This study investigated in 22 teams, individual and team trust measures reported by two human participants, recruited from a university populace, as they interacted with each other, robotic combat vehicles (RCVs), a human superior, and their team during a simulated Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) mission conducted within Minecraft. Trust was measured via survey questions based on established metrics and was found to be high toward the human peer, the human superior, and the overall team throughout the mission. In contrast, overall trust in the RCV was significantly lower in phases of the mission when breakdown in RCV functionality caused a hindrance in mission completion. Trust in the RCV was shown to recover as the mission progressed in phases without RCV maintenance issues. The findings reinforce that trust is distinguishable at the individual level and not necessarily perceived the same at the team level.
ChiouE. K.LeeJ. D. (2021). Trusting Automation: Designing for Responsivity and Resilience. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 001872082110099. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211009995
3.
CookeN. J.GormanJ. C.MyersC. W.DuranJ. L. (2013). Interactive Team Cognition. Cognitive Science, 37(2), 255–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12009
4.
CostaA. C.RoeR. A.TaillieuT. (2001). Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000654
5.
de VisserE. J.MonfortS. S.GoodyearK.LuL.O’HaraM.LeeM. R.… KruegerF. (2017). A Little Anthropomorphism Goes a Long Way: Effects of Oxytocin on Trust, Compliance, and Team Performance With Automated Agents. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59(1), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816687205
6.
de VisserE. J.MonfortS. S.McKendrickR.SmithM. A. B.McKnightP. E.KruegerF.ParasuramanR. (2016). Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000092
7.
DemirM.McNeeseN. J.GormanJ. C.CookeN. J.MyersC. W.GrimmD. A. (2021). Exploration of Teammate Trust and Interaction Dynamics in Human-Autonomy Teaming. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems. Presented at the IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3115058
EndsleyM. R. (1988). Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, 789–795vol.3. https://doi.org/10.1109/NAECON.1988.195097
10.
EndsleyM. R. (2017). From Here to Autonomy: Lessons Learned From Human–Automation Research. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816681350
11.
HuangL.CookeN. J.GutzwillerR.BermanS.ChiouE.DemirM.ZhangW. (2020). Distributed dynamic team trust in human, artificial intelligence, and robot teaming. In Trust in Human-Robot Interaction (1st ed., pp. 301–319). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012-819472-0.00013-7
12.
JarvenpaaS. L.LeidnerD. E. (1999). Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.6.791
13.
LeeC. (2017). Army official outlines Next Generation Combat Vehicle prototype effort. Inside the Army, 29(11), 1–9.
LewandowskyS.MundyM.TanG. P. A. (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
16.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
17.
McNeeseN.DemirM.ChiouE.CookeN. J.YanikianG.(2019). Understanding the Role of Trust in Human-Autonomy Teaming. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences2019. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.032
MuirB. M.MorayN. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139608964474
21.
NewtonO. B.FioreS. M. (2020). What’s the Difference? Reconciling Knowledge Structure Concepts to Aid AI Development for Human-Machine Teaming. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 64(1), 1110–1114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641267
22.
O’NeillT.McNeeseN.BarronA.SchelbleB. (2020). Human– Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 001872082096086. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820960865
23.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. 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(3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354
24.
RempelJ. K.HolmesJ. G.ZannaM. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95
SellersJ.HeltonW. S.NäswallK.FunkeG. J.KnottB. A. (2014). Development of the Team Workload Questionnaire (TWLQ). Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58(1), 989–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581207
