Objective: We provide an empirical demonstration of the importance of attending to human user individual differences in examinations of trust and automation use. Background: Past research has generally supported the notions that machine reliability predicts trust in automation, and trust in turn predicts automation use. However, links between user personality and perceptions of the machine with trust in automation have not been empirically established. Method: On our X-ray screening task, 255 students rated trust and made automation use decisions while visually searching for weapons in X-ray images of luggage. Results: We demonstrate that individual differences affect perceptions of machine characteristics when actual machine characteristics are constant, that perceptions account for 52% of trust variance above the effects of actual characteristics, and that perceptions mediate the effects of actual characteristics on trust. Importantly, we also demonstrate that when administered at different times, the same six trust items reflect two types of trust (dispositional trust and history-based trust) and that these two trust constructs are differentially related to other variables. Interactions were found among user characteristics, machine characteristics, and automation use. Conclusion: Our results suggest that increased specificity in the conceptualization and measurement of trust is required, future researchers should assess user perceptions of machine characteristics in addition to actual machine characteristics, and incorporation of user extraversion and propensity to trust machines can increase prediction of automation use decisions. Application: Potential applications include the design of flexible automation training programs tailored to individuals who differ in systematic ways.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Atoyan, H., Duquet, J.-R., & Robert, J.-M. (2006, April). Trust in new decision aid systems. Paper presented at the Human-Computer Interaction (IHM) Conference , Montreal, Canada.
2.
Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
3.
Beck, H.P., Dzindolet, M.T., & Pierce, L.G. (2007). Automation usage decisions: Controlling intent and appraisal errors in a target detection task. Human Factors , 49, 429-437.
4.
Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R.S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 127-151.
5.
Boyle, R., & Bonacich, P. (1970). The development of trust and mistrust in mixed-motive games. Sociometry, 33, 123-139.
6.
Brehmer, B., & Dorner, D. (1993). Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: Escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field-study. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 171-184.
7.
de Vries, P., Midden, C., & Bouwhuis, D. (2003). The effects of errors on system trust, self-confidence, and the allocation of control in route planning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 719-735.
8.
Dzindolet, M.T., Peterson, S.A., Pomranky, R.A., Pierce, L.G., & Beck, H.P. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 697-718.
9.
Dzindolet, M.T., Pierce, L.G., Beck, H.P., & Dawe, L.A. (2002). The perceived utility of human and automated aids in a visual detection task. Human Factors, 44, 79-94.
10.
Dzindolet, M.T., Pierce, L.G., Beck, H.P., Dawe, L.A., & Anderson, W.B. (2001). Predicting misuse and disuse of combat identification systems. Military Psychology, 13, 147-164.
11.
Fiske, S.T., & Neuberg, S.L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation . In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). New York: Academic Press.
12.
Ford, J.K., Kraiger, K. & Merritt, S. (in press). The multidimensionality of learning outcomes revisited. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.). Learning, training, and development in organizations . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Gaines, S.O., Panter, A.T., Lyde, M.D., Steers, W.N., Rusbult, C.E., Cox, C.L., et al. (1997). Evaluating the circumplexity of interpersonal traits and the manifestation of interpersonal traits in interpersonal trust . Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73, 610-623.
14.
Goldberg, L.R. (2001). International personality item pool: A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differences. Retrieved from http://ipip.ori.org/
15.
Gow, A.J., Whiteman, M.C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I.J. (2005). Goldberg's "IPIP" Big-Five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 317-329.
16.
Hardin, R. (1996). Trustworthiness. Ethics, 107, 26-42.
17.
Johnson, J.D. (2004). Type of automation failure: The effects on trust and reliance in automation. Unpublished master's thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. School of Psychology. Retrieved from http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/4924
18.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J.K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311-328.
19.
Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology , 50, 569-598.
20.
Lee, J.D., & Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies, and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243-1270.
21.
Lee, J.D., & Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 40, 153-184.
22.
Lee, J.D., & See, K.A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50-80.
23.
Lewandowsky, S., Mundy, M., & Tan, G.P.A. (2000). The dynamics of trust: Comparing humans to automation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 104-123.
24.
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, 277-301.
25.
Madhavan, P., Wiegmann, D.A., & Lacson, F.C. (2003, October). Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermines trust in automated aids. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting-2003 (pp. 335-339). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
26.
Madhavan, P., Wiegmann, D.A., & Lacson, F.C. (2006). Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids. Human Factors , 48, 241-256.
27.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
28.
Moray, N., Inagaki, T., & Itoh, M. (2000). Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 44-58.
29.
Muir, B.M. (1987). Trust between humans and machines and the design of decision aids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies , 27, 527-539.
30.
Muir, B.M. (1989). Operators'trust in and use of automatic controllers in a supervisory process control task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
31.
Muir, B.M. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37, 1905-1922.
32.
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, 429-460.
33.
Nickerson, J.V., & Reilly, R.R. (2004, January). A model for investigating the effects of machine autonomy on human behavior. Paper presented at the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikolao, Hawaii.
34.
Omodei, M.M., & McLennan, J. (2000). Conceptualizing and measuring global interpersonal mistrust-trust. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 279-294.
35.
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I.L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced "complacency."International Journal of Aviation Psychology , 3, 1-23.
36.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, and abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230-253.
37.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.
38.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C.I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
39.
Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G., & Zanna, M.P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.
40.
Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract . Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574-599.
41.
Rotter, J.B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust . American Psychologist, 26, 443-452.
42.
Rotter, J.B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility . American Psychologist, 35, 1-7.
43.
Shikishima, C., Hiraishi, K., & Ando, J. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on general trust: A test of a theory of trust with behavioral genetic and evolutionary psychology approaches. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology , 22, 48-57.
44.
Singh, I.L., Molloy, R., & Parasuraman, R. (1993). Automation-induced "complacency": Development of the complacency-potential rating scale. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3,111-122.
45.
Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
46.
Terborg, J.R. (1981). Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 6, 569-576.
47.
Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.
48.
van Dongen, K., & van Maanen, P.-P. (2005, June). Designing for dynamic task allocation. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
49.
Wiegmann, D.A., McCarley, J.S., Kramer, A.F., & Wickens, C.D. (2006). Age and automation interact to influence performance of a simulated luggage screening task. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 77, 825-831.
50.
Wiegmann, D.A., Rich, A., & Zhang, H. (2001). Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2, 352-367.
