Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Case of Online Trust

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
Knowledge, Technology & Policy

Abstract

This paper contributes to the debate on online trust addressing the problem of whether an online environment satisfies the necessary conditions for the emergence of trust. The paper defends the thesis that online environments can foster trust, and it does so in three steps. Firstly, the arguments proposed by the detractors of online trust are presented and analysed. Secondly, it is argued that trust can emerge in uncertain and risky environments and that it is possible to trust online identities when they are diachronic and sufficient data are available to assess their reputation. Finally, a definition of trust as a second-order property of first-order relation is endorsed in order to present a new definition of online trust. According to such a definition, online trust is an occurrence of trust that specifically qualifies the relation of communication ongoing among individuals in digital environments. On the basis of this analysis, the paper concludes by arguing that online trust promotes the emergence of social behaviours rewarding honest and transparent communications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.myspace.com/

  2. http://www.orkut.com/

  3. http://www.facebook.com/

  4. http://twitter.com/

  5. From here on this type of environment will be called ‘online environment’. The Internet is an instance of an online environment. All the explanatory examples used in this paper refer to the Internet as a case of online environment.

  6. The reader is referred to Taddeo (2009) for an analysis of the conceptual misunderstandings on which such a thesis rests.

  7. Please note that the connection between trust and lack of safety is made also in Nissenbaum (2001). The difference is on considering trust as a minimizing factor of social uncertainty.

  8. A diachronic identity is an identity that does not change over time.

  9. http://www.ebay.com/

  10. http://www.amazon.com/

  11. http://www.flickr.com/

  12. See Gambetta (1998) and Taddeo (2009) for more details on role of reputation in the assessment of trustworthiness.

  13. Please note that the task that an agent is trusted to perform may entail both performing or not performing a given action. Consider for example the cases in which A may trust B not to sell him a faulty product. In this case, A expects B to perform the task of providing a perfectly working product. In the same way if A trusts B not to be violent, A is actually expecting B to be patient or quiet.

  14. For a comprehensive treatment of what is called ‘semantic information’ see Floridi (Fourthcoming). The Philosophy of Information. Oxford, Oxford University Press. The reader should note that in the studies mentioned above the term ‘information’ is used in a broad manner. The analysis of the epistemic nature and of the properties of information as semantic content falls outside the scope of this paper. For this reason we will disregard the distinction between information, dis- and mis- information and the related philosophical debate as well as the debate on the nature of information developed on the basis of Shannon’s Information Theory Shannon and Weaver (1949).

  15. Please note that no assumption is made on the type of advantage enjoyed by the trustor, nor on whether it can be quantified.

References

  • Baker, C. R. (2002). Crime, fraud and deceit on the internet: is there hyperreality in cyberspace? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 211–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J. et al. (1996). Decentralized Trust Management. In: 17th Symposium on Security and Privacy, Los Alamitos, CA. IEEE Computer Society Press.

  • Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., et al. (2003). On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 737–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, P. (2006). In W. Isselsteijn, Y. de Kort, C. Midden, B. Eggen, & E. van den Hoven (Eds.), Social presence as a conduit to the social dimensions of online trust persuasive technology (pp. 55–59). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demolombe, R. (2004). Reasoning about trust: A formal logic framework. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • eBizMBA (2010). “Top 20 Most Popular Social Networking Websitess, May 2010.” Available at: http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/social-networking-websites. Accessed 16 Sept 2010

  • Ess, C. M. (forthcoming). “Trust and New Communication Technologies: Vicious Circles, Virtuous Circles, Possible Futures.” Knoweldge, Technology and Policy.

  • Floridi, L. (2010). The Philosophy of Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambetta, D. (1998). Can We Trust Trust? Trust: making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Trust: making and Breaking Cooperative Relations D. Gambetta (pp. 213–238). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1992). In L. A. Selby-Bigge & P. H. Nidditch (Eds.), An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. G. (1997). Ethics online, shaping social behavior online takes more than new laws and modified edicts. Communication of the ACM, 40(1), 60–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollock, P. (1994). The emergence of exchange structures: an experimental study of uncertainty, of uncertainty, commitment, and trust. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 313–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2002). What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: an interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 35–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum, H. (2001). Securing Trust Online: Wisdom or Oxymoron. Boston University Law Review, 81(3), 635–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwana H, Rosenschein J et al. (1998). Agent-mediated electronic commerce: Issues, challenges and some viewpoints. Autonomous Agents 98. ACM Press, New York.

  • Oreilly, T. (2007). “What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.” Communications & Strategies 1(First Quarter): 17.

  • Papadopoulou, P. (2007). Applying virtual reality for trust-building e-commerce environments. Virtual Reality, 11(2–3), 107–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. (1995). The Cunning of Trust. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24(3), 202–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranjit, N. (2007). Multiagent Referral Systems: Maintaining and Applying Trust and Expertise Mode. Computer Science, North Carolina State University. Master of Science.

  • Seigman, A. B. (2000). The problem of trust princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taddeo, M. (2009). Defining trust and e-trust: old theories and new problems. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), 5(2), 23–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taddeo, M. (2010). Modelling trust in artificial agents, a first step toward the analysis of e-Trust. Minds and Machines, 20(2), 243–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomela, M., & Hofmann, S. (2003). Simulating rational social normative trust, predictive trust, and predictive reliance between agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 5(3), 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weckert, J. (2005). Trust in Cyberspace. The Impact of the Internet on Our Moral Lives. R. J. Cavalier (pp. 95–120). Albany: University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, T., & Kikuchi, M. (1999). Trust, gullibility, and social intelligence. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford e-Research Centre (OeRC), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Matteo Turilli

  2. IESE Business School, Barcelona, Madrid, Spain

    Antonino Vaccaro

  3. Department of Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK

    Mariarosaria Taddeo

  4. Uehiro Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Mariarosaria Taddeo

Authors
  1. Matteo Turilli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonino Vaccaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mariarosaria Taddeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matteo Turilli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turilli, M., Vaccaro, A. & Taddeo, M. The Case of Online Trust. Know Techn Pol 23, 333–345 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-010-9117-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-010-9117-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation