These kids build relationships in virtual environments with people they’ve never seen in reality. They marry, get a divorce and very often fall in love. They base their trust on the communication they have with somebody across the globe. MSN or a game is the means by which these connections are being established. And there is no single doubt about whether or not, those technologies can be trusted.
In his comment Paul suggested that trust is based on both human factors as well as ‘trusting the technology’. And in a way he was right about that. We might still have doubts about whether or not a system can be trusted and we let a system reward trust. But that is very much something of a generation that has experienced a world without all those new technologies.
The value of trust decreases
A younger generation that has grown up with having all this technology has no doubts about ‘trusting the system’ whatsoever. The take the technology for granted and just start building relationships. So for them trust is only a human factor. And they take it a step further. They are able to build virtual relationships of trust. Inherently that requires a high rate of interactivity not very much unlike true human interactions.
So I pose my hypothesis to you: whereas we are still very skeptical and hesitant to trust interactions in virtual or online worlds, the next generation does not. Therefor it might in fact become much easier to build a relationship of trust between a company/brand and these young people. Making ‘trust’ less and less important. Which would eventually lead to saying, and I know I’m going full circle now: loyal relationships are not based on trust at all.
Image
wow, jorgen, full circle indeed.
i think you are spot on if you compare the way relationships (trust) are build in the virtual and real world. (we already had a discussion on the this distinction before.) but something else is at play here at well, it is easy to ‘move on’. if the cost of breaking up a relationship is not so high (think of being ‘convicted’ to live the rest of your life in that little town) then trust works differently. on the one hand you will be more blunt and you can get to know each other differently (depending on the seriousness of the relationship) but on the other hand you can be a bit more distant, just wait a while and judge later.
but, there is a turning point. if the relationship gets more serious the fear of losing is exactly the same. if you have someone you consider a friend it hurts to loose her. if you fall in love you are just as worried about making mistakes. when there is something to lose it gets interesting. and i think if there is nothing to lose there can never be loyalty.
I still think trust is a big component in a loyal relationship, in all generations. There has to be a certain amount of trust in the recipient before communicating personal information. This recipient might be a system’s backend or a person reached through a technology.
When the recipient is a system’s backend, there has to be some trust that the personal information that is being left is secure before starting communication. There has to be some trust in the system not to use the given information other than intended and communicated. I am not leaving my credit card number or medical related questions at systems I don’t thrust. So trust is important here, for all generations (with credit cads)
When the recipient is a person, reached over a technology, I have to trust both the person and the technology not to backfire on me after communicating personal information. I have to have some trust in the recipient to handle this information with integrity. When the reciepent is a complete human stranger, backfiring chances are smaller because that person is not familiar with my other social interactions. In the technology I need to have some trust and knowledge that it doesn’t store what I communicate to be addressable and returns information with my name above it.
Maybe the amount of trust needed in communication is related to the amount of identificational information needed by a system or person.
I don’t think the teenagers are really that different from other generations in regard to this trust issue. Maybe it has to do more with teenagers growing up in atmosphere of a protected environment and not yet aware of potential danger. Also the assumption that teenagers are able to build virtual relationships of trust faster or better than adults might have largely to do with the “virtual” part in that sentence, more than the trust issue. When I was a teenager I know I had a girlfriend who I met two days before the end of my holiday. We wrote dozens of intimate letters over a period of two years. Is that so different?
I do think what is changed is that what is considered personal.
According to the results of the “Teens,Privacy & Online social networks” survey, most teens are very aware of what they share. “To teens, all personal information is not created equal. They say it is very important to understand the context of an information-sharing encounter.” But you’re right when you say what is personal changed.
“ Our survey suggests that there are a wide range of views among teens about privacy and disclosure of personal information. Whether in an online or offline context, teenagers do not fall neatly into clear-cut groups when it comes to their willingness to disclose information or the ways they restrict access to the information that they do share. For most teens, decisions about privacy and disclosure depend on the nature of the encounter and their own personal circumstances … Many, but not all, teens are aware of the risks of putting information online in a public and durable environment. Many, but certainly not all, teens make thoughtful choices about what to share in what context. “
So we know that they make informed choices maybe with different criteria but they do think about it. Maybe what is different is that they are growing up used to getting engaged all the time. If everything you do becomes social like gaming, internet and in the near future probably tv and also commercial activities. They have to create much more weak ties (which I think can be brands as well as persons). As a result they must take much more trust decisions and to reduce this growing complexity they change their criteria.
To conclude on the hypothesis “loyal relationships are not based on trust at all.”.
Relationships are still based on trust but the criteria defining them and the strength of the relationship changed. The weak ties commodify whereas strong ties do not. It does become easier to create relations between companies and people because they’re exchanging commodities. But because the relations are based on weak ties which are interchangeable loyalty decreases.
PEW report: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Privacy_SNS_Report_Final.pdf