CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41Social Power and Status DynamicsSocial Capital and NetworksKnowledge Management and Sharing

When Do People Trust Their Social Groups?

Open access
Ma, Xiao, Cheng, Justin, Iyer, Shankar, Naaman, Mor·2019·Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3290605.3300297
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Trust facilitates cooperation and supports positive outcomes in social groups, including member satisfaction, information sharing, and task performance. Extensive prior research has examined individuals' general propensity to trust, as well as the factors that contribute to their trust in specific groups. Here, we build on past work to present a comprehensive framework for predicting trust in groups. By surveying 6,383 Facebook Groups users about their trust attitudes and examining aggregated behavioral and demographic data for these individuals, we show that (1) an individual's propensity to trust is associated with how they trust their groups, (2) smaller, closed, older, more exclusive, or more homogeneous groups are trusted more, and (3) a group's overall friendship-network structure and an individual's position within that structure can also predict trust. Last, we demonstrate how group trust predicts outcomes at both individual and group level such as the formation of new friendship ties.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3290605.3300297

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • General perceived social support from a group on social media is associated with trust in that group.

    “Additionally, Ma et al. found that general perceived social support from a group on social media was associated with trust in that group [69].”

    From What Do We Mean When We Talk about Trust in Social Media? A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [69]

  • Gender was not a significant antecedent of trust in information, trust in online social media groups, or trust in social media platforms.

    “In general, our results show that gender was not a signifcant antecedent of trust in information [95,122], trust in online social media groups [69], nor trust in social media platforms [27].”

    From What Do We Mean When We Talk about Trust in Social Media? A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [69]

  • Risk-taking attitudes, such as sharing thoughts with group members on social media, increase trust in Facebook groups.

    “For example, risk-taking attitudes, such as sharing thoughts with group members on social media, were found to increase trust in those Facebook groups [69].”

    From What Do We Mean When We Talk about Trust in Social Media? A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [69]

  • Group size is the most significant predictor of trust in Facebook groups, with trust inversely correlated with group size.

    “Their study found that group size was the most signifcant predictor of trust in Facebook groups, as trust was inversely correlated with the group size.”

    From What Do We Mean When We Talk about Trust in Social Media? A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [69]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [5][5] Reinhard Bachmann. 2001. Trust, power and control in transorganizational relations. Organization Studies 22, 2 (2001), 337-365. -
  2. [9][9] Christian Bjørnskov. 2007. Determinants of generalized trust: A crosscountry comparison. Public Choice 130, 1-2 (2007), 1-21. -
  3. [61][61] Robert D Putnam. 1993. The prosperous community. The American Prospect 4, 13 (1993), 35-42. -
  4. [84][84] Masaki Yuki, William W Maddux, Marilynn B Brewer, and Kosuke Takemura. 2005. Cross-cultural differences in relationship-and groupbased trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31, 1 (2005), 48-62. -
  5. [85][85] Jennifer Zelmer. 2003. Linear public goods experiments: A metaanalysis. Experimental Economics 6, 3 (2003), 299-310. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ma, X., Cheng, J., Iyer, S., & Naaman, M.
Affiliations
  • Jacobs Institute (US)
  • Meta (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-05-02
Pages
1-12
DOI
10.1145/3290605.3300297
OpenAlex
W2941345655
Cited by
41
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6
FWCI
12.12
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Capital and Networks
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
Keywords
group trust, Facebook groups, group size, group homogeneity, friendship networks, network position, trust propensity, social networking sites

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review