The World is not Enough: Trust in Cognitive Agents

Abstract

Researchers have assumed a dichotomy between human-human trust (HHT) and human-automation trust (HAT). With the advent of cognitive agents, entities that are neither machine nor human, it is important to revisit this theory. Some claim that HHT and HAT are the same concept and propose that people respond socially to more human automation. Others say that HHT and HAT are fundamentally different and propose models that indicate differences in initial perception, automation monitoring performance, and judgments that lead to differences in trust. In this study, we varied humanness on a cognitive spectrum and investigated trust and performance with these different types of cognitive agents. Results showed that increasing the humanness of the automation increased trust calibration and appropriate compliance with an automated aid leading to better overall performance and trust, especially during unreliable conditions. Automated aids that exhibit human characteristics may be more resilient to human disuse in the face of sub-optimal machine performance.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brown

Levinson

(1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

de Visser

Parasuraman

(2011) Adaptive aiding of human-robot teaming: Effects of imperfect automation on performance, trust, and workload. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 5(2), 209–231.

Delgado

Frank

Phelps

(2005). Perceptions of moral character modulate the neural systems of reward during the trust game. Nature Neuroscience, 8(11), 1611–1618.

Dijkstra

Liebrand

(1998). Persuasiveness of expert systems. Behaviour & Information Technology, 17(3), 155–165.

DiSalvo

C.F.

Gemperie

Forlizzi

Kiesler

(2002). All robots are not created equal: The design and perception of humanoid robot heads.

Dongen

K. van

Maanen

P.-P van

(2006). Under-reliance on the Decision Aid: A Difference in Calibration and Attribution between Self and Aid, In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society’s 50th Annual Meeting, San Francisco, USA.

Dongen

K. van

Maanen

P.-P. van

(in press). Framework Explaining Reliance on Decision Aids: The Self Reliance Bias and its Causes, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Elsevier.

Dzindolet

Peterson

Pomranky

(2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 697–718.

Epley

Waytz

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.

10.

Hayes

C.C.

Miller

C.A.

(2011). Human-computer etiquette: Cultural expectations and the design implications they place on computers and technology. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications.

11.

Jian

Bisantz

Drury

(2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 53–71.

12.

Kaber

Endsley

(2004). The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(2), 113–153.

13.

Krach

Hegel

Wrede

Sagerer

Binkofski

Kircher

(2008). Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via fMRI. PLoS ONE, 3(7), 1–11.

14.

Kurzweil

(2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

15.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation : Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80.

16.

Lyons

J. B.

Stokes

C. K.

(2012). Human-human reliance in the context of automation. Human Factors, 54(1), 112–121.

17.

Madhavan

Wiegmann

D. A.

(2007). Similarities and differences between human-human and human-automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(4), 277–301.

18.

Mori

(1970). Bukimi no tani [the uncanny valley]. Energy, 7(4), 33–35.

19.

Nass

Steuer

Tauber

(1994). Computers are social actors. CHI ’94 Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 73–78). Boston, MA.

20.

Parasuraman

Manzey

(2010). Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration. Human Factors, 52(3), 381–410.

21.

Parasuraman

Miller

C. A.

(2004). Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 51–55.

22.

Parasuraman

Riley

(1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253.

23.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

Wickens

(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(3), 286–297.

24.

Rovira

McGarry

Parasuraman

(2007). Effects of imperfect automation on decision making in a simulated command and control task. Human Factors, 49(1), 76–87.