Communicating trustworthiness using radar graphs: A detailed look

The amount of trust we, as human-beings, place in each other or an object (e.g., online information) is typically guided by several trust factors and antecedents. These factors can vary in importance depending on the individual making the trust decision and also on the situation - such is actually the subjective nature of trust. In this paper, we explore this notion of factors' importance by delving into detail on some of our recent user experiments and subsequent findings, partly described in previous work. These experiments used radar graphs to communicate trustworthiness as a function of five trust factors, namely competence, popularity, recency, corroboration and proximity. Here, we expand that work by further considering the importance of each of the factors to participants, while also investigating the correlations between individuals' perceptions of trust, and aspects such as graph area or size and expected scores as calculated by linear regression analysis. More specifically, we focus on outliers and endeavour to understand what is the cause of their existence. This research contributes to the field of communicating trustworthiness now, but is also meant to act as a platform for future, more directed research on visuals intended to communicate trustworthiness.

[1]  P. Croskerry Achieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias. , 2002, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[2]  Morris Sloman,et al.  A survey of trust in internet applications , 2000, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[3]  Vivianne H M Visschers,et al.  Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  Anirban Basu,et al.  Rendering unto Cæsar the Things That Are Cæsar's: Complex Trust Models and Human Understanding , 2012, IFIPTM.

[5]  Sadie Creese,et al.  Building Confidence in Information-Trustworthiness Metrics for Decision Support , 2013, 2013 12th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications.

[6]  Ellen Peters,et al.  A heuristics approach to understanding cancer risk perception: Contributions from judgment and decision-making research , 2006, Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

[7]  D. C. Howell Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 1985 .

[8]  Krishnendu Chatterjee,et al.  Assigning trust to Wikipedia content , 2008, Int. Sym. Wikis.

[9]  Jerry den Hartog,et al.  On-line trust perception: What really matters , 2011, 2011 1st Workshop on Socio-Technical Aspects in Security and Trust (STAST).

[10]  Yolanda Gil,et al.  Towards content trust of web resources , 2006, WWW '06.

[11]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[12]  A. Furnham,et al.  A literature review of the anchoring effect , 2011 .

[13]  Jean-Daniel Fekete,et al.  WikipediaViz: Conveying article quality for casual Wikipedia readers , 2010, 2010 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis).

[14]  Jason R. C. Nurse,et al.  Information Quality and Trustworthiness: A Topical State−of−the−Art Review , 2011 .

[15]  Sadie Creese,et al.  Trustworthy and effective communication of cybersecurity risks: A review , 2011, 2011 1st Workshop on Socio-Technical Aspects in Security and Trust (STAST).

[16]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[17]  Sadie Creese,et al.  Using Information Trustworthiness Advice in Decision Making , 2012, 2012 Workshop on Socio-Technical Aspects in Security and Trust.

[18]  Paloma Moreda,et al.  SMILE: An Informality Classification Tool for Helping to Assess Quality and Credibility in Web 2.0 Texts , 2012, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.

[19]  William A. Wallace,et al.  Trust in digital information , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[20]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[21]  T. Saaty,et al.  Why the magic number seven plus or minus two , 2003 .

[22]  I. Lipkus Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[23]  Ponnurangam Kumaraguru,et al.  Credibility ranking of tweets during high impact events , 2012, PSOSM '12.

[24]  J. Chiou,et al.  How Much can you Trust Online Information? Cues for Perceived Trustworthiness of Consumer-generated Online Information , 2011 .

[25]  Glen L. Urban,et al.  Online Trust: State of the Art, New Frontiers, and Research Potential , 2009 .

[26]  Rajat Moona,et al.  Trust Management VI , 2012, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology.

[27]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  The visual communication of risk. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[28]  Pat Gannon-Leary,et al.  Trust in 'E': Users' Trust in Information Resources in the Web Environment , 2010, CENTERIS.