Rendering unto Cæsar the Things That Are Cæsar’s: Complex Trust Models and Human Understanding

  • Stephen Marsh
  • Anirban Basu
  • Natasha Dwyer
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 374)


In this position paper we examine some of the aspects of trust models, deployment, use and ‘misuse,’ and present a manifesto for the application of computational trust in sociotechnical systems. Computational Trust formalizes the trust processes in humans in order to allow artificial systems to better make decisions or give better advice. This is because trust is flexible, readily understood, and relatively robust. Since its introduction in the early ’90s, it has gained in popularity because of these characteristics. However, what it has oftentimes lost is understandability. We argue that one of the original purposes of computational trust reasoning was the human element - the involvement of humans in the process of decision making for tools, importantly at the basic level of understanding why the tools made the decisions they did. The proliferation of ever more complex models may serve to increase the robustness of trust management in the face of attack, but does little to help mere humans either understand or, if necessary, intervene when the trust models fail or cannot arrive at a sensible decision.


Trust Model Ubiquitous Computing Smart City Trust Management Reputation System 
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. 1.
    Marsh, S.: Formalising trust as a computational concept. PhD thesis, University of Stirling, Department of Computing Science and Mathematics (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ping, W., Jing, Q.: A mathematical trust model in e-commerce. In: 2007 International Conference on Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, MUE 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Noorian, Z., Marsh, S., Fleming, M.: Multi-layer cognitive filtering by behavioural modeling. In: Tumer, Yolum, S., Stone (eds.) Proc. of 10th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mahizhnan, A.: Smart cities: The singapore case. Cities 16(1), 13–18 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shapiro, J.: Smart cities: Quality of life, productivity, and the growth effects of human capital. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li, X., Valacich, J.S., Hess, T.J.: Predicting user trust in information systems: A comparison of competing trust models. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2004) - Track 8, vol. 8. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shankar, N., Arbaugh, W.A.: On trust for ubiquitous computing. In: Workshop on Security in Ubiquitous Computing, UBICOMP 2002, pp. 44–54. IEEE Computer Society (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sillence, E., Briggs, P.: Ubiquitous computing: Trust issues for a ”healthy” society. Social Science Computer Review 26(1), 6–12 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, A., McCarthy, J.D.: Shiny happy people building trust?: photos on e-commerce websites and consumer trust. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 121–128 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Riegelsberger, J.: Trust in Mediated Interactions. PhD thesis, University College London (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wakeman, I., Light, A., Robinson, J., Chalmers, D., Basu, A.: Bringing the Virtual to the Farmers’ Market: Designing for Trust in Pervasive Computing Systems. In: Nishigaki, M., Jøsang, A., Murayama, Y., Marsh, S. (eds.) IFIPTM 2010. IFIP AICT, vol. 321, pp. 248–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stanier, J., Naicken, S., Basu, A., Li, J., Wakeman, I.: Can We Use Trust in Online Dating? In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Trusted Communications in Decentralised Computing (Workshop in IFIPTM 2010), Morioka, Japan (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zeckhauser, R.J., Viscusi, W.K.: Risk within reason. Science 248, 559–564 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boon, S.D., Holmes, J.G.: The dynamics of interpersonal trust: resolving uncertainty in the face of risk. In: Hinde, R.A., Groebel, J. (eds.) Cooperation and Prosocial Behaviour, pp. 190–211. Cambridge University Press (1991)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bok, S.: Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. Pantheon Books, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang, Z., Zhou, M., Wang, P.: An improved trust model in agent-mediated ecommerce. Int. J. Intell. Syst. Technol. Appl. 4(3.4), 271–284 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sun, K., Xu, R., Deng, J., Haynes, L., Li, J.H., Gruenwald, L., Sanchez, C., Weber, G., Mayhew, M.J.: Securing manet databases using metadata and context information. In: Proceeedings of MILCOM 2008: Military Comunications Conference, pp. 1–6 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luhmann, N.: Trust and Power. Wiley, Chichester (1979)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fukuyama, F.: Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Free Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cofta, P.: Trust, Complexity and Control, vol. 829528313. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goffman, E.: Frame analysis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1974)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cofta, P.: Distrust. In: Proceedings of Eight International Conference on Electronic Commerce (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marsh, S., Dibben, M.R.: Trust, Untrust, Distrust and Mistrust – An Exploration of the Dark(er) Side. In: Herrmann, P., Issarny, V., Shiu, S. (eds.) iTrust 2005. LNCS, vol. 3477, pp. 17–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McKnight, D.H., Chervany, N.L.: Trust and Distrust Definitions: One Bite at a Time. In: Falcone, R., Singh, M., Tan, Y.-H. (eds.) Trust in Cyber-societies. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2246, pp. 27–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marsh, S., Noël, S., Storer, T., Wang, Y., Briggs, P., Robart, L., Stewart, J., Esfandiari, B., El-Khatib, K., Bicakci, M.V., Dao, M.C., Cohen, M., Silva, D.D.: Non-standards for trust: Foreground trust and second thoughts for mobile security. In: Proceedings STM 2011. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lathia, N.: Evaluating collaborative filtering over time. PhD thesis, University College London (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ahn, T., Esarey, J.: A dynamic model of generalized social trust. Journal of Theoretical Politics 20(2), 151–180 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Allman, M., Blanton, E., Paxson, V.: An Architecture for Developing Behavioral History. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Steps to Reducing Unwanted Traffic on the Internet (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wei, S., Mirkovic, J.: Building Reputations for Internet Clients. Electronic Notes Theoretical Computer Science 179, 17–30 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Basu, A.: A Reputation Framework for Behavioural History. PhD thesis, University of Sussex, UK (January 2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dwyer, N.: Traces of Digital Trust: An Interactive Design Perspective. PhD thesis, School of Communication and the Arts, Faculty of Arts, Education and Human Development, Victoria University (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dautenhahn, K., Alan, H.B., Canamero, L., Edmonds, B. (eds.): Socially Intelligent Agents: Creating Relationships with Computers and Robots. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaur, P., Ruohomaa, S., Kutvonen, L.: User interface for trust decision making in inter-enterprise collaborations. In: ACHI 2012: The Fifth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Möllering, G.: Trust, institutions, agency: towards a neoinstitutional theory of trust. Handbook of trust research, pp. 223–233 (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Donath, J.: Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1), 231–251 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thaler, R., Sunstein, C.: Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model. Wiley (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Marsh
    • 1
  • Anirban Basu
    • 2
    • 3
  • Natasha Dwyer
    • 4
  1. 1.Communications Research CentreStn. H. OttawaCanada
  2. 2.Tokai UniversityMinato-kuJapan
  3. 3.School of InformaticsUniversity of SussexBrightonUK
  4. 4.Victoria UniversityFootscrayAustralia

Personalised recommendations