Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The distributions in Fig. 2 are rating distributions of random members of the Yelp virtual community, obtained from www.yelp.com.

  2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/subjective.

  3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective.

  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.

References

  1. 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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2006). Predictive gaze cues and personality judgments—should eye trust you? Psychological Science, 17(6), 514–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bertels, K., & Boman, M. (2001). Agent-based social simulation in markets. Electronic Commerce Research, 1(1–2), 149–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bravo, G., Squazzoni, F., & Boero, R. (2012). Trust and partner selection in social networks: An experimentally grounded model. Social Networks, 34(4), 481–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Briggs, K. (1976). Myers–Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Capra, L. (2004). Engineering human trust in mobile system collaborations. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 29(6), 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cofta, P. (2010). The trustworthy and trusted web. Foundations and Trends® in Web Science, 2(4), 243–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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. Evans, A. M., & Revelle, W. (2008). Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1585–1593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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. Gavish, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2006). Fraudulent auctions on the internet. Electronic Commerce Research, 6(2), 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gavish, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2008). Reducing internet auction fraud. Communications of the ACM, 51(5), 89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28(6), 725–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Huberman, B. A., & Adamic, L. A. (1999). Internet: Growth dynamics of the World-Wide Web. Nature, 401, 131.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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. Johnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 865–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kerr, R., & Cohen, R. (2010). TREET: The trust and reputation experimentation and evaluation testbed. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(3–4), 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Keser, C. (2003). Experimental games for the design of reputation management systems. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 498–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2009). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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. Liu, L., & Munro, M. (2012). Systematic analysis of centralized online reputation systems. Decision Support Systems, 52(2), 438–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Livingston, J. A. (2010). Functional forms in studies of reputation in online auctions. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(2), 167–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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. Malaga, R. A. (2001). Web-Based Reputation Management Systems: Problems and Suggested Solutions. Electronic Commerce Research, 1(4), 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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. Morid, M. A., & Shajari, M. (2012). An enhanced e-commerce trust model for community based centralized systems. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(4), 409–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Patton, M. A., & Josang, A. (2004). Technologies for trust in electronic commerce. Electronic Commerce Research, 4(1–2), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 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. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 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. Sprent, P., & Smeeton, N. C. (2007). Applied nonparametric statistical methods. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Swamynathan, G., Almeroth, K. C., & Zhao, B. Y. (2010). The design of a reliable reputation system. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(3–4), 239–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 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. Trcek, D. (2009). A formal apparatus for modeling trust in computing environments. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49, 226–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Zukerman, I., & Albrecht, D. W. (2001). Predictive statistical models for user modeling. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11(1–2), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Vecna pot 113, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Eva Zupancic & Matjaz B. Juric

Authors
  1. Eva Zupancic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matjaz B. Juric
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Zupancic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zupancic, E., Juric, M.B. TACO: a novel method for trust rating subjectivity elimination based on Trust Attitudes COmparison. Electron Commer Res 15, 207–241 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9182-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9182-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation