In Online Social Networks (OSNs), trust is a key element, serving a connecting function between (initial) strangers. ‘Lessonplan’ has many OSN elements, and, therefore, issues of trust- and rapport-building should be considered.

Web 2.0 environments and social media platforms can cause situations of uncertainty, as they usually provide some level of anonymity. Even though this topic is the subject of a large volume of literature,[1] for the scope of this post we will only look at how trust serves as a mechanism to reduce the uncertainty of users in online interactions, e.g. in disclosure of personal opinions.

Trust has been the topic of discourse mainly in social sciences. Personality psychology considers trust a personality trait that develops in relation to one’s beliefs for another individual. Social psychology, informed at large by sociology, regards trust as a social construct: a way for members of a group to develop a social identity – a sense of belonging. Trust can even be translated into economic terms: economic theories consider trust as a calculation of risks and gains, an exchange of benefits.

Trust in OSNs appears with a dual nature: It relates both to the integrity and trustworthiness of other users as well as towards aspects of technology. In social media, other participants, the social networking site and even the Web 2.0, all are objects of trust.

 

 

Trust in ‘LessonPlan’

 

Trust formation is essential for the success of ‘LessonPlan’. Trust is considered to be the reason behind the development of social capital in OSNs. Social capital is an umbrella term, used to gather concepts of social networks, trust, inter-personal exchange and social support. Social capital relates to the benefits obtained by a social network and it facilitates goal achievement through collective investment. In essence, social capital is what drives the user to re-visit a website, or post content on a network.

Initial trust formation is largely based on the technological aspects: Institution-based trust, trust in a firm, a brand or a product is the first stage of rapport-development for new users.[2] Institution-based trust is mainly based on aspects of functionality, familiarity and helpfulness. ‘LessonPlan’ is attempting to facilitate trust-formation by providing a platform that can be incorporated inside the University network. The framework will allow users to log-in using their University credentials; initial content for the module information pages will be derived from the University provided Module Overview pages, content that is already familiar to the majority of students; depending on the University’s decisions even the look and layout of the platform can be adjusted to provide a uniform look so that users that have accessed the University webpages before will find it easy to navigate.

‘LessonPlan’ is also aiming at inter-personal trust. Inter-personal trust is a complex construct which can have many contributing factors: On its highest form, it leads to identification-based trust; a level of rapport built through experience and knowledge of the other actors on an interaction.[3] Identification-based trust is important because it facilitates the emergence of a collective identity. A group of students that feel strongly connected are more likely to collaborate and assist each other in meeting course requirements or overcoming weak spots.

Studies on trust in OSNs have showed that at first stages, between new or unknown users there are high levels of dispositional trust.[4] Dispositional trust, according to personality psychology, are the generalized expectations of trust developed over the course of life. These expectations can serve to bridge the gap between institutional trust and personal trust: If a site seems trustworthy to new users, it’s a rational assumption that its users are probably trustworthy as well.

Building on these initial levels of trust, ‘LessonPlan’ is designed to facilitate another kind as well: It is marketed as a platform specifically designed to address common student weaknesses and struggles through peer support. It promotes, therefore, a strong incentive for users to participate; students that provide active content will be more well-connected; well-connected students will be more likely to receive help when they need it; through peer-support and student feedback, modules will be easier for students to follow through; and lectures will be able to discover weak spots in the way they have organized their modules or the impact of how the module is shaped on the students. This whole process, basically describes a set of gains, benefits that mitigate potential costs of user participation on the system. It’s what is described as calculus-based trust[5] or economic trust.

 

 

Measuring trust

 

Even though there are several ways of trust calculation, the initial version of the project will not provide for such capabilities. The methods of trust building already existing in ‘LessonPlan’, detailed above, will be sufficient for the formation of interactions.

At future versions, there are plans to assess and implement ways to facilitate trust-formation by public trust calculations. For example, a rating system, initially for posts and, if deemed necessary, for users could be implemented. Ratings of users would appear mis-leading, as it is hard to provide a unified calculation for trustworthiness of a user that might have expertise in certain fields but not in others. Therefore, local ‘impact’ indicators on posts would seem more appropriate. Whether those impact indicators would allow for both positive and negative ratings is also something to be considered: Negative ratings create an unnecessary suspicion, especially since ratings don’t usually provide for justification of the vote. In an academic environment, it would seem more suitable to constrain the rating method only to positive votes (a count of how many people found the particular post useful, for example) and allow for counter-arguments as a reply to the post.

 

 

 

 

---

 

[1] See, for example, Holland, H. B. (2009-2010). “Privacy Paradox 2.0.” Widener L.J. 19: 893.

for an introduction to the ‘Privacy Paradox’: the phenomenon of online users who are aware of the privacy risks, but are still willing to disclose personal information on the Web.

[2] Kramer, R. M. and T. R. Tyler (1995). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, Sage Publications.

 

[3] Ibid.

 

[4] McKnight, D. H., et al. (1998). “Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships.” Academy of Management review 23(3): 473-490.

 

[5] Kramer, R. M. and T. R. Tyler (1995). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, Sage Publications.