Linking precursors of interpersonal trust to human-automation trust: An expanded typology and exploratory experiment

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Trust Research Pub Date : 2019-01-02 DOI:10.1080/21515581.2019.1579730
Christopher S. Calhoun, P. Bobko, J. Gallimore, J. Lyons
{"title":"Linking precursors of interpersonal trust to human-automation trust: An expanded typology and exploratory experiment","authors":"Christopher S. Calhoun, P. Bobko, J. Gallimore, J. Lyons","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2019.1579730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study provides an initial experimental investigation of the extent to which well-known precursors of interpersonal trust (ability, benevolence, integrity, or ABI) will manifest when assessing trust between a human and a non-human referent (e.g. an automated aid). An additional motivation was the meta-analytic finding that the ABI model only explains about half of the variation in interpersonal trust. Based on a review of interpersonal and automation trust literatures, two additional precursors to trust – transparency and humanness – were identified and studied as exogenous variables (with A, B, and I analysed as explanatory mediators of their relationships to trust). In our experimental task, users interacted with an automated aid in decision-making scenarios to identify suspected insurgents. Results indicated that perceived humanness of the aid significantly correlated with trust in that aid (r = .364). This relationship was explained in part by perceptions of both ability and benevolence/integrity (unit-weighted average) of the aid; the latter finding suggesting that human-like intentionality attributed to the aid was a factor in automation trust. Perceived transparency also significantly correlated with trust (r = .464) although much of this relationship was explained by ability rather than benevolence/integrity. Aid reliability was also varied across the experiment. Interestingly, the explanatory power of benevolence/integrity increased when the aid’s reliability was lower, again suggesting human-like intentionality matters in automation trust models. Research and design considerations from these findings are noted.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2019.1579730","citationCount":"31","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trust Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1579730","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study provides an initial experimental investigation of the extent to which well-known precursors of interpersonal trust (ability, benevolence, integrity, or ABI) will manifest when assessing trust between a human and a non-human referent (e.g. an automated aid). An additional motivation was the meta-analytic finding that the ABI model only explains about half of the variation in interpersonal trust. Based on a review of interpersonal and automation trust literatures, two additional precursors to trust – transparency and humanness – were identified and studied as exogenous variables (with A, B, and I analysed as explanatory mediators of their relationships to trust). In our experimental task, users interacted with an automated aid in decision-making scenarios to identify suspected insurgents. Results indicated that perceived humanness of the aid significantly correlated with trust in that aid (r = .364). This relationship was explained in part by perceptions of both ability and benevolence/integrity (unit-weighted average) of the aid; the latter finding suggesting that human-like intentionality attributed to the aid was a factor in automation trust. Perceived transparency also significantly correlated with trust (r = .464) although much of this relationship was explained by ability rather than benevolence/integrity. Aid reliability was also varied across the experiment. Interestingly, the explanatory power of benevolence/integrity increased when the aid’s reliability was lower, again suggesting human-like intentionality matters in automation trust models. Research and design considerations from these findings are noted.
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
人际信任前驱与人-自动化信任的关联:扩展类型学与探索性实验
摘要本研究提供了一项初步的实验调查,以了解在评估人类和非人类参照物(如自动辅助)之间的信任时,众所周知的人际信任前兆(能力、仁爱、正直或ABI)会在多大程度上表现出来。另一个动机是元分析发现,ABI模型只解释了大约一半的人际信任变化。基于对人际和自动化信任文献的回顾,确定并研究了信任的另外两个前兆——透明度和人性——作为外生变量(a、B和I被分析为它们与信任关系的解释中介)。在我们的实验任务中,用户在决策场景中与自动辅助设备交互,以识别可疑叛乱分子。结果表明,援助的感知人性与对援助的信任显著相关(r = .364)。这种关系的部分原因是对援助的能力和仁慈/正直(单位加权平均值)的看法;后一项发现表明,援助产生的类似人类的意向性是自动化信任的一个因素。感知透明度也与信任显著相关(r = .464),尽管这种关系在很大程度上是由能力而不是仁慈/正直来解释的。援助的可靠性在整个实验中也各不相同。有趣的是,当援助的可靠性较低时,慈善/诚信的解释力会增加,这再次表明在自动化信任模型中,类似人类的意向性很重要。注意到这些发现的研究和设计考虑因素。
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
2.60
自引率
42.90%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: As an inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural journal dedicated to advancing a cross-level, context-rich, process-oriented, and practice-relevant journal, JTR provides a focal point for an open dialogue and debate between diverse researchers, thus enhancing the understanding of trust in general and trust-related management in particular, especially in its organizational and social context in the broadest sense. Through both theoretical development and empirical investigation, JTR seeks to open the "black-box" of trust in various contexts.
期刊最新文献
Trust and distrust in public governance settings: Conceptualising and testing the link in regulatory relations. Social trust during the pandemic: Longitudinal evidence from three waves of the Swiss household panel study Integrating focal vulnerability into trust research Capturing the conversation of trust research On the intricate relationship between data and theory, and the potential gain afforded by capturing very low levels of media trust: Commentary on Mangold (2024)
×
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