 1–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: a review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131–142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13, 675–685. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sniezek, J. A., & Buckley, B. (1995). Cueing and cognitive conflict in judge-advisor decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 159–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Swol, L. M., & Sniezek, J. A. (2001). Trust, confidence and expertise in a judge-advisor system. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 288–307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. White, T. B. (2005). Consumer trust and advice acceptance: the moderating roles of benevolence, expertise, and negative emotions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 141–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yaniv, I., & Kleinberger, E. (2000). Advice taking in decision making: egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 260–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yaniv, I., Yates, J. F., & Smith, J. E. K. (1991). Measures of discrimination skill in probabilistic judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 611–617. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Ben-Naim
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jean-François Bonnefon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andreas Herzig
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sylvie Leblois
    • 1
    • 2
  • Emiliano Lorini
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.CNRS and Université de ToulouseToulouseFrance
  2. 2.CLLEMaison de la RechercheToulouseFrance
  3. 3.IRITUniversité Paul SabatierToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations