The trustworthiness of consumer evaluation is an important prerequisite for reference to make a decision. Hence, a trust evaluator must recognize biased information (referred to as false recommendation), and do so dynamically. Drawing on the sociological concept of trust fusion, a new trust evaluating model is proposed, one built upon (i) Bayesian updating of the trust evaluation with each transaction, and (ii) the identification and correction of purposefully misleading evaluations according to improved evidence theory. Simulations show that the algorithm’s trust value increases slowly with successful transactions, but drops rapidly with a failed transaction, capturing the notion that trust is hard to establish, yet easy to destroy. Further simulations demonstrate the model has good robustness and error tolerance of trust evaluation against false recommendations at varying levels of deception. The algorithm effectively and robustly compensates for deception.
Abdul-RahmanA. and HailesS., Supporting trust in virtual communities, System Sciences, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE, 2000.
2.
BaumanA. and BachmannR., Online Consumer Trust: Trends in Research, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation12(2) (2017), 68–79.
3.
EtzioniA., Cyber Trust, Journal of Business Ethics (563) (2017), 1–13.
4.
JøsangA.,
RoslanI. and ColinB., A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision, Decision Support Systems43(2) (2007), 618–644.
5.
DempsterA.P., Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping, Annals of Mathematical Statistics38(2) (1967), 325–339.
6.
DempsterA.P., A Generalization of Bayesian Inference, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (1968), 205–247.
7.
SidorovaA., EvangelopoulosN., ValacichJ.S. and RamakrishnanT., Uncovering the intellectual core of the information systems discipline, MIS Quarterly (2008), 467–482.
8.
TianB. and TanZ., Recommended trust evaluation model in Business–to Consumer E-commerce based on DS, Management Science21(5) (2008), 98–104.
9.
MoormanC., DeshpandéR. and ZaltmanG., Factors Affecting Trust in Market Research Relationships, Journal of Marketing57(1) (1993), 81–101.
10.
TianC.Q. and YangB.J., A DS evidence theory based fuzzy trust model in file-sharing P2P networks, Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications7 (2014), 332–345.
11.
GefenD., KarahannaE. and StraubD.W., Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model, MIS Quarterly27(1) (2003), 51–90.
12.
GlaeserE.L., LaibsonD.L., ScheinkmanJ.A. and SoutterC.L., Measuring Trust, Quarterly Journal of Economics115(3) (2000), 811–846.
13.
LdevreE., ColotO. and VannoorenbergheP., Belief Functions Combination and Conflict Management, Information Fusion3(2) (2002), 149–162.
14.
ZhuF. and ZhangX., Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: The moderating role of product and consumer characteristics, Journal of Marketing74(2) (2010), 133–148.
15.
ShaferG., A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press. 1976.
16.
XuG., FengZ., WuH. and ZhaoD., Swift trust in a virtual temporary system: A model based on the Dempster - Shafer theory of belief functions, International Journal of Electronic Commerce12(1) (2007), 93–126.
17.
CaiH.B., JinG.Z., LiuC. and ZhouL., Seller reputation: From word-of-mouth to centralized feedback, International Journal of Industrial Organization34 (2014), 51–65.
18.
XiaH., JiaZ., JuL. and ZhuY., Trust management model for mobile ad hoc network based on analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy theory, IET Wireless Sensor Systems1(4) (2011), 248–266.
19.
BarnettJ.A., Computational methods for a mathematical theory of evidence, Proceedings of 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-81), (2) 1981, pp. 868–875.
20.
ChengJ., FengR.J., XuX.F. and WanJ.W., Trust Evaluation Model of Wireless Sensor Network Based on D-S Evidence Theory, Journal of Sensor Technique22(12) (2009), 1802–1807.
21.
ChoJ.H.,
ChanK. and AdaliS., A survey on trust modeling, ACM Computer. Surveys48(2) (2015), 28–40.
22.
GovindanK. and MohapatraP., Trust computations and trust dynamics in mobile adhoc networks: A survey, IEEE Communications Survey and Tutorials14(2) (2012), 279–298.
23.
HarrisL.C. and GoodeM.M.H., The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: A study of online service dynamics, Journal of Retailing80(2) (2004), 139–158.
24.
XuL.Y., ZhangB.F. and XuW.M., Analysis and Improvement of Evidence Loss in D-S Theory, Journal of Software15(1) (2004), 69–75.
25.
ChandekarP. and ChopraS., A collaborative trust based model for peer to peer system, Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA), 2016 International Conference on. IEEE, 2016, pp. b747–752.
26.
LowryP.B., WilsonD.W. and HaigW.L., A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: Source Credibility Theory Applied to Logo and Website Design for Heightened Credibility and Consumer Trust, International Journal of Human Computer Interaction30(1) (2014), 63–93.
27.
SztompkaP., Trust: A sociological theory, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
28.
TranP.H., TranK.P., HuongT.T., HeuchenneC., HienTranP. and LeT.M.H., Real Time Data-Driven Approaches for Credit Card Fraud Detection, In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on E-Business and Applications, ACM, 2018, pp. 6–9.
29.
HanQ.Y., WenH., RenM.Y. and WuB., A topological potential weighted community-based recommendation trust model for P2P networks, Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications8 (2015), 1048–1058.
30.
BoothR and HunterA., Trust as a Precursor to Belief Revision, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research61 (2018), 699–722.
31.
SinhaR.R. and SwearingenK., Comparing Recommendations Made by Online Systems and Friends, DELOS workshop: Personalisation and Recommender Systems in Digital Libraries (2001), 106.
32.
YagerR.R., On the Dempster-Sharer Framework and New Combination Rules, Information Sciences4l(2) (1987), 93–137.
33.
BanerjeeS., BhattacharyyaS. and BoseI., Whose online reviews to trust? Understanding reviewer trustworthiness and its impact on business, Decision Support Systems96 (2017), 17–26.
34.
ChangS.E., LiuA.Y. and ShenW.C., User trust in social networking services: A comparison of Facebook and LinkedIn, Computers in Human Behavior69 (2017), 207–217.
35.
LeeS.J., AhnC., SongK.M. and AhnH., Trust and Distrust in E-Commerce, Sustainability10(4) (2018), 1015.
36.
MarshS., Formalizing trust as a computational concept. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stirling, 1994.
37.
ShindeS.S., PawaleA., SatkarV., SutarS., TamkeP., ProfessorU.G. and LohagaonM.M., Secured P2P Network using self-organizing trust model: SORT, International Journal of Engineering Science (2016), 5757–5760.
38.
ThoratS.A. and KulkarniP.J., Uncertainty analysis framework for trust based routing in MANET, Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications10(4) (2017), 1101–1111.
39.
WangS. and WangH., Towards innovative design research in information systems, Journal of Computer Information Systems51(1) (2010), 11–18.
40.
YangS.L., LuoH. and
HuX.J, Compositional Rule of Evidence Theory Based on Focus Element Similarity, Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence22(2) (2009), 169–175.
41.
GrandisonT. and SlomanM., A survey of trust in internet applications, IEEE Communications Survey and Tutorials3(4) (2000), 2–16.
42.
KantV. and DwivediP., An evidential trust model for web services based on fuzzy sets, Procedia Computer Science57 (2015), 537–544.
43.
LiX.Y. and GuiX.L., Dynamic Trust Model Under the Large Scale Distributed Environment, Journal of Software18(6) (2007), 1510–1521.
44.
MengX., LiT. and DengY., Prefer Trust: An ordered preferences-based trust model in peer-to-peer networks, Journal of Systems and Software113 (2016), 309–323.
45.
CongY., ZhouX. and KennedyR., Interference prediction in mobile ad hoc networks with a general mobility model, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications14(8) (2015), 4277–4290.
46.
KimY. and PetersonR.A., A Meta-analysis of Online Trust Relationships in E-commerce, Journal of Interactive Marketing38 (2017), 44–54.
47.
SunY., YuW., HanZ. and LiuK.J.R., Trust modeling and evaluation in ad hoc networks, In: Proc. of the Global Telecommunications Conf., Globe com, Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press (2005), 1–10.
