Trust in Smart Systems

Abstract

Objective:

We examine whether trust in smart systems is generated analogously to trust in humans and whether the automation level of smart systems affects trustworthiness and acceptability of those systems.

Background:

Trust is an important factor when considering acceptability of automation technology. As shared goals lead to social trust, and intelligent machines tend to be treated like humans, the authors expected that shared driving goals would also lead to increased trustworthiness and acceptability of adaptive cruise control (ACC) systems.

Method:

In an experiment, participants (N = 57) were presented with descriptions of three ACCs with different automation levels that were described as systems that either shared their driving goals or did not. Trustworthiness and acceptability of all the ACCs were measured.

Results:

ACCs sharing the driving goals of the user were more trustworthy and acceptable than were ACCs not sharing the driving goals of the user. Furthermore, ACCs that took over driving tasks while providing information were more trustworthy and acceptable than were ACCs that took over driving tasks without providing information. Trustworthiness mediated the effects of both driving goals and automation level on acceptability of ACCs.

Conclusion:

As when trusting other humans, trusting smart systems depends on those systems sharing the user’s goals. Furthermore, based on their description, smart systems that take over tasks are judged more trustworthy and acceptable when they also provide information.

Application:

For optimal acceptability of smart systems, goals of the user should be shared by the smart systems, and smart systems should provide information to their user.

Keywords

adaptive cruise control systems social trust system trust acceptance automation level shared value similarity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Bhattacharya

Divinney

T. M.

Pillutla

M. M.

(1998). A formal model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 459–472.

Cvetkovich

Siegrist

Murray

Tragesser

(2002). New information and social trust: Asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers. Risk Analysis, 22, 359–367.

De Vries

Midden

Meijnders

A. L

. (2007). Antecedents of system trust: Cues and process feedback. In Siegrist

Earle

T. C.

Gutscher

(Eds.), Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind (pp. 241–266). London, UK: Earthscan.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Peterson

S. A.

Pomranky

Pierce

L. G.

Beck

H. P.

(2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 6, 697–718.

Earle

T. C.

Siegrist

Gutscher

(2007). Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation. In Siegrist

Earle

T. C.

Gutscher

(Eds.), Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind (pp. 1–49). London, UK: Earthscan.

Jian

Bisantz

A. M.

Drury

C. G.

(2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4, 53–71.

Lee

J. D.

Moray

(1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine system. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.

10.

Lewandowsky

Mundy

Tan

(2000). The dynamics of trust: Comparing humans to automation. Journal of Experimental Psychology–Applied, 6, 104–123.

11.

Markhof

(2010, October 9). Google cars drive themselves, in traffic. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

12.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.

13.

Moray

Inagaki

(1999). Laboratory studies of trust between humans and machines in automated systems. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 21, 203– 211.

14.

Muir

B. M.

(1994). Trust in automation: 1. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37, 1905–1922.

15.

Muir

B. M.

Moray

(1996). Trust in automation: 2. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39, 429–460.

16.

Nass

Fogg

B. J.

Moon

(1996). Can computers be teammates? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 669–678.

17.

Parasuraman

Riley

(1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.

18.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

T. B.

Wickens

C. D.

(2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 286–297.

19.

Poortinga

Pidgeon

N. F.

(2006). Prior attitudes, salient value similarity, and dimensionality: Toward an integrative model of trust and risk regulation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1674–1700.

20.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 879–891.

21.

Reeves

Nass

(1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Riley

(1996). Operator reliance on automation: Theory and data. In Parasuraman

Mouloua

(Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 19–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

23.

Schuitema

Steg

Forward

(2010). Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44, 99–109.

24.

Sheridan

Verplank

(1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators (Tech. rep.). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Man-Machine Systems Laboratory.

25.

Siegrist

Cvetkovich

G. T.

Gutscher

(2001). Shared values, social trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters. Risk Analysis, 21, 1047–1053.

26.

Siegrist

Cvetkovich

Roth

(2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 353–362.

27.

Sobel

M. E.

(1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In Leinhart

(Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

28.

Tajfel

(1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96–102.

29.

Tukey

J. W.

(1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

30.

Turner

J. C.

Brown

R. J.

Tajfel

(1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favoritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 187–204.

31.

Van der Laan

J. D.

Heino

De Waard

(1997). A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transportation Research, C5, 1–10.

32.

Vaske

J. J.

Abscher

J. D.

Bright

A. D.

(2007). Salient value similarity, social trust and attitudes toward wildland fire management strategies. Human Ecology Review, 14, 223–232.

33.

Venkatesh

(2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11, 342–365.