Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Electronic Commerce Research 2/2015

01.06.2015

TACO: a novel method for trust rating subjectivity elimination based on Trust Attitudes COmparison

verfasst von: Eva Zupancic, Matjaz B. Juric

Erschienen in: Electronic Commerce Research | Ausgabe 2/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Trust ratings shared by users in electronic commerce environments are subjective as trust evaluation depends on evaluators’ personal disposition to trust. As such, aggregation of shared trust ratings to compute a user’s reputation may be questionable without proper consideration of rating subjectivity. Although the problem of subjectivity in trust opinions has already been recognized, it has not been adequately resolved so far. In this paper, we address the problem of proper trust rating analysis and aggregation, which includes elimination of subjectivity. We propose a novel method based on Trust Attitudes COmparison (TACO method), which derives adjusted reputations compliant with the behavioral patterns of the evaluators and eliminates the subjectivity from the trust ratings. With the TACO method, all participants have comparable opportunities to choose trustworthy transaction partners, regardless of their trust dispositions. The TACO method finds the users with similar trust attitudes, taking advantage of nonparametric statistical methods. After that, it computes the personalized reputation scores of other users with the aggregation of trust values shared by users with similar trust attitudes. The method derives the characteristics of participants’ trust dispositions implicitly from their past ratings and does not request them to disclose any part of their trust evaluation process, such as motivating criteria for trust assessments, underlying beliefs, or criteria preferences. We have evaluated the performance of our method with extensive simulations with varying numbers of users, different numbers of available trust ratings, and with different distributions of users’ personalities. The results showed significant improvements using our TACO method with an average improvement of 50.0 % over the Abdul-Rahman and 72.9 % over the Hasan method.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
The distributions in Fig. 2 are rating distributions of random members of the Yelp virtual community, obtained from www.​yelp.​com.
 
4
The benevolence level is represented as “trustworthiness value” in [22].
 
5
The personality type is represented as “skew factor” in [22].
 
6
The TACO method performance analysis depending on the number of transactions is evaluated in Sect. 4.4.
 
7
Each agent can act as a trusting agent (i.e. a sender in the investment game transaction) or as a trusted agent (i.e. a receiver in the investment game transaction). We assume an agent can evaluate themself, as the roles of trusting and trusted agent are completely independent.
 
8
p < 0.05.
 
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Abdul-Rahman, A., & Hailes, S. (2000). Supporting trust in virtual communities. Paper presented at the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS ‘00)—Volume 6, January 4–7, 2000, IEEE. Abdul-Rahman, A., & Hailes, S. (2000). Supporting trust in virtual communities. Paper presented at the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS ‘00)—Volume 6, January 4–7, 2000, IEEE.
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Antoniou, G., & Batten, L. (2011). E-commerce: protecting purchaser privacy to enforce trust Antoniou, Giannakis and Batten, Lynn. Electronic Commerce Research, 11(4), 421–456.CrossRef Antoniou, G., & Batten, L. (2011). E-commerce: protecting purchaser privacy to enforce trust Antoniou, Giannakis and Batten, Lynn. Electronic Commerce Research, 11(4), 421–456.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2006). Predictive gaze cues and personality judgments—should eye trust you? Psychological Science, 17(6), 514–520.CrossRef Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2006). Predictive gaze cues and personality judgments—should eye trust you? Psychological Science, 17(6), 514–520.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.CrossRef Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Bertels, K., & Boman, M. (2001). Agent-based social simulation in markets. Electronic Commerce Research, 1(1–2), 149–158.CrossRef Bertels, K., & Boman, M. (2001). Agent-based social simulation in markets. Electronic Commerce Research, 1(1–2), 149–158.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Bravo, G., Squazzoni, F., & Boero, R. (2012). Trust and partner selection in social networks: An experimentally grounded model. Social Networks, 34(4), 481–492.CrossRef Bravo, G., Squazzoni, F., & Boero, R. (2012). Trust and partner selection in social networks: An experimentally grounded model. Social Networks, 34(4), 481–492.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Briggs, K. (1976). Myers–Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Briggs, K. (1976). Myers–Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Capra, L. (2004). Engineering human trust in mobile system collaborations. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 29(6), 107–116.CrossRef Capra, L. (2004). Engineering human trust in mobile system collaborations. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 29(6), 107–116.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen, J., Xu, H., & Whinston, A. B. (2011). Moderated online communities and quality of user-generated content. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(2), 237–268.CrossRef Chen, J., Xu, H., & Whinston, A. B. (2011). Moderated online communities and quality of user-generated content. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(2), 237–268.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Cofta, P. (2010). The trustworthy and trusted web. Foundations and Trends® in Web Science, 2(4), 243–381.CrossRef Cofta, P. (2010). The trustworthy and trusted web. Foundations and Trends® in Web Science, 2(4), 243–381.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909.CrossRef Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Di Cagno, D., & Sciubba, E. (2010). Trust, trustworthiness and social networks: Playing a trust game when networks are formed in the lab. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 75(2), 156–167.CrossRef Di Cagno, D., & Sciubba, E. (2010). Trust, trustworthiness and social networks: Playing a trust game when networks are formed in the lab. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 75(2), 156–167.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Dondio, P., Longo, L., & Barrett, S. (2008). A translation mechanism for recommendations. Trust Management II. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, 263 (pp. 87–102). Pisa: Springer. Dondio, P., Longo, L., & Barrett, S. (2008). A translation mechanism for recommendations. Trust Management II. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, 263 (pp. 87–102). Pisa: Springer.
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Evans, A. M., & Revelle, W. (2008). Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1585–1593.CrossRef Evans, A. M., & Revelle, W. (2008). Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1585–1593.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Fang, H., Zhang, J., Sensoy, M., & Thalmann, N. M. (2012). SARC: subjectivity alignment for reputation computation. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ‘12)—Volume 3, Valencia, Spain, June, 4–8, 2012. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Fang, H., Zhang, J., Sensoy, M., & Thalmann, N. M. (2012). SARC: subjectivity alignment for reputation computation. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ‘12)—Volume 3, Valencia, Spain, June, 4–8, 2012. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Gavish, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2006). Fraudulent auctions on the internet. Electronic Commerce Research, 6(2), 127–140.CrossRef Gavish, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2006). Fraudulent auctions on the internet. Electronic Commerce Research, 6(2), 127–140.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Gavish, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2008). Reducing internet auction fraud. Communications of the ACM, 51(5), 89–97.CrossRef Gavish, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2008). Reducing internet auction fraud. Communications of the ACM, 51(5), 89–97.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28(6), 725–737.CrossRef Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28(6), 725–737.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Griffiths, N. (2005). Task delegation using experience-based multi-dimensional trust. Paper presented at the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ‘05), Utrecht, Netherlands, July, 25–29, 2009. New York: ACM. Griffiths, N. (2005). Task delegation using experience-based multi-dimensional trust. Paper presented at the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ‘05), Utrecht, Netherlands, July, 25–29, 2009. New York: ACM.
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Habib, S. M., Ries, S., Mühlhäuser, M., & Varikkattu, P. (2013). Towards a trust management system for cloud computing marketplaces: using caiq as a trust information source. Security and Communication Networks, 7(11), 2185–2200.CrossRef Habib, S. M., Ries, S., Mühlhäuser, M., & Varikkattu, P. (2013). Towards a trust management system for cloud computing marketplaces: using caiq as a trust information source. Security and Communication Networks, 7(11), 2185–2200.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Haghpanah, Y., & Desjardins, M. (2012). Prep: A probabilistic reputation model for biased societies. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ‘12)—Volume 1 (pp. 315–322). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Haghpanah, Y., & Desjardins, M. (2012). Prep: A probabilistic reputation model for biased societies. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ‘12)—Volume 1 (pp. 315–322). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Hasan, O., Brunie, L., Pierson, J.-M., & Bertino, E. (2009). Elimination of subjectivity from trust recommendation. In E. Ferrari, N. Li, E. Bertino, & Y. Karabulut (Eds.), Trust management III, IFIP advances in information and communication technology (pp. 65–80). Berlin: Springer. Hasan, O., Brunie, L., Pierson, J.-M., & Bertino, E. (2009). Elimination of subjectivity from trust recommendation. In E. Ferrari, N. Li, E. Bertino, & Y. Karabulut (Eds.), Trust management III, IFIP advances in information and communication technology (pp. 65–80). Berlin: Springer.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Huberman, B. A., & Adamic, L. A. (1999). Internet: Growth dynamics of the World-Wide Web. Nature, 401, 131. Huberman, B. A., & Adamic, L. A. (1999). Internet: Growth dynamics of the World-Wide Web. Nature, 401, 131.
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Huynh, T. D. (2009). A personalized framework for trust assessment. Paper presented at the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC ‘09), Hawaii, USA, March, 9–12, 2009. New York: ACM. Huynh, T. D. (2009). A personalized framework for trust assessment. Paper presented at the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC ‘09), Hawaii, USA, March, 9–12, 2009. New York: ACM.
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 865–889.CrossRef Johnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 865–889.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Josang, A. (2007). Trust and reputation systems. In A. Aldini & R. Gorrieri (Eds.), Foundations of security analysis and design IV (pp. 209–245). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef Josang, A. (2007). Trust and reputation systems. In A. Aldini & R. Gorrieri (Eds.), Foundations of security analysis and design IV (pp. 209–245). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Josang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 618–644.CrossRef Josang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 618–644.CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Kerr, R., & Cohen, R. (2010). TREET: The trust and reputation experimentation and evaluation testbed. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(3–4), 271–290.CrossRef Kerr, R., & Cohen, R. (2010). TREET: The trust and reputation experimentation and evaluation testbed. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(3–4), 271–290.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Keser, C. (2003). Experimental games for the design of reputation management systems. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 498–506.CrossRef Keser, C. (2003). Experimental games for the design of reputation management systems. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 498–506.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2009). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2009). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Koster, A., Sabater-Mir, J., & Schorlemmer, M. (2012). Personalizing communication about trust. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ‘12)—Volume 3, June 4–8, 2012. Valencia, Spain: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Koster, A., Sabater-Mir, J., & Schorlemmer, M. (2012). Personalizing communication about trust. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ‘12)—Volume 3, June 4–8, 2012. Valencia, Spain: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Koster, A., Schorlemmer, M., & Sabater-Mir, J. (2012). Engineering trust alignment: Theory, method and experimentation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(6), 450–473.CrossRef Koster, A., Schorlemmer, M., & Sabater-Mir, J. (2012). Engineering trust alignment: Theory, method and experimentation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(6), 450–473.CrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Li, H., Benyoucef, M., & Bochmann, G. V. (2009). Towards a global online reputation. Paper presented at the International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems (MEDES ‘09), Lyon, France, October, 27–30, 2009. New York: ACM. Li, H., Benyoucef, M., & Bochmann, G. V. (2009). Towards a global online reputation. Paper presented at the International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems (MEDES ‘09), Lyon, France, October, 27–30, 2009. New York: ACM.
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Liu, L., & Munro, M. (2012). Systematic analysis of centralized online reputation systems. Decision Support Systems, 52(2), 438–449.CrossRef Liu, L., & Munro, M. (2012). Systematic analysis of centralized online reputation systems. Decision Support Systems, 52(2), 438–449.CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Livingston, J. A. (2010). Functional forms in studies of reputation in online auctions. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(2), 167–190.CrossRef Livingston, J. A. (2010). Functional forms in studies of reputation in online auctions. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(2), 167–190.CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Ma, H., Lyu, M. R., & King, I. (2009). Learning to recommend with trust and distrust relationships. Paper presented at the Third ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys ‘09), New York City, NY, USA, October, 22-25, 2009. New York: ACM. Ma, H., Lyu, M. R., & King, I. (2009). Learning to recommend with trust and distrust relationships. Paper presented at the Third ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys ‘09), New York City, NY, USA, October, 22-25, 2009. New York: ACM.
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Malaga, R. A. (2001). Web-Based Reputation Management Systems: Problems and Suggested Solutions. Electronic Commerce Research, 1(4), 403–417.CrossRef Malaga, R. A. (2001). Web-Based Reputation Management Systems: Problems and Suggested Solutions. Electronic Commerce Research, 1(4), 403–417.CrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Marsh, S. (1994). Optimism and pessimism in trust. Paper presented at the Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IBERAMIA ’94), Caracas, Venezuela, October 25–28, 1994. McGraw-Hill Publishing. Marsh, S. (1994). Optimism and pessimism in trust. Paper presented at the Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IBERAMIA ’94), Caracas, Venezuela, October 25–28, 1994. McGraw-Hill Publishing.
39.
Zurück zum Zitat 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, 35–60. 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, 35–60.
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Meng, K., Zhang, X., Xiao, X., & Zhang, G. (2006). A bi-rating based personalized trust management model for virtual communities. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC ‘06), Florida, USA, April, 23–25, 2006. IEEE. Meng, K., Zhang, X., Xiao, X., & Zhang, G. (2006). A bi-rating based personalized trust management model for virtual communities. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC ‘06), Florida, USA, April, 23–25, 2006. IEEE.
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Morid, M. A., & Shajari, M. (2012). An enhanced e-commerce trust model for community based centralized systems. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(4), 409–427.CrossRef Morid, M. A., & Shajari, M. (2012). An enhanced e-commerce trust model for community based centralized systems. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(4), 409–427.CrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Mouratidis, H., & Cofta, P. (2010). Practitioner’s challenges in designing trust into online systems. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research, 5(3), 65–77.CrossRef Mouratidis, H., & Cofta, P. (2010). Practitioner’s challenges in designing trust into online systems. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research, 5(3), 65–77.CrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Noor, T. H., Sheng, Q. Z., Zeadally, S., & Yu, J. (2013). Trust management of services in cloud environments: Obstacles and solutions. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 46(1), 12.CrossRef Noor, T. H., Sheng, Q. Z., Zeadally, S., & Yu, J. (2013). Trust management of services in cloud environments: Obstacles and solutions. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 46(1), 12.CrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Noorian, Z., & Ulieru, M. (2010). The state of the art in trust and reputation systems: A framework for comparison. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 5(2), 97–117.CrossRef Noorian, Z., & Ulieru, M. (2010). The state of the art in trust and reputation systems: A framework for comparison. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 5(2), 97–117.CrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Noorian, Z., Marsh, S., & Fleming, M. (2011). Multi-layer cognitive filtering by behavioral modeling. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ‘11)—Volume 2, Taipei, Taiwan, May, 2–6, 2011, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Noorian, Z., Marsh, S., & Fleming, M. (2011). Multi-layer cognitive filtering by behavioral modeling. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ‘11)—Volume 2, Taipei, Taiwan, May, 2–6, 2011, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Papaioannou, T. G., & Stamoulis, G. D. (2010). A mechanism that provides incentives for truthful feedback in peer-to-peer systems. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(3–4), 331–362.CrossRef Papaioannou, T. G., & Stamoulis, G. D. (2010). A mechanism that provides incentives for truthful feedback in peer-to-peer systems. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(3–4), 331–362.CrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Patton, M. A., & Josang, A. (2004). Technologies for trust in electronic commerce. Electronic Commerce Research, 4(1–2), 9–21.CrossRef Patton, M. A., & Josang, A. (2004). Technologies for trust in electronic commerce. Electronic Commerce Research, 4(1–2), 9–21.CrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Pinyol, I., & Sabater-Mir, J. (2013). Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: A review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 40(1), 1–25.CrossRef Pinyol, I., & Sabater-Mir, J. (2013). Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: A review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 40(1), 1–25.CrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Regan, K., Poupart, P., & Cohen, R. (2006). Bayesian reputation modeling in E-marketplaces sensitive to subjecthity, deception and change. Paper presented at the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI ‘06)—Volume 2, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, July, 16–20, 2006. AAAI Press. Regan, K., Poupart, P., & Cohen, R. (2006). Bayesian reputation modeling in E-marketplaces sensitive to subjecthity, deception and change. Paper presented at the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI ‘06)—Volume 2, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, July, 16–20, 2006. AAAI Press.
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Resnick, P. (2002). Trust among strangers in internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBay’s reputation system. Advances in Applied Microeconomics: A Research Annual, 11, 127–157. Resnick, P. (2002). Trust among strangers in internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBay’s reputation system. Advances in Applied Microeconomics: A Research Annual, 11, 127–157.
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, R. (2002). Trust among strangers in internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBay’ s reputation system. The Economics of the Internet and E-commerce (Advances in Applied Microeconomics), 11, 127–157.CrossRef Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, R. (2002). Trust among strangers in internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBay’ s reputation system. The Economics of the Internet and E-commerce (Advances in Applied Microeconomics), 11, 127–157.CrossRef
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Robinson, R., Goh, T.-T., & Zhang, R. (2012). Textual factors in online product reviews: a foundation for a more influential approach to opinion mining. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(3), 301–330.CrossRef Robinson, R., Goh, T.-T., & Zhang, R. (2012). Textual factors in online product reviews: a foundation for a more influential approach to opinion mining. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(3), 301–330.CrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Ruohomaa, S., Kutvonen, L., & Koutrouli, E. (2007). Reputation management survey. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES’07), Vienna, Austria, April, 10–13, 2007. IEEE. Ruohomaa, S., Kutvonen, L., & Koutrouli, E. (2007). Reputation management survey. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES’07), Vienna, Austria, April, 10–13, 2007. IEEE.
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Sprent, P., & Smeeton, N. C. (2007). Applied nonparametric statistical methods. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC. Sprent, P., & Smeeton, N. C. (2007). Applied nonparametric statistical methods. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Swamynathan, G., Almeroth, K. C., & Zhao, B. Y. (2010). The design of a reliable reputation system. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(3–4), 239–270.CrossRef Swamynathan, G., Almeroth, K. C., & Zhao, B. Y. (2010). The design of a reliable reputation system. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(3–4), 239–270.CrossRef
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Tavakolifard, M., & Almeroth, K. C. (2012). Social computing: an intersection of recommender systems, trust/reputation systems, and social networks. Network, IEEE, 26(4), 53–58.CrossRef Tavakolifard, M., & Almeroth, K. C. (2012). Social computing: an intersection of recommender systems, trust/reputation systems, and social networks. Network, IEEE, 26(4), 53–58.CrossRef
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Tavakolifard, M., & Almeroth, K. C. (2012). Trust 2.0: who to believe in the flood of online data. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC’12). Tavakolifard, M., & Almeroth, K. C. (2012). Trust 2.0: who to believe in the flood of online data. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC’12).
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Trcek, D. (2009). A formal apparatus for modeling trust in computing environments. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49, 226–233.CrossRef Trcek, D. (2009). A formal apparatus for modeling trust in computing environments. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49, 226–233.CrossRef
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Whitby, A., Jøsang, A., & Indulska, J. (2004). Filtering out unfair ratings in bayesian reputation systems. Paper presented at the 7th International Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies. Whitby, A., Jøsang, A., & Indulska, J. (2004). Filtering out unfair ratings in bayesian reputation systems. Paper presented at the 7th International Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies.
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Wu, G., Hu, X., & Wu, Y. (2010). Effects of perceived interactivity, perceived Web assurance and disposition to trust on initial online trust. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(1), 1–26.CrossRef Wu, G., Hu, X., & Wu, Y. (2010). Effects of perceived interactivity, perceived Web assurance and disposition to trust on initial online trust. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(1), 1–26.CrossRef
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang, J., Cohen, R., & Larson, K. (2012). Combining trust modeling and mechanism design for promoting honesty in e-marketplaces. Computational Intelligence, 28(4), 549–578.CrossRef Zhang, J., Cohen, R., & Larson, K. (2012). Combining trust modeling and mechanism design for promoting honesty in e-marketplaces. Computational Intelligence, 28(4), 549–578.CrossRef
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Zukerman, I., & Albrecht, D. W. (2001). Predictive statistical models for user modeling. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11(1–2), 5–18.CrossRef Zukerman, I., & Albrecht, D. W. (2001). Predictive statistical models for user modeling. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11(1–2), 5–18.CrossRef
63.
Zurück zum Zitat Zupancic, E., & Trcek, D. (2011). The evaluation of qualitative assessment dynamics (QAD) methodology for managing trust in pervasive computing environments. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Applications (ICPCA), Port Elizabeth, October, 26–28, 2011. IEEE. Zupancic, E., & Trcek, D. (2011). The evaluation of qualitative assessment dynamics (QAD) methodology for managing trust in pervasive computing environments. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Applications (ICPCA), Port Elizabeth, October, 26–28, 2011. IEEE.
Metadaten
Titel
TACO: a novel method for trust rating subjectivity elimination based on Trust Attitudes COmparison
verfasst von
Eva Zupancic
Matjaz B. Juric
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2015
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Electronic Commerce Research / Ausgabe 2/2015
Print ISSN: 1389-5753
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9362
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9182-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2015

Electronic Commerce Research 2/2015 Zur Ausgabe