Trust is a complex concept having many meanings and hinting at many variables, and is not a single concept, or state, or continuum. Panelists will briefly argue their stances concerning concepts of trust in automation, and whether (or to what extent) our understanding of trust in automation should be addressed by analogy to interpersonal trust. There is considerable divergence of opinion on these matters, and on the question of whether it is possible for robots to engage in trustworthy relations with humans.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsB.D.BruynL.E.Chung-Yan (2004). Creating a measure of trust in small military teams. DRDC Toronto No. CR 2004-077.
2.
AkinyeleO. (1999). The dominant factors for creating trusting relationships between supervisors and subordinates in a quasi-government agency (Doctoral dissertation). Benedictine University, Lisle, IL.
3.
BhattacharyaR.DevinnetT.M.PillutlaM.M. (1998). A formal model of trust based on outcomes. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 459-472.
4.
ColquittJ.A.ScottB.A.LePineJ.A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909-927.
5.
DeVisserE.RoviraE.ShawT.ClaytonB.KiernanL.BrownC.ParasuramanR. (2009). Could you be a little nicer? Pushing the right buttons with automation etiquette. Proceedings of the International Association of Ergonomics, 17th Triennial Congress. (pp. 1-5)
6.
DunnJ.R.SchweitzerM.E. (2005). Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 736–748.
7.
HancockP.A.BillingsD.R.SchaeferK.E.ChenJ.Y.C.de VisserE.J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53, 517-527.
8.
HoffmanR.R. (1998). “Whom (or what) do you trust: Historical reflections on the psychology and sociology of information technology.” In FlachJ.M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium on Human Interaction with Complex Systems (pp. 27-36). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
9.
HoffmanR.R.LeeJ.D.WoodsD.D.ShadboltN.MillerJ.BradshawJ.M. (2009, Nov./Dec.). The dynamics of trust in cyberdomains. IEEE Intelligent Systems, pp. 5-11.
JohnsonM.BradshawJ.M.FeltovichP.J.HoffmanR.R.JonkerC.van RiemsdijkBSierhuisM. (2011, May/June). Beyond cooperative robotics: The central role of interdependence in coactive design. IEEE: Intelligent Systems, pp. 81-88.
12.
KahnemanD.KleinG. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise. American Psychologist, 64, 515-526.
13.
KomiakS.WangW.BenbasatI. (2005). Comparing customer trust in virtual salespersons with customer trust in human salespersons. Paper Presented, 38th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science. Hawaii.
14.
KramerN.C.von der PuttenA.EimlerS. (2012). Human-agent and human-robot interaction theory: Similarities to and differences from human-human interaction. In ZacariasM.de OliveriaJ.V. (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction: The Agency Perspective (pp. 215-240). Berlin: Springer.
15.
LeeJ.D.SeeA. (2004). Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50-80.
16.
LyonsJ.B.StokesC.K.SchneiderT.R. (2011). Predictors and outcomes of trust in teams. In StantonN.A. (Ed.), Trust in Military Teams (pp. 31-48). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
17.
MayerR.C.DavisJ.H.SchoormanF.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
18.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Sciences, 56, 81-103.
19.
NassC.MoonY.CarneyP. (1999). Are respondents polite to computers? Social desirability and direct responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 1093–1110.
20.
ParasuramanR.MillerC.A. (2004). Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 51-55.
21.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230-253.
22.
RogersonM.D.GottliebM.C.HandelsmanM.M.KnappS.YounggrenJ. (2011). Nonrational processes in ethical decision making. American Psychologist, 66, 614-623.
23.
StokesC.K.LyonsJ.B.LittlejohnK.NatarianJ.CaseE.SperanzaN. (2010). Accounting for the Human in Cyberspace: Effects of Mood on Trust in Automation. In McQuayB.SmariW. (Eds.). Proceedings of the International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
24.
SchoormanF.D.MayerR.C.DavisJ.H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present, and future. Academy Management Review, 32, 344-354.
25.
WeberJ.M.MalhotraD.MurnighanJ.K. (2005). Normal acts of irrational trust: Motivated attributions and the trust development process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 75–101.
26.
WickensC.D.DixonS.R. (2005). Is There a Magic Number 7 (to the Minus 1)?: The Benefits of Imperfect Diagnostic Automation: A Synthesis of the Literature. Technical Report AHFD-05-01/MAAD-05-1. Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Human Factors Division.
27.
WoodsD.D.HollnagelE. (2006). Joint cognitive systems: Patterns in cognitive systems engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
