As technology continues to advance, interest in how humans perceive and interact with autonomous agents has increased, spurring ample research within human-agent teams (HATs). However, the word team is a bit of a misnomer, in that much of this research has examined one human in relation to one agent. We extend the HAT literature by applying a multilevel lens to develop future research questions regarding trust in heterogeneous HATs. First, we assert that trust is an attitude that is multireferent, suggesting research should explore not just humans’ trust in agents, but many other perspectives such as agents’ trust in humans. Second, we assert that trust is multilevel, suggesting research should explore higher-level emergent forms of trust. Third and fourth, we assert trust is dynamic and event-based, suggesting research should explore discontinuous changes in trust in response to events such as agent- and human-enacted trust violation and repair.
AsaroP. M. (2019). AI Ethics in predictive policing: From models of threat to an ethics of care. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 38(2), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2019.2915154
2.
BaerM. D.SessionsH.WelshD. T.MattaF. K. (2022). Motivated to “roll the dice” on trust: The relationships between employees’ daily motives, risk propensity, and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(9), 1561–1578. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000959
3.
BiesR. J.TrippT. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: “Getting even” and the need for revenge. In KramerR. M.TylerT. R. (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 246–260). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610.n12
BlanchardA. L.McBrideA. G.ErnstB. A. (2023). How are we similar? Group level entitativity in work and social groups. Small Group Research, 54(3), 369–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964221117483
6.
BrassD. J. (2012). A social network perspective on organizational psychology. In KozlowskiS. W. J. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (1st ed, pp. 667–695). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0021
7.
BrewerM. B. (2008). Depersonalized trust and ingroup cooperation. In KruegerJ. I. (Ed.), Rationality and social responsibility (pp. 215–232). Psychology Press.
8.
BrillJ. C.CummingsM. L.EvansA. W.IIIHancockP. A.LyonsJ. B.OdenK. (2018). Navigating the advent of human-machine teaming. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), 455–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621104
9.
CampagnaR. L.MislinA. A.DirksK. T.ElfenbeinH. A. (2022). The (mostly) robust influence of initial trustworthiness beliefs on subsequent behaviors and perceptions. Human Relations, 75(7), 1383–1411. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211002905
10.
CarterN. T.CarterD. R.DeChurchL. A. (2018). Implications of observability for the theory and measurement of emergent team phenomena. Journal of Management, 44(4), 1398–1425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315609402
11.
Carter-BrowneB. M.PaletzS. B. F.CampbellS. G.CarrawayM. J.VahlkampS. H.SchwartzJ.O'RourkeP. (2021). There is no “AI” in teams: A multi-disciplinary framework for AIs to work in human teams. University of Maryland Applied Research Laboratory for Intelligence and Security. 94 pp. https://www.arlis.umd.edu/no-ai-teams.
12.
CartonA. M.CummingsJ. N. (2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 441–470. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0322
13.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816682648
14.
ChenJ. Y.BarnesM. J. (2014). Human–agent teaming for multirobot control: A review of human factors issues. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 44(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/thms.2013.2293535
15.
ChenJ. Y.BarnesM. J.QuinnS. A.PlewW. (2011). Effectiveness of roboleader for dynamic re-tasking in an urban environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55(1), 1501–1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181311551312
16.
ChienS.-Y.LewisM.SycaraK.KumruA.LiuJ.-S. (2020). Influence of culture, transparency, trust, and degree of automation on automation use. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 50(3), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2019.2931755
17.
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(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
18.
CostaA. C.AndersonN. (2011). Measuring trust in teams: Development and validation of a multifaceted measure of formative and reflective indicators of team trust. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 119–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903272083
19.
CostaA. C.Bijlsma-FrankemaK.de JongB. (2009). The role of social capital on trust development and dynamics: Implications for cooperation, monitoring and team performance. Social Science Information, 48(2), 199–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018409102408
20.
CostaA. C.FulmerC. A.AndersonN. R. (2018). Trust in work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model, and future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2213
21.
DaronnatS.AzzopardiL.HalveyM.DubielM. (2020). Impact of agent reliability and predictability on trust in real time human-agent collaboration. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1145/3406499.3415063
22.
de Fine LichtK.BrüldeB. (2021). On defining “reliance” and “trust”: Purposes, conditions of adequacy, and new definitions. Philosophia, 49(5), 1981–2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-021-00339-1
23.
de JongB. A.DirksK. T. (2012). Beyond shared perceptions of trust and monitoring in teams: Implications of asymmetry and dissensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026483
24.
de JongB. A.DirksK. T.GillespieN. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1134–1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000110
25.
DemirM.McNeeseN. J.CookeN. J. (2017). Team situation awareness within the context of human-autonomy teaming. Cognitive Systems Research, 46, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2016.11.003
26.
DemirM.McNeeseN. J.JohnsonC.GormanJ. C.GrimmD.CookeN. J. (2019). Effective team interaction for adaptive training and situation awareness in human-autonomy teaming. 2019 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA), 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1109/COGSIMA.2019.8724202
27.
DesaiM.KaniarasuP.MedvedevM.SteinfeldA.YancoH. (2013). Impact of robot failures and feedback on real-time trust. 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1109/hri.2013.6483596
28.
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), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000092
DirksK. T.de JongB. (2022). Trust within the workplace: A review of two waves of research and a glimpse of the third. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9(1), 247–276. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083025
31.
EndsleyM.KiriE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37(2), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1518/00187209577906455
32.
EsterwoodC.AliA.GeorgeZ.DubrowS.SmerekaJ.RiegnerK.TilburyD.RobertL. P. (2023). Promises and trust repair in UGVs. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 67(1), 512–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/2169506723119623
33.
EsterwoodC.RobertL. P.Jr (2023). Three strikes and you are out!: The impacts of multiple human–robot trust violations and repairs on robot trustworthiness. Computers in Human Behavior, 142, 107658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107658
FergusonA. J.PetersonR. S. (2015). Sinking slowly: Diversity in propensity to trust predicts downward trust spirals in small groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1012–1024. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000007
36.
FerrinD. L.BlighM. C.KohlesJ. C. (2008). It takes two to tango: An interdependence analysis of the spiraling of perceived trustworthiness and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.02.012
37.
FickeC.CarmodyK.NguyenD.PiaseckiI.CarrollM. D.WildmanJ.ThayerA. (2022). Improving measurement of trust dynamics in human-agent teams. Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), Orlando, FL, 22436, 1–14. https://www.xcdsystem.com/iitsec/proceedings/index.cfm?Year=2022&AbID=112857&CID=944
38.
FittsP. M.1951). Human engineering for an effective air-navigation and traffic-control system. National Research Council, Div. of.
39.
FulmerC. A.GelfandM. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312439327
40.
GliksonE.WoolleyA. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057
GrecoL. M.PorckJ. P.WalterS. L.ScrimpshireA. J.ZabinskiA. M. (2022). A meta-analytic review of identification at work: Relative contribution of team, organizational, and professional identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(5), 795. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000941
43.
GroomV.NassC. (2007). Can robots be teammates? Benchmarks in human-robot teams. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.8.3.10gro
44.
GroverS. L.HaselM. C.ManvilleC.Serrano-ArchimiC. (2014). Follower reactions to leader trust violations: A grounded theory of violation types, likelihood of recovery, and recovery process. European Management Journal, 32(5), 689–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.01.002
45.
GutzwillerR. S.ReederJ. (2021). Dancing with algorithms: Interaction creates greater preference and trust in machine-learned behavior. Human Factors, 63(5), 854–867. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820903893
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y.de VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011b). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(5), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254
49.
HancockP. A.JagacinskiR. J.ParasuramanR.WickensC. D.WilsonG. F.KaberD. B. (2013). Human-automation interaction research: Past, present, and future. Ergonomics in Design, 21(2), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804613477099
50.
HaqueM. U.DharmadasaI.SwornaZ. T.RajapakseR. N.AhmadH. (2022, December 12). “I think this is the most disruptive technology”: Exploring Sentiments of ChatGPT Early Adopters using Twitter Data. arXiv.Org, 1–12. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.05856v1.
51.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570
52.
HuangC.ZhangYaoX. (2023). An overview of artificial intelligence ethics. In IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 799–819). https://doi.org/10.1109/TAI.2022.3194503.
53.
JamesonA. (2007). Adaptive interfaces and agents. In SearsA.JackoJ. A. (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications (2nd, pp. 459–484). CRC press.
54.
KähkönenT.BlomqvistK.GillespieN.VanhalaM. (2021). Employee trust repair: A systematic review of 20 years of empirical research and future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 130, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.019
55.
KaplanA. D.KesslerT. T.BrillJ. C.HancockP. A. (2023). Trust in artificial intelligence: Meta-analytic findings. Human Factors, 65(2), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211013988
56.
KimT.SongH. (2021). How should intelligent agents apologize to restore trust? Interaction effects between anthropomorphism and apology attribution on trust repair. Telematics and Informatics, 61, 101595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101595
57.
KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810033001
58.
KohnS. C.KluckM.ShawT. (2020). A brief review of frequently used self-report measures of trust in automation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 64(1), 1436–1440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641342
59.
KohnS. C.QuinnD.PakR.de VisserE. J.ShawT. H. (2018). Trust repair strategies with self-driving vehicles: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), 1108–1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621254
60.
KörberM. (2018). Theoretical considerations and development of a questionnaire to measure trust in automation. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) (pp. 13–30). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nfc45
61.
KozlowskiS. W. J. (2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, 5(4), 270–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614533586
62.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ChaoG. T.GrandJ. A.BraunM. T.KuljaninG. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 581–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113493119
63.
KozlowskiS. W. J.KleinK. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
64.
KramerR. M.BrewerM. B.HannaB. A. (1996). Collective trust and collective action: The decision to trust as a social decision. In KramerR. M.TylerT. R. (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 357–389). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610.n17
65.
LangerM.KönigC. J.BackC.HemsingV. (2023). Trust in artificial intelligence: Comparing trust processes between human and automated trustees in light of unfair bias. Journal of Business and Psychology, 38(3), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09829-9
66.
LangfredC. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects tf conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 885–900. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279196
67.
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. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
68.
LeeS.ChoiJ.Ngo-YeT. L.CummingsM. (2018). Modeling trust in the adoption decision process of Robo-Advisors: An agent-based simulation approach. MWAIS 2018 Proceedings, 24. https://aisel.aisnet.org/mwais2018/24
69.
LevinD. Z.WhitenerE. M.CrossR. (2006). Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The moderating impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1163
LewickiR. J.BunkerB. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of development and decline. In BunkerB. B.RubinJ. Z. (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch (pp. 133–173). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
72.
LewickiR. J.BunkerB. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610.n7
73.
LewickiR. J.McAllisterD. J.BiesR. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926620
MaF.WylieB. E.LuoX.HeZ.JiangR.ZhangY.XuF.EvansA. D. (2019). Apologies repair trust via perceived trustworthiness and negative emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 758. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00758
76.
MadsenM.GregorS. (2000). Measuring human-computer trust. In 11th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (Vol. 53, pp. 6–8). Australasian Association for Information Systems.
77.
MasterR.JiangX.KhasawnehM. T.BowlingS. R.GrimesL.GramopadhyeA. K.MelloyB. J. (2005). Measurement of trust over time in hybrid inspection systems. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 15(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20021
78.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123
79.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
80.
McAllisterD. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/256727
81.
McNeeseN. J.DemirM.ChiouE. K.CookeN. J. (2021). Trust and team performance in human–autonomy teaming. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 25(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2021.1846854
82.
McNeeseN. J.DemirM.CookeN. J.MyersC. (2018). Teaming with a synthetic teammate: Insights into human-autonomy teaming. Human Factors, 60(2), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817743223
83.
McNeeseN. J.FlathmannC.O'NeillT. A.SalasE. (2023). Stepping out of the shadow of human-human teaming: Crafting a unique identity for human-autonomy teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 148, 107874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107874
84.
MillerL.KrausJ.BabelF.BaumannM. (2021). More than a feeling—interrelation of trust layers in human-robot interaction and the role of user dispositions and state anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 592711. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.592711
85.
MorgesonF. P.MitchellT. R.LiuD. (2015). Event system theory: An event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0099
86.
NyeinK. P.CaylorJ. R.DuongN. S.FryT. N.WildmanJ. L. (2020). Beyond positivism: Toward a pluralistic approach to studying “real” teams. Organizational Psychology Review, 10(2), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620915593
87.
O’MalleyM. K. (2007). Principles of human-machine interfaces and interactions. In FelderR.NelsonB.ZhangM. (Eds.), Life science automation: Fundamentals and applications (pp. 101–125). Artech House Publishers.
88.
O’NeillT.McNeeseN.BarronA.SchelbleB. (2022). Human–autonomy teaming: A review and analysis of the empirical literature. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 64(5), 904–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820960865
89.
O'NeillT. A.FlathmannC.McNeeseN. J.SalasE. (2023a). 21st Century teaming and beyond: Advances in human-autonomy teamwork. Computers in Human Behavior, 147, 107865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107874
90.
O'NeillT. A.FlathmannC.McNeeseN. J.SalasE. (2023b). Human-autonomy teaming: Need for a guiding team-based framework?Computers in Human Behavior, 146, 107762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107762
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
93.
PitardiV.MarriottH. R. (2021). Alexa, she's not human but… Unveiling the drivers of consumers’ trust in voice-based artificial intelligence. Psychology & Marketing, 38(4), 626–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21457
94.
RobbinsB. G. (2016). What is trust? A multidisciplinary review, critique, and synthesis. Sociology Compass, 10(10), 972–986. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12391
RossiA.DautenhahnK.KoayK. L.WaltersM. L. (2017). How the timing and magnitude of robot errors influence peoples’ trust of robots in an emergency scenario. Social Robotics, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70022-9_5
98.
RousseauD. M.SitkinS. B.BurtR. S.CamererC. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926617
99.
RussellS. J.NorvigP. (2020). Artificial Intelligence: A moden approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
100.
SarkerS.AhujaM.SarkerS.KirkebyS. (2011). The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: A social network perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(1), 273–310. https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222280109
101.
SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y.SzalmaJ. L.HancockP. A. (2016). A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58(3), 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816634228
102.
SeboS. S.KrishnamurthiP.ScassellatiB. (2019). “I don't believe you”: Investigating the effects of robot trust violation and repair. 201914th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/hri.2019.8673169
103.
SeeberI.BittnerE.BriggsR. O.de VreedeT.de VreedeG. J.ElkinsA.MaierR.MerzS. O.-R.RandrupN.SchwabeG.SöllnerM. (2020). Machines as teammates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration. Information & Management, 57(2), 103174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103174
SharmaK.SchoormanF. D.BallingerG. A. (2022). How can it be made right again? A review of trust repair research. Journal of Management, 49(1), 363–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221089897
106.
ShneidermanB. (2020a). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe and trustworthy. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118
107.
ShneidermanB. (2020b). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Three fresh ideas. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.17705/1thci.00131
TajfelH.BilligM. G.BundyR. P.FlamentC. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
110.
TolmeijerS.WeissA.HanheideM.LindnerF.PowersT. M.DixonC.TielmanM. L. (2020). Taxonomy of trust-relevant failures and mitigation strategies. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374793
111.
Ulfert-BlankA. S.GeorgantaE.TielmanM.Oron-GiladT. (2023). Piecing together the puzzle: Understanding trust in human-AI teams. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings (Vol. 3456, pp. 169–174). CEUR-WS.
112.
van der WerffL.BuckleyF. (2017). Getting to know you: A longitudinal examination of trust cues and trust development during socialization. Journal of Management, 43(3), 742–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314543475
113.
van WaverenS.CarterE. J.LeiteI. (2019). Take one for the team: The effects of error severity in collaborative tasks with social robots. Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (pp. 151–158). https://doi.org/10.1145/3308532.3329475
114.
van WissenA.GalY.KamphorstB. A.DignumM. V. (2012). Human-agent teamwork in dynamic environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.006
115.
WainerJ.Feil-seiferD.ShellD.MataricM. (2006). The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2006.314404
116.
WangK.LuJ.RuanS.QiY. (2024). Continuous error timing in automation: The peak-end effect on human-automation trust. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(8), 1832–1844. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2223954
117.
WeissH. M.CropanzanoR. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
118.
WilliamsM.BelkinL. Y.ChenC. C. (2020). Cognitive flexibility matters: The role of multilevel positive affect and cognitive flexibility in shaping victims’ cooperative and uncooperative behavioral responses to trust violations. Group & Organization Management, 45(2), 181–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120911224
119.
WojtonH. M.PorterD.LaneS. T.BieberC.MadhavanP. (2020). Initial validation of the trust of automated systems test (TOAST). Journal of Social Psychology, 160(6), 735–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2020.1749020
WynneK. T.LyonsJ. B. (2018). An integrative model of autonomous agent teammate-likeness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19(3), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2016.1260181
122.
Xu, A. & Dudek, G. (2016). Towards modeling real-time trust in asymmetric human-robot collaborations. In M. Inaba & P. Corke (Eds.), Robotics research. Springer tracts in advanced robotics (vol. 114). Springer, Cham. https://doi-org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1007/978-3-319-28872-7_7
123.
YuK.BerkovskyS.TaibR.ZhouJ.ChenF. (2019). Do I trust my machine teammate?: An investigation from perception to decision. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 460–468. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302277
124.
ZhangX.LeeS. K.KimW.HahnS. (2023). “Sorry, it was my fault”: Repairing trust in human-robot interactions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 175, 103031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103031
