Investigating the Effect of Attributes on User Trust in Social Media

  • Jamal Al QundusEmail author
  • Adrian PaschkeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 903)


One main challenge in social media is to identify trustworthy information. If we cannot recognize information as trustworthy, that information may become useless or be lost. Opposite, we could consume wrong or fake information - with major consequences. How does a user handle the information provided before consuming it? Are the comments on a post, the author or votes essential for taking such a decision? Are these attributes considered together and which attribute is more important? To answer these questions, we developed a trust model to support knowledge sharing of user content in social media. This trust model is based on the dimensions of stability, quality, and credibility. Each dimension contains metrics (user role, user IQ, votes, etc.) that are important to the user based on data analysis. We present in this paper, an evaluation of the proposed trust model using conjoint analysis (CA) as an evaluation method. The results obtained from 348 responses, validate the trust model. A trust degree translator interprets the content as very trusted, trusted, untrusted, and very untrusted based on the calculated value of trust. Furthermore, the results show a different importance for each dimension: stability 24%, credibility 35% and quality 41%.


Social media Trust Conjoint analysis 



The work supported in this paper was partially supported by Data4Water H2020 project.


  1. 1.
    Al Qundus, J.: Generating trust in collaborative annotation environments. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Open Collaboration Companion, p. 3. ACM, August 2016Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li, H., Jiang, J., Wu, M.: The effects of trust assurances on consumers initial online trust: a two-stage decision-making process perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 34(3), 395–405 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miltgen, C.L., Smith, H.J.: Exploring information privacy regulation, risks, trust, and behavior. Inf. Manag. 52(6), 741–759 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu, H., et al.: Predicting trusts among users of online communities: an Epinions case study. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 310–319. ACM, July 2008Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adler, B.T., de Alfaro, L., Mola-Velasco, S.M., Rosso, P., West, A.G.: Wikipedia vandalism detection: combining natural language, metadata, and reputation features. In: Gelbukh, A. (ed.) CICLing 2011 Part II. LNCS, vol. 6609, pp. 277–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luce, R.D., Tukey, J.W.: Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J. Math. Psychol. 1(1), 1–27 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dondio, P., Barrett, S., Weber, S., Seigneur, J.M.: Extracting trust from domain analysis: a case study on the Wikipedia project. In: Yang, L.T., Jin, H., Ma, J., Ungerer, T. (eds.) ATC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4158, pp. 362–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abdul-Rahman, A., Hailes, S.: Supporting trust in virtual communities. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p. 9-pp. IEEE, January 2000Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cho, J.H., Chan, K., Adali, S.: A survey on trust modeling. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 48(2), 28 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jsang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis. Support Syst. 43(2), 618–644 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Al Qundus, J.: Technical analysis of the social media platform genius. Technical Report. Freie Universität Berlin (2018).
  12. 12.
    Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D.R., McCann, R.M.: Credibility for the 21st century: integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 27(1), 293–335 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pranata, I., Susilo, W.: Are the most popular users always trustworthy? The case of Yelp. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 20, 30–41 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Warncke-Wang, M., Cosley, D. and Riedl, J.: Tell me more: an actionable quality model for Wikipedia. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, p. 8. ACM, August 2013Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fogg, B.J., et al.: What makes Web sites credible?: a report on a large quantitative study. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 61–68. ACM, March 2001Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Castro, R.: The empirical distribution function and the histogram. Lecture Notes, 2WS17-Advanced Statistics. Department of Mathematics, Eindhoven University of Technology (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Louviere, J.J., Woodworth, G.: Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J. Mark. Res. 20, 350–367 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nelder, J.A., Mead, R.: A simplex method for function minimization. Comput. J. 7(4), 308–313 (1965)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson, R.M., Orme, B.K.: How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies. In: Art Forum, Beaver Creek (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer ScienceFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Data Analytics Center (DANA)Fraunhofer FOKUSBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations