research-article

Building Trustworthiness in Computer-Mediated Introduction: A Facet-Oriented Framework

Authors:

Angela Borchert,

Nicolás Emilio Díaz Ferreyra,

Maritta HeiselAuthors Info & Claims

SMSociety'20: International Conference on Social Media and Society

Pages 39 - 46

https://doi.org/10.1145/3400806.3400812

Published: 22 July 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Computer-Mediated Introduction (CMI) is the process by which users with compatible purposes interact with one another through social media platforms to meet afterwards in the physical world. CMI covers purposes, such as arranging joint car rides, lodging or dating (e.g. Uber, Airbnb and Tinder). In this context, trust plays a critical role since CMI may involve risks like data misuse, self-esteem damage, fraud or violence. By evaluating the trustworthiness of the information system, its service provider and the other end-user, users decide whether to start and to continue an interaction. Since trustworthiness cues of these three actors are mainly perceived through the graphical user interface of the CMI service, end-users’ trust building is mediated by the information system. Consequently, systems implementing CMI must not only address trustworthiness on a system level but also on a brand and interpersonal level. This work provides a conceptual framework for analyzing facets of trustworthiness that can influence trust in CMI. By addressing these facets in software features, CMI systems can (i) have an impact on their perceived trustworthiness, (ii) shape that of the service provider and (iii) support the mutual trustworthiness assessment of users.

References

[1]

Borke Obada-Obieh and Anil Somayaji. 2017. Can I believe you?: Establishing trust in computer-mediated introductions. . In Proceedings of the 2017 New Security Paradigms Workshop, ACM, 94-106.

Digital Library

[2]

Monica T. Whitty and Tom Buchanan. 2016. The online dating romance scam: The psychological impact on victims – both financial and non-financial. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16, 2, 176-194.

[3]

Sergio Picazo-Vela, Isis Gutiérrez-Martínez and Luis F. Luna-Reyes. 2012. Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government information quarterly, 29, 4, 504-511.

[4]

Clifford W. Scherer and Hichang Cho. 2003. A social network contagion theory of risk perception. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 23, 2, 261-267.

[5]

Alyson L. Young and Anabel Quan-Haase. 2009. Information revelation and internet privacy concerns on social network sites: a case study of facebook. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Communities and technologies, ACM, 265-274.

[6]

Danielle Couch, Pranee Liamputtong and Marian Pitts. 2012. What are the real and perceived risks and dangers of online dating? Perspectives from online daters: Health risks in the media. Health, Risk & Society, 14, 7-8, 697-714.

[7]

Billie E. Cali, Jill M. Coleman and Catherine Campbell. 2013. Stranger danger? Women's self-protection intent and the continuing stigma of online dating. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 12, 853-857.

[8]

Robert L. Winkler. 1996. Uncertainty in probabilistic risk assessment. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 54, 2-3, 127-132.

[9]

Niklas Luhmann. 2018. Trust and power. John Wiley & Sons.

[10]

Borke Obada-Obieh, Sonia Chiasson and Anil Somayaji. 2017. Don't break my heart!: User security strategies for online dating. In Workshop on Usable Security (USEC).

[11]

Diego Gambetta. 1988. Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations.

[12]

Cynthia Johnson-George and Walter C. Swap. 1982. Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 43, 6, 1306.

[13]

Manuel Becerra and Anil K. Gupta. 2003. Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: The moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Organization science, 14, 1, 32-44.

[14]

Roger C. Mayer, James H. Davis and F. David Schoorman. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20, 3, 709-734.

[15]

D. Harrison McKnight. 2005. Trust in information technology. The Blackwell encyclopedia of management, 7, 329-331.

[16]

Esther Keymolen. 2013. Trust in technology in collaborative consumption. Why it is not just about you and me. Bridging distances in technology and regulation, 135, 135-150.

[17]

Ye Diana Wang and Henry H. Emurian. 2005. An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements, and implications. Computers in human behaviour, 21, 1, 105-125.

[18]

Iryna Pentina, Lixuan Zhang and Oksana Basmanova. 2013. Antecedents and consequences of trust in a social media brand: A cross-cultural study of Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 4, 1546-1555.

Digital Library

[19]

Matthias Söllner, Axel Hoffmann, Holger Hoffmann, Arno Wacker and Jan M. Leimeister. 2012. Understanding the formation of trust in artifacts.

[20]

Sherrie Y. X. Komiak and Izak Benbasat. 2006. The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS quarterly, 941-960.

[21]

Paul B. Lowry, Anthony Vance, Greg Moody, Bryan Beckman and Aaron Read. 2008. Explaining and predicting the impact of branding alliances and web site quality in initial consumer trust of e-commerce web sites. Journal of Management Information Systems; 24, 4, 199-224.

Digital Library

[22]

Izak Benbasat and Weiquan Wang. 2005. Trust in and adoption of online recommendation agents. Journal of the association for information systems, 6, 3, 4.

[23]

Bastiaan Vanacker and Genelle Belmas. 2009. Trust and the economics of news. Journal of Mass Media Ethics; 24, 2-3, 110-126.

[24]

Robert S. Laufer and Maxine Wolfe. 1977. Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory. Journal of social Issues, 33, 3, 22-42.

[25]

Tobias Dienlin and Miriam J. Metzger. 2016. An extended privacy calculus model for SNSs: Analyzing self-disclosure and self-withdrawal in a representative US sample. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 5, 368-383.

Digital Library

[26]

George F. Loewenstein, Elke U. Weber, Christopher K. Hsee and Ned Welch. 2001. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 2, 267-286.

[27]

Danielle Couch and Pranee Liamputtong. 2007. Online dating and mating: Perceptions of risk and health among online users. Health, Risk & Society, 9, 3, 275-294.

[28]

Ulrich Beck. 1999. World risk society. Cambridge: Polity, cited by PM Linsley and PJ Shrives. 2009. In Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20, 492-509.

[29]

Nicolás E. Díaz Ferreyra, Rene Meis and Maritta Heisel. 2019. Learning from online regrets: From deleted posts to risk awareness in social networks sites. In Adjunct Publication of the 27th Conference on User Modeling, Adaption and Personalization, 117-125.

Digital Library

[30]

Patrick Peretti-Watel and Jean-Paul Moatti. 2006. Understanding risk behaviours: How the sociology of deviance may contribute the case of drug-taking. Social Science & Medicine, 63, 3, 675-679.

[31]

Mark Griffiths. 2001. Sex on the internet: Observations and implications for internet sex addition. Journal of sex research, 38, 4, 333-342.

[32]

Mark Davis, Graham Hart, Graham Bolding, Lorraine Sherr and Jonathan Elford. 2006. Sex and the internet: Gay men, risk reduction and serostatus. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 8, 2, 161-174.

[33]

Hanna Krasnova, Sarah Spiekermann, Ksenia Koroleva and Thomas Hildebrand. 2010. Online social networks: Why we disclose. Journal of information technology, 25, 2, 109-125.

[34]

Object Management Group, 2003. UML 2.0 Infrastructure – Final adopted specification. http://www.omg.org/docs/ad/03-09-15.pdf

[35]

Herbert W. Kee and Robert E. Knox. 1970. Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust and suspicion. Journal of conflict resolution, 14, 3, 357-366.

[36]

Nazila G. Mohammadi, Sachar Paulus, Mohamed Bishr, Andreas Metzger, Holger Koennecke, Sandro Hartenstein and Klaus Pohl. 2013. An analysis of software quality attributes and their contribution to trustworthiness. In CLOSER, 542-552.

[37]

D. Harrison McKnight, Larry L. Cummings and Norman L. Chervany. 1998. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management review, 23, 3, 473-490.

[38]

Elena Delgado-Ballester, Jose L. Munuera-Aleman and Maria J. Yague-Guillen. 2003. Development and validation of a brand trust scale. International Journal of Market Research, 45, 1, 35-54.

[39]

Piotr Sztompka. 1999. Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge University Press.

[40]

Ko De Ruyter, Luci Moorman and Jos Lemmink. 2001. Antecedents of commitment and trust in customer-supplier relationships in high technology markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 3, 271-286.

[41]

May W. So and Domenic Sculli. 2002. The role of trust, quality, value and risk in conducting e-business. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 102, 9, 503-512.

[42]

Stuart Ross and Russell G. Smith. 2011. Risk factors for advance fee fraud victimisation. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 420, 1.

[43]

Aleksey Sanin, William D. Clerico, Richard Aberman, Eric Stern and Khang Tran. 2014. Systems and methods for user identity verification and risk analysis using available social and personal data. US patent 8,918,904, Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

[44]

Bojan Dobovsek, Igor Lamberger and Boštjan Slak. 2013. Advance fee frauds messages-non-declining trend. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 16, 3, 209-230.

[45]

Nazila G. Mohammadi and Maritta Heisel. 2016. Patterns for identification of trust concerns and specification of trustworthiness requirements. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs, ACM, 31.

[46]

Nazila G. Mohammadi and Maritta Heisel. 2016. A framework for systematic analysis and modeling of trustworthiness requirements using i* and BPMN. In International Conference on Trust and Privacy in Digital Business, Springer, Cham, 3-18.

[47]

Eric S. K. Yu. 1997. Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In Proceedings of ISRE’97: 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, IEEE, 226-235

[48]

OMG. 2011. Business Process Modell and Notation Version 2.0. OMG Specification, Object Management Group, 22-31.

[49]

Xuexiang Li and Wenning Zhang. 2013. Trustworthiness framework for reusable test case. In 2013 2nd International Symposium on Instrumentation and Measurement, Sensor Network and Automation (IMSNA), IEEE, 975-977.

[50]

Tim Boland, Charline Cleraux and Elizabeth Fong. 2010. Toward a preliminary framework for assessing the trustworthiness of software. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

[51]

Karen Renaud and Verena Zimmermann. 2018. Ethical guidelines for nudging in information security & privacy. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 120, 22-35.

[52]

Angela Borchert, Nicolás Emilio Díaz Ferreyra and Maritta Heisel. 2020. A conceptual method for eliciting trust-related software features for computer-mediated introduction. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering – Volume 1: ENASE, 269-280.

Cited By

Shah ERana AShashwat SDeshpande SKaur S(2024)It’s a (Mis)match: Practices and Perceptions of University Students About Online DatingSocial Computing and Social Media10.1007/978-3-031-61281-7_17(250-265)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-61281-7_17
Borchert AFerreyra NHeisel M(2022)Meeting Strangers Online: Feature Models for Trustworthiness AssessmentHuman-Centered Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-031-14785-2_1(3-22)Online publication date: 24-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-14785-2_1
Borchert AWainakh AKrämer NMühlhäuser MHeisel M(2022)The Relevance of Privacy Concerns, Trust, and Risk for Hybrid Social MediaEvaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-030-96648-5_5(88-111)Online publication date: 11-Feb-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96648-5_5
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Balancing trust and privacy in computer-mediated introduction: featuring risk as a determinant for trustworthiness requirements elicitation
ARES '20: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security

In requirements elicitation methods, it is not unusual that conflicts between software requirements or between software goals and requirements can be detected. It is efficient to deal with those conflicts before further costs are invested to implement a ...
Determinants of trust and purchase intention in social commerce: Perceived price fairness and trust disposition as moderators
Highlights
- Assessing the importance of review- and seller-related factors in social commerce.
- Determinants of trust in products and trust in sellers are different.
- Trust disposition offsets the importance of review quality and responsiveness ...
Abstract
The study investigates the determinants of trust in sellers and products and purchase intention in the social commerce (s-commerce) context by considering the moderating effects of trust disposition and perceived price fairness. The data were ...
Perceived Trustworthiness Within the Organization: The Moderating Impact of Communication Frequency on Trustor and Trustee Effects

This paper investigates the antecedents of intraorganizational trust and, more specifically, how the frequency of communication between trustor and trustee moderates the impact of these factors on perceived trustworthiness. Data on 157 dyadic ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

SMSociety'20: International Conference on Social Media and Society

July 2020

317 pages

ISBN:9781450376884

DOI:10.1145/3400806

Editors:
Anatoliy Gruzd
Ryerson University in Canada
,
Philip Mai
Ryerson University in Canada
,
Raquel Recuero
Federal University of Pelotas and Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil
,
Ángel Hernández-García
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid in Spain
,
Chei Sian Lee
Nanyang Technological University in Singapore
,
James Cook
University of Maine at Augusta in the United States
,
Jaigris Hodson
Royal Roads University in Canada
,
Bree McEwan
DePaul University in the United States
,
Jill Hopke
DePaul University in the United States

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 22 July 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

SMSociety'20

SMSociety'20: International Conference on Social Media and Society

July 22 - 24, 2020

ON, Toronto, Canada

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 78 of 189 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
201
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)12
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Shah ERana AShashwat SDeshpande SKaur S(2024)It’s a (Mis)match: Practices and Perceptions of University Students About Online DatingSocial Computing and Social Media10.1007/978-3-031-61281-7_17(250-265)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-61281-7_17
Borchert AFerreyra NHeisel M(2022)Meeting Strangers Online: Feature Models for Trustworthiness AssessmentHuman-Centered Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-031-14785-2_1(3-22)Online publication date: 24-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-14785-2_1
Borchert AWainakh AKrämer NMühlhäuser MHeisel M(2022)The Relevance of Privacy Concerns, Trust, and Risk for Hybrid Social MediaEvaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-030-96648-5_5(88-111)Online publication date: 11-Feb-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96648-5_5
Iwatani SWatamura E(2021)Attribution and reputation estimation errors among mobile phone users regarding neglecting messages in computer-mediated communicationsComputers in Human Behavior Reports10.1016/j.chbr.2021.1001384(100138)Online publication date: Aug-2021
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100138
Borchert ADíaz Ferreyra NHeisel MVolkamer MWressnegger C(2020)Balancing trust and privacy in computer-mediated introductionProceedings of the 15th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security10.1145/3407023.3409208(1-10)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3407023.3409208

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten