A Socio-cognitive Perspective of Trust

  • Joana Urbano
  • Ana Paula Rocha
  • Eugénio Oliveira
Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 8)

Abstract

Trust and reputation are two distinct social constructs of high complexity that have been studied for decades in different areas of knowledge. In order to allow for efficient models of computational trust and reputation, one must first understand the nature and dynamics of each one of these constructs. In this chapter, we focus on the social and cognitive aspects of the trust concept, and overview its fundamental characteristics, such as its determinants, nature, and dynamics. Then, we present two distinct hypothesis one can state for the interplay between trust and reputation: either reputation is an antecedent of trust, or both are considered as two distinct contributions to the ultimate decision making process. If they are seen as isolated components, trust is no longer directly influenced by reputation. Finally, we briefly refer to current existing computational trust models, including those that integrate the management of computational reputation.

Keywords

Multiagent System Intelligent Agent Computational Trust Reputation Score Trust Theory 
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.

References

  1. Bhattacharya, R., T. M. Devinney, and M. M. Pillutla. 1998. A formal model of trust based on outcomes. The Academy of Management Review 23(3): 459–472.Google Scholar
  2. Castelfranchi, C., and R. Falcone. 2010. Trust theory: A socio-cognitive and computational model. Wiley Series in Agent Technology. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Castelfranchi, C., R. Falcone, and G. Pezzulo. 2003. Trust in information sources as a source for trust: A fuzzy approach. In Proceedings of the second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS ’03, 89–96. New York: ACM. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/860575.860590.
  4. Cohen, P. R., and H. J. Levesque. 1990. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42(2–3): 213–261. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(90)90055-5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004370290900555.
  5. Conte, R., and M. Paolucci. 2002. Reputation in artificial societies: Social beliefs for social order. Norwell: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  6. Cvetkovich, G., M. Siegrist, R. Murray, and S. Tragesser. 2002. New information and social trust: Asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers. Risk Analysis 22(2): 359–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dasgupta, P. 2000. Trust as a commodity. In Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations, ed. D. Gambetta, 49–72. Department of Sociology, University of Oxford: Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Dimitrakos, T. 2001. System models, e-risks and e-trust. In Proceedings of the IFIP conference on towards the E-society: E-Commerce, E-Business, E-Government, I3E ’01, 45–58. Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. Elangovan, A. R., and D. L. Shapiro. 1998. Betrayal of trust in organizations. The Academy of Management Review 23(3), 547–566.Google Scholar
  10. Finkel, E. J., C. E. Rusbult, M. Kumashiro, and P. A. Hannon. 2002. Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82(6): 956–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitness, J. 2001. Betrayal, rejection, revenge, and forgiveness: An interpersonal script approach. In Interpersonal rejection, ed. M. Leary, 73–103. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Foddy, M., M. J. Platow, and T. Yamagishi. 2009. Group-based trust in strangers. Psychological Science 20(4): 419–422. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02312.x. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/4/419.abstract.Google Scholar
  13. Hardin, R. 2001. Conceptions and explanations of trust. In Trust in society, vol. 2, ed. K. S. Cook, 3–39. Russell Sage Foundation Series on Trust. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  14. Hardin, R. 2002. Trust and trustworthiness. The Russell Sage Foundation Series on trust. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Heimer, C. 2001. Solving the problem of trust. In Trust in society, 40–88. Russell Sage Foundation Series on Trust, ed. K. S. Cook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Hermoso, R., H. Billhardt, and S. Ossowski. 2009. Dynamic evolution of role taxonomies through multidimensional clustering in multiagent organizations. In Principles of practice in multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. J.-J. Yang, M. Yokoo, T. Ito, Z. Jin, P. Scerri, vol. 5925, 587–594. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Huynh, T. D., N. R. Jennings, and N. R. Shadbolt. 2006. An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 13: 119–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ireland, R. D., and J. W. Webb. 2007. A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 25(2): 482–497. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.004. Special Issue Evolution of the Field of Operations Management SI/Special Issue Organisation Theory and Supply Chain Management.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jonker, C. M., and J. Treur. 1999. Formal analysis of models for the dynamics of trust based on experiences. In MultiAgent system engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. F. Garijo, M. Boman, vol. 1647, 221–231. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Jøsang, A., and R. Ismail. 2002. The beta reputation system. In Proceedings of the 15th bled electronic commerce conference, Bled Slovenia, 17–19 June 2002.Google Scholar
  21. Jøsang, A., R. Ismail, and C. Boyd. 2007. A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems 43(2): 618–644. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jurca, R., and B. Faltings. 2003. An incentive compatible reputation mechanism. In Proceedings of the second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS ’03, 1026–1027. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  23. Kiyonari, T., T. Yamagishi, K. S. Cook, and C. Cheshire. 2006. Does trust beget trustworthiness? trust and trustworthiness in two games and two cultures: A research note. Social Psychology Quarterly 69(3): 270–283.  doi:10.1177/019027250606900304.Google Scholar
  24. Levin, D. Z., R. Cross, L. C. Abrams, and E. L. Lesser. Trust and knowledge sharing: A critical combination. In Creating value with knowledge: Insights from the IBM institutue for business value, 36–43, ed. E. Lesser and L. Prusak. Oxford: Oxford University (2004).Google Scholar
  25. Marsh, S. 1994. Formalising trust as a computational concept. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stirling.Google Scholar
  26. Mayer, R. C., J. H. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review 20(3): 709–734.Google Scholar
  27. Melaye, D., and Y. Demazeau. 2005. Bayesian dynamic trust model. In Multi-agent systems and applications IV. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3690, ed. M. Pechoucek, P. Petta, L. Varga, 480–489. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Patel, J. 2006. A trust and reputation model for agent-based virtual organisations. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
  29. Pavlou, P. A., Y. H. Tan, and D. Gefen. 2003. The transitional role of institutional trust in online interorganizational relationships. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 7: 215–224. doi:http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/HICSS.2003.1174574.
  30. Poortinga, W., and N. F. Pidgeon. 2004. Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Analysis 24(6): 1475–1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rehak, M., M. Gregor, and M. Pechoucek. 2006. Multidimensional context representations for situational trust. In Proceedings of the IEEE workshop on distributed intelligent systems: Collective intelligence and its applications, DIS ’06, Washington, DC, USA, 315–320. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  32. Rotter, J. B. 1967. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality 35(4): 651–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sabater, J., and C. Sierra. 2001. REGRET: Reputation in gregarious societies. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on autonomous agents, AGENTS ’01, 194–195. New York: ACM. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/375735.376110. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/375735.376110.
  34. Sabater-Mir, J., and M. Paolucci. 2007. On Representation and aggregation of social evaluations in computational trust and reputation models. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 46(3), 458–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sabater-Mir, J., M. Paolucci, and R. Conte. 2006. Repage: Reputation and image among limited autonomous partners. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9(2): 3. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/2/3.html.
  36. Sako, M. 2002. Does trust improve business performance? http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1462.
  37. Schoorman, F. D., R. C. Mayer, and J. H. Davis. 2007. An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review 32(2): 344–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis 13(6): 675–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Straker, D. 2008. Changing minds: In detail. Crowthorne: Syque.Google Scholar
  40. Tavakolifard, M. 2009. Situation-aware trust management. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM conference on recommender systems, RecSys 2009, 413–416. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  41. Urbano, J., H. Lopes Cardoso, and E. Oliveira. 2010. Making electronic contracting operational and trustworthy. In 12th Ibero-American conference on artificial intelligence, IBERAMIA-2010, 264–273. Bahia Blanca: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Urbano, J., A. P. Rocha, and E. Oliveira. 2009. Computing confidence values: Does trust dynamics matter? In Proceedings of the 14th Portuguese conference on artificial intelligence: Progress in artificial intelligence, EPIA ’09, 520–531. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Urbano, J., A. Rocha, and E. Oliveira. 2010. Trustworthiness tendency incremental extraction using information gain. In IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology (WI-IAT), 2010, vol. 2, 411–414. doi:10.1109/WI-IAT.2010.151.Google Scholar
  44. Urbano, J., A. P. Rocha, and E. Oliveira. 2011. A dynamic agents’ behavior model for computational trust. In Proceedings of the 15th Portugese conference on progress in artificial intelligence, EPIA’11, 536–550. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2051115.2051164.
  45. Venanzi, M., M. Piunti, R. Falcone, and C. Castelfranchi. 2011. Facing openness with socio-cognitive trust and categories. In IJCAI 2011, proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence, ed. T. Walsh, 400–405. IJCAI/AAAI. Barcelona: Spain.Google Scholar
  46. Wathne, K. H., and J. B. Heide. 2000. Opportunism in interfirm relationships: Forms, outcomes, and solutions. The Journal of Marketing 64(4): 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williamson, O. E. 1979. Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics 22: 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yu, B., and M. P. Singh. 2002. An evidential model of distributed reputation management. In Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1, AAMAS ’02, 294–301. New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joana Urbano
    • 1
  • Ana Paula Rocha
    • 1
  • Eugénio Oliveira
    • 1
  1. 1.LIACC/DEI, Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations