research-article

The Diffusion of Trust and Cooperation in Teams with Individuals' Variations on Baseline Trust

Authors:

David RedmilesAuthors Info & Claims

CSCW '16: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing

Pages 303 - 318

https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820064

Published: 27 February 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Baseline trust, which refers to the personality aspect of trust and varies with different individuals, is essential for understanding the development of trust and cooperation in a team. At the same time, informal, non-work-related conversations (aka, cheap talk) have positive influences on the diffusion of trust and cooperation in global software engineering (GSE) practice. This paper seeks to develop an understanding of the influences of individuals' baseline trust on the diffusion of trust and cooperation, in the presence of cheap talk over the Internet. We employ a novel approach, designing a virtual experiment that integrates abstract agent-based modeling and simulation with realistic, empirical network structures and baseline trust data from two large open source projects (Lucene and Google Chromium OS). The results highlight the significant impact of baseline trust on the diffusion of trust and cooperation, for instance, the emergence of non-traditional diffusion trajectories. The results also demonstrate that proper seeding strategies can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of diffusion of trust and cooperation.

References

[1]

E. Abrahamson and L. Rosenkopf. 1997. Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion: A computer simulation. Org. Sci. 8, 3 (1997), 289–309.

Digital Library

[2]

B. Al-Ani, M. Bietz, Y. Wang, and et al. 2013. Globally distributed system developers: their trust expectations and processes. In Proc. CSCW. 563–574.

Digital Library

[3]

B. Al-Ani, S. Marczak, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki. 2014. Facilitating contagion trust through tools in global systems engineering teams. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56, 3 (2014), 309–320.

Digital Library

[4]

S. Aral, L. Muchnik, and A. Sundararajan. 2013. Engineering social contagions: Optimal network seeding in the presence of homophily. Net. Sci. 1 (2013), 125–153.

[5]

B. Barber. 1983. The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers.

[6]

V. Basili, F. Shull, and F. Lanubile. 1999. Building knowledge through families of experiments. Soft. Engin., IEEE T. 25, 4 (1999), 456–473.

Digital Library

[7]

N. Bettenburg, E. Shihab, and A. Hassan. 2009. An empirical study on the risks of using off-the-shelf techniques for processing mailing list data. In Proc. ICSM. 539–542.

[8]

C. Bird, A. Gourley, P. Devanbu, M. Gertz, and A. Swaminathan. 2006. Mining email social networks. In Proc. MSR. 137–143.

Digital Library

[9]

S. Borgatti and P. Foster. 2003. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. J. Manage 29, 6 (2003), 991–1013.

[10]

D. Brass. 1984. Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1984), 518–539.

[11]

J. Cassell and T. Bickmore. 2003. Negotiated Collusion: Modeling Social Language and its Relationship Effects in Intelligent Agents. User Model. User-Adap. 13, 1-2 (2003), 89–132.

Digital Library

[12]

M. Cataldo and J. Herbsleb. 2008. Communication networks in geographically distributed software development. In Proc. CSCW. 579–588.

Digital Library

[13]

M. Cataldo, J. Herbsleb, and K. Carley. 2008. Socio-technical congruence: a framework for assessing the impact of technical and work dependencies on software development productivity. In Proc. ESEM. 2–11.

Digital Library

[14]

L-E. Cederman. 2005. Computational Models of Social Forms: Advancing Generative Process Theory. Am. J. Sociol. 110, 4 (2005), 864–893.

[15]

J. Delhey, K. Newton, and C. Welzel. 2011. How general is trust in 'most people' Solving the radius of trust problem. Am. Sociol. Rev. 76, 5 (2011), 786–807.

[16]

J. Driscoll. 1978. Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction. Acad. Manage. J. 21, 1 (1978), 44–56.

[17]

R. Engle and C. Granger. 1987. Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica (1987), 251–276.

[18]

D. Etzion. 2014. Diffusion as classfication. Organization Science 25, 2 (2014), 420–437.

Digital Library

[19]

Lisa A Fast and David C Funder. 2008. Personality as manifest in word use: correlations with self-report, acquaintance report, and behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology 94, 2 (2008), 334.

[20]

N. Feltovich. 2000. Reinforcement-based vs. Belief-based learning models in experimental asymmetric-information Games. Econometrica 68, 3 (2000), 605–641.

[21]

D. Fisher and P. Dourish. 2004. Social and temporal structures in everyday collaboration. In Proc. CHI. ACM, 551–558.

Digital Library

[22]

Herbert Gintis. 2014. The bounds of reason: game theory and the unfication of the behavioral sciences. Princeton University Press.

[23]

J. Herbsleb, D. Atkins, David G. Boyer, M. Handel, and T. Finholt. 2002. Introducing instant messaging and chat in the workplace. In Proc.CHI. 171–178.

Digital Library

[24]

J. Herbsleb and A. Mockus. 2003. An empirical study of speed and communication in globally distributed software development. Soft. Engin., IEEE T. 29, 6 (2003), 481–494.

Digital Library

[25]

P. Hinds and S. Kiesler. 2002. Distributed work. MIT.

Digital Library

[26]

Q. Hong, S. Kim, S. Cheung, and C. Bird. 2011. Understanding a developer social network and its evolution. In Proc. ICSM. 323–332.

Digital Library

[27]

J. Howison, A. Wiggins, and K. Crowston. 2011. Validity Issues in the Use of Social Network Analysis with Digital Trace Data. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12 (2011).

[28]

M. Jackson. 2010. Social and Economic Network. Princeton University Press.

Digital Library

[29]

S. Jarvenpaa, K. Knoll, and D. Leidner. 1998. Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. J. Manage. Inf. Syst (1998), 29–64.

Digital Library

[30]

D. Kahneman. 2003. Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 93, 5 (2003), 1449–1475.

[31]

A. Kanavos, I. Perikos, P. Vikatos, I. Hatzilygeroudis, C. Makris, and A. Tsakalidis. 2014. Conversation Emotional Modeling in Social Networks. In Proc. ICTAI. 478–484.

Digital Library

[32]

R Kempter, V. Sintsova, C. Musat, and P Pu. 2014. EmotionWatch: Visualizing fine-grained emotions in event-related tweets. In Proc. ICWSM.

[33]

M. Kilduff, W. Tsai, and R. Hanke. 2006. A paradigm too far? A dynamic stability reconsideration of the social network research program. Acad. Manage. R. 31, 4 (2006), 1031–1048.

[34]

F. Kivran-Swaine and M. Naaman. 2011. Network Properties and Social Sharing of Emotions in Social Awareness Streams. In Proc. CSCW. 379–382.

Digital Library

[35]

H. Köpcke, A. Thor, and E. Rahm. 2010. Evaluation of Entity Resolution Approaches on Real-world Match Problems. In Proc. VLDB. 484–493.

Digital Library

[36]

E. Kouloumpis, T. Wilson, and J. Moore. 2011. Twitter sentiment analysis: The good the bad and the omg!. In Proc. ICWSM. 538–541.

[37]

C. Macal and M. North. 2010. Tutorial on agent-based modelling and simulation. J. Sim. 4, 3 (2010), 151–162.

[38]

C. Manning, P. Raghavan, and H. Schütze. 2008. Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge.

Digital Library

[39]

S. Mohammad and P. Turney. 2013. Crowdsourcing a word-emotion association lexicon. Comput. Intelli. 29, 3 (2013), 436–465.

[40]

S. Myers and J. Leskovec. 2014. The bursty dynamics of the twitter information network. In Proc. WWW. 913–924.

Digital Library

[41]

Judith S. Olson and Wendy A. Kellogg (Eds.). 2014. Ways of Knowing in HCI. Springer New York.

Digital Library

[42]

J. Pennebaker, R. J Booth, and M. Francis. 2007. Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2007. LIWC.net (2007).

[43]

V. Perrone, A. Zaheer, and B. McEvily. 2003. Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Org. Sci. 14, 4 (2003), 422–439.

Digital Library

[44]

R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

[45]

R. Reagans, E. Zuckerman, and B. McEvily. 2004. How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 49, 1 (2004), 101–133.

[46]

Y. Ren and R. Kraut. 2014a. Agent-Based Modeling to Inform Online Community Design: Impact of Topical Breadth, Message Volume, and Discussion Moderation on Member Commitment and Contribution. Hum-Comput. Interact. 29, 4 (2014), 351–389.

Digital Library

[47]

Y. Ren and R. Kraut. 2014b. Agent Based Modeling to Inform the Design of Multiuser Systems. In Ways of Knowing in HCI. Springer New York, 395–419.

[48]

E. Rogers. 2003. Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Simon & Schuster.

[49]

G. Rossman. 2012. Climbing the charts: What radio airplay tells us about the diffusion of innovation. Princeton University Press.

[50]

G. Rossman, M. Chiu, and J. Mol. 2008. Modeling diffusion of multiple innovations via multilevel diffusion curves: Payola in pop music radio. Sociol. Methodol. 38, 1 (2008), 201–230.

[51]

D. Rousseau, S. Sitkin, R. Burt, and C. Camerer. 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manage. R. 23, 3 (1998), 393–404.

[52]

J. Shen, O. Brdiczka, and J. Liu. 2013. Understanding email writers: Personality prediction from email messages. In User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization. Springer, 318–330.

[53]

B. Skyrms. 2001. The Stag hunt. Presidential Address, Proceedings and presidential Addresses of the APA 75 (2001), 31–41.

[54]

B. Skyrms. 2004. The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge University Press.

[55]

B. Skyrms. 2005. Dynamics of conformist bias. The Monist 88, 2 (2005), 260–269.

[56]

B. Skyrms. 2008. Trust, risk, and the social contract. Synthese 160, 1 (2008), 21–25.

[57]

Br. Skyrms and R. Pemantle. 2000. A Dynamic Model of Social Network Formation. P. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA (2000), 9340–9346.

[58]

G. Soda, A. Usai, and A. Zaheer. 2004. Network memory: The influence of past and current networks on performance. Acad. Manage. J. 47, 6 (2004), 893–906.

[59]

K. Starbird and L. Palen. 2012. (How) will the revolution be retweeted?: information diffusion and the 2011 Egyptian uprising. In Proc. CSCW. 7–16.

Digital Library

[60]

P. Sturgis and P. Smith. 2010. Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: What kind of trust are we measuring? Intl. J. Publ. Opi. Res. 22, 1 (2010), 74–92.

[61]

A. Sundararajan, F. Provost, G. Oestreicher-singer, and S. Aral. 2013. Information in Digital, Economic, and Social Networks. Inf. Syst. Res. 24, 4 (2013), 883–905.

Digital Library

[62]

Y. R. Tausczik and J. Pennebaker. 2010. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 29, 1 (2010), 24–54.

[63]

S. Taylor, E. Bakshy, and S. Aral. 2013. Selection effects in online sharing: Consequences for peer adoption. In Proc. EC. 821–836.

Digital Library

[64]

K. Train. 2009. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press.

[65]

J. Von Neumann and O. Morgenstern. 2007. Theory of games and economic behavior (60th Anniv. Comm. Ed.). Princeton University Press.

[66]

Y. Wang and D. Redmiles. 2013. Understanding Cheap Talk and the Emergence of Trust in Global Software Engineering: An Evolutionary Game Theory Perspective. In Proc. CHASE. 149–152.

[67]

Y. Wang and D. Redmiles. 2015. Cheap Talk, cooperation, and trust in global software engineering: An evolutionary game theory model with empirical eupport. Empirical Software Engineering (2015), Accepted, to appear.

[68]

B. Xu, Y. Huang, H. Kwak, and N. Contractor. 2013. Structures of broken ties: exploring unfollow behavior on twitter. In Proc. CSCW. 871–876.

Digital Library

[69]

T. Yamagishi and M. Yamagishi. 1994. Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motiv. Emotion 18, 2 (1994), 129–166.

[70]

H. Young. 1998. Individual Strategy and Social Structure: An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions. Princeton University Press.

[71]

M. Yuki, W. Maddux, M. Brewer, and K. Takemura. 2005. Cross-cultural differences in relationship-and group-based trust. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 31, 1 (2005), 48–62.

[72]

J. Zheng, E. Veinott, N. Bos, J. Olson, and G. Olson. 2002. Trust without touch: jumpstarting long-distance trust with initial social activities. In Proc. CHI. 141–146.

Digital Library

[73]

R. Zolin, P. Hinds, R. Fruchter, and R. Levitt. 2004. Interpersonal trust in cross-functional, geographically distributed work: A longitudinal study. Inf. Org. 14, 1 (2004), 1–26.

Cited By

Sanchez HHitaj B(2023)Software Introspection for Signaling Social-Cyber OperationsProceedings of Cyber-Physical Systems and Internet of Things Week 202310.1145/3576914.3587523(84-85)Online publication date: 9-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3576914.3587523
Salim SAl-Nabhan NRahaman MIslam NToha TNoor JQuaium AMostak AHossain MMushfiq MIslam A(2021)Human-Survey Interaction (HSI): A Study on Integrity of Human Data Collectors in a Mass-Scale Hajj Pilgrimage SurveyIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2021.31030469(112528-112551)Online publication date: 2021
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3103046
Wang YRedmiles D(2021)IIAG: a data-driven and theory-inspired approach for advising how to interact with new remote collaborators in OSS teamsAutomated Software Engineering10.1007/s10515-021-00283-028:2Online publication date: 24-May-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10515-021-00283-0
Show More Cited By

The Diffusion of Trust and Cooperation in Teams with Individuals' Variations on Baseline Trust
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing
    1. Collaborative and social computing theory, concepts and paradigms

Recommendations

Benevolence trust: a key determinant of user continuance use of online social networks

Online social networking (OSN) has attracted increased attention and growing membership in recent years. In this paper, we propose and test an extended and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model, including the additional areas ...
Does Technology Trust Substitute Interpersonal Trust?: Examining Technology Trust's Influence on Individual Decision-Making

While an increasing number of trust studies examine technological artifacts as trust recipients, there is still a lack of basic understanding of how technology trust relates to traditional trust and its role within the broader nomological net ...
Exploring Trust and Cooperation Development with Agent-Based Simulation in A Pseudo Scale-free Network
GROUP '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work

Globally distributed collaboration requires cooperation and trust among team members. Current research suggests that informal, non-work related communication plays a positive role in developing cooperation and trust. However, the way in which teams ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CSCW '16: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing

February 2016

1866 pages

ISBN:9781450335928

DOI:10.1145/2818048

General Chairs:
Darren Gergle
Northwestern University
,
Meredith Ringel Morris
Microsoft Research
,
Program Chairs:
Pernille Bjørn
University of Copenhagen
,
Joseph Konstan
University of Minnesota

Copyright © 2016 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]

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 27 February 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

CSCW '16

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CSCW '16: Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

February 27 - March 2, 2016

California, San Francisco, USA

Acceptance Rates

CSCW '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 142 of 571 submissions, 25%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 2,235 of 8,521 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

CSCW '25

Sponsor:
sigchi

Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

October 18 - 22, 2025

Bergen , Norway

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

10
Total Citations
View Citations
229
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)36
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

Reflects downloads up to 22 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Sanchez HHitaj B(2023)Software Introspection for Signaling Social-Cyber OperationsProceedings of Cyber-Physical Systems and Internet of Things Week 202310.1145/3576914.3587523(84-85)Online publication date: 9-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3576914.3587523
Salim SAl-Nabhan NRahaman MIslam NToha TNoor JQuaium AMostak AHossain MMushfiq MIslam A(2021)Human-Survey Interaction (HSI): A Study on Integrity of Human Data Collectors in a Mass-Scale Hajj Pilgrimage SurveyIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2021.31030469(112528-112551)Online publication date: 2021
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3103046
Wang YRedmiles D(2021)IIAG: a data-driven and theory-inspired approach for advising how to interact with new remote collaborators in OSS teamsAutomated Software Engineering10.1007/s10515-021-00283-028:2Online publication date: 24-May-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10515-021-00283-0
Sapkota HMurukannaiah PWang Y(2019)A network-centric approach for estimating trust between open source software developersPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.022628114:12(e0226281)Online publication date: 30-Dec-2019
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226281
McGregor MBidwell NSarangapani VAppavoo JO'Neill JBrewster SFitzpatrick GCox AKostakos V(2019)Talking about Chat at Work in the Global SouthProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3290605.3300463(1-14)Online publication date: 2-May-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290605.3300463
Germonprez MLink GLumbard KGoggins S(2018)Eight Observations and 24 Research Questions About Open Source ProjectsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/32743262:CSCW(1-22)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3274326
Calefato FLanubile FNovielli NMarczak SSarma ACruzes D(2017)A preliminary analysis on the effects of propensity to trust in distributed software developmentProceedings of the 12th International Conference on Global Software Engineering10.1109/ICGSE.2017.1(56-60)Online publication date: 20-May-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/ICGSE.2017.1
Calefato FLanubile F(2017)Establishing personal trust‐based connections in distributed teamsInternet Technology Letters10.1002/itl2.61:4Online publication date: 27-Sep-2017
https://doi.org/10.1002/itl2.6
Wang YRedmiles DLukosch SSarcevic ALewkowicz MMuller M(2016)Exploring Trust and Cooperation Development with Agent-Based Simulation in A Pseudo Scale-free NetworkProceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work10.1145/2957276.2957305(121-130)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2957276.2957305
Chadli SIdri AFernandez-Aleman JRos JToval A(2016)Identifying risks of software project management in Global Software Development: An integrative framework2016 IEEE/ACS 13th International Conference of Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA)10.1109/AICCSA.2016.7945664(1-7)Online publication date: Nov-2016
https://doi.org/10.1109/AICCSA.2016.7945664

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.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents