The document discusses a socio-technical model of trust in online learning interactions. It aims to understand the role of trust in supporting online interactions. The research examines trust through an extensive literature review and concept mapping. A survey was conducted to validate a proposed trust model with five attributes: reciprocity, reliability, honesty, empathy, and shared values/interests. The results showed words associated with these attributes influence individuals' trust in social interactions, sharing information, and online communication. Future work involves designing tools to monitor and support the development of trust over time in online learning environments.

1. The implications of trust
on moderating learner’s
online interactions
A socio-technical Model of Trust
@ Sónia Sousa, 2012
CSEDU

2. 3
Research goal
Contemplate the trust role in supporting
interactions

3. WHY TRUST….

4. 5
Because
• Trust is
– a crucial element in human relations
• Trust has an important role in
– Assuring the success of a interaction
• Influencing individuals predisposition to interact and
share
• With trust
– activities proceed more smoothly,
– actions are more decisive,
– people work with greater confidence.
(e.g. Coleman, 1988; Weber, 2003)
(e.g. Yan, 2010; Mcknight, 1996; Constantine, 2006, Preece, 2004)

5. 6
Because
• Trust engenders more efficient collaboration
– Trusting
• Influences the level of commitment
• Reduces the level of uncertainty
• Connected with the believe that trustee actions will in fact
fulfill their needs.
• Trust is a fundamental conditions for influencing
– Stable concerted social actions
– Individual's active participation
– Cooperation
(e.g. Fukuyama, 1995; Luhmann, 2000; Gambetta, 1998)

6. The research…

7. 8
The research
• The complex and dynamic nature of this
research
– is supported by an ongoing action research
procedure
• This presentation contemplates efforts
1: To understand Trust
2: To understand the problem in its context

8. 9
Research procedure
What is trust?
Extensive
literature review
Trust concept
map
A social and
behavioral model
of trust
Extensive
literature review
Trust concept
map
Modeling Trust

9. How?

10. 11
Stage 1 (the process)
• Identify most common trust notions
– Design a concept map
• Provide a unified view of possible trust
implications in
– today’s social learning structures
• Identify a Trust social-technical model
– Which,
• Examines and describe the trust influence in learner’s
interactions.

11. 12
The unified view
• Trust multidisciplinary nature
– Makes possible to find a considerable
debate about
• What trust is
• What it represents
• How can influence a determine context
• But, in one thing most agrees on
– Trust does have an important role in
forming relations
• Either when examined from a more
interpersonal perspective
• Or when analyzed from a more social system
perspective
in terms of
literature research or
of everyday use

12. 13
strong incentives tobelieve that determinateperson, service or tool isin fact trustworthy
Capacity to deal
with uncertainty
about future
interaction
• Trust represents,
– a process of believing
• Identify if he/she is capable of doing what is expected
– a degree of uncertainty
• While some are more willing to take the risks others
don't
• The risk is a constant in the relationship
– The presence of trust will reduce the risk of group
interaction failure.
Trust (associated notions)
weber03, Garfinkel, Luhmann00, Lewis85
Level of
commitment
of both parts
Reflection

13. 14
• People's trust predispositions lies on
– how he/she perceives the uncertainty the situation,
– how he/she believes that trustee actions will in fact
fulfill their needs; and
– how he/she is committed to the process.
• Trust depends much on
– How we determine if a situation is in fact
trustworthy? O’hara 2009
Coleman 1988, Gambetta1998, Luhmann 2000
Trust (Associated notions)
Reflection

14. 15
How to determine
if a situation is in fact
trustworthy?
By observing the trust warranty signs
Bacharach et. al., 2007

15. 16
The trust attributes identification
1. What are the incentives to be involve
– Lead to believe that trustee actions will in fact fulfill
their needs.
2. Available trust warranty signs
– how he or she perceives the uncertainty the situation.
3. The reliability of the trust warranty signs
– how committed are the involving parties to the
relation (cooperation).
4. The trust in the technology factor
– Individuals reactions, intentions to use and actual use

16. 17
1. What lead to believe in trustee actions
– Predisposition to trust
• Inclination to depend on another with a felling of relative security
• Level of commitment of both towards the situation
2. How he or she perceives the situation
– Reciprocity
• Believing that other’s have confidence on my actions increases my
motivation to trust and my disposition to trust
– Predictability
• Be able to perceiving others' intentions in a given context
• If the attitudes and behaviors match the expectations and performance
– Honesty
• Open and transparent attitudes ensures security that person is not
deceiving and will act accordingly
– As predictability, honesty is a belief that depends on perceiving nature of the
intentions of others
The trust attributes identification

17. 18
3. Level of commitment in the relation (cooperation)
– Benevolence
• Observing attitudes of caring about the benefits of others
• 'kindness' raises trustworthiness
– but, it needs for a declaration of good intentions which results in the increasing of
confidence on others
– Competency
• Confidence that all parts involved will act in a competently and dutifully way
• Online identities and reputations
– background professional paths and achievements
– photos, personal descriptions and aims, groups
– style of writing, how they use the communication tool to interact and share
4. Technology factor (reactions, intentions to use and actual use)
– Predictability
• Observing signs of interface stability (security)
• User control (privacy)
– Competency
• Tool efficiency
The trust attributes identification

18. 19Trust social-technical model
Reciprocity
Competency
Benevolency
Predictability
Honesty
Trust
Intentions to
relate
Relations
Trust Predisposition
Beliefs
Attitudes

19. 20
Validation
• Survey analysis explores individuals
– underlying attitudes, behaviours and beliefs when build
a online relationships
• Participants
– 480 from those 340 were use in data analysis
• 89 weren’t consider invalid due to be incomplete
– All participants work on education contexts
• Procedure
– survey accounted for 2 main groups
• Demographic and background information
• Connecting the trust attributes with individuals’ expectations
when interact online
– Social, sharing and interaction dimension

20. 21
Trust social orientation
[Q1] What make someone trust in a particular person
online?
– Belief that others are friendly;
– Belief that all parts will act and behave as expected (share
ways of doing things)
– Belief that we share common social values and identities
• New trust sociability attributes
– Reciprocity and respect
– Reliability
– Honesty, be kind, be friendly and sympathy
– Empathy, common shared value, identities and interests, be
a known person

21. 22
Trust sharing orientation
[Q2] What is the most important feature for be willing to
share information online
– Believe in the truthful nature of the sharing interaction
– Privacy awareness – be sure that the shared information is
not threaten in some manner
• believe that is safe to share (i.e. can control who will read or have
access to the information)
• New trust sharing orientation attribute
– Honesty, transparency
– Reliability
– Respect
– Empathy
– Predisposition to share

22. 23
Trust interpersonal activities
[Q3] What makes an important condition for
communicate online?
– Need for support
– Sharing similar interests
– Secure and predictable communication environments
• New trust interpersonal activities attribute
– Honesty, transparency
– Secureness and predictability
– Share common interests
– Receive support

23. 24
Results (conclusions)
• Words associated with trust beliefs towards social
orientation
– Reciprocity and respect
– Reliability
– Honesty
– Empathy, be kind, be friendly and sympathy
– Common shared value, identities and interests, be a known
person
• Words associated with trust attitudes towards sharing
– Honesty, transparency
– Reliability
– Respect
– Empathy
– Predisposition to share
• Words associated with trust beliefs towards interaction
– Honesty, transparency
– Secureness and predictability
– Share common interests
– Receive support
Reciprocity
Competency
Benevolency
Predictability
Honesty
Trust Predisposition

24. 25
Future work (Ongoing work)
• Provide a tool for the educators to
– Monitor the evolution of students' trust through
time
• Enabling to apply interventions to restore or increase
participation
• A tool that allow educators to
– Construct trustful interactive learning scenarios
– By enabling,
• The detection of possible trust violations and allowing
to move towards practices of reconciliation.

25. 26
Future work (Ongoing work)
• Proposal
– Design a strategic driven analysis which correlates
• observed trust attributes with learners trust perceptions
– in three main course stages (before, during and after)
• Procedure
– Identify instruments and mechanisms to Observe and
Monitor trust
• Based on the proposed trust model
– What to observe and monitor
• External factors
– the course design, planning and privacy issues
• Collaboration factors
– Setting the climate, social Interactions, learning and sharing activities
• Community factors
– learners guidance, supporting discussions, learners supported
achievements, teaching presence

26. 
Thank you for listening

27. 28Results (concept map)

28. 29
Trust
Topic
Willingness to
depend
Subjective
probability
Trustworthiness
Reciprocity Cooperation
Willingness to be
vulnerable
Beliefs
Expectations
State
Motivations
Intentions
Capabilities
Reciprocity
Facets
Pre-requisite
Process
Rational
Irrational
Time frame
Situation (context)
Emotional level of
trust
Cognitive level of
trust
Atributes Topic
Social life context Represented by
Individuals
Organizations
Communication
media
Is represented by
individuals and by
organization
settings
Topic
Agents
Definition
Trust represents the
trustor's decision to
trust the trustee
Trustor
X
Atributes
Beliefs
Expectations
Situation specific
trusting behaviour
The one that trusts
another
Trustee
Y Atributes
(predispositions)
motivations
intentions
capabilities
to act
to reciprocate
The one who or
which is trusted
Generic object
Specific object
Trust
(associated
words)

29. 30
How to…
Agudo 2009; Gambetta 1998; O’ Hara
2009; Constantine, 2006; Mcknight, 1996
• Observe the trust warranty signs
– Assessing Direct observable signs
• e.g. physiognomic aspects and gestual signs
• e.g. the communication tool, language and style of writing
– Assessing Indirect observable signs
• e.g. signs that link trust vs distrust attitudes,
• e.g. signs that link attitudes with the level of commitment
and expectations to fulfill initial goals
Incentives to beinvolve in a riskysituation(predisposition to
trust)
the reliability of
the
communication
process

30. 31
@ Sónia Sousa, 2012
[FR]
[Q1]
[Q2]
[Q3]
[FM]
[PC] [R] [C] [B] [P] [H]
[TS]
[WF]
[AQ]
[SR]
[PC] [R] [C] [B] [P] [H]
[PC] [R] [C] [B] [P] [H]
[Q1]
[Q2]
[Q3]
[PC] [R] [C] [B] [P] [H]
[PC] [R] [C] [B] [P] [H]
[PC] [R] [C] [B] [P] [H]

31. 32
References
Sousa, Sonia; Lamas, D. and Dias, P. (2011). The interrelation between communities, trust and their online social patterns.
In Xia, F., Chen, Z., Pan, G., Yang, L. T., and Ma, J., editors, SCA2011 – International conference on Social Computing and its
Applications, pages 980–986. IEEE Computer Society
Sousa, S. and Lamas, D. (2011). Emerging trust patterns in online communities. In CPSCom 2011: The 4th IEEE International
Conference on Cyber, Physical and Social Computing. IEEE Computer Society.
Sousa, S., Lamas, D., and Dias, P. (2011b). A framework for understanding online learning communities. In
Leung, H., Popescu, E., Cao, Y., Lau, R., and Nejdl, W., editors, ECEL 2011 - 7th International Conference on e-
Learning, pages 1000—1004. Academic Publishers.
Vasconcelos, J. B., Sousa, S., Lamas, D. R., and Shmorgun, I. (2011). Tracking online learning communities using ontologies.
In Ribiere, V. and Worasinchai, L., editors, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual
Capital, Knowledge Management & Organisational Learning, page 850. Academic Publisher.
@ Sónia Sousa, 2012