Advertisement

Reflections on Measuring the Trust Empowerment Potential of a Digital Environment

  • Natasha Dwyer
  • Anirban Basu
  • Stephen Marsh
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 401)

Abstract

We claim that the digital trust research area has tended to privilege the act of trusting while considering distrust a negative outcome. However, from the users perspective distrust might be as valid an option as trust (it may not be a good idea to trade, collaborate or exchange in a particular context). How do we evaluate digital environments that aim to empower trust for the user? This position paper explores some of the complexities. The traditional approach of measuring for an increase in trust is not appropriate. Testing for whether the user has made the ‘right’ trust choice is also unsuitable as trust is personal and idiosyncractic and can only be understood via the perspective of the user. We suggest that the measuring of the reduction of uncertainty before and after a user interacts has potential because it can allow access into whether a user has received the benefit shared by both trust and distrust, a reduction in uncertainty.

Keywords

trust evaluation measuring trust reduction of uncertainty 

References

  1. 1.
    Ashleigh, M., Meyer, E.: Deepening the understanding of trust: combining repertory grid and narrative to explore the uniqueness of trust. In: Handbook of Research Methods on Trust, p. 138 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marsh, S., Basu, A., Dwyer, N.: Rendering unto cæsar the things that are cæsar’s: Complex trust models and human understanding. In: Dimitrakos, T., Moona, R., Patel, D., McKnight, D.H. (eds.) Trust Management VI. IFIP AICT, vol. 374, pp. 191–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basu, A., Dwyer, N., Naicken, S.: A concordance framework for building trust evidences. In: 2012 Tenth Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST), pp. 153–154. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cofta, P.: Trust, complexity and control: confidence in a convergent world. Wiley (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dwyer, N.: Traces of digital trust: an interactive design perspective. PhD thesis, Victoria University (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Möllering, G.: Trusting in art: Calling for empirical trust research in highly creative contexts. Journal of Trust Research 2(2), 203–210 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaur, P., Ruohomaa, S., Kutvonen, L.: Enabling user involvement in trust decision making for inter-enterprise collaborations. International Journal on Advances in Intelligent Systems 5(3&4), 533–552 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zender, M., Ecker, K., York, A.: Responsible design for social change: Designing hiv/aids prevention curriculum in southern africa. In: Design Responsibility: AIGA Design Education Conference, Toledo, OH (May 2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Whicher, A., Raulik-Murphy, G., Cawood, G.: Evaluating design: Understanding the return on investment. Design Management Review 22(2), 44–52 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fukuyama, F.: Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Free Press New York (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Langheinrich, M.: When trust does not compute-the role of trust in ubiquitous computing. In: Workshop on Privacy at UBICOMP, vol. 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McEvily, B., Tortoriello, M.: Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Trust Research 1(1), 23–63 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gillespie, N.: Measuring trust in organizational contexts: an overview of survey-based measures. In: Handbook of Research Methods on Trust, p. 175 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uslaner, E.: Measuring generalized trust: in defense of the ‘standard’ question. In: Handbook of Research Methods on Trust, p. 72 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCroskey, J.: Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs 33, 65–72 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cummings, L., Bromiley, P.: The organizational trust inventory (oti): Development and validation. In: Kramer, R.M., Tyler, T.R. (eds.) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, pp. 302–327. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Corritore, C., Kracher, B., Wiedenbeck, S.: On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58(6), 737–758 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naef, M., Schupp, J.: Measuring trust: Experiments and surveys in contrast and combination. Technical report, IZA Discussion Paper No. 4087 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boyer, P., Lienard, P., Xu, J.: Cultural differences in investing in others and in the future: Why measuring trust is not enough. PloS One 7(7), e40750 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lewicki, R., Brinsfield, C.: Measuring trust beliefs and behaviours. Handbook of Research Methods on Trust, p. 29 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rad, P.: Measuring trust in online social networks. In: Krempels, K.H., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) WEBIST. SciTePress (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jarvenpaa, S., Leidner, D.: Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(4) (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moreno-Ger, P., Torrente, J., Hsieh, Y., Lester, W.: Usability testing for serious games: Making informed design decisions with user data. In: Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bargas-Avila, J., Hornbæk, K.: Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2689–2698. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Möllering, G.: Trust, institutions, agency: towards a neoinstitutional theory of trust. In: Handbook of Trust Research, p. 355 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Solhaug, B., Stølen, K.: Uncertainty, subjectivity, trust and risk: How it all fits together. In: Meadows, C., Fernandez-Gago, C. (eds.) STM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7170, pp. 1–5. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindley, D.: Understanding uncertainty. Wiley-Interscience (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Luhmann, N., Davis, H., Raffan, J., Rooney, K.: Trust and power: two works by Niklas Luhmann. Wiley, Chichester (1979)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gargiulo, M., Ertug, G.: The dark side of trust. In: Handbook of Trust Research, p. 165 (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maio, G., Haddock, G.: The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. Sage Publications Limited (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bijlsma-Frankema, K., Rousseau, D.: It takes a community to make a difference: evaluating quality procedures and practices in trust research. In: Handbook of Research Methods on Trust, p. 259 (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kydd, A.: Overcoming mistrust. Rationality and Society 12(4), 397–424 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Axelrod, R.: The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Klasnja, P., Consolvo, S., Pratt, W.: How to evaluate technologies for health behavior change in hci research. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3063–3072. ACM (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natasha Dwyer
    • 1
  • Anirban Basu
    • 2
  • Stephen Marsh
    • 3
  1. 1.Victoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.University of SussexBrightonUK
  3. 3.University of Ontario Institute of TechnologyOshawaCanada

Personalised recommendations