WISDOM ON THE WEB: ON TRUST, INSTITUTION AND

SYMBOLISMS

A Preliminary Investigation

Emma Nuraihan Mior Ibrahim, Nor Laila Md. Noor

Faculty of Information Technology and Quantitative Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA

40450, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

Shafie Mehad

Faculty of Information Technology and Quantitative Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA

40450, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

Keywords: Trust, web mediated information environment (W-MIE), institutional theory, semiotics, institutional

symbolisms, card sorting.

Abstract: Trust in W-MIE is fairly new and risks associated with it are novel to users. Consequently, the question on

how to design technological artefact, in this case the information that is perceived trustworthy which can be

understood, rationalized and control as part of the interface design strategy is not well understood. This

becomes our primary aim of this research. We seek to explicate the role of trust from the explicit

institutional theory and semiotic paradigm to maximise the ‘goodness of fit’ for future construction of

sensitive information system within a culture or domain through the analysis of its social context, pragmatic

and semantic levels of signification. We contend that institutional design features could make the alignment

between formal and informal signs of trust to match their meanings through shared norms, assumptions,

beliefs, perceptions and actions. In this preliminary study, we used card sorting to explore on users trust

perception of institutional signs operationalized in web based information for Islamic content sharing sites.

These institutional signs are conceptualized under the four dimensions of institutional symbolisms: content

credibility, emotional assurance, brand/reputation and trusted third party. The results were cross referenced

with the initial framework for its similarities and differences.

1 INTRODUCTION

Today, consumers are not only involved in the

interpersonal or inter-organizational transaction

within the electronic exchange model but also in the

knowledge transactions and exchanges within the

information exchange mode (Forray, 2004). Trust in

information conforms to the interpersonal model of

trust. It is a social attitude towards a technological

artefact, in this case the electronic information or

document such as web page or electronic article

(Chopra and Wallace, 2002). The term web

mediated information environment (W-MIE) refers

to the activities involved in acquiring, seeking and

disseminating information on the web (E.N.M.,

Ibrahim et. al., 2007). This is due to the growing

number of websites that offer information e.g. on

health, legal, financial, religion, political, career and

relationship. The existence of these sites are some of

the evidence where consumers are extending their

web usage to present and acquire knowledge that

affect their personal lives regardless of context as

well as establishing personal and organizational

connections. Although these services facilitate

people with information, the issues concerning the

original and the copy, fraudulent behaviour, forgery

identity and deceptions (Forray, 2004) has made the

information available on the Internet rather

transparent. It brings about several risks that are

either caused by the uncertainty of using open

technological infrastructure for the information

exchange or can be explained by the conduct of

users who are involved in the transaction activity

(Krauter-Grabner and Kaluscha, 2003). Hence,

Nuraihan Mior Ibrahim E., Laila Md. Noor N. and Mehad S. (2008).

WISDOM ON THE WEB: ON TRUST, INSTITUTION AND SYMBOLISMS - A Preliminary Investigation.

In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - HCI, pages 13-20

DOI: 10.5220/0001679500130020

 SciTePress

deliberate users trusting decision to use their own

knowledge to evaluate the information in its own

terms. This gives way to our initial assumption on

how to design an information artefact that is

perceived trustworthy within sensitive information

settings, which can be understood, rationalized and

control as part of the overall interface design

strategy. While many criteria are applicable for

evaluating informational websites through the

quality indicators (Chopra and Wallace, 2003; J.E.

Alexander and M.A. Tate, 1999) and credibility

perceptions (Fogg and Tseng 1999; McKnight and

Kacmar, 2006) however some of the works are being

criticised because the operationalization of trust was

not understandable (Krauter-Grabner and Kaluscha,

2003). On the other hand, the perspectives of trust

has been constraint and limited to the current

signifiers of trustworthiness within the context of e-

tailing specifically in the business to business (B2B)

and business to commerce (B2C) environment

(Krauter-Grabner, and Kaluscha, 2003). Much of

this work is dedicated to establish guidelines for

increasing the perceived or factors of trustworthiness

through interface elements (Wang and Emurian,

2004; Cheskin, 1999), measuring the impact level of

trust and trustworthy behaviour (Benamati, et. al.,

2006), developing technologies for encryption,

validation, authentication etc. (Pavlou and Gefen,

2004; Ratnasingam and Pavlou, 2004) and recent

interest on cross cultural communication within e-

commerce context (H. Liao et. al., 2006). However,

these studies are insufficient. We believe the

solutions would be to understand the trust

operationalization in a holistic manner by taking the

assumption of human forces, focusing on those parts

of the system directly experienced and understand

by the ordinary people. What we really need is an

integrated knowledge and understanding of two

critical values – institutional and cultural so that

designers could make the alignment between formal

and informal signs of trust between transacting

parties in order to find common heuristics and

framework in which the information domain reside.

Thus, we support the notion that trust could also be

posited in non technical mechanisms that safeguard

interaction on the web (Riegelsberger et. al., 2005).

In the literature, ‘soft’ trust dimension (Krauter-

Grabner and Kaluscha, 2006) or known as

‘intangible’ trust (French et. al., 2007; De Souza,

2005) are equally diverse field on trust formation

that takes into account on emotional and cognitive

models as well as psychological studies that

accounts for empirical, semantic and pragmatic

levels of trust semiosis (Egger, 2000). Related

studies have established that consumer perceptions

of online trust and credibility are often determined

by a user’s irrational, emotional response to site

aesthetics and surface level signs (Fogg, et. al.,

2001; Kim and Moon, 1998). The work of

Riegelsberger, et. al. (2005) elaborated on the

account for contextual and intrinsic properties in

which serves to highlight the need for designers to

better understand new ways of signalling these

properties within e-mediated environment. His

studies explored the applicability of signalling

theory to B2C e-commerce trust perceptions, an

important breakthrough in our understanding of trust

signalling as between trustor and trustee. Works of

French et. al. (2007) and De Souza (2005) points to

the need for theories that can bring together

consumers and e-service providers through the

interface and identifies semiotic engineering as a key

step in the design and evaluation of tangible and

intangible trust. Of our interests, in this paper we

extended our work in E.N.M., Ibrahim et. al. (2007)

that established a conceptual framework of

institutional symbolism and its underlying four

dimensions (content credibility, emotional

assurance, trusted third party and brand/

reputation) via explication of institutional theory

and symbolic interaction. It looked at the aspect on

the ‘soft’ trust dimensions underpinning institutional

structure driven by cognitive and affective elements

of institutionalized properties. The approach is based

on the understanding of social norms and individual

affordances. This makes it easier for human to

reason about trust online by interpreting or

perceiving the trustworthiness of

information

through the institutional ‘signalling’ standpoint

rather the knowledge or understanding of effective

IT mechanisms for self protection on the Internet.

Hence, the empirical work presented here is to

explore the pragmatic aspects of institutional

symbolism properties from the users’ perception on

trust within sensitive information context. In this

case, the operationalization of institutional trust

takes place within web based information for Islamic

content sharing sites environment. Our reasons are

twofold: first, it introduces a critical process of

meaning making and trust constructions on the level

of users, a particular set of communicators having its

own unique identities, language systems of non

verbal communication, cultural material, history and

social structure. We believe this is an audience

whose requirements online offerings attempt but fail

to address. Second, the context is relevant to HCI in

the sense that it provides understanding by capturing

non functional user requirements, especially where

ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

these non-functional requirements are culturally or

otherwise imbued makes a significant difference to

user centric design.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 From Institutional Theory to

Institutional Trust

In general, institutional structure is seen as a

domesticating system within a cultural container

governed the specific procedures and operations to

ensure the stability of an environment or situation by

imposing norms risk censure, punishment and/or

marginalization imposed and uphold by the social

actors. It provides the infrastructure for both the

skills and the tools available to help users deal with

the issues of trust in the offline environment for

example trust placed on the government, education

and legal systems in which individual interact in

their everyday’s life. Institutional theory fills a gap

by arguing that much of the environment consists of

social and cultural forces rather than the production

of resources and task-related information. It

considers the processes by which structures,

including schemas, rules, norms, and routines,

become established as authoritative guidelines for

social behaviour and to provide environment

stability (Scott, 2004). These institution elements

were transmitted by various types of carriers,

including symbolic systems, relational systems,

routines, and artefacts. However, our interests were

on the ‘symbolic interaction’ where rules, laws,

values and expectations yield the process and

structure of a system and the internalization of the

artefact used within the system. Our key challenge

of describing trust operationalization within

sensitive information context as institutional

elements lies in the understanding of what ‘social

legitimacy’ means to safeguard trustworthy

interaction between the user and the information

presented; and how designers could impose the

legitimacy. In the IS literature, the notion of

institution is encapsulate within institutional trust

(McKnight et. al., 1998), system trust (Chopra and

Wallace, 2002), reputed credibility (Fogg et. al.,

1999) and control trust (Tan and Thoen, 2000). It is

seen as relevant and appropriate to examine

communication where individual need to generalize

their trust to organization made up with people

whom they have low interdependence, low

familiarity and low continuity of interaction. This is

where the sense of a community with common

values is lacking. Such a community does not

currently exist online because of varying cultural

understanding and values (Zucker, 1986). Current

conceptualization of institutional trust is seen as a

backdrop that envelopes and safeguards interaction

based on the perception that effective IT enabled

mechanisms are in place varying in its problems and

dimensions as found in these prominent works

(Pavlou and Gefen, 2004; Tan and Thoen, 2000;

Ratnasingam and Pavlou, 2004). However, trust in

W-MIE is not simply oriented to interpersonal and

inter-firm research context where much of current

trust research applies (Gefen et. al., 2005). It is also

not a question of developing more sophisticated

technologies, rather it is ‘organizational’ (Gefen et.

al., 2005) that are characterized by the elaboration of

rules and requirements to which information

designers must conform in order to receive

‘legitimacy’ or support in managing information on

the web.

2.2 From Symbolic Interactions to

Semiotic of Trust

Symbolic interactionists believe that there is no

objective or inherent meanings embedded in a text,

but that meanings are socially constructed creations

within a particular culture or society. Based on

Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive perspective,

individuals are imbued with capabilities that define

what it is to be human and one of it is to

‘symbolize’. By drawing on their symbolic

capabilities, human can extract meaning from their

environment, construct guides for action, solve

problems cognitively, support forethoughtful courses

of action, gain new knowledge by reflective thought,

and communicate with others. Symbolizing also

enable people to store the information required to

guide future behaviours that one can anticipate the

consequences of an action without actually engaging

in it. While, symbolic interaction examines the

creation of meaning through interaction with

symbols; semiotics takes that examination to the

level of science that relates to the ‘fundaments of

information’ (Stamper, 1995). Semiotics maintains

that the construction of meanings depends in part, on

the context of the sign in relation to the interpreter

and the culture in which both are situated. Semiotic

does not recognize that any particular sign is truly

‘universal’, rather it depends on the context: both

local and global. This implies the information is

mediated by signs and their meanings would vary in

different culture which stands to somebody for

something; in some respect or capacity; in some

WISDOM ON THE WEB: ON TRUST, INSTITUTION AND SYMBOLISMS - A Preliminary Investigation

community or social context (Stamper, 1995). This

allow signs to be treated as governing its own

principles, the context it emit and receive and the

determinant of their content where applicable. For

example, here we see a sign (a clock), which “is

essentially “incomplete” until it has an “interpretant”

or a context that an agent (or interpreter) creates

meaning or content from the sign (embedded in its

interpretant), see Figure 1.

Figure 1: Sign Meaning Making Process.

The culture and social context is seen to have some

influence on the interpreter to correspond with the

sign meaning and thus influence the creation of the

meaning to that particular sign. It can be said that

the sign possess its own objective and maintain its

own intrinsic value of trustworthiness within its

context. Here, knowledge evolves through the

interpretation and the simultaneous integration of

information and context between the interpretant and

the sign is gained by or developed through a

multitude of selected, assessed and critically

reviewed information, a stimulus derives from the

cognitive and affective assessment of trust

indicators. This leads to an understanding of trust as

a mental structure consisting of the subjective and

objective perceptions that individual hold and accept

as true. In this sense, trust in information is a

semiosis process concerning the ability of the user to

perceive signs via rational or irrational responses

that are contextually bound.

3 INSTITUTIONAL

SYMBOLISMS

In order to account for the semiosis process of trust

in information where signification render the users

complex cognitive and affective comprehension, the

notion of institution is encapsulate within a system

of representation and symbols defined as

institutional symbolisms. Institutional symbolisms is

a visible, physical manifestation of the institutional

characteristics, behaviour and values represented by

trust marks; signs that depict and present connoted

message of some ‘assurance’ which signified under

these four dimensions and its underlying properties

(E.N.M., Ibrahim et. al., 2007), see Table 1. This

assurance implies the sense of ‘legitimacy’ that

safeguards the overall impersonal structures and

situations on the web in which the information

domain reside. It implies that the symbols carry its

own disposition and meaning, the trust warranting

properties manifested via textually or graphically

presented on the website. In this sense, institutional

symbolisms are seen as a form of social trust where

trust is initiated from its social mechanism,

behaviour and values through the means of symbolic

representation.

Table 1: The Framework of Institutional Symbolisms

Trust Inducing Features (adapted from E.N.M., Ibrahim et.

al., 2007).

Dimensions Values Measurements

Trust marks that

reflect third party

assurance or seals

of approval.

A belief that it will

perform a particular

action, to monitor or to

control that certain acts

and behavior is warranted.

Trust marks that symbolized:

1. Protecting privacy

2. Providing security

3. Demonstrating consumer

satisfaction

4. Providing reliability

5. Providing assurance

or guarantee.

Trust marks that

reflect credibility

of the web

content

A belief that it has the

ability and competency to

carry out the obligations.

Trust marks that symbolized:

1. Competence (knowledge,

expertise and skill).

2. Reliability (accuracy,

currency, coverage and

believability).

3. Predictability (stability of

information).

Trust marks that

evoke emotional

assurance or

security.

A belief that it will

provide a sense of comfort

that is reflective,

thoughtful and careful.

Trust marks that symbolized:

1. Benevolence (goodwill and

objectivity)

2. Honesty (validity and,

openness).

3. Integrity (fiduciary

obligations).

Trust marks that

reflect

trustworthy

expectations

derived from the

message.

A belief that it signifies

positive or prominent

identities and values.

Trust marks that symbolized:

1. Reputation

- Offline reputation

2. Brand

- Brand Image

- Brand Personality

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 Card Sorting Technique

Card sorting is one of the methods used in

psychology research to uncover cognition

representation that used indirect approach to probe

non-functional quality aspects of websites (French

et. al., 2007). It is an empirical investigative

technique conceived within the field of personal

construct theory developed originally by Kelly

(1955). The theory posits the ability of human

beings to self-describe their own categorization(s)

that impart the individual cognition and meaning

making process with a high reliability and validity.

This is a knowledge elicitation technique commonly

Agent (interpreter)

Meaning

Culture/SocietyCulture/Society

Object (Sign)

Representation

Context

Knowledge (intrinsic value)

Expression (cognitve/emotional perceptions)

ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

used in the human factors field to gain insight into

the mental models of users (Faiks and Hyland,

2000). More specifically, the approach is intended to

reveal the so called tacit or semi-tacit knowledge

especially when the subject is unable to articulate

using a direct verbal questioning approach. In

addition, it has proven to be a highly effective and

valuable method for gathering user input especially

prior to total system design (Faiks and Hyland,

2000) or low fidelity artefact of computer based

signs at the website level (De Souza, 2005). The

focus of this study is to uncover how trustworthy

information is perceived. Our empirical

investigations used the ‘closed card sorting’

technique to probe the users trust perceptions of

institutional signs embedded within sensitive

information web based content rather than trust per

se as the subjects are not exposed to risk. This

includes first encounters prior brand exposure or

simply first encounters with the brand. This is

because a typical user will include those with prior

brand knowledge as well as those who are simply

encountering the site through online search and

competitor inspection (Nyshadham and Ugbaja,

2006). As we already have a pre-defined set of

categories, in this study we want to learn how users

sort institutional elements into each category. These

elements are assumed to have some semantic

meaning that captures the user’s cognitive structure.

The results will allow us either to add new content

or eliminating existing content to an existing

structure. Briefly, in this method, we first identified

a set of institutional objects based on prior literature

within trust e-mediated studies. We extended the

framework of institutional symbolisms trust

inducing features and came up with a total of 34

elements (see Table 2) which contains a preliminary

list of institutional objects derived from synthesizes

of existing literatures.

4.2 Context of Study

For the operationalization of the institutional

dimensions, web based information for Islamic

content sharing sites were chosen. In this research,

we refer the Islamic content sharing sites as websites

that highlight information, knowledge and services,

be it commercial or entertainment in nature that

reflect Islamic ideologies, content, norms or values.

We believe the Islamic context offer interesting view

on the investigation of this institutional phenomenon

as Islamic principles rely much on the legitimacy

governed by its cultural cognitive, normative and

regulative elements, both formal and informal. It is

somewhat consistent with the mechanisms of

supporting and restricting social behaviour as the

key ingredients of institutional theoretical

foundation. In this study, the subjects were presented

with two static images of e-halal homepages from

Malaysia and Singapore (see Figure 2 and 3). These

homepages are basically the official websites that

disseminate information pertaining to halal products

and services in its respective countries. The subjects

were asked to think about any trust elements that

come across into their mind when browsing or

searching for halal information on the web. Subjects

are given cards showing the institutional elements

with an established initial set of primary groups.

Then they are asked to place cards into these pre-

established primary groups based on their own

understanding and perception. Some of these

elements refer to the presence or absence on both the

websites.

Figure 2: Islamic Religious Council of Singapore

(www.muis.gov.sg/cms/index.aspx).

Figure 3: Department of Islamic Development Malaysia

(www.halaljakim.gov.my).

4.3 Participants

A focus group of 15 users participated in this study.

According to Nielsen (2004), testing 15 users for

card sorting are good enough for most practical

purposes. Our participants consist of 10 females and

5 males between the ages of 25-40, having at least a

bachelor degree qualification and have participated

in online transaction activities for at least 2 years. In

this study, we used subjects that have previous

experiences in online transaction activities because

they would already have well developed schema for

offline risks (Nyshadham and Ugbaja, 2006). We

also preferred to have educated people because it is

to be said more likely to have some experiences with

technology (Nyshadham and Ugbaja, 2006).

WISDOM ON THE WEB: ON TRUST, INSTITUTION AND SYMBOLISMS - A Preliminary Investigation

5 RESULTS – OVERVIEW

Table 2: Summary of Card Sorting Analysis.

Abbreviations: CC (Content Credibility), BR (Brand and Reputation), EA (Emotional Assurance), TTP (Trusted Third Party)

From Table 2, we could summarized that content

credibility dimension is represented by the following

elements: content authorships, site navigation, links,

language, accuracy, currency, attributions, site

disclosure, design and layout, content believability,

past experiences, information legitimacy and content

reliability. It can be observed that the element of

accuracy and content believability scored higher

with (M=80). We obtained 34% of average cards

agreement compare to the current category. While,

elements of organizational values, organization’s

positive intentions, upfront disclosure of customer

relationships, site fulfilment and security policies

represented the emotional assurance dimension. In

this category we obtained only 22% of average card

agreement from the participants and organizational

values (M=53) were seen as the most important

element of emotional assurance. For trusted third

party dimension, elements of site professionalism,

site privacy and confidentiality, demonstrating

users’ satisfaction, providing third party security,

providing third party privacy, disclosed policies and

practices and content reliability were selected under

this category. We achieved only 27% of average

No Institutional Elements Mean Card Placement

User’s Category Current

Category

Average Card

Agreement %

1 Organization Values 0.53 50 EA CC

2 Site Purpose 0.33 45 BR CC

3 Domain Name 0.47 64 BR CC

4 Organization Trademarks 0.47 50 BR CC

5 Content Authorships 0.33 29 CC CC

6 Sources 0.40 46 BR CC

7 Site Navigation 0.47 54 CC CC

8 Links 0.40 55 CC CC

9 Language 0.40 55 CC CC

10 Accuracy 0.80 80 CC CC

11 Currency 0.73 73 CC CC

12 Past Experiences 0.27/ 0.27 33 CC & BR CC

13 Attributions 0.60 64 CC CC

14 Site Disclosure 0.33 43 CC CC

15 Design and Layout 0.40 50 CC CC

16 Content Believability 0.80 86 CC CC

17 Organization Social Role and Functions 0.40 54 BR CC

18 Organization Positive Intentions 0.40 46 EA EA

19 Site Professionalism 0.47/ 0.47 31 BR & TTP EA

20 Site Privacy and Confidentiality 0.47 47 TTP EA

21 Information Legitimacy 0.33 43 CC EA

22 Upfront Disclosure of Customer Relationships 0.40 54 EA EA

23 Site Fulfilment 0.33 38 EA EA

24 Security Policies 0.47 54 EA EA

25 Feedback Mechanisms 0.20 31 BR EA

26 Demonstrating Users Satisfaction 0.47 58 TTP TTP

27 Provide Third Party Security 0.60 77 TTP TTP

28 Provide Third Party Privacy 0.80 80 TTP TTP

29 Disclosed Policies and Practices 0.67 67 TTP TTP

30 Content Reliability 0.47/ 0.47 43 CC & TTP TTP

31 Perceived Organization’s Ability 0.60 69 BR BR

32 Brand Image 0.80 87 BR BR

33 Brand Personality 0.67 85 BR BR

34 Offline Reputation 0.67 77 BR BR

ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

card agreement under this category. In addition, it is

shown that, providing third party assurance for

privacy related information (M= 80) is the highest

concern among other elements appeared under

trusted third party dimension. The result was

somewhat consistent with the rising concerns

regarding privacy protection for both individual and

organization on content and information

dissemination within e-mediated services (Egger,

2000; Chopra and Wallace, 2002; Krauter-Grabner

and Kaluscha, 2006) and further heightened in the

information environment (Forray, 2004). Under the

brand/reputation dimension, elements of site

purpose, domain name, organization trademarks,

sources, past experiences, organization social role

and functions, site professionalism, feedback

mechanisms, perceived organization’s ability, brand

image, brand personality and offline reputation were

selected by the participants to represent this

category. We obtained 33% of average card

agreement within this category. Brand image

(M=80) were seen as the most important element

followed by brand personality and offline reputation

(M=67). This emphasizes that when a person

perceives the brand name or symbol; it is the

interplay of the associations of the branded object

that manifests as image constructed by the user

which in turn influence the reputation of an

organization in general. Brand image bears great

potentialities to strengthen trust (Einwiller, 2003).

An interesting observation, it can be seen that some

elements appeared in two categories. Past

experiences appeared both under brand/reputation

and content credibility. This is probably because

past experiences with an organization is seen as

important facilitator that gives reputations the power

to reduce uncertainty and serve as a means to

engender trust. This implies that knowing a good

reputation of a trustee, in this case the information

provider reduces the trustor’s uncertainty and

enhances his or her positive expectation. In addition,

content reliability appeared under both trusted third

party and content credibility dimensions, given

(M=0.47). This is probably due to user’s confidence

exists because they expect the information to be

reliable and valid. Hence, effective action to increase

the level of confidence in the information must also

include assurance and monitoring by the third party.

Site professionalism (M=0.47) also appeared in two

categories, trusted third party and brand/ reputation.

This might indicate that the appearance of trusted

third party assurance symbolize a site

professionalism and in turn increase the level of its

reputation.

6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORK

As stated earlier the objective of this research is to

uncover the user’s trust perception on institutional

dimensions and its underlying properties within

sensitive information context. The result of this

research yields preliminary empirical evidence that

trust in information within sensitive domain resulted

on the concern of the content credibility and the

familiarity with the brand/reputation of the trustee.

However, emotional assurance seems to be less

significant for assessing the trustworthiness of

information when comes to sensitive content. It did

not support the idea that emotionally charged topics

such as related to one’s religion may induced the

affective response of the users (Chopra and Wallace,

2002). Pending further analysis should explore on

the semantic meaning represented by these

institutional dimensions and its underlying

properties to reach a conclusive finding, as these

dimensions are perceived and interpreted differently

by different subjects. Hence, further analysis can

potentially reveal new dimensions. However, some

of the limitations need to be highlighted. Due to the

huge population of the Muslims with different ethnic

groups, the research is unable to capture the

perceptions of trust of the general order. In addition,

what we present here are the ‘possible dimensions’

of trust that exist amongst Islamic communities and

not as something definitive. Nevertheless, we

contend that designing information artefact should

consider cultural aspect in which the information

domain resides because the culture within which a

person operates would have shaped his or her

perception of trust. Hence, creating the right

appearances on the web by imposing online

legitimacy, appropriate communication styles and

languages are some of the integral issues for the

designers to consider in developing information

systems for sensitive information context.

REFERENCES

Alexander, J. E., and M. Tate. (1999). Web wisdom: How

to evaluate and create information quality on the Web.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and

action: A social cognitive theory, Prentice-Hall, NJ.

Benamati, J., Serva, M. A., and Fuller, M. A. 2006. Are

Trust and Distrust Distinct Constructs? An Empirical

Study of the Effects of Trust and Distrust among

Online Banking Users in Proceedings of the 39th

WISDOM ON THE WEB: ON TRUST, INSTITUTION AND SYMBOLISMS - A Preliminary Investigation

Annual Hawaii international Conference on System

Sciences IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC.

B.J. Fogg and Shaw Tseng. (1999). The Elements of

Computer Credibility in Proceedings of ACM CHI 99

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,

v.1. pp. 80-87, New York: ACM Press.

Cheskin Research and Studio Archetype/Sapient, 1999.

eCommerce Trust Study.

http://www.studioarchetype.com/cheskin/

Chopra, K., and Wallace, A.W. (2002). Trust in Electronic

Commerce in Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences

(HICSS’03).

D. Harrison McKnight and Chuck Kacmar. (2006).

Factors of Information Credibility for an Internet

Advice Site in Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences

(HICSS’06).

Egger, F. N. (2001). Affective design of e-commerce user

interface: How to maximize perceived trustworthiness

in Proceedings of the International Conference on

Affective Human Factors Design. London: Academic

Press.

Emma Nuraihan Mior Ibrahim, Nor Laila Md. Noor,

Shafie Mehad (2007). "Seeing Is Not Believing But

Interpreting", Inducing Trust Through Institutional

Symbolism: A Conceptual Framework for Online

Trust Building in a Web Mediated Information

Environment in Proceedings of the 12

Human

Computer Interaction, Beijing, China. HCI (9): 64-73

Einwiller, S. (2003). When reputation engenders trust: An

empirical investigation in business-to-consumer

electronic commerce in Electronic Markets, 13, 3,

196-209.

Faiks, A. & Hyland, N (2000). Gaining user insight: a case

study illustrating the card sort technique. College &

Research Libraries. 61, 4, 349-57.

Forray, D. (2004). The Economics of Knowledge, the MIT

Press.

French, T., Liu, K., Springett, M. A. (2007). Card-sorting

Probe for E-Banking in Proceedings of British Human

Computer Interaction. Vol 1, BCS Publications, ISBN

1-902505-94-8.

Gefen, D., Pavlou, P.A., Benbasat, I., McKnight, H.,

Stewart, K., and Straub, D.W. (2005). “ICIS Panel

Summary: Should Institutional Trust Matter in

Information Systems Research?” Communications of

the Association for Information Systems (17), pp. 205-

222.

H. Liao, R. W. Proctor and G. Salvendy. (2006). Content

preparation for cross-cultural e-commerce: a review

and a model, Behavior and Information Technology,

In Press

K. Chopra and W. A. Wallace. (2003). Trust in electronic

environments in 36th Annual Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences, pp. 331-340.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal

constructs (vols. 1 and 2). N.Y.: Norton.

Kim, J. and Moon, J.Y. (1998). Designing towards

emotional usability in customer interfaces —

trustworthiness of cyber-banking system interfaces.

Interacting with Computers, vol 10, pp. 1-29.

Kräuter-Grabner, S., Kaluscha, A. E. (2003). Empirical

research in on-line trust: a review and critical

assessment. Inernational. Journal of. Human.-

Computer Studies. 58(6): 783-812

Kräuter-Grabner, S. Kaluscha, Ewald A. and F. Marliese.

(2006). Perspectives of Online Trust and Similar

Constructs – A Conceptual Clarification in

Proceedings of The Eighth International Conference

on Electronic Commerce, ACM, p. 235-243.

McKnight, D.H., L.L. Cummings, and N.L. Chervany.

(1998). Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational

Relationships. Academy of Management Review,

23(3): pp. 473-490.26.

Nielsen, J. (1999). Card Sorting: How Many Users to

Test? Jacob Nielsen's Alertbox,

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040719.html

Easwar A. Nyshadyam, Monica Ugbaja. (2006). A Study

of E-Commerce Risk Perceptions among B2C

Consumers. A Two Country Study, in the 19th BLED

eConference, eValues.

Pavlou, P.A. and Gefen, D. (2004) "Building Effective

Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust,"

Information Systems Research (15:1), pp. 37-59.

Ratnasingam, P. and Pavlou, P.A. (2004) “Technology

Trust in B2B Electronic Commerce: Conceptual

Foundations,” in Business Strategies for Information

Technology Management, pp 200-215, edited by K.

Kangas (Ed.), Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA,

USA.

Riegelsberger, J., Sasse M.A and McCarthy, J.D: The

mechanics of trust: A framework for research and

design. (2005). International Journal of Human.-

Computer Studies. 62(3): 381-422.

Scott, W. Richard. (2004). “Institutional theory” in

Encyclopedia of Social Theory, George Ritzer, ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stamper, R.K. (1995). “Signs, Information, Norms and

Systems, Part 1”, in Holmqvist, B., Peber B.,

Andersen, (eds.), The Semiotics of the Workplace, De

Gruyter, Berlin.

Tan, Y., and Thoen, W. (2000). Towards a generic model

of trust for e-commerce. International Journal of

Electronic Commerce , 61-74.

Wang, Y. D. & Emurian, H. H. (2005). An overview of

online trust: Concepts, elements, and implications.

Computers in Human Behavior, 21(1), 105-125.

Zucker, L. (1986). Production of Trust: Institutional

Sources of Economic Structure, 1840-1920.Research

in Organization Behavior, 8(1): pp. 53-111

ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems