Skip to main content
Search
Search
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
No Access

Agent-based modelling to visualise trustworthiness: a socio-technical framework

Published Online:October 15, 2013pp 17-27https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMNDI.2013.057145

Abstract

This paper describes a socio-technical study based on physical world scenarios of deceptive behaviour occurring in a virtual collaborative environment. An agent-based modelling (ABM) approach was adopted to visualise trustworthiness that can signal deceptive behaviour in virtual communications among social actors. The modelling strategies were guided by attribution theories toward an agent’s perceived trustworthiness. The assessment of an agent’s trustworthiness is based on their language actions as observable information-based behavioural cues, derived from objective semantic analysis. The consistency between an agent’s words and actions and distinctiveness of the agent’s behaviour when compared against his/her regular behaviour can serve as input data in each interaction. A set of ABM rules is proposed to systematically capture this interaction and assessment of trustworthiness. The logic behind a dyadic attribution can support computations on the trustworthiness of an agent.

Keywords

trustworthiness, attribution theory, agent-based modelling, ABM, online game simulation, human computer interactions

References

  • 1. Bonabeau, E. (2002). ‘Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating human systems’. in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. PNAS, 7280-7287 Google Scholar
  • 2. Elangovan, A.R. , Shapiro, D.L. (1998). ‘Betrayal of trust in organizations’. The Academy of Management Review. 23, 3, 547-566 Google Scholar
  • 3. Hardin, R. , Ostrom, E. Walker, J. (2003). ‘Gaming trust’. Trust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research. New York:Russell Sage Foundation , 80-101 Google Scholar
  • 4. Ho, S.M. , Liu, H. Salerno, J.J. Young, M.J. (2008). ‘Attribution-based anomaly detection: trustworthiness in an online community’. Social Computing, Behavioral Modeling, and Prediction. Tempe, AZ:Springer , 129-140 Google Scholar
  • 5. Ho, S.M. (2009a). ‘Behavioral anomaly detection: a socio-technical study of trustworthiness in virtual organizations’. in School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse. 1-437 Google Scholar
  • 6. Ho, S.M. , Liu, H. Salerno, J.J. Young, M.J. (2009b). ‘A socio-technical approach to understanding perceptions of trustworthiness in virtual organizations’. Social Computing, Behavioral Modeling, and Prediction. Tempe, AZ:Springer , 113-122 Google Scholar
  • 7. Ho, S.M. , Benbasat, I. (2014). ‘Dyadic attribution model: a mechanism to assess trustworthiness in virtual organizations’. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology. forthcoming Google Scholar
  • 8. Ho, S.M. , Lee, H. (2012). ‘A thief among us: the use of finite-state machines to dissect virtual betrayal in computer-mediated communications’. Journal of Wireless Mobile Networks, Ubiquitous Computing, and Dependable Applications (JoWUA): Special Issue of Frontiers in Insider Threats and Data Leakage Prevention. 3, 1/2, 82-98 Google Scholar
  • 9. Ho, S.M. , Warkentin, M. (2013). ‘Simulating insider threat with the leader‘s dilemma game: an experiment protocol’. Information & Management (under review). Google Scholar
  • 10. Hosmer, L.T. (1995). ‘Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics’. Academy of Management Review. 20, 2, 379-403 Google Scholar
  • 11. Kelley, H.H. , Michela, J.L. (1980). ‘Attribution theory and research’. Annual Review of Psychology. 31, 457-501 Google Scholar
  • 12. Kelley, H.H. , Holmes, J.G. , Kerr, N.L. , Reis, H.T. , Rusbult, C.E. , Van Lange, P.A.M. (1973). ‘The process of causal attribution’. American Psychology. 28, 2, 107-128 Google Scholar
  • 13. Kelley, H.H. , Holmes, J.G. , Kerr, N.L. , Reis, H.T. , Rusbult, C.E. , Van Lange, P.A.M. (2003). An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
  • 14. Lieberman, J.K. (1981). The Litigious Society. New York, NY:Basic Books Google Scholar
  • 15. Macy, M.W. , Willer, R. (2002). ‘From factors to actors: computational sociology and agent-based modeling’. Annual Review of Sociology. 28, 143-166 Google Scholar
  • 16. Martinko, M.J. , Thomson, N.F. (1998). ‘A synthesis and extension of the Weiner and Kelley attribution models’. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 20, 4, 271-284 Google Scholar
  • 17. Mayer, R.C. , Davis, J.H. (1999). ‘The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment’. Journal of Applied Psychology. 84, 1, 123-136 Google Scholar
  • 18. Mayer, R.C. , Davis, J.H. , Schoorman, F.D. (1995). ‘An integrative model of organizational trust’. Academy of Management Review. 20, 3, 709-734 Google Scholar
  • 19. McArthur, L.A. (1972). ‘The how and what of why: some determinants and consequences of causal attributions’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 22, 2, 171-193 Google Scholar
  • 20. Rotter, J.B. (1967). ‘A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust’. Journal of Personality. 35, 4, 651-665 Google Scholar
  • 21. Urban, C. , Schmidt, B. (2001). PECS – Agent-based Modeling of Human Behavior. AAAI, 1-6, in AAAI Technical Report FS-01-022001 Google Scholar
Previous article
Next article