On the Trustee’s Side: Trust As Relational Capital - Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model - page 287

Set 1

Set 3

Trustworthy agents
by Ag j on the goal g kj

Set 4

Set 2

Figure 10.7 Subset of Agents selected by introducing also the trustworthiness of the agents (in Ag j 's
point of view) in the dependence network

component of trust as evaluation is lacking: reliability, trustworthiness: Ag i really intends to
do, is persistent, is loyal, is benevolent, etc. Thus he will really do what Ag j needs.
Given the basic role played by 'believed networks of dependence', established by a believed
relationship of dependence based on a belief of dependence, and given that this latter is one
of the basic ingredients of trust as a mental object, we can claim that this overlap between
theories is the crucial issue and our aim is namely to study it in great depth.
Analogously, but less relevant in this case, we can introduce the Objective Potential for
Negotiation (of Ag j ∈ Agt about its own goal g jk ), we have:

l

DoA ik ∗ DoW ik

OPN T ( Ag j ,

g jk ) = (10.6)

1 + p ki

i = 1

where DoA ik and DoW ik respectively represent objective Ag i 's ability and willingness to use
actions/plans/resources for the goal g jk .
When a cognitive agent trusts another cognitive agent, we talk about social trust. We consider
here the set of actions, plans and resources owned/available by an agent that can be useful in
achieving a set of tasks (

τ 1 , ... , τ r ).