The quest for an adequate model of trust in AI systems has led to rosters of influencing factors and proposals for how trust can be “designed-in.” An alternative is to consider trusting as an emergent. While progressive maturation of user trust may be desired, it is the exception. Trust can arise rapidly, but it can diminish in a heartbeat. It can be orthogonal to reliance. Trusting and relying are context-contingent. Work-centered design principles can make trustability achievable, but it can only be realized through user experience. And principles for “designing-in” trust do not span the creativity gap.
AmershiA.WeldD.VorvoreanuM.FourneyA.NushiB.CollissonP.SuhJ.IqbalS.BennettP.N.InkpenK.TeevanJ.Kikin-GilR.HorvitzE. (2019). In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paper No.3, 1-13. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
2.
BoltonM. L. (2022). Trust is not a virtue: Why we should not trust trust. Ergonomics in Design, 32(4), Article 106480462211301. https://doi.org/10.1177/10648046221130171
3.
ChiM. T. H.VanLehnK. A. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 69–105. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0101_4
Dell’AcquaF.McFowlandE.MollickE.Lifshitz-AssafH.KelloggK. C.RajendranS.KrayerL.CandelonF.LakhaniK. R. (2023). Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the effects of AI on knowledge worker productivity and quality. Harvard Business School. Working Paper 24-013.
6.
DortonS. L.StanleyJ. C. (2024). Minding the gap: Tools for trust engineering of artificial intelligence. Ergonomics in Design. https://doi.org/10.1177/10648046241249903
7.
EgglestonR. G. (2003). Work-centered design: A cognitiive engineering approach to system design. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 47(3), 263–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120304700303
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
10.
GaoJ.LeeJ. D. (2006). Extending the decision field theory to model operators’ reliance on automation in supervisory control situations. IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 36(5), 943–959. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2005.855783
11.
HoffmanR. R. (1998). Whom (or What) do you (mis)trust? Historical reflections on the psychology and sociology of information technology. In FlachJ. M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the fourth symposium on human interaction with complex systems (pp. 27–36). IEEE Computer Society Press.
12.
HoffmanR. R. (2012). Collected essays on human-centered computing, 2001-2011. IEEE Computer Society Press.
13.
HoffmanR. R. (2017). A taxonomy of emergent trusting in the human-machine relationship. In SmithP.HoffmanR. R. (Eds.), Cognitive systems engineering: The future for a changing world (pp. 137–164). Taylor & Francis.
14.
HoffmanR.R.JohnsonM.BradshawJ.M.UnderbrinkA. (2013). Trust in automation. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 84–88.
HoffmanR. R.MillerT.KleinG.MuellerS. T.ClanceyW. J. (2023). Increasing the value of XAI for users: A psychological perspective. Kunstliche Intelligenz, 37(2–4), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-023-00806-9
17.
JohnsonM.BradshawJ. M.HoffmanR. R.FeltovichP. J.WoodsD. D. (2014). Seven cardinal virtues of human-machine teamwork. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 29(6), 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2014.100
18.
KaleleA.ArunkumarJ.SubbiahR. (2024). Operationalizing AI: A game of trust and ethics. Tata Consultancy Services. https://www.tcs.com/. Downloaded 24 March 2024.
19.
KaplanA. D.KesslerT. T.BrillJ. C.HancockP. A. (2021). Trust in artificial intelligence: Meta-analytic findings. Human Factors, 65(2), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211013988
20.
KleinG.HoffmanR. R.ClanceyW. J.MullerS. Y.JentschF.JalaeianM. (2023). “Minimum Necessary Rigor” in empirically evaluating human-AI work systems. The AI Magazine. https://doi.org/10.1002/aaai.12108
21.
LeboereC.BlahaL.M.FallonC.K.JeffersonB. (2021). Adaptive cognitive mechanisms to maintain calibrated trust and reliance in automation. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, Article 652776.
22.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and opera- tors’ adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(1), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1994.1007
LewandowskyS.MundyM.TanG. (2000). The dynamics of trust: Comparing humans to automation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(2), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.6.2.104
25.
LewesG. H. (1875). Problems of life and mind. First Series: The foundations of a creed (vol. 2). Osgood.
26.
McKendrickJ. (2023). Five steps for building greater trust in AI. Forbes Newsletter. https://www.forbes.com/. Downloaded 24 March 2024.
27.
MuirB. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37(11), 1905–1922. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139408964957
PariesJ. (2006). Complexity, emergence, resilience. In HollnagelE.WoodsD. D.LevesonN. (Eds.), Resilience engineering: Concepts and processes (pp. 43–53). Ashgate.
30.
WoodsD. D. (2024). Limits of automata—then and now: Challenges for architecture, brittleness, and scale. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/10648046241249903
31.
WoodsD. D.PattersonE. S.CorbanJ. M.WattsJ. (1996). Bridging the gap between user-centered intentions and actual design practice. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 40th annual meeting (pp. 967–977). Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
