Evidence. The Trust Path

A piece of evidence (opinion, fact, signal) in this model can be defined as an arbitrary piece of information that is provided by an agent about an entity. The concept that a belief of confidence is in fact a game of signals (evidence) is proposed e.g. in [Bacharach2001] while the similar structuring of evidence is provided in [Mui2003]. The formation of confidence in the absence of any evidence (which is psychologically possible, yet practically unlikely) is excluded from this analysis. This ability to engage in collecting evidence is the foundation of the model and is reflected in its most fundamental enabler.

The Trust Path. There are several ways of categorising evidences of trust. For example, McKnight [McKnight2001] suggests that evidence related to trust can be broadly divided into evidence of competence, benevolence, predictability and integrity. In another approach, Hardin [Hardin2002] suggest looking for evidence that the other party's interest is aligned with ours while Barber [Barber1983] seeks evidence of continuity, competence and fiduciary obligations. Mishra [Mishra1996] proposes four dimensions of trust: competence, openness and honesty, concern and reliability, suggesting that the total level of trust is a multiplication of trust in all four dimensions.

This proposition follows Barber's line of thought (and is affected by the other works discussed here) and classifies evidence of trust into three categories: continuity, competence, and motivation.

Continuity. Continuity deals with the perception that the relationship between Alice and Bob will go beyond the current transaction. Continuity is governed by the perception of shared norms that Bob is willing to adhere to and Alice is approving. Even though continuity cannot be guaranteed (as it can be interrupted e.g. by an unexpected accident), Alice is willing to build on the perception of continuity, in understanding that the vision of common future will increase Bob's trustworthiness.

Continuity is sometimes called 'the shadow of the future' [Tyler1996] to stress its relationship with expectations about the future. The expectation of the continuity of the relationship is fundamental to the creation of trust and is captured e.g. by the phenomenon of reciprocity [Lindskold1978]. If one party cannot reasonably assume that the other party will exist and that the relationship between them may potentially remain the same, trust may suffer significant loss [Keser2003].

Types of evidence that support continuity vary. In some cases the evidence of sustainable legal or moral order may be necessary while in other cases the evidence of the expected existence of the other party in the future will be sufficient, specifically in small groups where the probability of frequent encounters is high. Similarly, the investment made by one party (e.g. a large shop) can be used as an evidence that the party is willing to trade in the future. The perception of shared principles (moral, organisational, etc.) can be also used.

Competence. The competent party contributes to the creation of trust exactly because it is able to positively influence the future. The lack of competence, abilities or means to support Alice's cause means that that party, even though willing, is unable to help us.

Competence is the category of evidences where the specialisation of modern life is visible. While continuity and (to lesser extent) motivation are usually associated with moral virtue and refer to the 'whole person', competence can be restricted to the particular discipline, e.g. competence in teaching does not translate to competence in driving a car. Even competence in such fundamentals as an ability to tell the truth about others is regarded as a separate area of expertise - one can be an expert driver but have problems articulating one's opinion about other people.

Competence is the common category in several models of trust building, even though actual evidence can be hidden under different names. For example, in case of e-commerce, technical excellence of a website can be taken as an evidence of competence, on the assumption that the entity that is able to professionally manage the website is also able to professionally manage the relationship conducted through this site. Also, certificates issued by professional organisations can serve as evidence of competence within a profession.

Motivation. Trustworthiness is an intention that cannot be enforced. Therefore what drives Bob is his internal motivation, his willingness to help Alice. Evidence of motivation should demonstrate that Bob has a reason to actually act for her benefit. Motivation to a certain extent can be deduced from norms that bind Bob or from his desires that drive him.

The most popular evidence of the motivation is the encapsulation of Alice's interest in Bob's interest [Hardin2002], so that it can be demonstrated that Bob actually benefits from helping Alice. For example, the fact that the banker benefits from the transaction can be used as evidence that he will be motivated to handle the transaction well.

The Control Path. Control is closely related to the preparedness and readiness to act, possibly rationally and in the pre-planned manner. In order to assess her confidence in Bob, Alice must factor in not only Bob's controllability, but also her own confidence in instruments that are at her disposal, not to mention the effectiveness of such instruments.

Alice's actions related to control assume the dynamic nature of the relationship so that they can best be classified by their relation to time. Knowledge is needed for Alice to plan ahead; influence alters Bob's behaviour when necessary and finally assurance works by affecting Bob's future. Knowledge works because Bob is concerned with his past, influence with his present, and assurance because of his concern about his future.

Knowledge. Control is associated with rational planning and execution and this requires knowledge. What Alice needs is truth about Bob's past - how he really behaved. Alice can gain knowledge about Bob's behaviour either passively (e.g. by observing him directly or through personal contacts) or actively, by requesting information from others.

In either case (whether passively or actively) Alice is employing certain instruments that record and report the behaviour of Bob. In direct observation she acts as her own instrument which provides her with limited but trustworthy information. If she solicits information from others, those 'others' are acting as her instruments. If, for example, she discovers Bob's reputation, the centre that has provided the reputation becomes her instrument.

The way knowledge works as control is twofold. First, it improves Alice's understanding of what can really be expected from Bob, i.e. how large the gap is between her estimate of his behaviour and his actual behaviour. Such knowledge can be used to estimate his future expected behaviour. This way of using knowledge does not affect Bob - it only works to improve what Alice knows However, if Bob knows that Alice (or others) are collecting information about him, the act of information-gathering becomes the instrument to control Bob's behaviour.

If he is concerned about his reputation, he will try to live up to it. Even though it may not change his trustworthiness, it may affect his trustworthy behaviour. Regardless whether Bob is influenced by information-gathering process or not, Alice is better off with her knowledge. In the worst case she can use the more accurate estimate of his trustworthy behaviour, in the best case, Bob will correct himself to support her.

Influence. Alice may try to influence Bob on or before the transaction so that his behaviour alters. Alice is supposed to apply certain power, either directly or indirectly to force Bob to perform the desired action. It does not have to be a physical force - if Bob positively respond to persuasion or to changes in his environment, then he can be directed towards the expected behaviour. Sometimes the withholding of power can act as an influencing factor. Alice indeed has a wide palette of tools to choose from.

This instrument works in two slightly different ways. First, Bob may be willing to alter his behaviour due to the expectation (threat) of an influence. Even though an instrument of influence itself stays outside of the transaction (i.e. it does not contribute to what Alice considers a success - it is still Bob that she is after), Alice must include such an instrument in her horizon and must make sure that it is real and that Bob is aware of it.

Alternatively, Alice may include an instrument in the transaction, so that an instrument can actively force Bob within a transaction. While re-defining the transaction (from 'you and me' to 'you, me and my guard'), Alice also re-defines her perception of a success: she should be satisfied not only in Bob helping her but in seeing Bob forced to help her.

Assurance. Assurance works with the future the way knowledge works with the past. It works because Bob is concerned about what will happen to him after the transaction. Note that such consideration is not present in trust, as trust does not cater for (nor expect) the negative outcome - that's why the breach of trust is always psychologically painful.

In case of assurance, Alice is relying on control instruments to shape the way Bob thinks about his future. She is using the instrument that can apply future reward or punishment, depending whether Bob has supported her or not. The most typical example can be the use of a legal system to enforce the contract. Here, Bob will be forced to behave in a particular way even if he does not want to, under the threat of being charged, sentenced or maybe even jailed. Another, more positive example is the corporate bonus plan: by behaving according to expectations of the management, an employee will be financially rewarded.

The assurance system works in two different ways. First, if Bob is aware of it, then it alters the way Bob behaves. In this sense, the assurance instrument remains beyond the scope of the transaction, even though Bob's behaviour is guided by expected reward or punishment. It is the expectation of the punishment that Alice is counting on, not the punishment itself.

Another way of looking at assurance is to include the instrument within the scope of the transaction as an alternative to Bob. If Carol represents the legal system and she is included in the scope, then the transaction is no longer the two-party one between Alice and Bob, but there are three parties involved. The perception of success also changes: Alice is satisfied not only if Bob helps her, but also if she can sue him for not helping her (and potentially receive some compensation).