Trust is a critical component to both human-automation and human-human interactions. Interface manipulations, such as visual anthropomorphism and machine politeness, have been used to affect trust in automation. However, these design strategies are meant to primarily facilitate initial trust formation but have not been examined as a means to actively repair trust that has been violated by a system failure. Previous research has shown that trust in another party can be effectively repaired after a violation using various strategies, but there is little evidence substantiating such strategies in human-automation context. The current study will examine the effectiveness of trust repair strategies, derived from a human-human or human-organizational context, in human-automation interaction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkgunM.CagiltayK.ZeyrekD. (2010). The effect of apologetic error messages and mood states on computer users’ self-appraisal of performance. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9), 2430-2448.
2.
BottomW. P.GibsonK.DanielsS. E.MurnighanJ. K. (2002). When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13(5), 497-513.
3.
DavenportR. B.BustamanteE. A. (2010, September). Effects of false-alarm vs. miss-prone automation and likelihood alarm technology on trust, reliance, and compliance in a miss-prone task. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 54, No. 19, pp. 1513-1517). SAGE Publications.
4.
De VisserE. J.KruegerF.McKnightP.ScheidS.SmithM.ChalkS.ParasuramanR. (2012, September). The world is not enough: Trust in cognitive agents. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 263-267). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
5.
De VisserE. J.MonfortS. S.McKendrickR.SmithM. A.McKnightP. E.KruegerF.ParasuramanR. (2016). Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(3), 331.
6.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human factors, 37(2), 381-394.
7.
GoffmanE. (1971). Remedial interchanges. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order, 95-187.
8.
GongL. (2008). How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1494-1509.
9.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57(3), 407-434.
10.
KimP. H.DirksK. T.CooperC. D.FerrinD. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence-vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 49-65.
11.
KimP. H.FerrinD. L.CooperC. D.DirksK. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of applied psychology, 89(1), 104.
12.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. International journal of human-computer studies, 40(1), 153-184.
13.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50-80.
14.
LeeM. K.KieslerS.ForlizziJ.SrinivasaS. PRybski (2010) Gracefully mitigating breakdowns in robotic services. In ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 203-210).
15.
LewickiR. J.BunkerB. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, 114, 139.
16.
MadhavanP.WiegmannD. A.LacsonF. C. (2006). Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48(2), 241-256.
17.
ManzeyD.ReichenbachJ.OnnaschL. (2012). Human performance consequences of automated decision aids: The impact of degree of automation and system experience. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 6(1), 57-87.
18.
MarinaccioK.KohnS.ParasuramanR.de VisserE. J. (2015, June). A Framework for Rebuilding Trust in Social Automation Across Health-Care Domains. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care(Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 201-205). SAGE Publications.
19.
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.
20.
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.
21.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of social issues, 56(1), 81-103.
22.
NassC.SteuerJ.TauberE. R. (1994, April). Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 72-78). ACM.
23.
PakR.FinkN.PriceM.BassB.SturreL. (2012). Decision support aids with anthropomorphic characteristics influence trust and performance in younger and older adults. Ergonomics, 55(9), 1059-1072.
24.
PakR.McLaughlinA. C.BassB. (2014). A multi-level analysis of the effects of age and gender stereotypes on trust in anthropomorphic technology by younger and older adults. Ergonomics, 57(9), 1277-1289.
25.
PakR.McLaughlinA. C.LeidheiserW.RoviraE. (2016). The effect of individual differences in working memory in older adults on performance with different degrees of automated technology. Ergonomics, 1-15.
26.
ParasuramanR.MillerC. A. (2004). Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 51-55.
27.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced ‘complacency’. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1-23.
28.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39(2), 230-253.
29.
RobinetteP.WagnerA. R.HowardA. M. (2015). The Effect of Robot Performance on Human-Robot Trust in Time-Critical Situations.
30.
RoviraE.McGarryK.ParasuramanR. (2007). Effects of imperfect automation on decision making in a simulated command and control task. Human Factors, 49(1), 76-87.
31.
RoviraE.ParasuramanR. (2010). Transitioning to future air traffic management: Effects of imperfect automation on controller attention and performance. Human factors, 52(3), 411-425.
32.
SchweitzerM. E.HersheyJ. C.BradlowE. T. (2006). Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 101(1), 1-19.
33.
ShapiroD. L.SheppardB. H.CheraskinL. (1992). Business on a handshake. Negotiation journal, 8(4), 365-377.
34.
SpainR. D.MadhavanP. (2009, October). The role of automation etiquette and pedigree in trust and dependence. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 339-343). SAGE Publications.
35.
TzengJ. Y. (2004). Toward a more civilized design: studying the effects of computers that apologize. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(3), 319-345.
36.
WaytzA.HeafnerJ.EpleyN. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113-117.
37.
WickensC. D.DixonS. R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(3), 201-212.
38.
WickensC. D.HellenbergJ.XuX. (2002). Pilot maneuver choice and workload in free flight. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 44(2), 171-188.
