Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis Reveals Two Distinct Human-Automation Trust Constructs.

IF 2.9 3区心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Human Factors Pub Date : 2024-07-23 DOI:10.1177/00187208241263774

Yusuke Yamani, Shelby K Long, Tetsuya Sato, Abby L Braitman, Michael S Politowicz, Eric T Chancey

{"title":"Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis Reveals Two Distinct Human-Automation Trust Constructs.","authors":"Yusuke Yamani, Shelby K Long, Tetsuya Sato, Abby L Braitman, Michael S Politowicz, Eric T Chancey","doi":"10.1177/00187208241263774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This work examined the relationship of the constructs measured by the trust scales developed by Chancey et al. (2017) and Jian et al. (2000) using a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).Background: Modern theories of automation trust have been proposed based on data collected using trust scales. Chancey et al. (2017) adapted Madsen and Gregor's (2000) trust scale to align with Lee and See's (2004) human-automation trust framework. In contrast, Jian et al. (2000) developed a scale empirically with trust and distrust as factors. However, it remains unclear whether these two scales measure the same construct.Method: We analyzed data collected from previous experiments to investigate the relationship between the two trust scales using a multilevel CFA.Results: Data provided evidence that Jian et al. (2000) and Chancey et al. (2017) automation trust scales are only weakly related. Trust and distrust are found to be distinct factors in Jian et al.'s (2000) scale, whereas performance, process, and purpose are distinct factors in Chancey et al.'s (2017) trust scale.Conclusion: The analysis suggested that the two scales purporting to measure human-automation trust are only weakly related.Application: Trust researchers and automation designers may consider using Chancey et al. (2017) and Jian et al. (2000) scales to capture different characteristics of human-automation trust.","PeriodicalId":56333,"journal":{"name":"Human Factors","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208241263774","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This work examined the relationship of the constructs measured by the trust scales developed by Chancey et al. (2017) and Jian et al. (2000) using a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Background: Modern theories of automation trust have been proposed based on data collected using trust scales. Chancey et al. (2017) adapted Madsen and Gregor's (2000) trust scale to align with Lee and See's (2004) human-automation trust framework. In contrast, Jian et al. (2000) developed a scale empirically with trust and distrust as factors. However, it remains unclear whether these two scales measure the same construct.

Method: We analyzed data collected from previous experiments to investigate the relationship between the two trust scales using a multilevel CFA.

Results: Data provided evidence that Jian et al. (2000) and Chancey et al. (2017) automation trust scales are only weakly related. Trust and distrust are found to be distinct factors in Jian et al.'s (2000) scale, whereas performance, process, and purpose are distinct factors in Chancey et al.'s (2017) trust scale.

Conclusion: The analysis suggested that the two scales purporting to measure human-automation trust are only weakly related.

Application: Trust researchers and automation designers may consider using Chancey et al. (2017) and Jian et al. (2000) scales to capture different characteristics of human-automation trust.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

多层次确认因素分析揭示了两种不同的人机信任结构。

研究目的本研究采用多层次确证因子分析（CFA）方法，研究了 Chancey 等人（2017 年）和 Jian 等人（2000 年）开发的信任量表所测量的构造之间的关系：现代自动化信任理论是基于信任量表收集的数据提出的。Chancey 等人（2017 年）改编了 Madsen 和 Gregor（2000 年）的信任量表，使其与 Lee 和 See（2004 年）的人类-自动化信任框架相一致。相反，Jian 等人（2000 年）则根据经验开发了一个以信任和不信任为因子的量表。然而，这两个量表是否测量的是同一概念仍不清楚：方法：我们分析了从以前的实验中收集到的数据，使用多层次 CFA 方法研究了两个信任量表之间的关系：数据提供的证据表明，Jian 等人（2000 年）和 Chancey 等人（2017 年）的自动化信任量表只是弱相关。在 Jian 等人（2000 年）的量表中，信任和不信任是不同的因素，而在 Chancey 等人（2017 年）的信任量表中，性能、过程和目的是不同的因素：分析表明，这两个旨在衡量人与自动化信任度的量表只有微弱的关联性：信任研究人员和自动化设计人员可以考虑使用 Chancey 等人（2017 年）和 Jian 等人（2000 年）的量表来捕捉人机信任的不同特征。

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

Human Factors 管理科学-行为科学

CiteScore

10.60

自引率

6.10%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society publishes peer-reviewed scientific studies in human factors/ergonomics that present theoretical and practical advances concerning the relationship between people and technologies, tools, environments, and systems. Papers published in Human Factors leverage fundamental knowledge of human capabilities and limitations – and the basic understanding of cognitive, physical, behavioral, physiological, social, developmental, affective, and motivational aspects of human performance – to yield design principles; enhance training, selection, and communication; and ultimately improve human-system interfaces and sociotechnical systems that lead to safer and more effective outcomes.