Measuring the Propensity to Trust in Automated Technology: Examining Similarities to Dispositional Trust in Other Humans and Validation of the PTT-A Scale

References

• Alarcon, G. M., Capiola, A., Hamdan, I. A., Lee, M. A., & Jessup, S. A. (2023). Differential biases in human-human versus human-robot interactions. Applied Ergonomics, 106, 103858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103858
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alarcon, G. M., Capiola, A., Lee, M. A., & Jessup, S. A. (2022). The effects of trustworthiness manipulations on trustworthiness perceptions and risk-taking behaviors. Decision, 9(4), 388–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alarcon, G. M., Gibson, A. M., Jessup, S. A., & Capiola, A. (2021). Exploring the differential effects of trust violations in human-human and human-robot interactions. Applied Ergonomics, 93, 103350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103350
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alarcon, G. M., Lyons, J. B., & Christensen, J. C. (2016). The effect of propensity to trust and familiarity on perceptions of trustworthiness over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alarcon, G. M., Lyons, J. B., Christensen, J. C., Bowers, M. A., Klosterman, S. L., & Capiola, A. (2018). The role of propensity to trust and the five factor model across the trust process. Journal of Research in Personality, 75, 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Reinhart & Winston. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1962-04728-000
   Google Scholar
• APA. (2022). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code#807
   Google Scholar
• Asan, O., Bayrak, A. E., & Choudhury, A. (2020). Artificial intelligence and human trust in healthcare: Focus on clinicians. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(6), e15154. https://www.jmir.org/2020/6/e15154/; https://doi.org/10.2196/15154
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., Vries, R. E. d., Di Blas, L., Boies, K., & Raad, B. d (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2014). The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523838
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babel, F., Kraus, J. M., Hock, P., Asenbauer, H., & Baumann, M. (2021). Investigating the validity of online robot evaluations: Comparison of findings from an one-sample online and laboratory study [Paper presentation]. In C. Bethel, A. Paiva, E. Broadbent, D. Feil-Seifer, & D. Szafir (Eds.), Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 116–120). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3434074.3447141
   Google Scholar
• Babel, F., Kraus, J., Miller, L., Kraus, M., Wagner, N., Minker, W., & Baumann, M. (2021). Small talk with a robot? The impact of dialog content, talk initiative, and gaze behavior of a social robot on trust, acceptance, and proximity. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(6), 1485–1498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00730-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beggiato, M., & Krems, J. F. (2013). The evolution of mental model, trust and acceptance of adaptive cruise control in relation to initial information. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 18, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowen, N. K., & Guo, S. (2012). Structural equation modeling. Pocket guide to social work research methods series. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carli, R., & Najjar, A. (2021). Rethinking trust in social robotics. SCRITA. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.06800
   Google Scholar
• Chien, S. ‑Y., Semnani-Azad, Z., Lewis, M., & Sycara, K. (2014). Towards the development of an inter-cultural scale to measure trust in automation. In D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M. Kleinberg, A. Kobsa, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, O. Nierstrasz, C. Pandu Rangan, B. Steffen, D. Terzopoulos, D. Tygar, G. Weikum, P. L. P. Rau, & P. P. Rau (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science Information systems and application, incl. Internet/web and HCI: Vol. 8528. Cross-cultural design: 6th International Conference, CCD 2014, held as part of HCI International 2014 [16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction], Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 22-27, 2014; proceedings (Vol. 8528, pp. 35–46). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07308-8_4
   Google Scholar
• Chita-Tegmark, M., Law, T., Rabb, N., & Scheutz, M. (2021). Can you trust your trust measure? In C. Bethel, A. Paiva, E. Broadbent, D. Feil-Seifer, & D. Szafir (Eds.), Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 92–100). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3434073.3444677
   Google Scholar
• Coeckelbergh, M. (2012). Can we trust robots? Ethics and Information Technology, 14(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-011-9279-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das, T. K., & Teng, B. ‑S. (2004). The risk-based view of trust: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1), 85–116. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBU.0000040274.23551.1b
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as a commodity. In D. G. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust (pp. 49–72). Basil Blackwell. https://philpapers.org/rec/dastaa-2
   Google Scholar
• De Visser, E. J., Monfort, S. S., McKendrick, R., Smith, M. A., McKnight, P. E., Krueger, F., & Parasuraman, R. (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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (2015). Cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PloS One, 10(3), e0121945. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121945
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farris, G. F., Senner, E. E., & Butterfield, D. A. (1973). Trust, culture, and organizational behavior. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 12(2), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1973.tb00544.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franke, T., Attig, C., & Wessel, D. (2019). A personal resource for technology interaction: development and validation of the Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(6), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, M. L., Johnson, P. D., & Fainshmidt, S. (2013). Development and validation of a propensity to trust scale. Journal of Trust Research, 3(2), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2013.820026
   Google Scholar
• Ford, L. R., Scandura, T. A. (2005). Garbage-in, garbage-out: Item generation as a threat to construct validity [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Southern Management Association.
   Google Scholar
• Gill, H., Boies, K., Finegan, J. E., & McNally, J. (2005). Antecedents of trust: Establishing a boundary condition for the relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(3), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-004-2229-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnambs, T. (2014). A meta-analysis of dependability coefficients (test–retest reliabilities) for measures of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 52, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gompei, T., & Umemuro, H. (2018). Factors and development of cognitive and affective trust on social robots. In S. S. Ge, J.-J. Cabibihan, M. A. Salichs, E. Broadbent, H. He, A. R. Wagner, & Á. Castro-González (Eds.), Social robotics: 10th International Conference, ICSR 2018, Qingdao, China, November 28 - 30, 2018, Proceedings (Vol. 11357, pp. 45–54). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05204-1_5
   Google Scholar
• Greszki, R., Meyer, M., & Schoen, H. (2014). The impact of speeding on data quality in nonprobability and freshly recruited probability-based online panels. In M. Callegaro, R. Baker, J. Bethlehem, A. S. Göritz, J. A. Krosnick, & P. J. Lavrakas (Eds.), Online panel research (pp. 238–262). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118763520.ch11
   Google Scholar
• Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems: A circumplex analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6), 989–1002. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.989
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammer, J. H. (2016, October). Percent of Uncontaminated Correlations (PUC) Calculator: A Microsoft Excel-based tool to calculate the PUC statistic. http://DrJosephHammer.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Hilbig, B. E., Thielmann, I., & Böhm, R. (2022). Bending our ethics code: Avoidable deception and its justification in psychological research. European Psychologist, 27(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jian, J. Y., Bisantz, A. M., & Drury, C. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327566IJCE0401_04
   Google Scholar
• Jessup, S. A., Schneider, T. R., Alarcon, G. M., Ryan, T. J., & Capiola, A. (2019). The measurement of the propensity to trust automation. In Virtual, augmented and mixed reality. Applications and case studies: 11th International Conference, VAMR 2019, held as part of the 21st HCI International Conference, HCII 2019, Orlando, FL, USA, July 26–31, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 21 (pp. 476–489). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 865–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.05.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, S. L., & Shah, P. P. (2016). Diagnosing the locus of trust: A temporal perspective for trustor, trustee, and dyadic influences on perceived trustworthiness. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 392–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, A. D., Kessler, T. T., Brill, J. C., & Hancock, P. A. (2021). Trust in artificial intelligence: Meta-analytic findings. Human Factors, 65(2), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211013988
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karimov, F. P., Berngman, M., & Van Hove, L. (2011). The effect of website design dimensions on initial trust: A synthesis of the empirical literature. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 12(4), 272–301. http://www.jecr.org/sites/default/files/12_4_p04.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karrer, K., Glaser, C., Clemens, C., & Bruder, C. (2009). Technikaffinität erfassen – der Fragebogen TA-EG. TU-Berlin. http://www.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/f25/dokumente/8bwmms/13.3-karrer.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kazi, T. A., Stanton, N. A., Walker, G. H., & Young, M. S. (2007). Designer driving: Drivers’ conceptual models and level of trust in adaptive cruise control. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 45(3), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJVD.2007.014909
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraus, J. M. (2020). Psychological processes in the formation and calibration of trust in automation. Ulm University. https://doi.org/10.18725/OPARU-32583
   Google Scholar
• Kraus, J., Scholz, D., & Baumann, M. (2021). What’s driving me? Exploration and validation of a hierarchical personality model for trust in automated driving. Human Factors, 63(6), 1076–1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820922653
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraus, J., Scholz, D., Messner, E. M., Messner, M., & Baumann, M. (2019). Scared to trust?–Predicting trust in highly automated driving by depressiveness, negative self-evaluations and state anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2917. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02917
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraus, J. M., Scholz, D., Stiegemeier, D., & Baumann, M. (2020). The more you know: Trust dynamics and calibration in highly automated driving and the effects of take-overs, system malfunction, and system transparency. Human Factors, 62(5), 718–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819853686
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuha, J. (2004). AIC and BIC: Comparisons of assumptions and performance. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(2), 188–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124103262065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langer, A., Feingold-Polak, R., Mueller, O., Kellmeyer, P., & Levy-Tzedek, S. (2019). Trust in socially assistive robots: Considerations for use in rehabilitation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 104, 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.07.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lankton, N., McKnight, D. H., & Tripp, J. (2015). Technology, humanness, and trust: Rethinking trust in technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(10), 880–918. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, K., Ashton, M. C. (2009). The HEXACO Personality Inventory – Revised. https://hexaco.org/scaledescriptions
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1243–1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139208967392
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(1), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1994.1007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, W. H., Lin, C. W., & Shih, K. H. (2018). A technology acceptance model for the perception of restaurant service robots for trust, interactivity, and output quality. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 16(4), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2018.092666
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legler, F., Langer, D., Dittrich, F., & Bullinger, A. C. (2020). Vertrauen bei der Kollaboration mit Schwerlastrobotik-Realstudie zum Einfluss von Geschwindigkeit und Systemfehler. In G. f. A. Dortmund (Ed.), Digitaler Wandel, digitale Arbeit, digitaler Mensch? https://gfa2020.gesellschaft-fuer-arbeitswissenschaft.de/inhalt/b.12.5.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Leiner, D. J. (2019). Too Fast, too straight, too weird: Non-reactive indicators for meaningless data in internet surveys. Survey Research Methods, 13(3), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2019.v13i3.7403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., Mundy, M., & Tan, G. P. A. (2000). The dynamics of trust: Comparing humans to automation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 6(2), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.6.2.104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lissitz, R. W., & Green, S. B. (1975). Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(1), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madhavan, P., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2007). Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(4), 277–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500337708
   Google Scholar
• Malle, B. F., & Ullman, D. (2021). A multidimensional conception and measure of human-robot trust. In C. S. Nam and J. B. Lyons (Eds.), Trust in human-robot interaction (pp. 3–25). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maner, J. K., & Gerend, M. A. (2007). Motivationally selective risk judgments: Do fear and curiosity boost the boons or the banes? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, S., & Dibben, M. R. (2003). The role of trust in information science and technology. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 465–498. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/96318/ https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370111
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarter, M. W., Rockmann, K. W., & Northcraft, G. B. (2010). Is it even worth it? The effect of loss prospects in the outcome distribution of a public goods dilemma. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• McKnight, D. H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J. B., & Clay, P. F. (2011). Trust in a specific technology. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 2(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/1985347.1985353
   Google Scholar
• McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In Trust in cyber-societies (pp. 27–54). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45547-7_3
   Google Scholar
• McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: A trust building model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3–4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(02)00020-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merritt, S. M., Ako-Brew, A., Bryant, W. J., Staley, A., McKenna, M., Leone, A., & Shirase, L. (2019). Automation-induced complacency potential: Development and validation of a new scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 225. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merritt, S. M., Heimbaugh, H., LaChapell, J., & Lee, D. (2013). I trust it, but I don’t know why: Effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Human Factors, 55(3), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812465081
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merritt, S. M., & Ilgen, D. R. (2008). Not all trust is created equal: Dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Human Factors, 50(2), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288574
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, L., Kraus, J. M., Babel, F., & Baumann, M. (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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moshagen, M. (2012). The model size effect in SEM: Inflated goodness-of-fit statistics are due to the size of the covariance matrix. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.634724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moshagen, M., & Auerswald, M. (2018). On congruence and incongruence of measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 23(2), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000122
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2018). The dark core of personality. Psychological Review, 125(5), 656–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moshagen, M., Zettler, I. & Hilbig, B. E. (2020). Measuring the Dark Core of Personality. Psychological Assessment, 32(2), 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000778
   Google Scholar
• Mowen, J. C. (2000). The 3M model of motivation and personality: Theory and empirical applications to consumer behavior. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Muir, B. M. (1987). Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27(5-6), 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7373(87)80013-5
   Google Scholar
• Muir, B. M. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37(11), 1905–1922. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139408964957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muir, B. M., & Moray, N. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139608964474
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April (pp. 72–78). https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, Y. A., Pfattheicher, S., & Keijsers, M. (2022). Prosocial behavior toward machines. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, Y. A., Thielmann, I., Zettler, I., & Pfattheicher, S. (2022). Sharing money with humans versus computers: On the role of honesty-humility and (non-)social preferences. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(6), 1058–1068. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211055622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ou, C. X., & Sia, C. L. (2010). Consumer trust and distrust: An issue of website design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(12), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parasuraman, R., de Visser, E., Wiese, E., & Madhavan, P. (2014). Human trust in other humans, automation, robots, and cognitive agents. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58(1), 340–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581070
   Google Scholar
• Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced ‘complacency’. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0301_1
   Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. ‑Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preckel, F., & Brunner, M. (2017). Nomological nets. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K., Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–4). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1334-1
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/. https://cran.microsoft.com/snapshot/2014-09-08/web/packages/dplr/vignettes/xdate-dplr.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rahman, S. M. M., & Wang, Y. (2018). Mutual trust-based subtask allocation for human–robot collaboration in flexible lightweight assembly in manufacturing. Mechatronics, 54, 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people. Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016a). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016b). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y., Jorgensen, T. D., Oberski, D., Byrnes, J., Vanbrabant, L., Savalei, V., Merkle, E., Hallquist, M., Rhemtulla, M., Katsikatsou, M., Barendse, M., Scharf, F., Du, H. (2021). Package ‘lavaan’ [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lavaan/lavaan.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26(5), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudin-Brown, C. M., & Parker, H. A. (2004). Behavioural adaptation to adaptive cruise control (ACC): Implications for preventive strategies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 7(2), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2004.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Scholz, D. D., Hilbig, B. E., Thielmann, I., Moshagen, M., & Zettler, I. (2022). Beyond (low) agreeableness: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of antagonistic psychopathology. Journal of Personality, 90(6), 956–970. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12708
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24348410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellbom, M., & Tellegen, A. (2019). Factor analysis in psychological assessment research: Common pitfalls and recommendations. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1428–1441. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000623
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thielmann, I., Heck, D. W., & Hilbig, B. E. (2016). Anonymity and incentives: An investigation of techniques to reduce socially desirable responding in the Trust Game. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(5), 527–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500004605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2015). Trust: An integrative review from a person–situation perspective. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 249–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2014). Trust in me, trust in you: A social projection account of the link between personality, cooperativeness, and trustworthiness expectations. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thielmann, I., Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2020). Seeing me, seeing you: Testing competing accounts of assumed similarity in personality judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(1), 172–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000222
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thielmann, I., Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2021). On the comparability of basic personality models: Meta-analytic correspondence, scope, and orthogonality of the big five and HEXACO dimensions. European Journal of Personality, 36(6), 870–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211026793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000217
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tussyadiah, I. P., Zach, F. J., & Wang, J. (2020). Do travelers trust intelligent service robots? Annals of Tourism Research, 81, 102886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102886
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Walle, S., & Six, F. (2014). Trust and distrust as distinct concepts: Why studying distrust in institutions is important. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(2), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2013.785146
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Laar, S., & Braeken, J. (2022). Caught off base: A note on the interpretation of incremental fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 29(6), 935–943. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2022.2050730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00860.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Farrell, S. (2004). AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 192–196. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206482
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetzel, E., Lüdtke, O., Zettler, I., & Böhnke, J. R. (2016). The stability of extreme response style and acquiescence over 8 years. Assessment, 23(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115583714
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamagishi, T., Akutsu, S., Cho, K., Inoue, Y., Li, Y., & Matsumoto, Y. (2015). Two-Component Model of General Trust: Predicting Behavioral Trust from Attitudinal Trust. Social Cognition, 33(5), 436–458. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2015.33.5.436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Z., & Wang, K. (2013). A trust model for multimedia social networks. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3(4), 969–979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-012-0078-4
   Google Scholar
• Zou, G. Y. (2007). Toward using confidence intervals to compare correlations. Psychological Methods, 12(4), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.4.399
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar