Trust in automation plays a pivotal role in multi-operator, multi-agent (MOMA) teams, particularly in high-stakes domains such as defense operations or disaster response. This study examines how trust in autonomous systems propagates between human teammates and how interpersonal familiarity modulates that process. In a simulated threat-detection task with N = 64 participants, friend and stranger pairs collaborated across 15 sessions with two drones of varying reliability. Participants responded to drone suggestions but retained final decision-making authority. Trust ratings were collected for directly and indirectly experienced drones. Our results confirm that trust propagation occurred in both friend and stranger teams. Contrary to expectation, the magnitude of propagation did not significantly differ by familiarity. However, trust in the human teammate was substantially higher among friend dyads. This finding reveals a novel dissociation: while familiarity strengthens interpersonal trust, it does not necessarily amplify trust propagation toward automation. These results highlight the distinct and interactive roles of social and informational trust in shaping human-autonomy teaming.
ArrowH.McGrathJ. E.BerdahlJ. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Sage Publications.
2.
BhatS.LyonsJ. B.ShiC.YangX. J. (2022). Clustering trust dynamics in a human-robot sequential decision-making task. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(4), 8815–8822.
3.
BhatS.LyonsJ. B.ShiC.YangX. J. (2024). Evaluating the impact of personalized value alignment in human-robot interaction: insights into trust and team performance outcomes [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI ’24 (pp.32–41). Association for Computing Machinery.
4.
ChenJ. Y.BarnesM. J. (2014). Human-agent teaming for multi-robot control: A review of human factors issues [Conference session]. 2014 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 2183–2188). IEEE.
5.
ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. J.Harper-SciariniM. (2018). Supervisory control of multiple robots: Human-performance issues and user interface design. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 48(6), 849–863.
6.
CookK. S.CooperR. M. (2003). Experimental studies of cooperation, trust, and social exchange. In OstromE.WalkerJ. (Eds.), Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research (Vol. 6, pp. 209–244). Russell Sage Foundation.
7.
DevineD. J. (2000). A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(2), 126–149.
8.
DonnellanM. B.OswaldF. L.BairdB. M.LucasR. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203.
9.
DuanW.WengN.ScaliaM. J.ZhangR.TuttleJ.YinX.ZhouS.FreemanG.GormanJ.FunkeG. (2024). Getting along with autonomous teammates: Understanding the socio-emotional and teaming aspects of trust in human-autonomy teams [Conference session]. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 68, pp. 1531–1536). Sage Publications.
10.
ErenginT.BrikerR.de JongS. (2025). You, me, and the AI: The role of third-party human teammates for trust formation toward AI teammates. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2857
11.
GuoY.ShiC.YangX. J. (2021). Reverse psychology in trust-aware human-robot interaction. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(3), 4851–4858.
12.
GuoY.YangX. J.ShiC. (2023). Enabling team of teams: A trust inference and propagation (TIP) model in multi-human multi-robot teams. Robotics: Science and Systems XIX. arXiv:2305.12614 [cs].
13.
GuoY.YangX. J.ShiC. (2024). TIP: A trust inference and propagation model in multi-human multi-robot teams. Autonomous Robots, 48(7), 1–19.
14.
HindsP. J.MortensenM. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307.
15.
HoN.SadlerG. G.HoffmannL. C.ZemlickaK.LyonsJ.FerguesonW.RichardsonC.CacanindinA.CalsS.WilkinsM. (2017). A longitudinal field study of auto-GCAS acceptance and trust: First-year results and implications. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 11(3), 239–251.
16.
HuynhT. D.JenningsN. R.ShadboltN. R. (2004). Fire: An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 7(3), 239–269.
17.
JøsangA.IsmailR.BoydC. (2002). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 618–644.
18.
KimJ. Y.LesterC.YangX. J. (2025). Beyond binary decisions: Evaluating the effects of AI error type on trust and performance in AI-assisted tasks. Human Factors, 67(10), 1062–1083. 00187208251326795.
19.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance (Vol. 46). Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
20.
MerrittS. M. (2011). Affective processes in human–automation interactions. Human Factors, 53(4), 356–370.
21.
MerrittS. M.IlgenD. R. (2008). Not all trust is created equal: Dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Human Factors, 50(2), 194–210.
22.
MurphyR. R. (2014). Disaster robotics. MIT Press.
23.
Rios-TorresJ.MalikopoulosA. A. (2017). A survey on the coordination of connected and automated vehicles at intersections and merging at highway on-ramps. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 18(5), 1066–1077.
24.
RojasE.LiM. (2024). Trust is contagious: Social influences in human-human-AI team [Conference session]. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 68, pp. 317–322). Sage Publications.
25.
YangX. J.SchemanskeC.SearleC. (2023). Toward quantifying trust dynamics: How people adjust their trust after moment-to-moment interaction with automation. Human Factors, 65(5), 862–878.
26.
YangX. J.UnhelkarV. V.LiK.ShahJ. A. (2017). Evaluating effects of user experience and system transparency on trust in automation [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI ’17 (pp. 408–416). ACM.
