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

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.

KEYWORDS:

• Trust
• human-automation trust
• human-like intentionality

ACTION EDITOR:

• Harrison McKnight

Acknowledgements

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Air Force.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Christopher S. Calhoun is a human factors engineering manager for CSRA, Inc. He received his PhD in industrial and human systems engineering from Wright State University in 2017. His research interests include trust in human-machine teams, cognitive task analysis, visual performance, and human effectiveness in manufacturing environments.

Philip Bobko is professor emeritus of management and psychology at Gettysburg College. He received his PhD in economic and social statistics from Cornell University. His research and teaching interests include statistics, research methods, psychometrics, personnel assessment, and organisational behaviour. He has served as editor of the Journal of Applied Psychology and associate editor of the Academy of Management Journal.

Jennie J. Gallimore is Dean of the College of Technology, Architecture and Applied Engineering at Bowling Green State University. She received her Ph.D. from Virginia Polytechnic and State University, and she has over thirty years of research experience focusing on human performance. She applies understanding of human cognition, decision making, learning, teaming, and other human capabilities and limitations to the design of complex systems. She has published over 100 articles, papers, reports and chapters related to human performance and systems design.

Joseph B. Lyons is technical adviser for the Human Trust and Interaction Branch within the 711 Human Performance Wing at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. He received his PhD in industrial/organisational psychology from Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, in 2005. His interests include human–machine trust, interpersonal trust, leadership, and social influence. From 2011 to 2013, he served as a programme officer for the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.

Notes

1 We limited our experimental focus to transparency and humanness for simplicity of design and because realism was not represented in nearly as many studies as were transparency and humanness.

2 We thank a reviewer for these thoughts on our mediation hypotheses.

Additional information

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory contracts FA8650-16-D-6616, 0001 and FA8650-09-D-6939, 0033.