Transcript Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated
Communication
Trust and Trustworthiness
Part II
Coye Cheshire
//
April 8, 2016
Announcements and Stuff
 Meeting Times!
 Forum for Coming Week:
 We want to hear about your opinions on various
online reputation systems (Favorites? Failures?
Suggested changes? Give some links/examples)
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
1
Privacy and Trust
(Paine and Schoefield 2008)
Dimensions of Privacy
 Informational (psychological)
 Accessibility (physical)
 Expressive (interactional)
“Actual” vs “Perceived” Privacy
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
2
But to argue that privacy has no direct effect at
all? I take issue with the fact that they draw this
conclusion based on a very short list of studies,
all of which are extremely limited in their scope
and focus on very narrow dimensions of privacy.
In particular, the work in behavioral economics
frames privacy as a cost issue, and not all privacy
issues are related to cost, either in time or actual
money.
-Jen K.
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
3
Hardin’s Conception of Trust
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
4
There are a few assumptions here that I don't entirely
agree with. One, that we actively choose whether or
not to enter into a relationship and who we enter into
a relationship with based on whether we trust them or
not. We are often in situations where relationships are
thrust upon us, often based on role/job
interdependence and a reliance on one and another
to fulfill expectations.
-Meena N.
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
5
Hardin takes a linear and predictive view that
trust is built by iterated reciprocal exchanges,
while last week's paper found that the naïve are
more trusting. (The combination of "those who
frequently engage in such activities also tend to
have a greater sense of Internet discretion "
- Dan T.
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
6
“Social Intelligence”
7
(From Cheshire et al. 2010)
+
=
Higher
Internet
Vigilance
8
(From Cheshire et al. 2010)
+
=
Lower
Perceived
Information
Control
9
Are we capturing online trust?
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
10
Using Games and Game Theory to
Understand Trust-Building
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
11
Rules for the CMC trust game…
 Two players
 Each player gets 5 items from the experimenter on
each round.
 Players simultaneously decide whether to ‘entrust’
0 to 5 of their items to the other player.
 Players decide whether to return the items to the
partner or not.
 If player returns the items, the experimenter DOUBLES
the amount returned to the partner (operationalizing
benefit of fulfilled entrustment).
 But, each player can just keep the entrusted items; then
nothing is returned to the partner.
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
12
For Example…
Player A
entrusts 1 X’s
Player A
Player A returns the
3 X; Player B gets
6X!
Player B
Player B returns the
1 X; Player A gets
2X!
At the end of the round, you keep
Player
whatever
you didBnot entrust, plus
whatever
you earned
or kept from your
entrusts
3 X’s
partner!!
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
13
Debriefing…
What were the risks?
What were the sources of
uncertainty?
What are the opportunity cost(s)
in this game?
Does the game play any
differently when there are
repeated interactions with the
same partner, compared to
when there are new, random
partners?
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
14
Bos et. al 2002: Effects of four types of
CMC Channels on Trust Development
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
15
Bos et. al 2002: Effects of four types of
CMC Channels on Trust Development
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
16
I question how well these laboratory findings translate into
actual interactions. We trust someone to do a particular
thing. And in this case, the thing is a very specific, rather
artificial social dilemma game, performed in a controlled
setting. If the goal of this study was to gain insight into
effective collaboration across long distances, how well
does the social dilemma game model actual work?
-Yo-Shang C.
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
17
However, the Bos et al. study may not be strong evidence for trust
needing touch. First, the experimenters banned social
conversation from the experiment. This immediately placed the
“richer” media conditions at an advantage because visual and
aural cues normally compensated for in CMC social
communication could not be in this sterile environment. Second,
and related, such games are artificial in the extreme and have
little relationship to how people actually use media. Third, the time
given to the experiment was not sufficient for the text-based
condition to “catch up” with the media with faster communication
exchange (Walther, 1992). Finally, the use of self-reports for trust
is unreliable because people tend to rate richer media as higher
in trust, despite evidence that communication is more effective
without identity cues for experienced users (Tanis & Postmes,
2007).
-Paine, Schofield and Joinson 2008
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
18
Media Switching and Social Media Choice
4/8/2016
Computer-Mediated Communication
19