How to study trust online

… example of social networking, reputation, identity

Tina Guenther, DGS08Jena, October 10, 2008

Overview

1. Introduction: four aspects of „Web 2.0“

2. Conceptualizing trust online

3. Social Relations, Reputation, identity

4. Preconditions for trust online

5. Constitution of trust online

– analytical framework

6. Applying the framework

7. Methodological implications

1. Introduction

„Web 2.0“ is technology-driven: weblogs, wikis, RSS, AJAX, SNS, Open APIs. Web 2.0 is a self-organizing technology organizing (static) content into dynamic flows, growing in size and functionality.

„Web 2.0“ is a global open public loosely coupled to nation states with more thatn 1.4 billion participants. Discursive public, open space for formation of social movements, highly differentiated into sub-publics.

„Web 2.0“ is a global world of knowledge in forms of content, code and meta-data ready for distribution, remix and recombination.

„Web 2.0“ is a business-model building on user generated content, digital footprints, relational information, metadata.

Global collaborative project deeply rooted in capitalism

2. Conceptualizing trust online

We discuss trust as

… an ongoing process

… reaching far beyond technological interfaces alone

… a matter of real people in various social roles

… a matter of reason, routine and reflexivity

… where people make the „leap of faith“ that

a critical situation will be positively resolved

… thereby maintaining a state of positive expectations

… towards the actions and expectations of other people

(significant other) and online public (generalized other)

3. Social Relations, Reputation, Identity

Social Relations: Interpersonal relations, friends & contacts on social networking sites, Hyperlink relations across websites, blogs and SNS create/subsitute widespread network of interaction relations for people, groups, organizations.

Reputation: Reputation refers to recognition and is closely connected to influence circulating in social systems just like money, power and value commitments; influence refers to the capability of an actor to create consensus.

Identity: Identity refers to the capability of an actor to establish and maintain a strong coherent definition of himself across unit acts and expressions. Coherent identity contributes to autonomy and authenticity.

4. Preconditions

If trust was unproblematic, anyone could go online and

„manage“ social relations, „control“ his or her reputation

and identity online. But naive trust can turn out to be

dangerous in practice.

So, why is trust online problematic?!

4. Preconditions

1. Actors: There must be a trust giver and a trust taker. Actors can

be active internet users (produsers), providers (companies),

developers (software producers), communities or the general

online public. [Problem: actors can often not be identified,

found and held accountable for their action.]

2. Expectations: All parties expect something positive –

friends/contacts, support, advice, help/feedback, functionality,

practicalities, improved reputation, gains in autonomy &

authenticity.

3. Vulnerablity: Actors might suffer deception and violation. They

might lose money, time, friends, reputation, autonomy, self-

esteem, jobs, economic value.

4. Preconditions

4. Uncertainty: No matter how „perfect“ a technology is designed, how „perfect“ incentives for trustworthy behavior on a provider, how sophisticated rules, and roles or how intensive monitoring & surveillance activities, uncertainty does not vanish.

5. Agency: Nobody would go online and ask for deception and violation. Produsers, Providers, developers go online and maintain positive expectationsö

6. (Double) Embeddedness: Trust relations are embedded online into formal & informal rules, roles, routines and processes. But trust relations are also embedded offline into institutions and functional systems of nation states [IP adress relates to geographical information].

Provider A Provider B

User A User B

5. Interorganizational &interpersonal trust online

Developer A

Developer B

Source: Möllering 2006 + supplements

General online public General online public

Institutionallevel

structure…

Organizationallevel

structure actor

Individual/Interaction level

actor

Source: Möllering 2006 + supplements

5. Three levelsof trust online

[Embeddness into offline world at all three levels]

5. “Trust wheel”

Rational Decision Uses/BenefitsInterestsReliance on indicators of trustworthiness

Routinemodell Every day life taken for

granted trustNatural attitude, isomorphism

Institutions (rules, roles, routines, process)

Systems trust

Aufhebung der Spannung!

‘As if’ trust suspending a critical

situation ‘Bracketing’ situation

create fiction Make ‘Leap of faith’

Reflexivität Trust is a social process Trust is matter of learning From ‘naive’ to ‘active’ trust Trust involves familiarization and structuration

Quelle: Möllering 2006

6. Applying the framework

1. Reason: Trust giver bets in trustworthiness of trust taker (significant/generalized other), offers wide action frame of reference to trust take beased on utility, benefits, interests. Yet, trust giver needs to rely on indicators of trustworthiness: competencies, benevolence, integrity. Example: Decision to blog, SNS profile, Twitter, OpenID.

2. Routine: Taken-forg-granted attitude of everyday life. Isomorphism that everybody follows first movers. Institutions (rules, roles, routines, processes) help establish trust: e.g. friendly tone, inviting atmosphere.Example: Spontaneous disclosure of information & opinion.

6. Applying the framework

1. Reflexivity: Process view. Trust is matter of learning and reflexivity moving from ‚naive‘ trust toward ‚active‘ trust. Trust giver and trust taker have ongoing exchange of information, reflect action. Examples: Gain experience step-by-step, ego-Googling, monitor reputation, exchange in user forums and with friends.

2. Leap of faith: Suspend critical situation by creating the fiction that complex online identity will pay out. Put possibility of failure aside and create fiction of success. Example: create blog, upload content, establish reputation, add functions, use identity related platforms and technologies.

6. Applying the framework

1. Experience: Experience strong emotional tension unless critical situation is positively resolved. In networking, reputation and identity management, tension is a life long experience. Positive example: support, help, advice, feedback, friend request. Negative: remove documents („Internet forgets nothing“), upload of negative content, deception, damage.

2. Enacting: Contribute to create internet of trust by engaging in trust online, trust make trust possible for other people and internet public in general. Example: Set up complex online identity, create inviting atmosphere, define rules, roles, routines and processes on your own website, address online public directly.

3. Wie man Vertrauen online erforschen kann

Elements Example Questions

Reason

Routine

Reflexivity

Leap of faith

Experience

Enacting

What uses, what signals of trustworthiness?

What constitutes good practice?

How do you establish online identity, monitor reputation?

How suspend vulnerability, uncertainty?

How do you experience the tension of trust?

How do people make trust possible throughparticipation in online social life?

Source: Möllering 2006

4. Vertrauen online erforschen?

Online survey [invite participants/self recruiting] Experimental design

[offer situation where users must trust] Qualitative expert interviews

[z.B. face to face, telephone, skype] Case study methodology

[z.B. Online Survey, participatory observation] Weblog or online forum [Present project, invite feedback] Barcamp [Open invitation, presentations, group

discussions, qualitative interview] Goal: methodology 2.0 that practices trust

online as suggested and allows dense description of trust related practice

Thank you for your attention!

This content is licenced with a CC-BY-NC-SA licence following German Law