Yi Wang
ABSTRACT
Baseline trust, which refers to the personality aspect of trust and varies with different individuals, is essential for understanding the development of trust and cooperation in a team. At the same time, informal, non-work-related conversations (aka, cheap talk) have positive influences on the diffusion of trust and cooperation in global software engineering (GSE) practice. This paper seeks to develop an understanding of the influences of individuals' baseline trust on the diffusion of trust and cooperation, in the presence of cheap talk over the Internet. We employ a novel approach, designing a virtual experiment that integrates abstract agent-based modeling and simulation with realistic, empirical network structures and baseline trust data from two large open source projects (Lucene and Google Chromium OS). The results highlight the significant impact of baseline trust on the diffusion of trust and cooperation, for instance, the emergence of non-traditional diffusion trajectories. The results also demonstrate that proper seeding strategies can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of diffusion of trust and cooperation.
- E. Abrahamson and L. Rosenkopf. 1997. Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion: A computer simulation. Org. Sci. 8, 3 (1997), 289–309. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- B. Al-Ani, M. Bietz, Y. Wang, and et al. 2013. Globally distributed system developers: their trust expectations and processes. In Proc. CSCW. 563–574. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Al-Ani, S. Marczak, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki. 2014. Facilitating contagion trust through tools in global systems engineering teams. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56, 3 (2014), 309–320. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Aral, L. Muchnik, and A. Sundararajan. 2013. Engineering social contagions: Optimal network seeding in the presence of homophily. Net. Sci. 1 (2013), 125–153.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Barber. 1983. The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers.Google Scholar
- V. Basili, F. Shull, and F. Lanubile. 1999. Building knowledge through families of experiments. Soft. Engin., IEEE T. 25, 4 (1999), 456–473. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Bettenburg, E. Shihab, and A. Hassan. 2009. An empirical study on the risks of using off-the-shelf techniques for processing mailing list data. In Proc. ICSM. 539–542.Google Scholar
- C. Bird, A. Gourley, P. Devanbu, M. Gertz, and A. Swaminathan. 2006. Mining email social networks. In Proc. MSR. 137–143. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Borgatti and P. Foster. 2003. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. J. Manage 29, 6 (2003), 991–1013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Brass. 1984. Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1984), 518–539.Google Scholar
- J. Cassell and T. Bickmore. 2003. Negotiated Collusion: Modeling Social Language and its Relationship Effects in Intelligent Agents. User Model. User-Adap. 13, 1-2 (2003), 89–132. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Cataldo and J. Herbsleb. 2008. Communication networks in geographically distributed software development. In Proc. CSCW. 579–588. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Cataldo, J. Herbsleb, and K. Carley. 2008. Socio-technical congruence: a framework for assessing the impact of technical and work dependencies on software development productivity. In Proc. ESEM. 2–11. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L-E. Cederman. 2005. Computational Models of Social Forms: Advancing Generative Process Theory. Am. J. Sociol. 110, 4 (2005), 864–893.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Delhey, K. Newton, and C. Welzel. 2011. How general is trust in 'most people' Solving the radius of trust problem. Am. Sociol. Rev. 76, 5 (2011), 786–807.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Driscoll. 1978. Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction. Acad. Manage. J. 21, 1 (1978), 44–56.Google Scholar
- R. Engle and C. Granger. 1987. Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica (1987), 251–276.Google Scholar
- D. Etzion. 2014. Diffusion as classfication. Organization Science 25, 2 (2014), 420–437. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lisa A Fast and David C Funder. 2008. Personality as manifest in word use: correlations with self-report, acquaintance report, and behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology 94, 2 (2008), 334.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Feltovich. 2000. Reinforcement-based vs. Belief-based learning models in experimental asymmetric-information Games. Econometrica 68, 3 (2000), 605–641.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Fisher and P. Dourish. 2004. Social and temporal structures in everyday collaboration. In Proc. CHI. ACM, 551–558. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Herbert Gintis. 2014. The bounds of reason: game theory and the unfication of the behavioral sciences. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- J. Herbsleb, D. Atkins, David G. Boyer, M. Handel, and T. Finholt. 2002. Introducing instant messaging and chat in the workplace. In Proc.CHI. 171–178. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Herbsleb and A. Mockus. 2003. An empirical study of speed and communication in globally distributed software development. Soft. Engin., IEEE T. 29, 6 (2003), 481–494. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Hinds and S. Kiesler. 2002. Distributed work. MIT. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Q. Hong, S. Kim, S. Cheung, and C. Bird. 2011. Understanding a developer social network and its evolution. In Proc. ICSM. 323–332. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Howison, A. Wiggins, and K. Crowston. 2011. Validity Issues in the Use of Social Network Analysis with Digital Trace Data. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12 (2011).Google Scholar
- M. Jackson. 2010. Social and Economic Network. Princeton University Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Jarvenpaa, K. Knoll, and D. Leidner. 1998. Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. J. Manage. Inf. Syst (1998), 29–64. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Kahneman. 2003. Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 93, 5 (2003), 1449–1475.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Kanavos, I. Perikos, P. Vikatos, I. Hatzilygeroudis, C. Makris, and A. Tsakalidis. 2014. Conversation Emotional Modeling in Social Networks. In Proc. ICTAI. 478–484. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R Kempter, V. Sintsova, C. Musat, and P Pu. 2014. EmotionWatch: Visualizing fine-grained emotions in event-related tweets. In Proc. ICWSM.Google Scholar
- M. Kilduff, W. Tsai, and R. Hanke. 2006. A paradigm too far? A dynamic stability reconsideration of the social network research program. Acad. Manage. R. 31, 4 (2006), 1031–1048.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Kivran-Swaine and M. Naaman. 2011. Network Properties and Social Sharing of Emotions in Social Awareness Streams. In Proc. CSCW. 379–382. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Köpcke, A. Thor, and E. Rahm. 2010. Evaluation of Entity Resolution Approaches on Real-world Match Problems. In Proc. VLDB. 484–493. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Kouloumpis, T. Wilson, and J. Moore. 2011. Twitter sentiment analysis: The good the bad and the omg!. In Proc. ICWSM. 538–541.Google Scholar
- C. Macal and M. North. 2010. Tutorial on agent-based modelling and simulation. J. Sim. 4, 3 (2010), 151–162.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Manning, P. Raghavan, and H. Schütze. 2008. Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Mohammad and P. Turney. 2013. Crowdsourcing a word-emotion association lexicon. Comput. Intelli. 29, 3 (2013), 436–465.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Myers and J. Leskovec. 2014. The bursty dynamics of the twitter information network. In Proc. WWW. 913–924. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Judith S. Olson and Wendy A. Kellogg (Eds.). 2014. Ways of Knowing in HCI. Springer New York. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Pennebaker, R. J Booth, and M. Francis. 2007. Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2007. LIWC.net (2007).Google Scholar
- V. Perrone, A. Zaheer, and B. McEvily. 2003. Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Org. Sci. 14, 4 (2003), 422–439. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
- R. Reagans, E. Zuckerman, and B. McEvily. 2004. How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 49, 1 (2004), 101–133.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Ren and R. Kraut. 2014a. Agent-Based Modeling to Inform Online Community Design: Impact of Topical Breadth, Message Volume, and Discussion Moderation on Member Commitment and Contribution. Hum-Comput. Interact. 29, 4 (2014), 351–389. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Ren and R. Kraut. 2014b. Agent Based Modeling to Inform the Design of Multiuser Systems. In Ways of Knowing in HCI. Springer New York, 395–419.Google Scholar
- E. Rogers. 2003. Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
- G. Rossman. 2012. Climbing the charts: What radio airplay tells us about the diffusion of innovation. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- G. Rossman, M. Chiu, and J. Mol. 2008. Modeling diffusion of multiple innovations via multilevel diffusion curves: Payola in pop music radio. Sociol. Methodol. 38, 1 (2008), 201–230.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Rousseau, S. Sitkin, R. Burt, and C. Camerer. 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manage. R. 23, 3 (1998), 393–404.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Shen, O. Brdiczka, and J. Liu. 2013. Understanding email writers: Personality prediction from email messages. In User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization. Springer, 318–330.Google Scholar
- B. Skyrms. 2001. The Stag hunt. Presidential Address, Proceedings and presidential Addresses of the APA 75 (2001), 31–41.Google Scholar
- B. Skyrms. 2004. The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- B. Skyrms. 2005. Dynamics of conformist bias. The Monist 88, 2 (2005), 260–269.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Skyrms. 2008. Trust, risk, and the social contract. Synthese 160, 1 (2008), 21–25.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Br. Skyrms and R. Pemantle. 2000. A Dynamic Model of Social Network Formation. P. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA (2000), 9340–9346.Google Scholar
- G. Soda, A. Usai, and A. Zaheer. 2004. Network memory: The influence of past and current networks on performance. Acad. Manage. J. 47, 6 (2004), 893–906.Google Scholar
- K. Starbird and L. Palen. 2012. (How) will the revolution be retweeted?: information diffusion and the 2011 Egyptian uprising. In Proc. CSCW. 7–16. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Sturgis and P. Smith. 2010. Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: What kind of trust are we measuring? Intl. J. Publ. Opi. Res. 22, 1 (2010), 74–92.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Sundararajan, F. Provost, G. Oestreicher-singer, and S. Aral. 2013. Information in Digital , Economic , and Social Networks. Inf. Syst. Res. 24, 4 (2013), 883–905. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. R. Tausczik and J. Pennebaker. 2010. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 29, 1 (2010), 24–54.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Taylor, E. Bakshy, and S. Aral. 2013. Selection effects in online sharing: Consequences for peer adoption. In Proc. EC. 821–836. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Train. 2009. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- J. Von Neumann and O. Morgenstern. 2007. Theory of games and economic behavior (60th Anniv. Comm. Ed.). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Y. Wang and D. Redmiles. 2013. Understanding Cheap Talk and the Emergence of Trust in Global Software Engineering: An Evolutionary Game Theory Perspective. In Proc. CHASE. 149–152.Google Scholar
- Y. Wang and D. Redmiles. 2015. Cheap Talk, cooperation, and trust in global software engineering: An evolutionary game theory model with empirical eupport. Empirical Software Engineering (2015), Accepted, to appear.Google Scholar
- B. Xu, Y. Huang, H. Kwak, and N. Contractor. 2013. Structures of broken ties: exploring unfollow behavior on twitter. In Proc. CSCW. 871–876. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Yamagishi and M. Yamagishi. 1994. Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motiv. Emotion 18, 2 (1994), 129–166.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. Young. 1998. Individual Strategy and Social Structure: An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- M. Yuki, W. Maddux, M. Brewer, and K. Takemura. 2005. Cross-cultural differences in relationship-and group-based trust. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 31, 1 (2005), 48–62.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Zheng, E. Veinott, N. Bos, J. Olson, and G. Olson. 2002. Trust without touch: jumpstarting long-distance trust with initial social activities. In Proc. CHI. 141–146. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Zolin, P. Hinds, R. Fruchter, and R. Levitt. 2004. Interpersonal trust in cross-functional, geographically distributed work: A longitudinal study. Inf. Org. 14, 1 (2004), 1–26.Google ScholarCross Ref
- The Diffusion of Trust and Cooperation in Teams with Individuals' Variations on Baseline Trust
Recommendations
Benevolence trust: a key determinant of user continuance use of online social networks
Online social networking (OSN) has attracted increased attention and growing membership in recent years. In this paper, we propose and test an extended and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model, including the additional areas ...
Does Technology Trust Substitute Interpersonal Trust?: Examining Technology Trust's Influence on Individual Decision-Making
While an increasing number of trust studies examine technological artifacts as trust recipients, there is still a lack of basic understanding of how technology trust relates to traditional trust and its role within the broader nomological net ...
Exploring Trust and Cooperation Development with Agent-Based Simulation in A Pseudo Scale-free Network
GROUP '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group WorkGlobally distributed collaboration requires cooperation and trust among team members. Current research suggests that informal, non-work related communication plays a positive role in developing cooperation and trust. However, the way in which teams ...
Comments