Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 7.4
Adjustments with respect to the interaction dimension
Agent that has the
initiative of the
adjustment
Line Number
Starting State
Final State
1
Delegator
Weak delegation
Mild delegation
2
Delegator
Weak delegation
Strong delegation
3
Delegator
Mild delegation
Strong delegation
4
Delegator
Mild delegation
Weak delegation
5
Delegator
Strong delegation
Weak delegation
6
Delegator
Strong delegation
Mild delegation
7
Delegee
Weak delegation
Mild delegation
8
Delegee
Weak delegation
Strong delegation
9
Delegee
Mild delegation
Strong delegation
10
Delegee
Strong delegation
Mild delegation
11
Delegee
Strong delegation
Weak delegation
12
Delegee
Mild delegation
Weak delegation
13
Delegator
Weak adoption
Strong adoption
14
Delegator
Strong adoption
Weak adoption
15
Delegee
Weak adoption
Strong adoption
16
Delegee
Strong adoption
Weak adoption
Source: Reproduced by Permission of C
2001 IEEE.
Delegation/Adoption Adjustments with Respect to the Interaction Dimension
As described in Table 7.4 there are (with respect to the interaction dimension) several possi-
bilities of adjustment; they are determined by:
the agent who has the initiative of the adjustment;
the starting state (the kind of delegation or adoption acting in that given instant and that the
agent intends to modify);
the final state (the kind of delegation or adoption to which agent intends to arrive).
A few cases shown in Table 7.4 deserve some comments.
Line 1 : can be inferred from the difference between the mental ingredients of weak (see
Table 7.1) and mild (see Table 7.2) delegation: in fact, c is replaced by c , g and h . In other
words, Ag 1 does not believe that Ag 2 will achieve
τ
without any influence and so decides
α that could produce this influence. In this case there is still no social
commitment (Castelfranchi, 1996) by Ag 2 : Ag 2 does not adopt Ag 1 's goal that Ag 2 intends
τ
to realize an action
. In this case there is no sufficient trust and the trustor decides, for achieving the task, to
introduce additional influences on the trustee.
Line 2 : g and h are added beliefs. In other words, Ag 1 tries to achieve τ through a social
commitment of Ag 2 : for this it realizes
α .
Lines 8 and 9 : could represent the willingness of Ag 2 to convert Ag 1 's exploitation into a
clear social commitment between them.
Lines 13-14 : are linked with the initiative of Ag 1 in the case in which Ag 1 is aware of Ag 2 's
adoption.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search