Abstract
The assessment of trust between users is essential for collaboration. General reputation and ID mechanisms may support users’ trust assessment. However, these mechanisms lack sensitivity to pairwise interactions and specific experience such as betrayal over time. Moreover, they place an interpretation burden that does not scale to dynamic, large-scale systems. While several pairwise trust mechanisms have been proposed, no empirical research examines trust score influence on participant behavior. We study the influence of showing a partner trust score and/or ID on participants’ behavior in a small-group collaborative laboratory experiment based on the trust game. We show that trust score availability has the same effect as an ID to improve cooperation as measured by sending behavior and receiver response. Excellent models based on the trust score predict sender behavior and document participant sensitivity to the provision of partner information. Models based on the trust score for recipient behavior have some predictive ability regarding trustworthiness, but suggest the need for more complex functions relating experience to participant response. We conclude that the parameters of a trust score, including pairwise interactions and betrayal, influence the different roles of participants in the trust game differently, but complement traditional ID and have the advantage of scalability.
- Hussein A. Abbass, Garrison W. Greenwood, and Eleni Petraki. 2016. The N-Player trust game and its replicator dynamics. IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput. 20, 3 (2016), 470--474.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- John R. Anderson and Lynne M. Reder. 1999. The fan effect: New results and new theories. J. Exper. Psychol.-Gen. 128, 2 (1999), 186--197.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Daniel Balliet and Paul A. M. Van Lange. 2013. Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 139, 5 (2013), 1090.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Gary Bente, Thomas Dratsch, Simon Rehbach, Matthias Reyl, and Blerta Lushaj. 2014. Do you trust my avatar? Effects of photo-realistic seller avatars and reputation scores on trust in online transactions. In HCI in Business. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 461--470.Google Scholar
- Joyce Berg, John Dickhaut, and Kevin McCabe. 1995. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 10, 1 (1995), 122--142.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Jacqueline Z. Bergman, Erika E. Small, Shawn M. Bergman, and Joan R. Rentsch. 2010. Asymmetry in perceptions of trustworthiness: It’s not you; it’s me. Negot. Conf. Manag. Res. 3, 4 (2010), 379--399.Google Scholar
- Riccardo Boero, Giangiacomo Bravo, Marco Castellani, and Flaminio Squazzoni. 2008. Reputation and Judgment Effects in Repeated Trust Games. Technical Report. Department of Social Sciences, University of Brescia, Working Paper SOC 01-08.Google Scholar
- Gary E. Bolton, Elena Katok, and Axel Ockenfels. 2004. How effective are online reputation mechanisms? An experimental investigation. In Manag Sci. 50, 11 (2004). Informs, 1587--1602. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Giangiacomo Bravo, Flaminio Squazzoni, and Riccardo Boero. 2012. Trust and partner selection in social networks: An experimentally grounded model. Soc. Netw. 34, 4 (2012), 481--492.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Yves Breitmoser. 2015. Cooperation, but no reciprocity: Individual strategies in the repeated prisoner’s dilemma. Amer. Econ. Rev. 105, 9 (2015), 2882--2910.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Marius Brülhart and Jean-Claude Usunier. 2012. Does the trust game measure trust? Econ. Lett. 115, 1 (2012), 20--23.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Lisa Bruttel and Ulrich Kamecke. 2012. Infinity in the lab. How do people play repeated games? Theor. Decis. 72, 2 (2012), 205--219.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Stephen V. Burks, Jeffrey P. Carpenter, and Eric Verhoogen. 2003. Playing both roles in the trust game. J. Econ. Behav. Organiz. 51, 2 (2003), 195--216.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Colin Camerer. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- David Cesarini, Christopher T. Dawes, James H. Fowler, Magnus Johannesson, Paul Lichtenstein, and Björn Wallace. 2008. Heritability of cooperative behavior in the trust game. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 105, 10 (2008), 3721--3726.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Klarissa Chang. 2004. Transactive memory and trust networks in computer-supported teams. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS’04). AISeL, 121.Google Scholar
- Jin-Hee Cho, Kevin S. Chan, and Sibel Adali. 2015. A survey on trust modeling. ACM Comput. Surv. 48, 2 (2015), 28. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Francois Cochard, Phu Nguyen Van, and Marc Willinger. 2004. Trusting behavior in a repeated investment game. J. Econ. Behav. Organiz. 55, 1 (2004), 31--44.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Quang Vinh Dang and Claudia-Lavinia Ignat. 2016. Computational trust model for repeated trust games. In Proceedings of the Trustcom/BigDataSE/ISPA’16. IEEE, 34--41.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Alan Dix. 2009. Human-computer Interaction. Springer. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Dimitri Dubois, Marc Willinger, and Thierry Blayac. 2012. Does players’ identification affect trust and reciprocity in the lab? J. Econ. Psychol. 33, 1 (2012), 303--317.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Jim Engle-Warnick and Robert L. Slonim. 2004. The evolution of strategies in a repeated trust game. J. Econ. Behav. Organiz. 55, 4 (2004), 553--573.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Ernst Fehr, Urs Fischbacher, Bernhard Von Rosenbladt, Jürgen Schupp, and Gert G. Wagner. 2002. A Nation-wide laboratory: Examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative survey. Schmollers Jahrbuch: Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Sozialwissenschaften/Journal of Applied Social Science Studies 122, 4 (2002), 519--542.Google Scholar
- Detlef Fetchenhauer and David Dunning. 2009. Do people trust too much or too little? J. Econ. Psychol. 30, 3 (2009), 263--276.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Urs Fischbacher. 2007. z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Exp. Econ. 10, 2 (2007), 171--178.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Edward L. Glaeser, David I. Laibson, Jose A. Scheinkman, and Christine L. Soutter. 2000. Measuring trust. Quart. J. Econ. 115, 3 (2000), 811--846.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Bruno W. P. Hoelz and Célia Ghedini Ralha. 2015. Towards a cognitive meta-model for adaptive trust and reputation in open multi-agent systems. Auto. Agents Multi.-Agent Syst. 29, 6 (2015), 1125--1156. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Kevin J. Hoffman, David Zage, and Cristina Nita-Rotaru. 2009. A survey of attack and defense techniques for reputation systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 42, 1 (2009), 1--31. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Steffen Huck, Gabriele K. Lünser, and Jean-Robert Tyran. 2012. Competition fosters trust. Games Econ. Behav. 76, 1 (2012), 195--209.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Noel D. Johnson and Alexandra A. Mislin. 2011. Trust games: A meta-analysis. J. Econ. Psychol. 32, 5 (2011), 865--889.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Audun Jøsang and Jennifer Golbeck. 2009. Challenges for robust trust and reputation systems. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Security and Trust Management (STM’09).Google Scholar
- Audun Jøsang, Roslan Ismail, and Colin Boyd. 2007. A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis. Supp. Syst. 43, 2 (Mar. 2007), 618--644. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Geoffrey Keppel. 1991. Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook. Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
- Claudia Keser. 2003. Experimental games for the design of reputation management systems. IBM Syst. J. 42, 3 (2003), 498--506. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Roy J. Lewicki and Chad Brinsfield. 2015. Trust research: Measuring trust beliefs and behaviours. In Handbook of Research Methods on Trust. Edward Elgar Publishing, 46--64.Google Scholar
- Ross A. Malaga. 2001. Web-based reputation management systems: Problems and suggested solutions. Electron. Comm. Res. 1, 4 (2001), 403--417. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- General Stanley McChrystal, Tantum Collins, David Silverman, and Chris Fussell. 2015. Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World. Penguin Publishing Group.Google Scholar
- Riccardo Pecori. 2016. S-Kademlia: A trust and reputation method to mitigate a Sybil attack in Kademlia. Comput. Netw. 94 (2016), 205--218. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Joan R. Rentsch and Richard J. Klimoski. 2001. Why do “great minds” think alike?: Antecedents of team member schema agreement. J. Organiz. Behav. 22, 2 (2001), 107--120.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Paul Resnick, Ko Kuwabara, Richard Zeckhauser, and Eric Friedman. 2000. Reputation systems. Commun. ACM 43, 12 (2000), 45--48. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Paul Resnick, Richard Zeckhauser, John Swanson, and Kate Lockwood. 2006. The value of reputation on eBay: A controlled experiment. Exper. Econ. 9, 2 (1 June 2006), 79--101.Google Scholar
- Johannes Sänger, Norman Hänsch, Brian Glass, Zinaida Benenson, Robert Landwirth, and M. Angela Sasse. 2016. Look before you leap: Improving the users’ ability to detect fraud in electronic marketplaces. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). ACM, 3870--3882. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Dirk Semmann, Hans-Jürgen Krambeck, and Manfred Milinski. 2004. Strategic investment in reputation. Behav. Ecol. Sociobio. 56, 3 (2004), 248--252.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Po-Ling Sun and Cheng-Yuan Ku. 2014. Review of threats on trust and reputation models. Industr. Manag. Data Syst. 114, 3 (2014), 472--483.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Steven Tadelis. 1999. What’s in a name? Reputation as a tradeable asset. Amer. Econ. Rev. 89, 3 (1999), 548--563.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Jiliang Tang, Xia Hu, and Huan Liu. 2013. Social recommendation: A review. Soc. Netw. Anal. Mining 3, 4 (2013), 1113--1133.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Mozhgan Tavakolifard and Kevin C. Almeroth. 2012. A taxonomy to express open challenges in trust and reputation systems. J. Commun. 7, 7 (2012), 538--551.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Quang Hieu Vu, Mihai Lupu, and Beng Chin Ooi. 2010. Trust and reputation. In Peer-to-Peer Computing. Springer, 183--214.Google Scholar
- Yao Wang and Julita Vassileva. 2007. A review on trust and reputation for web service selection. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops. IEEE Computer Society, 25. Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
The Influence of Trust Score on Cooperative Behavior
Recommendations
To buy or not to buy: Influence of seller photos and reputation on buyer trust and purchase behavior
Reputation scores and seller photos are regarded as two types of signals promoting trust in e-commerce. Little is known about their differential impact when co-occurring in online transactions. Using a computer-mediated trust game, the current study ...
The Role of Reputation on Trust and Loyalty: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Tablet E-Tailing
The purpose of this article is to empirically examine the role of online retailer's website reputation on tablet commerce and to compare the trust arbitration between reputation and loyalty in two cultures-Finland and Nigeria. Data was collected from ...
Determinants of repurchase intention in online group-buying
A theoretical model integrating the D&M model and trust literature was proposed.The model was tested using data collected customers of a group-buying website.Increasing satisfaction and perceived quality will facilitate repurchase intention.Increasing ...






Comments