Computer agents are frequently anthropomorphized, giving them appearances and responses similar to humans. Research has demonstrated that users tend to apply social norms and expectations to such computer agents, and that people interact with computer agents in a similar fashion as they would another human. Perceived expertise has been shown to affect trust in human-human relationships, but the literature investigating how this influences trust in computer agents is limited. The current study investigated the effect of computer agent perceived level of expertise and recommendation reliability on subjective (rated) and objective (compliance) trust during a pattern recognition task. Reliability of agent recommendations had a strong effect on both subjective and objective trust. Expert agents started with higher subjective trust, but showed less trust repair. Agent expertise had little impact on objective trust resiliency or repair.
BartneckC.KulicD.CroftE.ZoghbiS. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy,likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71-81.
3.
BeldadA.HegnerS.HoppenJ. (2016). The effect of virtual sales agent (VSA) gender – product gender congruence on product advice credibility, trust in VSA and online vendor, and purchase intention. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 62-72.
4.
CastellarEN.NotebaertW.Van den BosscheL.FiasW. (2011). How monitoring other’s actions influences one’s own performance: post-error adjustments are influenced by the nature of social interaction. Experimental Psychology, 58, 499-508.
5.
ChanceyE. T.BlissJ. P.YamaniY.HandleyH. A. H. (2017). Trust and the compliance– reliance paradigm: The effects of risk, error bias, and reliability on trust and dependence. Human Factors, 59(3), 333–345. doi: 10.1177/0018720816682648
6.
DaneE.RockmannKW.PrattMG. (2012). When should I trust my gut? Linking domain expertise to intuitive decision-making effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 187-194.
7.
DanovitchJH.ShenoudaCK. (2018). Adults’ and children’s understanding of how expertise influences learning. Experimental Psychology, 65(1), 1-12.
8.
de VisserEJ.MonfortSS.McKendrickR.SmithMAB.McKnightPE.KruegerF.ParasuramanR. (2016). Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(3), 331-349.
9.
de VriesP.MiddenC.BouwhuisD. (2003). The effects of errors on system trust, self-confidence, and the allocation of control in route planning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 719-735.
10.
KohJ.Y.SundarS.S. (2010). Effects of specialization in computers, web sites, and web agents on e-commerce trust. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 899-912.
11.
KoppelJ.WohlD.MeksinR.HirstW. (2014). The effect of listening to others remember on subsequent memory: the roles of expertise and trust in socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting and social contagion. Social Cognition, 32(2), 148-180.
12.
NewellSJ.BelonaxJJ.McCardleMW.PlankRE. (2011). The effect of personal relationship and consultative task behaviors on buyer perceptions of salesperson trust, expertise, and loyalty. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(3), 307-316.
13.
PanY.SteedA. (2016). A comparison of avatar-, video-, and robot-mediated interaction on users’ trust in expertise. Frontiers in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence, 3(12).
14.
ReevesB.NassC. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
ShibanY.SchelhornI.JobstV.HornleinA.PuppeF.PauliP.MuhlenbergerA. (2015). The appearance effect: Influences of virtual agent features on performance and motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 5-11.
SniezekJA.Van SwolLM. (2001). Trust, confidence, and expertise in a judge-advisor system. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(2), 288-307.
18.
SolomonsonWL. (2012). Trust and the client-consultant relationship. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(3), 53-80.
19.
van DongenK.van MaanenP.P. (2006). Under-Reliance on the Decision Aid: A Difference in Calibration and Attribution between Self and Aid. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(3), 225–229. doi: 10.1177/154193120605000304
20.
VeletsianosG. (2010). Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: Visual appearance, stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Computers & Education, 55(2), 576-585.
