Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Once a quantitative notion of the value of a given agent is formulated by calculating
how
much the agent is valued by other agents in a given market for (in realizing) a given task
,we
can say that this trust-dependent value is a real capital. It consists of all the relationships that are
possible for the agent in a given market and, together with the possible relationships in other
markets, it is the so-called
relational capital
of that agent. It differs from simple relationships
in given networks, which are a bigger set, since it only consists of relationships the agent has
with those who not only need him but have a good attitude toward him and, therefore, who
are willing to have him as a partner. How much is he appreciated and requested? How many
potential partners depend on
Y
and would search for
Y
as a partner? How many partners would
be at
Y
's disposal for proposals of partnership, and what 'negotiation power' would
Y
have
with them?
These relationships form a capital because (as with any other capital) it is the result of
investments and it is costly cumulated it.
In a certain sense it represents a strategic tool to be competitive, and, also, as happens with
other capitals such as the financial one, it is sometimes even more important that the good
which is sold (be it either a service or a material good). For example, when
Y
decides to not
keep a promise to
X
, he knows that
X
's trust in
Y
will decrease: is this convenient for future
relationships with
X
? Will
Y
need to count on
X
in the future? Or, is this move convenient for
reputation and other relationships?
For this reason it is very important to study how it is possible for the agent to cumulate
this capital without deteriorating or wasting it: since the relational capital can make the agent
win the competition even when the goods he offers is not the best compared with substitutive
goods offered in the market. It should be shown quantitatively what this means and what kind
of dynamic relationships exist between quality of offered good and relational capital.
10.2 Cognitive Model of Being Trusted
Before considering trust from this new perspective, let us underline a very important point,
which will be useful for this work. The theory of trust and the theory of dependence are not
independent from each other. Not only because - as we modelled ((Castelfranchi and Falcone,
1998), (Falcone and Castelfranchi, 2001)) before deciding to actively trust somebody, to rely
on him (
Y
), one (
X
) has to be dependent on
Y
:
X
needs an action or a resource of
Y
(at least
X
has to believe so). But also because
objective
dependence relationships (Castelfranchi and
Conte, 1996), that are the basis of adaptive social interactions, are not enough for predicting
them.
Subjective
dependence is needed (that is, the dependence relationships that the agents
know or at least believe), but is not sufficient; it is also necessary to add two relevant beliefs:
(i) the belief of being dependent, of needing the other;
(ii) the belief of the trustworthiness of the other, of the possibility of counting upon him.
If
X
does not feel dependent on
Y
, she could not rely on him.
It is important to remind ourselves (see Section 2.3) of a crucial clarification.
X is (and
feels) dependent on Y even if/when she is able to achieve her goal g, and to perform the (or
an) appropriate action
.
X
can trust
Y
and delegate and rely on him even when she has the
alternative of 'doing it myself'. This is what one might call 'weak dependence': I would be
Search WWH ::
Custom Search