Conclusion: Modeling Human Social Interaction

Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering book series (BRIEFSELECTRIC)

Abstract

A virtue-based trust model provides an efficient and flexible approach to trust without identity that models human social interaction in open and dynamic environments such as the mobile Internet. In contrast to other trust models, a virtue-based trust model reflects both the instinctual rational conduct and reflective rational conduct of humans. The trust model defines practical rationality in terms of a general theory of rationality anchored in the notion of epistemic rationality or normativity that allows us to relate trust and reason in a non-circular fashion. Trust and reason can be interpreted as complementary cognitive mechanisms or competences that guide our rational conduct at two different epistemic levels which interact at the level of reflective knowledge in the presence of risk or vulnerability. The trust model provides norms for evaluating the success of behavioral and cognitive performances in achieving cooperation and collaboration and avoiding selfishness and conflict through mutually adapting actions and the reflective moderation of basic trust dispositions operative at the level of animal knowledge. The trust model can be adapted to the intercultural context of the mobile Internet, given its emphasis on virtue and character as universal traits of trustworthiness and its moderating notion of achieving balance or harmony in the trust relation.

Keywords

Wireless Sensor Network Trust Model Communication Overhead Belief State Access Control Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    He Y et al (2008) An efficient and minimum sensitivity cost negotiation strategy in automated trust negotiation. In: 2008 international conference on computer science and software engineering, Wuhan, China, 12–14 Dec 2008, pp 182–185Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yajun G, Yulin W (2007) Establishing trust relationship in mobile ad-hoc network. In: 3rd international conference on wireless communications, networking, and mobile computing, Shanghai, China, 8–10 Oct 2007, pp 1562–1564Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luca L et al (2009) Enabling adaptation in trust computations. In: Computation world: future computing, service computation, cognitive, adaptive, content, patterns (computationworld ’09), Athens, Greece, 15–20 Nov 2009, pp 701–706Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rettinger A et al (2007) Learning initial trust among interacting agents. In: Cooperative information agents XI: 11th international workshop (CIA 2007), Delft, The Netherlands, 19–21 Sept 2007, pp 313–327Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wittgenstein L (1969) Anscombe GEM, von Wright GH (eds) On certainty (trans: Paul D, Anscombe GEM). Harper Torchbooks, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gmytrasiewicz PJ, Durfee EH (1993) Toward a theory of honesty and trust among communicating autonomous agents. Group Decis Negot 2(3):237–258. doi: 10.1007/BF01384248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simon H (1976) From substantive to procedural rationality. In: Kastelein J et al (eds) 25 years of economic theory. Springer, Boston, pp 65–86Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McKnight DH et al (1998) Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Acad Manag Rev 23(3):473–490Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fulmer CA, Gelfand MJ (2009) Are all trust violations the same? A dynamical examination of culture, trust dissolution, and trust recovery. In: Modeling intercultural collaboration and negotiation (MICON) workshop, Pasadena, CA, 13 Jul 2009, pp 56–65Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hofstede GJ et al (2008) Individualism and collectivism in trade agents. In: New frontiers in applied artificial intelligence: 21st international conference on industrial, engineering and other applications of applied intelligent systems, Wrocław, Poland, 18–20 Jun 2008, pp 492–501Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Johns Hopkins UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations