In the Rough: Evaluation of Convergence Across Trust Assessment Techniques Using an Autonomous Golf Cart

IF 2.2 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-10-17 DOI:10.1177/15553434231206422
Nathan L. Tenhundfeld, Jason Forsyth, Nathan R. Sprague, Samy El-Tawab, Jenna E. Cotter, Lisa Vangsness
{"title":"In the Rough: Evaluation of Convergence Across Trust Assessment Techniques Using an Autonomous Golf Cart","authors":"Nathan L. Tenhundfeld, Jason Forsyth, Nathan R. Sprague, Samy El-Tawab, Jenna E. Cotter, Lisa Vangsness","doi":"10.1177/15553434231206422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As automated and autonomous systems become more widely available, the ability to integrate them into environments seamlessly becomes more important. One cognitive construct that can predict the use, misuse, and disuse of automated and autonomous systems is trust that a user has in the system. The literature has explored not only the predictive nature of trust but also the ways in which it can be evaluated. As a result, various measures, such as physiological and behavioral measures, have been proposed as ways to evaluate trust in real-time. However, inherent differences in the measurement approaches (e.g., task dependencies and timescales) raise questions about whether the use of these approaches will converge upon each other. If they do, then the selection of any given proven approach to trust assessment may not matter. However, if they do not converge, it raises questions about the ability of these measures to assess trust equally and whether discrepancies are attributable to discriminant validity or other factors. The present study used various trust assessment techniques for passengers in a self-driving golf-cart. We find little to no convergence across measures, raising questions that need to be addressed in future research.","PeriodicalId":46342,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434231206422","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As automated and autonomous systems become more widely available, the ability to integrate them into environments seamlessly becomes more important. One cognitive construct that can predict the use, misuse, and disuse of automated and autonomous systems is trust that a user has in the system. The literature has explored not only the predictive nature of trust but also the ways in which it can be evaluated. As a result, various measures, such as physiological and behavioral measures, have been proposed as ways to evaluate trust in real-time. However, inherent differences in the measurement approaches (e.g., task dependencies and timescales) raise questions about whether the use of these approaches will converge upon each other. If they do, then the selection of any given proven approach to trust assessment may not matter. However, if they do not converge, it raises questions about the ability of these measures to assess trust equally and whether discrepancies are attributable to discriminant validity or other factors. The present study used various trust assessment techniques for passengers in a self-driving golf-cart. We find little to no convergence across measures, raising questions that need to be addressed in future research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
粗糙:使用自主高尔夫球车的信任评估技术的收敛性评估
随着自动化和自治系统变得越来越广泛,将它们无缝集成到环境中的能力变得更加重要。一个可以预测自动化和自治系统的使用、误用和废弃的认知结构是用户对系统的信任。文献不仅探讨了信任的预测性,而且还探讨了评估信任的方式。因此,各种措施,如生理和行为措施,已被提出作为实时评估信任的方法。然而,测量方法的内在差异(例如,任务依赖性和时间尺度)提出了这些方法的使用是否会相互收敛的问题。如果他们这样做,那么选择任何给定的经过验证的信任评估方法可能都无关紧要。然而,如果它们不趋同,就会引起对这些措施平等评估信任的能力的质疑,以及差异是否可归因于区别效度或其他因素。本研究对自动驾驶高尔夫球车上的乘客使用了各种信任评估技术。我们发现各种措施之间几乎没有趋同,这提出了需要在未来研究中解决的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Introduction to the Special Issue on Automation Failure Augmenting Human Cognition With a Digital Submarine Periscope Get on the Round Dial: Fighter Pilot Strategies for Recovering Situation Awareness After Disorienting Physiological Events Distinguishing Urgent From Non-urgent Communications: A Mixed Methods Study of Communication Technology Use in Perinatal Care Wrong, Strong, and Silent: What Happens when Automated Systems With High Autonomy and High Authority Misbehave?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1