Trust_Development_Among_Bloggers

Trust Development among Bloggers Introduction In approaching blogging for the first time, I was less than keen to step straight into open dialogue regarding my personal life, my views or indeed my interests. I am a keen Facebook user, which should suggest I would be open to the idea of blogging, but having used it for almost four years I have had the time to grow comfortable with Facebook. This is due, in part, to its stringent privacy settings meaning I am confident that how I use Facebook is at my discretion and with people that I know only. Successful blogging, I originally assumed, involved the necessity to share a part of oneself with the reader in order to add ‘value’. This posed a potential barrier for me until I became aware of Twitter, a site just entering the media eye that was becoming the subject of much discussion. Twitter is a micro-blogging site allowing for a maximum of only 140 characters per post. This appealed to me as a blogging site choice as the restriction of characters represented a chance to avoid more personal blogging. This essay will discuss the definition of trust, particularly in its online capacity, and its development among bloggers within the Twitter community in order to help understand the way bloggers interact both with each other and the site. To understand the differences in how trust is achieved in an online environment, comparisons will be drawn with the building of trust in a collocated environment. Then, specifically concentrating on the factors which theoretically promote trust online, this essay will use my personal experiences to explore the facilitation of trust within the Twitter community. Through personal reflection I will critically evaluate my blogging experience given my lack of desire to share personal information and considering this, try to understand the challenges involved in successful blogging. Twitter Twitter enables its users to send and read other users' updates known as tweets. Updates are displayed on the user's profile page and are delivered to other users who have signed up to ‘follow’ them. ‘Following’ is the way in which users qualify their interest in another’s blogging and is often the first stage in creating a bond with another blogger. Senders can however, restrict delivery to those in their circle of friends (delivery to everyone being the default). Users can send and receive updates via the Twitter website, by SMS, or through applications such as ‘TwitterFon’ on the iPhone. Apart from SMS costs from network providers, Twitter is an entirely free service. Twitter has no specific subject of discussion or even particular segregations of users; it asks simply, “what are you doing'” Should you wish a post you make to be added to the topical search function, you merely add a # followed by the word most associated with your post, for example #xfactor. The privacy settings of Twitter allow for you to be hidden should you not wish to participate in such activity, however, the principle of blogging is to share with others and so there are huge numbers of users that do not restrict their blogs. Due to its global scale, Twitter has attracted millions of users, some of whom are celebrities who attract particularly high attention from other bloggers. Many of these celebrities have inadvertently helped to raise the profile of Twitter as they encourage bloggers from other sites and even non-bloggers to take an interest in the community, which can be seen as an act of trusting by those that follow, an act of which I am guilty. Trust and Its Context When considering trust, broad definitions are readily available; The Modern Language Association defines it as “reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence” (Dictionary.com, 2009). However, the context in which it is being used is crucial for understanding its meaning. Without even specifically talking about blogging, but generalising about ‘online activity’ trust is an entity that has to be reconstructed from its traditional offline use. As is discussed later, traditionally we take cues from everyday lives that help us to build our perception of trustworthiness. Online, many of these cues are removed and we must therefore use new cues to define how we trust others. So why is trust so important for blogging' For a blog to be taken seriously (if indeed that is the desire of the author), for the communities surrounding topical areas to be established, members of the community must have trust in other bloggers. Without trust, the infrastructure of blogging websites surely collapses as all interactions are looked on with scepticism and doubt. Taking this on board, we can draw on Charles Handy’s (1995) seven ‘Rules of Trust’ as a metric for testing the strength of the trust formed within a blogging site: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Trust is not blind Trust needs boundaries Trust demands learning Trust is tough Trust needs bonding Trust needs touch Trust requires leaders Later, this essay will refer back to these rules to evaluate whether the Twitter website facilitates the requirements for trust to flourish. Trust is also arguably not a static state; it does not switch from total distrust to complete trust but must grow over time in relation to the fulfilment of each requirement. Notably, trust is subjective in its application; different people and different situations will require varying strengths of cue to develop trust in a person/object. In this respect, trust can be situational (Clark, 1993) in that a situation can have a controlling effect on trust development. However, trust is also a relationship (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995). Whether it is with an object, a service, a person, whatever, trust forms part of an interaction, therefore trust must work two ways. Dibben (2000 in Panteli, 2003) amalgamates these views into a matrix (fig. 1) which shows four main distinctions of trust, based on situational and relational cues. Fig. 1 Matrix balancing trust based on situational and relational cues (Dibben, 2000) Relating this into my experience of starting out blogging on Twitter, high familiarity with the individual with few comprehensible situational cues (CSQs) would quite easily fit a celebrity blogger. I have become familiar with them as individuals through other mediums so feel confident in knowing the individual but am as yet unsure of their presence in this situation. For example, I quickly began following Jonathon Ross as I know him as a presenter, but was not expecting him to blog so openly about his home life on Twitter. High familiarity and high CSQs would usually be unlikely when just starting blogging however due to the close overlapping feel of Facebook, friends I knew on Facebook that I began following on Twitter, I knew instantly would discuss much the same topics. Low familiarity and few CSQs would be an unknown Twitterer whom I had had no prior knowledge of and low familiarity, high CSQs would be the Bath Bus Customer Services as I do not know them but I know them situationally as a service I have used before. What is important from these initial mappings of trust is now to understand how they develop as blogging continues. In a perfect trust scenario, bloggers should continue to move to the top right (on the matrix) as trust develops. Fig. 2 below shows Lewicki & Bunker’s (1995) model of relational based trust development. As can be seen, this also shows a staged increase in the level of trust moving from Calculus-Based Trust to Knowledge-Based Trust and finally Identification Based Trust. Fig. 2 – Stepped development of relational trust (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995) Trust Development: Offline vs. Online Trust development in the traditional offline environment uses many cues in order to distinguish trustworthiness. Whilst some are transferable to the online environment, such as accreditations and third party endorsements, many of the human instinctive cues are removed, particularly for blogging where interaction is primarily text based. To develop a metaphor for blogging, an offline version would be standing in a huge room with loads of people talking about whatever interests them. As you enter, some people are stood alone talking, some are in small groups talking, others are in large groups listening to one speaker talk and some are running backward and forward between different groups trying to be a part of more than one conversation. As you begin to talk yourself, slowly people may begin to listen and then to chat as relationships begin. In that place with so many people talking, we would use human cues as a first step to pick out those who stood out as trustworthy and therefore were suitable to listen to or be associated with. Body language, appearance, tone and mannerisms are all things that we subconsciously study and check for signs that someone maybe untrustworthy, none of which can be checked easily online (Suler, 2004). In order to develop trust within a blogging community, there must therefore be an alternative way to communicate your trustworthiness online. “Because we’re without all the sensory cues in face-to-face communication, you really have to let people know what’s going on” (Pauleen & Yoong, 2001). The answer appears to be in the mediating body itself, or in this case, the Twitter website. Drawing in concepts from the Information Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), the Twitter website must facilitate blogger trustworthiness by offering features that can increase richness of content both about the blogger and in the blogging itself. The next section looks in detail at the features of Twitter and their ability to promote trust online. Trusting Twitter Features On exploration, Twitter has many cues built into its design that add value and richness to content. In fully utilising such cues, bloggers can improve their profile credibility which leads to greater trust and respect from the community. In turn, these are: Profile Picture – Chosen wisely, a picture can give a reader the chance to ‘see’ the blogger and thus take half a step toward some of the offline cues usually lost online. Whilst seeming superficial, human nature dictates our innate ability to stereotype people based on certain societal criteria we form as we go through life. No picture would indicate a blogger’s unwillingness to commit to their blogging and thus automatically suggest a less trustworthy blogger. One Line Bio – Twitter allows users to add a biography of themselves up to 160 characters. Whilst only short, this description further develops the blogger profile to engage with the reader. Almost like setting the title to a book, the One Line Bio can give readers an instant snapshot of your style and interest in blogging. Website Link – Twitter offers each user the ability to link to a webpage or perhaps another blog on their profile. Links can be used to highlight accreditation or endorsement of the blogger thus adding to a blogger’s perceived legitimacy which in turn can promote trust. Background Design – A slightly less important feature, yet one that can still add to the image of the blogger, background designs can be user uploaded or chosen from a basic selection. A perfect example of good use of background is the DoritosUK blogger which uses the same background on Twitter as on the corporate site, increasing the feeling that the blogger is genuinely from the company and not an impersonator. Following system – Whilst potentially able to mislead, Twitter displays each blogger’s influence in terms of the number of people who follow their blog and the number of blogs they in turn follow. Those wanting to attract attention will go out to follow many other bloggers in the hope that those bloggers will then in turn look back at their blog. However, from the number of followers a blogger has you can get an idea of their sphere of influence and therefore another perspective on their perceived trustworthiness within the community. The picture below (fig. 3) shows an amalgamation of all the above points from one blogger on Twitter. Notice how each bit of information ties in well together to create a strong trustworthy overall image. Fig. 3 Cut down section of a screenshot taken from the bathcsc Twitter page. Screen Name/Real Name Combo – Only a minor point but again allows for both an interesting name and a real name to balance out any potential for mistrust. For example, a VW camper van fanatic whose screen name is ‘theVDubKing’ can also be Joseph Bloggs so that his blogging can be taken seriously and users feel they can connect with a real person. Links and Pictures – Primarily concerned with enhancing content, this feature allows for blog posts to have links to other web pages and uploaded photos. This works particularly well for those whose blogging is more diary in style as the enriched content helps invite the reader to join in with the blogger. Below are a selection of posts (fig. 4) that contain links to photos and websites, each inviting the reader to join in with the blogger, developing the bond and therefore the trust between them. Fig. 4 – Posts showing links to websites and pictures All the above features provide cues that must replace those we use in face-to-face communication in order to develop trust among bloggers. As users get to grips with using the site and knowing what to expect, their ability to analyse a blogger using this cues will improve. As with in offline situations, experience has an important role in being able to interpret cues online and therefore in developing the levels of trust between bloggers. As an inexperienced user, I had to go through this entire learning process. Evaluating My Blogging Experience On first signing up to Twitter, I entered only the essential information to create my account, not realising the importance of enriched content. My first action was to find some friends I already knew were on Twitter which was a deliberate action to both engage the community and establish myself as joined into the network. I started making occasional posts, sometimes with open content, sometimes directed to others’ blogs yet little interaction was continuing (A full list of posts is in Appendix 1). As I increased my following and followers I increased the frequency with which I checked Twitter, yet still felt myself holding back in contributing content. I added a picture and one line bio to my profile but the impact, though impossible to truly measure, appeared to be no different than before. Overall, I don’t think my attempt to become involved in a blogging community was overly successful; however, this is due to a combination on reasons. Firstly, my reluctance to share personal information with ‘strangers’ meant I was possibly less proactive than I could have been. Secondly I don’t think I was adventurous enough in commenting on others’ blogs and finally due to the overwhelming scale of Twitter, I felt somewhat lost among the chorus of far more enthusiastic voices. Twitter: Trust Rule Compliance When defining trust at the beginning of the essay, we touched on the seven ‘Rules of Trust’ set out by Handy (1995). Having now evaluated Twitter in detail, it can now be tested against Handy’s (1995) ‘Rules of Trust.’ Trust is not blind Twitter makes every effort to give you ‘eyes’ to see those who you communicate with. In this instance, Twitter does all it can to facilitate trust. Trust needs boundaries This concerns the bloggers more than Twitter itself and as such from my perspective; boundaries to trust are always in place. Login and passwords define a boundary to trust. Trust demands learning Relating to the nature of change and uncertainty, this rule would require an obscure and unforeseen event to test its parameters on Twitter, so as such can be neither confirmed nor denied. Trust is tough Referring to the steadfastness of trust, this involves the Twitter regulation and management of the site; in the event of breach of trust, stringent measures must be in place. Twitter’s Terms of Use has adequate regulation in place for such breaches of trust. Trust needs bonding Twitter’s following system allows for strong bonding for those that use it. Holistic bonding is unrealistic given the magnitude of Twitter. Trust needs touch Technically this is something Twitter cannot offer. As much as Twitter can do to connect those that use it, this rule suggests actual meeting is required for trust to be truly present. This is possibly a little extreme and given the advancements since the publication of his work, Handy may reconsider this in light of “today’s” technology. Trust requires leaders This is Twitter, no-one and everyone. In a sense, Twitter offers the overall say on content on the site however its reliance is on users to report issues. On the other hand, Twitter is a free for all; it is leaderless because everyone is free to do their own thing. Conclusion According to Handy (1995) these seven rules are all required for trust to be truly present. As has been discussed throughout the essay, trust is not a digital ‘on or off’ state; with this in mind it is difficult to see how Hardy’s rules can be so concrete. Twitter offers a broad range of functions to provide cues for developing trust between its users. However in drawing a tangent between blogging online and the idea of something equivalent offline, it seems more than unlikely that even such an event could happen offline due to the magnitude and logistical nightmare. As such, blogging has to be looked at as quite isolated from an offline world, it is unique in its design and therefore its capacity to promote trust between its bloggers almost redefines the way we perceive trust. The onus is on the individual to set his or her own levels of privacy and security and as such, trust is also very much user defined a stark contrast to the a depersonalised online trust explain by Jarvenpaa & Leidner (1999). References Clark, M. (1993), Interpersonal Trust in the Coal Mining Industry, PhD thesis, University of Manchester, UK R.L.Daft and R.H. Lengel, “Organizational Information Requirements, media richness and structural design”, Management Science, 32, 5, (1986), pp 554-571 Dibben, M.R. (2000), Exploring Interpersonal Trust in the Entrepreneurial Venture, London: MacMillan. As cited by Panteli, N. (2003), Situating Trust within Virtual Teams, Working Paper Series, University of Bath. Lewicki, R. J. And Bunker, B. B. (1995), Trust Relationships: A Model of Trust Development and Decline. In B Bunker and J Z Rubin (eds), Conflict, Cooperation and Justice, San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Handy C. (1995), Trust and the Virtual Organization, Harvard Business Review, May-June, 40-50 [Electronic/Business Source Premier] Jarvenpaa, S. L. and Leidner, D.E. (1999), “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams”, Organization Science, (10), pp791-815 [Electronic/Business Source Premier] Modern Language Association (MLA): "trust." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 27 April. 2009. . Panteli, N. (2003), Situating Trust within Virtual Teams, Working Paper Series, University of Bath. Panteli, N. and Duncan, E. (2004), "Trust and Temporary Virtual Teams: Alternative Explanations and Dramaturgical Relationships". Information Technology and People, 17, 4, 423-441 Panteli, N. and Sockalingam, S, (2005), “Trust and Conflict within Virtual Inter-Organizational Arrangements: A Framework for Facilitating Knowledge Sharing", Decision Support Systems, Special Issue on Collaborative Work and Knowledge Management in Electronic Business, 39, 4, 599-617 Pauleen, D.J. and Yoong, P., 2001, Facilitating virtual team relationships via internet and conventional communications channels, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 11, pp. 190 – 202. Suler, J., 2004, The Online Disinhibition Effect, Cyber Psychology & Behaviour, Vol. 7(3), Department of Psychology, Rider University, New Jersey. Appendix 1 BENNYBOO100 1. @doritosuk Perhaps not celebs but the Doritos team should def face the cannons - get Pete and Adam in there...and blindfold them! hehe12:45 PM May 7th from web in reply to doritosuk 2. @doritosuk just hit Nikki hard! Good times! Get the back camera reset!4:30 PM May 6th from TwitterFon in reply to doritosuk 3. this isn't going well...2:45 PM May 5th from web 4. revision begins for the last time ever!9:49 AM May 5th from web 5. Golf tomorrow, hope the weather holds!2:25 AM Apr 8th from TwitterFon 6. Double dating a pair of nannies-in-training with Tom Newman - this I feel is heading for trouble...2:09 AM Mar 27th from web 7. Simples!5:31 PM Mar 22nd from TwitterFon 8. @bathcsc This definately worries me!11:17 AM Mar 20th from web in reply to bathcsc 9. @dhkelly I'm thinking not - though I hear that as well - also @OllyWhittall often has trouble locating the 418 of a morning...11:00 AM Mar 20th from web in reply to dhkelly 10. Has anyone realised that the @bathcsc service is like a trainspotting cheatsheet, only for bus spotting.... do people do that'10:49 AM Mar 20th from web 11. @OllyWhittall I'm bored now - think she'll mind if I turn up the mix'10:46 AM Mar 20th from web in reply to OllyWhittall 12. @dhkelly I'm jealous! Let me play!10:45 AM Mar 20th from web in reply to dhkelly 13. @OllyWhittall even more funny when the lecturer doesn't seem to understand it at all!10:20 AM Mar 6th from TwitterFon in reply to OllyWhittall 14. @dhkelly @Holly_Foster @OllyWhittall virtual organising misses your faces! It is SO boring today! Ahhhhhh10:39 AM Feb 27th from TwitterFon 15. Investment banking, woo hoo!11:56 AM Feb 23rd from TwitterFon 16. At the rugby, in the sun, excellent!1:39 PM Feb 21st from TwitterFon 17. At jimmy carr, on the lash, gonna be a gd night!7:58 PM Feb 20th from TwitterFon 18. Just got home from pub, love Megan to bits, really wish her all the best!5:21 AM Feb 15th from TwitterFon 19. Lock in over, time for bed!3:14 AM Feb 14th from TwitterFon 20. 12.30 after hours drinking in the pub, excellent!!12:36 AM Feb 14th from TwitterFon 21. Behind the bar, wanting a drink!5:23 PM Feb 13th from TwitterFon 22. @dhkelly I want lunch, any news on pete'12:44 PM Feb 13th from TwitterFon in reply to dhkelly 23. @OllyWhittall always trying to better myself!12:43 PM Feb 13th from TwitterFon in reply to OllyWhittall 24. Learning how to blog is now university approved lecture content10:18 AM Feb 13th from web