ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Abstract and Figures

Objective: We systematically review recent empirical research on factors that influence trust in automation to present a three-layered trust model that synthesizes existing knowledge. Background: Much of the existing research on factors that guide human-automation interaction is centered around trust, a variable that often determines the willingness of human operators to rely on automation. Studies have utilized a variety of different automated systems in diverse experimental paradigms to identify factors that impact operators’ trust. Method: We performed a systematic review of empirical research on trust in automation from January 2002 to June 2013. Papers were deemed eligible only if they reported the results of a human-subjects experiment in which humans interacted with an automated system in order to achieve a goal. Additionally, a relationship between trust (or a trust-related behavior) and another variable had to be measured. All together, 101 total papers, containing 127 eligible studies, were included in the review. Results: Our analysis revealed three layers of variability in human–automation trust (dispositional trust, situational trust, and learned trust), which we organize into a model. We propose design recommendations for creating trustworthy automation and identify environmental conditions that can affect the strength of the relationship between trust and reliance. Future research directions are also discussed for each layer of trust. Conclusion: Our three-layered trust model provides a new lens for conceptualizing the variability of trust in automation. Its structure can be applied to help guide future research and develop training interventions and design procedures that encourage appropriate trust.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Topic choice: Automation/expert systems
Trust In Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors that Influence Trust
By: Kevin Anthony Hoff and Masooda Bashir
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Champaign, IL 61820
Précis: This systematic review paper synthesizes empirical research on trust in automation to
propose a three-layered trust model which conceptualizes the variability of trust. Design
recommendations for creating trustworthy automation and directions for future research are
presented and discussed.
Structured abstract:
Objective: We systematically review recent empirical research on factors that influence
trust in automation to present a three-layered trust model that synthesizes existing knowledge.
Background: Much of the existing research on factors that guide human-automation
interaction is centered around trust, a variable which often determines the willingness of human
operators to rely on automation. Studies have utilized a variety of different automated systems in
diverse experimental paradigms to identify factors that impact operators’ trust.
Method: We performed a systematic review of empirical research on trust in automation
from January 2002-June 2013. Papers were deemed eligible only if they reported the results of a
human-subjects experiments in which humans interacted with an automated system in order to
achieve a goal. Additionally, a relationship between trust (or a trust-related behavior) and
another variable had to be measured. All together, 101 total papers, containing 127 eligible
studies, were included in the review.
Results: Our analysis revealed three layers of variability in human-automation trust
(dispositional trust, situational trust, and learned trust), which we organize into a model. We
propose design recommendations for creating trustworthy automation and identify environmental
conditions that can affect the strength of the relationship between trust and reliance. Future
research directions are also discussed for each layer of trust.
Conclusion: Our three-layered trust model provides a new lens for conceptualizing the
variability of trust in automation. Its structure can be applied to help guide future research and
develop training interventions and design procedures that encourage appropriate trust.
Keywords: trust in automation, human-automation interaction, automated system, trust
formation, reliance
Corresponding Author: Masooda Bashir (Email:
Trust in Automation: Review
Running Head: Trust in Automation: Review
Manuscript Category: Review Article
Text Word Count: 13,232
Reference Word Count: 4,357
Trust in Automation: Review
At its most basic level, trust is an adhesive that connects people from all over the globe. It
measures the degree of confidence individuals have in strangers or the degree to which romantic
partners believe in the fidelity of their significant other. Communities, organizations,
governments, nations, cultures, and societies can all be explained, in part, by trust. Yet the
significance of trust is not limited to the interpersonal domain; trust can also define the way
people interact with technology. In particular, the concept of trust in automation has been the
focus of substantial research over the past several decades. Automated technologies are
everywhere in the modern world, from flight management systems to GPS route-planners.
Automation can be used to acquire and analyze information, make decisions, carry out actions,
or monitor other systems (Parasuraman, Sheridan, & Wickens, 2000). When human-automation
teams perform optimally, the efficiency of labor systems can improve drastically. Unfortunately,
optimum performance is not always achieved, as using automation can complicate otherwise
simple tasks. Additionally, the introduction of automation into critical systems, such as hospitals,
aircraft, and nuclear power plants, has created new pathways for error, sometimes with grave
Just as it does in interpersonal relationships, trust plays a leading role in determining the
willingness of humans to rely on automated systems in situations characterized by uncertainty.
Accidents can occur when operators misuse automation by over-trusting it, or disuse automation
as a result of under-trusting it (Parasuraman & Riley, 1997). Facilitating appropriate trust in
automation is key to improving the safety and productivity of human-automation teams.
In order to better understand the factors that influence operators’ trust, researchers have
studied the trust formation process using a variety of automated systems in diverse experimental
Trust in Automation: Review
paradigms. Lee and See (2004) provide an integrated review of early research in this area to
elucidate the role of trust, and the feelings associated with it, in guiding human behavior towards
automation. Their thought-provoking paper triggered numerous studies on specific factors
related to trust in automation that have greatly expanded knowledge regarding the variability of
trust. However, because of the wide diversity of variables studied using distinct methodologies, a
cohesive analysis is needed to synthesize recent findings. In this paper, we build on the work of
Lee and See (2004) by presenting the results of a systematic review of recent empirical research
(published between January 2002-June 2013) on factors that influence human-automation trust
and reliance. Our extensive analysis culminates in a three-layered trust model that can be applied
to a variety of situations with unique automated systems and diverse human operators. The
model (displayed in full in Figure 6) provides a new lens for conceptualizing the variability of
trust in automation. Design recommendations and future research directions are also presented
and discussed.
Automation can be defined as “technology that actively selects data, transforms
information, makes decisions, or controls processes” (Lee & See, 2004). One of the primary
values of automation is its ability to perform complex, repetitive tasks quickly without error.
Human-automation labor systems can be extremely efficient, because the use of automation
gives people more freedom to focus their attention where it is needed. Today, automated systems
perform countless tasks for which humans once had responsibility. Another advantage of
automation is that it can be used in place of people in hazardous environments. A well-known
Trust in Automation: Review
example of such automation is the Predator Drone, which has been used by the U.S. military in
conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and numerous other combat zones.
There are four primary types of automated systems, including information acquisition,
information analysis, decision selection, and action implementation (Parasuraman et al., 2000).
An additional type of automation not mentioned above is automation whose sole purpose is to
monitor other automated systems. These categories are not mutually exclusive; a single
automated system can fall into more than one category if it performs multiple functions.
In addition to type, automated systems vary based on the amount of control the human
operator has over their functions. Parasuraman et al. (2000) outline a 10-level scale that classifies
automation based on its locus of control. At levels 1–5, the human has overall control of a task,
but uses automation in incrementally increasing amounts for assistance. At levels 6-10
automation performs tasks independently, providing operators with less feedback at each level
up the scale (Parasuraman et al., 2000).
Automation-related accidents can occur for a variety of reasons, including, but not
limited to, poor system design, organizational factors, software and hardware failures,
environmental interference, operator abuse, operator misuse, and operator disuse (Parasuraman
& Riley, 1997). Trust is particularly relevant to misuse and disuse of automation, as trust plays a
critical role in guiding human-automation reliance. For example, the Costa Concordia cruise ship
disaster that killed 32 passengers in January 2012 may have been the result of the captain’s
under-trusting of the ship’s navigation system in favor of manual control. Ensuing investigations
discovered that the captain diverged from the ship’s computer-programmed route before hitting
the shallow reef that caused the sinking (Levs, 2012). Over-trust in automation may have
contributed to the crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 in February of 2009. The crash, which
Trust in Automation: Review
killed nine people, including all three pilots, was partially caused by the pilots’ continued
reliance on the plane’s automatic pilot after an altitude-measuring instrument failed (“Faulty
reading helped…”, 2009). Those are but two of many accidents that have been linked to misuse
and disuse of automation.
Instilling operators with appropriate levels of trust in automation can reduce the
frequency of misuse and disuse (Lee & See, 2004). Doing so effectively, however, can be far
more difficult than might seem. Inconsistent characteristics of the operator, environment, and
automated system can alter the trust formation process in unforeseen ways. In order to
conceptualize that variability, some researchers have attempted to model the trust formation
process by drawing on trust research from other fields (e.g., interpersonal trust in Madhavan &
Wiegmann, 2007B). The following section summarizes the literature on trust, with an emphasis
on trust in other people.
The concept of trust can be found in various fields of research. Investigators from
psychology, sociology, philosophy, political science, economics, and human factors have tried to
make sense of trust and develop ways to conceptualize the term. Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman
(1995) authored one of the most influential review papers on trust to date by thoroughly
examining literature on the antecedents and outcomes of organizational trust. In the human
factors domain, considerable research has focused on the role of trust in guiding interactions with
different technologies. For example, Corritore, Kracher, and Wiedenbeck (2003) developed a
model of online trust that conceptualizes trust variability based on perceptions of website risk,
Trust in Automation: Review
credibility, and ease-of-use. Gefen, Karahanna, and Straub (2003) explore the role of trust and
the technology acceptance model in online shopping environments. Hoffmann et al (2009)
discuss the role of trust, as well as antitrust, in creating and minimizing security risks in
An important commonality across the various fields of research is that almost every
explanation of trust includes three components. First, there must be a truster to give trust, there
must be a trustee to accept trust, and something must be at stake. Second, the trustee must have
some sort of incentive to perform the task. The incentive can vary widely, from a monetary
reward to a benevolent desire to help others. In interactions with technology, the incentive is
usually based on the designer’s intended use for a system. Finally, there must be a possibility that
the trustee will fail to perform the task, inviting uncertainty and risk (Hardin, 2006). These
elements outline the idea that trust is needed when something is exchanged in a cooperative
relationship characterized by uncertainty. This applies to both interpersonal and human-
automation relationships. Still, although the significance of trust in cooperative relationships is
generally agreed upon, inconsistencies remain regarding the exact definition of trust.
A. Defining Trust
The earliest investigations of trust attempted to define it in a general sense, without any
sort of context. Rotter (1967) began by describing trust as a disposition toward the world and the
people in it. This definition has since grown to be more content- and situation-specific. Barber
(1983) viewed interpersonal trust as a set of socially learned expectations that vary based on
social order, whereas Pruitt and Rubin (1986) see trust as a number of beliefs about others. While
those authors view trust as a belief or attitude, other authors have defined it as a willingness to
Trust in Automation: Review
accept vulnerability (Mayer et al., 1995) and a behavioral state of vulnerability (Deutsch, 1960).
Clearly, scholars are far from reaching a consensus on a single definition of trust. Nevertheless,
because it is possible to trust someone without recruiting his or her assistance, we think trust
should be viewed as a mental state. For this paper, we will rely on Lee and See’s (2004)
definition of trust as “the attitude that an agent will help achieve an individual’s goals in a
situation characterized by uncertainty and vulnerability” (p. 54).
Trust is always grounded on at least one quality or characteristic of a trustee. In a
thorough review of trust literature, Mayer et al. (1995) established three general bases of trust:
ability, integrity, and benevolence. The stability of one’s trust varies depending on which of the
aforementioned qualities it refers to. For example, if trust is based on the ability of a trustee, it
will vary depending on how well the trustee performs a task. Trust grounded on the integrity of a
trustee depends not on the actual performance of a trustee, but on the extent to which the
trustee’s actions match the values of the truster. Finally, the stability of benevolence-based trust
is contingent upon whether the trustee’s actions match the goals and motivations of the truster
(Lee & See, 2004). When trust is based primarily on the integrity or benevolence of a trustee,
poor performance alone will not significantly damage it.
Trust formation is quite often a dynamic process. As people are exposed to new
information, feelings of trust can change drastically. This can happen at both the conscious and
unconscious levels. The following section describes the various processes by which trust is
formed, maintained, and destroyed.
B. Trust Formation
Trust in Automation: Review
The formation of trust involves both thinking and feeling, but emotions are the primary
determinant of trusting behavior (Lee & See, 2004). For example, individuals often decide not to
trust others simply because of uneasy feelings that cannot be explained rationally. Affective
processing cannot be overlooked when attempting to understand trust formation and any
resulting behavior. Without emotions, trust would not have such a profound impact on human
behavior (Lee & See, 2004).
Although feelings likely have the greatest influence on trusting behavior, both feelings
and behavior depend on thoughts. These thoughts may take the form of analogic or analytic
judgments. Analogic thought processes utilize societal norms and the opinions of others to
determine trustworthiness. The analytic process of trust formation, on the other hand, involves
rational evaluations of a trustee’s salient characteristics (Lee & See, 2004). When sufficient
cognitive resources are available, people may be more likely to use analytic processing. When
cognitive resources are limited, however, people are more likely to rely on analogic and affective
thought processes, both of which can occur rapidly outside of conscious awareness.
Although many people fail to recognize it, we as humans automatically make judgments
about the trustworthiness of people we meet on a day-to-day basis. These snap judgments are not
always accurate, but humans have a remarkable talent for accurately assessing the
trustworthiness of others using subtle cues. Engell, Haxby, and Todorov (2007) used functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to show that the amygdala (a portion of the brain located in
the medial temporal lobe) is utilized during rapid evaluations of the trustworthiness of human
faces. In their experiment, subjects’ amygdala responses increased as they were exposed to faces
that were previously rated as less trustworthy (Engell et al., 2007). This finding is consistent
with that of Willis and Todorov (2006), who found that 100 milliseconds of exposure to a novel
Trust in Automation: Review
face is enough time to make initial judgments of the face’s trustworthiness. These two studies
point to a dissociation between the automatic engagement of the amygdala and the intentional
engagements of other neural mechanisms during interpersonal trust formation. Still, while
humans are capable of making instinctive assessments of the trustworthiness of other people, this
ability does not directly translate to technological systems. The next section explains the nature
of human-automation trust.
Although trust in technology is different from interpersonal trust, parallels exist between
the two. At the most fundamental level, the two types of trust are similar in that they represent
situation-specific attitudes that are only relevant when something is exchanged in a cooperative
relationship characterized by uncertainty. Beyond this conceptual likeness, research has found
more specific similarities. For example, several studies in the 1990s showed that people apply
socially learned rules, such as politeness, to interactions with machines (Nass, Moon, & Carney,
1999; Nass, Steuer, & Tauber, 1994). Furthermore, neurological research suggests that some of
the same neural mechanisms utilized by participants in interpersonal trust games are also used in
trust-based evaluations of eBay website offers (Dimoka, 2010; Riedl, Hubert, & Kenning, 2010).
One potential reason for these similarities is that to some degree, people’s trust in technological
systems represents their trust in the designers of such systems (Parasuraman & Riley, 1997). In
this way, human-automation trust can be viewed as a specific type of interpersonal trust in which
the trustee is one step removed from the truster. Regardless of how human-automation trust is
Trust in Automation: Review
conceptualized, important differences exist between it and interpersonal trust in regard to what it
is based on and how it forms (Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007B).
A. Distinctions Between Human-automation and Interpersonal Trust
Human-automation trust and interpersonal trust depend on different attributes. Whereas
interpersonal trust can be based on the ability, integrity, or benevolence of a trustee (Mayer et al.,
1995), human-automation trust depends on the performance, process, or purpose of an automated
system (Lee & Moray, 1992). Performance-based trust, similar to Mayer et al.’s ability-based
trust, varies depending on how well an automated system executes a task. Process-based trust,
analogous to integrity-based trust in humans, fluctuates based on the operator’s understanding of
the methods an automated system uses to perform tasks. Lastly, purpose-based trust is contingent
upon the designer’s intended use for an automated system.
The progression of interpersonal trust formation also differs from that of human-
automation trust (Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007B). Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna (1985) explain
that interpersonal trust is initially based on the mere predictability of a trustee’s actions because
people tend to enter relationships with strangers cautiously. As interpersonal relationships
progress, the dependability or integrity of a trustee becomes the core basis of trust. Finally, fully
mature interpersonal relationships are based on faith or benevolence (Lee & See, 2004). On the
other hand, human-automation trust often progresses in the reverse order. Evidence suggests that
people often exhibit a positivity bias in their trust of novel automated systems (Dzindolet,
Peterson, Pomranky, Pierce, & Beck, 2003). People commonly assume that machines are perfect.
Therefore, their initial trust is based on faith. However, this trust rapidly dissolves following
Trust in Automation: Review
system errors; as relationships with automated systems progress, dependability and predictability
replace faith as the primary basis of trust (Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007B).
It is important to note that the trend described above is only applicable to relationships
with unfamiliar trustees and automated systems. In the real world, the trust formation process
depends on a number of factors related to the operator, environment, and automated system. We
sought out to conceptualize that variability by systematically reviewing recent empirical research
on trust in automation.
B. Literature Review Methodology
A literature review of empirical research on trust in automation (published anytime
between January 1, 2002 and June 31, 2013) was conducted in order to build on the previous
review conducted by Lee and See (2004). Using combinations of key terms such as “trust,
“reliance,” “automation,” “automated system,” and “decision support system,” an initial search
of eight library databases (PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PsycBOOKS, Engineering Village,
IEEE Xplore, Conference Index, Proquest dissertations and theses, and Scopus) yielded 1,981
records consisting of conference papers, journal articles, technical reports, dissertations, and
theses. All 1,981 records were screened for eligibility based on the following criteria:
1. The paper had to report the results of a novel human-subjects experiment.
2. In the experiment, participants had to interact with an automated system while
working to achieve a goal.
3. A relationship between trust (or a trust-related behavior) and another variable had to
be measured.
The initial search procedures led to the identification of 89 potentially eligible papers, which
were carefully evaluated based on their relevance to the topic, reported methodology, originality
Trust in Automation: Review
of findings, and source publication. That process led to the disqualification of 12 papers (most of
which were judged to be unoriginal in that they reported the results of an experiment already
discussed in a different paper), leaving a total of 77 eligible papers.
Keywords found in the 77 eligible papers were then used in a secondary Web search
(using Google and Google Scholar). Reference lists were also scanned to locate papers not found
in the Web searches. These secondary processes resulted in the identification of 24 additional
papers. Altogether, 101 papers, consisting of 127 unique studies (as several of the papers report
the results of multiple experiments), were included in the qualitative review. As the studies were
analyzed, several additional papers that did not meet eligibility requirements were added in order
to fill empirical research gaps. The additional papers, which are noted when introduced, all
studied trust in some way, but were not directly related to automation. Instead, they focused on
trust in e-commerce websites, social robots, or on-screen computer agents.
C. Empirical Research Overview
The 127 eligible studies employed a variety of different automated systems in diverse
experimental paradigms. As can be seen in Table 1, the most commonly studied systems were
combat identification aids, followed by general decision aids and fault
management/identification aids. Table 2 summarizes the most commonly studied categories of
automation (Parasuraman et al., 2000). As can be seen, the vast majority of studies (~75%)
utilized decision selection automation. This trend likely reflects the fact that decision selection
automation is typically more complex, and thus requires a high level of trust from operators.
Table 1. Types of Automated Systems Used in Eligible Studies
Type of System
Number of Studies (n=127)
Percent of Total
Combat identification aid
General decision aid
Trust in Automation: Review
Fault management/task monitoring aid
Automated weapons detector (luggage)
Target identification aid (non-combat)
Collision warning system
Route-planning system
Table 2. Categories of Automation Used in Eligible Studies
Category of Automation
Number of Studies (n=127)
Percent of Total
Decision Selection
Information Analysis
Action Implementation
Information Acquisition
Considerable variability also exists in how the eligible studies measured trust in
automation. Of the 127 studies included in the analysis, 34% (n = 43) measured trust by
assessing trusting behaviors (e.g., reliance on or compliance with automation), 4% (n = 5) used
self-report questionnaires, and 62% (n = 79) used both trusting behaviors and self-report
measures. One of the most commonly used self-report scales was developed by Jian, Bisantz,
Drury, and Llinas (2000). Their questionnaire was designed to represent twelve factors of trust
between humans and automation that were determined through a three-phased experiment. Other
researchers who used self-report measures designed their own trust scales (e.g., Merritt & Ilgen,
2008; Merritt, 2011) or measured related concepts, such as system confidence (e.g., Lerch,
Prietula, & Kulik, 1997).
In order to integrate the findings of the wide-ranging studies in this area, we consider
trust in a general sense. Our analysis builds towards a model of factors that influence trust in
automated systems. The model’s basic three-layered structure (see Figure 1 below) can be
applied to a variety of situations with different automated systems and human operators. The
next section examines the sources of variability in the formation and maintenance of trust in
Trust in Automation: Review
[Insert Figure 1.]
Our analysis revealed three broad sources of variability in human-automation trust: the
human operator, the environment, and the automated system. These variables respectively reflect
the three different layers of trust identified by Marsh and Dibben (2003): dispositional trust,
situational trust, and learned trust. Dispositional trust represents an individual’s enduring
tendency to trust automation. Situational trust, on the other hand, depends on the specific context
of an interaction. The environment exerts a strong influence on situational trust, but context-
dependent variations in an operator’s mental state can also alter situational trust. The final layer,
learned trust, is based on past experiences relevant to a specific automated system. Learned trust
is closely related to situational trust in that it is guided by past experience (Marsh & Dibben,
2003); the distinction between the two depends on whether the trust-guiding past experience is
relevant to the automated system (learned trust) or to the environment (situational trust). While
the three layers of trust are interdependent, they will be examined separately in this section,
beginning with dispositional trust.
A. Dispositional Trust
Trust in Automation: Review
Just as in the interpersonal domain, individuals exhibit a wide variability in their
tendency to trust automation. Unlike context-dependent characteristics such as mood and self-
confidence, dispositional variations can alter trust formation in every situation. Dispositional
trust represents an individual’s overall tendency to trust automation, independent of context or a
specific system. While research on the biology of trust has shown that genetics play an important
role in determining interpersonal trust propensity (Riedl & Javor, 2012), we use the term
dispositional trust to refer to long-term tendencies arising from both biological and
environmental influences. Thus, the defining characteristic of dispositional trust is that it is a
relatively stable trait over time, unlike situational and learned trust. Our review revealed four
primary sources of variability in this most basic layer of trust: culture, age, gender, and
personality (see Figure 2 below).
[Insert Figure 2.]
1) Culture: Culture is a particularly important variable, because it is something that
nearly everyone identifies with. In the interpersonal domain, substantial research has shown that
trust varies across countries, races, religions, and generational cohorts (e.g., Naef et al., 2008).
To date, however, very few studies have focused on the role of culture in trust in automation. In
one recent study, Huerta, Glandon, and Petrides (2012) found that Mexicans are more likely to
trust automated decision aids and less likely to trust manual decision aids, compared to
Americans. Several studies have also found cultural differences in how people perceive social
robots (Rau, Li, & Li, 2009; Li, Rau, & Li, 2010). While these studies suggest that culture-based
variables can be relevant to trust in automation, more research is needed.
Trust in Automation: Review
2) Age: Age differences in trust in automation may be the result of cognitive changes,
cohort effects, or some combination of both variables (Czaja & Sharit, 1998; Ho, Kiff, Plocher,
& Haigh, 2005). Several studies have found age to be a significant variable. Ho, Wheatley, and
Scialfa (2005) showed that older adults trust and rely on decision aids more than younger adults,
but they do not calibrate their trust any differently following automation errors. In contrast,
Sanchez, Fisk, and Rogers (2004) found that older adults were better at calibrating their trust to
the changing reliability of a decision support system. A recent study by Pak, Fink, Price, Bass,
and Sturre (2012) showed that adding a picture of a physician to the interface of a diabetes
management application led younger participants to place greater trust in the system’s advice,
but had no effect on older participants’ trust. Overall, this research and other findings (e.g., Ezer,
Fisk, & Rogers, 2007; Ezer, Fisk & Rogers, 2008; McBride, Rogers, & Fisk, 2010; McBride,
Rogers, & Fisk, 2011; McCarley, Wiegmann, Wickens, & Kramer, 2003) suggest that people of
different ages may employ different strategies when analyzing the trustworthiness of automated
systems. However, the specific effect of age likely varies in distinct contexts. (For a review of
age-related research, see Steinke, Fritsch, & Silbermann, 2012.)
3) Gender: Consistent gender differences have not yet surfaced in studies focused solely
on trust in automation. However, research has shown that gender can play a role in guiding
interactions with other types of technology. For example, E. J. Lee (2008) found that women are
susceptible to flattery from computers, while men display negative reactions to it. This
discrepancy, and gender-based research on human-robot interaction (e.g., Nomura, Kanda,
Suzuki, & Kato, 2008; Tung & Jacko, 2011), suggests that males and females may respond
differently to an automated system’s communication style and appearance. Thus, even though
Trust in Automation: Review
consistent differences have not been found, the prospective gender of an automated system’s
operator should be factored into the design process of certain systems.
4) Personality: An operator’s personality traits are the final component of dispositional
trust. In the interpersonal domain, dispositional trust is, itself, an enduring personality trait that
represents an individual’s tendency to trust other people throughout life. There are numerous
psychometric scales that measure this tendency (e.g., Rotter, 1980; Rempel et al., 1985), and
research has shown that it is a significant determinant of human behavior (Colquitt, Scott, &
LePine, 2007).
Several researchers have attempted to apply the dispositional trust construct to human-
automation interaction in an attempt to differentiate people based on their propensity to trust
automated systems. Biros, Fields, and Gunsch (2003) showed that participants with greater
dispositional trust in computers displayed more trust in information from an unmanned combat
aerial vehicle. In a later study, Merritt and Ilgen (2008) found that trust propensity predicted
participants’ post-task trust such that when an aid performed well, individuals with high levels of
trust propensity were more likely to place greater trust in the aid. Contrarily, when the aid
performed poorly, individuals with low levels of trust propensity were more likely to express
greater trust in the aid. These results suggest that individuals with high levels of dispositional
trust in automation are more inclined to trust reliable systems, but their trust may decline more
substantially following system errors.
Research has also found associations between several more specific personality traits and
trust. In terms of the big-five personality traits, Szalma and Taylor (2012) found that the trait of
neuroticism negatively correlated with agreement with correct automated advice. The researchers
found no other associations between personality and agreement with automation. Merritt and
Trust in Automation: Review
Ilgen (2008) showed that extroverts exhibit a greater propensity to trust machines than introverts
do. Mcbride, Carter, and Ntuen (2012) used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(MMPI) to show that nurses with an intuitive personality were more likely to accept diagnoses
from an automated decision aid than nurses with a sensing personality. These three studies
suggest that operators may be more likely to trust or rely upon automation when they are
extraverted, emotionally stable, and have intuitive rather than sensing personalities.
Overall, the research discussed in this section shows that significant individual
differences exist in the disposition of people to trust automated systems. While some of the
variables in this section can change gradually over time (e.g., cultural values, age, and
personality traits), they are generally stable within the course of a single interaction.
Dispositional trust therefore creates trust variance across interactions with different operators,
given that the situation and automated system do not change. In order to better accommodate the
trusting tendencies of diverse operators, system designers should consider implementing features
that can adapt to the preferences and tendencies of diverse individuals.
5) Future Research Directions: Future research is needed in several areas related to
dispositional trust in automation. To date, culture-based research is especially scarce, which is
problematic due to the wide diversity of people who use automation on a day-to-day basis.
Future studies would do well to examine how individuals from different nationalities, religions,
and ethnicities tend to trust and utilize automated systems. Along the same lines, more research
is needed on the influence of personality traits, especially those that have not yet been studied in
the context of automation (i.e., traits that are not assessed by the MMPI or big five measures).
Future studies could also reassess past findings regarding extraversion, neuroticism, and intuitive
vs sensing personalities (Mcbride et al., 2012; Merritt & Ilgen, 2008; Szalma & Taylor, 2012).
Trust in Automation: Review
For gender, future research should assess how male and female operators respond to specific
automation design features such as communication style and appearance.
The study of age-related changes should be expanded considerably as the use of
automation in hospitals, nursing homes, and extended care facilities is now quite common. Past
findings regarding age have been somewhat conflicting so future research would do well to
systematically examine age differences in trust with different types of automation in multiple,
distinct contexts. If possible, researchers should select automated systems that are used
frequently by people of varying ages for their studies. Only two of the eight age-related papers
identified by this review utilized automated systems that most people could encounter on an
everyday basis (Ho et al., 2005; Pak et al., 2012). Additionally, existing studies are limited in
that they have only analyzed differences between two separate age groups. Future studies might
provide new insight by recruiting participants from three or more generational cohorts.
In addition to the variables identified in this review (culture, age, gender, and
personality), there are likely other, still unidentified respects in which individual characteristics
moderate trusting tendencies with automation. Researchers should continue to explore new
dimensions related to dispositional trust in automation, such as the influence of cognitive factors
or socio-economic background. The next section examines situational trust and the context-
dependent factors that can alter trust.
B. Situational Trust
The development of trust, as well as its significance in regard to behavior, varies greatly
depending on the situation. (For specific predictions regarding the variability of trust in different
contexts, see the trust model proposed by Cohen, Parasuraman, and Freeman, 1998.) Our
Trust in Automation: Review
analysis revealed two broad sources of variability in situational trust: the external environment
and the internal, context-dependent characteristics of the operator. The corresponding factors
outlined in Figure 3 are important not only because they can directly influence trust, but also
because they help determine the degree of influence that trust has on behavior towards
[Insert Figure 3.]
1) External Variability: An operator’s trust in an automated system depends largely on
the type of system, its complexity, and the difficulty of the task for which it is used (e.g., Bailey
& Scerbo, 2007; Fan et al., 2008; Madhavan, Wiegmann, & Lacson, 2006; Parkes, 2009; Ross,
2008; Rovira, McGarry, & Parasuraman, 2007; Schwark, Dolgov, Graves, & Hor, 2010; Spain,
2009). Like people, machines have distinct strengths and weaknesses. Human operators take into
account the relative difficulty of tasks when evaluating the capabilities of automated systems to
complete them (Madhavan et al., 2006). However, problems can arise when operators fail to
recognize that a single system can perform inconsistently on two independent tasks, or that two
systems can perform variably on identical tasks. For example, in one experiment, participants
used two decision aids with either mixed reliability or uniform reliability in a video-based search
and rescue task. Participants rated the trustworthiness of the less reliable aid significantly higher
when it was paired with a more reliable aid, compared to when it was paired with an aid of the
same low reliability (Ross, 2008). This is one example of a perception bias that can occur due to
external situational factors (i.e., the presence of another decision aid).
Trust in Automation: Review
An operator’s workload often determines the amount of time and cognition that can be
spent monitoring automation. For that reason, workload is a significant variable that can alter the
dynamics of human-automation interaction. Empirical research has demonstrated that primary
task workload can affect both trusting behaviors (Daly, 2002; McBride et al., 2011; McGarry,
2007; Rajaonah, Tricot, Anceaux, & Millot, 2008) and self-reported trust (Biros, Daly, &
Gunsch, 2004; Wetzel, 2005; Willems & Heiney, 2002). In particular, higher workloads appear
to have a moderating effect on the positive relationship between trust and reliance (Biros et al.,
2004; Daly, 2002; Wetzel, 2005). The reason may be that under high workloads, operators must
use automation more often to maintain pace with task demands, regardless of their level of trust
(Biros et al., 2004). Other research has found that certain types of distractors (i.e., visual-spatial
and auditory-verbal) can cause reduced trust in automated decision aids, while other types of
distractors (i.e., visual-verbal and auditory-spatial) can actually increase trust (Phillips &
Madhavan, 2011). In one study, however, distractors had no effect on participants’ trust in a
collision warning system (Lees & Lee, 2007). These conflicting findings suggest that distractors
can be influential, but their effect, if any, depends on the degree to which they interfere with
system monitoring. If the presence of a distractor causes an operator to overlook an automation
error, trust may increase. On the other hand, distractors that do not significantly interfere with
system monitoring will likely have no effect on trust, or may cause trust to decline slightly (e.g.,
if automation errors become more salient).
The environment is also important because it helps define the potential risks and benefits
associated with the use of automation. Because trust is always relative to an uncertainty,
perceptions of risk play a critical role in the development of trust. Perkins, Miller, Hashemi, and
Burns (2010) found that participants trusted and used GPS route-planning advice less when
Trust in Automation: Review
situational risk increased through the presence of driving hazards. That finding and other
research (Ezer et al., 2008; Rajaonah et al., 2008) suggests that people tend to reduce their
reliance on automation when greater risk is involved. However, the reverse effect can occur
when the use of automation offers greater benefits and carries fewer potential risks. This can be
seen in Lyons and Stokes’s (2012) experiment, wherein participants were given assistance from
both a human aid and an automated tool in a decision-making task. The researchers discovered
that participants relied on the human aid less when making high-risk decisions, suggesting an
inclination towards automation.
The inconsistent findings discussed above may be attributable to variations in the type
and complexity of automation used in the different experiments. Whereas the automated aids that
were relied upon less under high-risk conditions provided decision-making advice or controlled
actions (Ezer et al., 2008; Perkins et al., 2008; Rajaonah et al., 2008), the automated tool that was
relied upon more under high-risk conditions simply displayed information (Lyons & Stokes,
2012). Thus, the participants in the latter experiment interacted with a more basic form of
automation compared to the participants in the former experiments. This suggests that under
high-risk conditions, operators may have a tendency to reduce their reliance on complex
automation, but increase their reliance on simple automation.
Trust also depends on the organizational setting of an interaction. For example, trusting
behavior towards automated decision aids varies depending on when the system presents its
advice (Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2005A) and the operator’s degree of personal investment in
unaided performance (Beck, Mckinney, Dzindolet, & Pierce, 2009). The trust formation process
used by individual operators may also vary when multiple teammates share responsibility for
monitoring automation. Groups can improve decision-making, but they are also subject to certain
Trust in Automation: Review
tendencies, like group polarization, groupthink, and social loafing. Such biases generally limit
dissent while promoting conformity. Pairing cognitively diverse operators as teammates may be
one method to improve group decision-making (Sauer, Felsing, Franke, & Rüttinger, 2006).
Further, the culture of a workplace is significant. The opinions and expectations of a single
coworker or supervisor can influence other operators’ attitudes towards automation. This effect
can be seen in a study by Workman (2005), in which social norms regarding the usage of an
automated system altered participants’ trusting behavior.
Several experiments have demonstrated that the framing of a task can be influential in the
trust formation process (Bisantz & Seong, 2001; Huerta et al., 2012; Rice, Trafimow, Clayton, &
Hunt, 2008). In one such experiment, different groups of participants were given different
reasons for why an automated decision aid might err. One group of participants was told that the
aid was subject to sabotage from enemy forces; another group was told that software and
hardware failures were common; and the control group was given no information about potential
causes for failures. Although the aid’s reliability was consistent across groups, the sabotage
group ended the experiment with less trust in the aid than the control group did (Bisantz &
Seong, 2001). This finding suggests that the presentation of a task can alter the cognitive
processes used by operators to evaluate the trustworthiness of automation.
The studies discussed in this section show how external environmental factors can alter
the dynamics of human-automation trust. However, external environmental factors are just one
part of situational trust; internal variations in factors such as self-confidence, expertise, mood,
and attentional capacity can also alter situational trust in automation.
2) Internal Variability: While dispositional trust covers the enduring traits of operators,
individuals also diverge in more transitory characteristics that depend on context. Self-
Trust in Automation: Review
confidence, which often varies across tasks, is a particularly influential variable that guides trust
formation (Lee & See, 2004). It also plays an important role in the decision-making processes
associated with control-allocation. For example, de Vries, Midden, and Bouwhuis (2003) found
that the interaction between trust and self-confidence predicted participants’ decisions to perform
a route-planning task manually or with assistance from an automated aid. When participants’
trust was high and self-confidence low, automation was utilized more frequently. The opposite
effect occurred when trust was low and self-confidence high; but overall, participants displayed a
slight tendency towards manual control. This finding suggests that when self-confidence and
trust are about equal, operators may prefer manual control (de Vries et al., 2003). A more
specific aspect of self-confidence is computer self-efficacy, which can be defined as “a judgment
of one’s ability to use a computer” (Dishaw, Strong, & Bandy, 2002, p. 1023). Research suggests
that this variable is positively associated with trust in automation (Madhavan & Phillips, 2010).
Subject matter expertise can also alter trust in automation. Expertise is usually the result
of extensive experience in one area, and often leads to greater self-confidence. Research has
shown that individuals with greater subject matter expertise are less likely to rely on automation
than novice operators are (Fan et al., 2008; Sanchez, Rogers, Fisk, & Rovira, 2011). For
example, in one experiment, young adults with experience operating agricultural vehicles were
more reluctant to rely on automated alarms during a collision avoidance task than were young
adults with little or no agricultural experience (Sanchez et al., 2011).
Although subject matter expertise often results from experience, it is not to be confused
with experience related to a specific automated system. Expertise here refers to an understanding
of a specific domain (e.g., operating agricultural vehicles). Knowledge relevant to a specific type
Trust in Automation: Review
of automated system (discussed in the Learned Trust section) can have an entirely different
effect on trust and reliance.
Affect is another factor that helps explain why trust develops inconsistently in different
contexts. Stokes et al. (2010) found that participants in positive moods expressed higher initial
trust in an automated decision aid. Preexisting moods influenced only initial trust in that
experiment, but Merritt (2011) found that participants who were implicitly primed to possess the
emotion of happiness were more likely to trust an automated weapons detector throughout her
experiment. While the two experiments above tested different variants of mood and came to
slightly different conclusions, they both suggest that an individual’s initial emotional state can
alter the trust formation process.
A final context-dependent variable related to trust is the attentional capacity of an
operator. Attentional capacity often depends on an operator’s workload, but other factors, such as
motivation, stress, sleep loss, and boredom, can be influential. A recent study by Reichenbach,
Onnasch, and Manzey (2011) tested the effects of sleep deprivation on human-automation
performance during a supervisory process control task. The researchers found that sleep-deprived
participants monitored the automated system more carefully and were less susceptible to
automation bias. However, those participants performed worse on a secondary task and were
more susceptible to errors when returning to manual control. This suggests that while sleep
deprived operators may be able to compensate for their fatigue by monitoring automation more
carefully, they are less capable of multi-tasking when doing so.
To summarize, situational trust in automation depends on both the external environment
and the internal, context-dependent characteristics of the human operator. The external factors
that can influence trust include system type, system complexity, the task for which a system is
Trust in Automation: Review
used, the potential risks and benefits of using automation, the organizational setting of an
interaction, the framing of a task, and the operator’s workload. The internal factors that can
impact trust include self-confidence, subject matter expertise, mood, and attentional capacity.
3) Situational Factors and the Relationship between Trust and Reliance: In addition to
directly influencing trust, situational factors play a leading role in determining the extent to
which trust influences behavior towards automation. Lee and See (2004) suggested that trust has
a greater impact on reliance when a system’s complexity is high and when unplanned events
occur that require operators to quickly adapt their behavior. In addition, the present review
identified two other environmental conditions that are likely to increase the positive relationship
between trust and reliance. (See Figure 4 below for a representation of environmental conditions
that may facilitate stronger relationships between trust and reliance.)
First, it seems that trust exerts a greater influence on reliance when the environment
provides operators with a greater ability to evaluate the performance of automation relative to
unaided manual performance. In other words, subjective trust levels may have a weaker effect on
reliance when operators are unable to determine the extent to which automation is actually
helping them perform a task. The findings from Spain’s (2009) dissertation illustrate this idea. In
the experiment, participants used a decision aid that displayed system confidence information
while performing a combat identification task with two levels of image quality: high and low.
Trust and compliance declined as a function of system confidence in the high image quality
condition, but not in the low image quality condition. Spain attributes this finding to the saliency
of automation errors in the different image quality conditions. When the image quality was high,
participants reported that is was easier for them to detect targets manually and therefore easier to
notice automation errors. When the image quality was low, however, participants had a more
Trust in Automation: Review
difficult time noticing automation errors (Spain, 2009). This study highlights the importance of
considering the environment in which a system will be used in order for designers, supervisors,
and operators to more effectively facilitate appropriate relationships between trust and reliance.
Decisional freedom is another environmental condition that, when present in higher
degrees, likely promotes stronger positive associations between trust and reliance. Decisional
freedom represents the extent to which operators are able to make thoughtful decisions about
how to best utilize automation. It can be influenced by a variety of situational factors such as task
difficulty, workload, organizational setting, subject matter expertise, mood, and attentional
capacity. In general, trust likely has a weaker effect on reliance in the presence of situational
factors that inhibit decisional freedom. For example, three studies identified by this review found
that the positive relationship between trust and reliance decreased under higher workloads (Biros
et al., 2004; Daly, 2002; Wetzel, 2005). This may be due to the fact that under high workloads,
operators sometimes have little choice but to use automation in order to keep up with task
demands (Biros et al., 2004).
[Insert Figure 4.]
4) Future Research Directions: There are several areas related to situational trust where
existing research is deficient. Future research is needed to confirm the trend identified by this
review that under high-risk conditions, operators have a tendency to reduce reliance on complex
automation, but increase reliance on simple automation. This tendency could be examined by
systematically assessing the effects of perceived risks on trust in different types of automation
with varying levels of control. Additionally, the existing research on distractors has produced
Trust in Automation: Review
somewhat conflicting results so researchers should continue to assess how different types of
distractors influence trust. In particular, experimental manipulations should focus on the degree
to which different distractors interfere with system monitoring and whether or not the attentional
interference causes fluctuations in trust.
Future studies could also provide new insight into the context-dependent internal factors
that guide trust formation. Specifically, research is needed to confirm the findings of a recent
study that suggests that operators may be more likely to monitor automation carefully when they
are sleep-deprived (Reichenbach et al., 2011). In addition, research could examine the effects of
related variables, such as stress, boredom, energy levels, and task motivation.
Researchers should also consider studying individual differences in trust in automation
while manipulating situational factors, such as the ones identified by this review. For example,
future studies could examine the relationships between specific cultural values or personality
traits and trust in situations with variable workloads or levels of risk. Likewise, studies could
look at how enduring traits (i.e., dispositional factors) combine with more transitory individual
characteristics (i.e., context-dependent situational factors) to guide the trust formation process.
Lastly, as the use of complex automation continues to spread into more everyday contexts
(e.g., smartphones, automobiles, homes, etc.), it will become increasingly important to study
factors that influence human-automation trust in real-world environments. Although
experimental manipulations typically become more difficult outside of the laboratory,
technology can make up for certain limitations by allowing for more advanced data collection
methods. For example, context-aware features of smartphones can be leveraged to passively
collect data about an individual’s mood, location, activity-level, social context, and more (Burns
et al., 2011). Technologies such as these could greatly improve existing research methods used to
Trust in Automation: Review
study trust in automation. The next section covers learned trust, which depends on characteristics
of the automated system rather than the environment.
C. Learned Trust
Humans are creatures of experience. Just as people do in interpersonal relationships,
operators use knowledge from past interactions with automation when assessing the
trustworthiness of novel systems. Learned trust represents an operator’s evaluations of a system
drawn from past experience or the current interaction. This layer of trust is directly influenced by
the operator’s preexisting knowledge and the automated system’s performance. Design features
of automation can also impact learned trust, but they do so indirectly, by altering perceptions of
system performance.
During the course of an interaction, an automated system may perform variably, and its
user’s trust will likely fluctuate to correspond with the system’s real-time performance. To
capture the interactive nature of this relationship, we divide learned trust into two categories:
initial and dynamic. Both forms of learned trust are relative to characteristics of the automated
system; however, initial learned trust represents trust prior to interacting with a system, while
dynamic learned trust represents trust during an interaction. This distinction can be seen in
Figure 5 below, which displays learned trust and its relationship with system reliance.
Another noteworthy feature of Figure 5 is the interdependent relationship between a
system’s performance, the operator’s dynamic learned trust, and his or her reliance on the
system. When the performance of an automated system impacts its user’s trust, the user’s
reliance strategy may change. In turn, the user’s reliance on the system can affect its
Trust in Automation: Review
performance, thus completing the cycle. (Note the dotted arrows in Figure 5, which represent
factors that can change within the course of a single interaction.)
[Insert Figure 5.]
1) Preexisting Knowledge: Before interacting with an automated system, an operator’s
trust may be biased by the system’s reputation. Numerous studies have shown that people
display a tendency to trust automation more when it is portrayed as a reputable or “expert”
system (de Vries & Midden, 2008; Lerch et al., 1997; Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007A; Spain,
2009). However, while reputable automation garners more initial trust from operators, this trust
may degrade faster when systems make noticeable errors (Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2005B).
Research has also shown that preexisting attitudes and expectations can alter the trust
formation process and subsequent usage decisions (Abe & Richardson, 2006; Ezer et al., 2007;
Mayer, Sanchez, Fisk, & Rogers, 2006; Mayer, 2008; Merritt, Heimbaugh, LaChapell, & Lee,
2012; Workman, 2005). For example, Merritt et al. (2012) studied the impact of implicit and
explicit attitudes towards automation on trust in an automated weapons detector that performed
variably across three conditions (clearly good, ambiguous, and clearly bad). Implicit attitudes,
differ from explicit attitudes in that they function purely through associations, and people are not
usually aware of them (Merritt et al., 2012). In their experiment, Merritt et al. found that the
interaction between implicit and explicit attitudes had an additive effect on trust in the
ambiguous and clearly bad conditions. When both implicit and explicit attitudes towards
Trust in Automation: Review
automation were positive, participants were more likely to express greater trust in the aid. This
finding provides evidence of an unconscious mechanism that guides the formation of trust in
automation. However, because research in this area is limited, future studies are needed to
further examine the role of implicit attitudes in guiding human-automation interaction.
Past experience with an automated system, or a similar technology, can significantly alter
the trust formation process. However, to understand the specific effect that experience has on
trust, one must distinguish between subject matter expertise (related to situational trust) and past
experience with automation (related to learned trust). An illustration of this distinction arises
from comparing the findings of two experiments focused on the effect of past experience on trust
in automation. In the first study, Yuliver-Gavish and Gopher (2011) found that participants relied
on a decision support system more after they gained experience using the system. At first, this
result may seem to oppose the findings of Sanchez et al. (2011), who found that experienced
farmers relied less on automation during a collision avoidance task (with an agricultural vehicle)
than participants with no farming experience. However, unlike the experienced participants in
Yuliver-Gavish and Gopher’s study, the experienced participants in Sanchez et al.’s study had
never before operated the specific type of automated alarm system used during the collision
avoidance task. Thus, the type of experience studied in Sanchez et al.’s experiment is better
classified as a situational factor, rather than a learned factor. This may help explain why past
experience led to reduced reliance in Sanchez et al.’s study, but increased reliance in Yuliver-
Gavish and Gopher’s experiment.
Although Yuliver-Gavish & Gopher’s (2011) study and several other experiments
indicate that past experience with automation (Manzey, Reichenbach, & Onnasch, 2012; Riley,
1996) or similar technology (e.g., video games, see Cummings, Clare, & Hart, 2010) provides
Trust in Automation: Review
operators with a greater tendency to trust or rely upon automation, other research has shown that
this is not always the case (Bailey & Scerbo, 2007). In fact, the opposite trend can occur if an
operator’s past involvement with an automated system was unproductive. Manzey et al. (2012)
showed that negative past experiences led to reduced trust in an automated fault identification
system. Regardless of its specific effect, past experience almost always plays a role in guiding
human-automation interaction. Experience is also significant because it can enhance an
operator’s understanding of an automated system’s purpose and process.
Opinions and knowledge about the purpose and process of automated systems help guide
the trust formation process. When operators lack knowledge about the purpose of a system or
how it functions, they will likely have a more difficult time accurately aligning their trust to a
system’s real-time reliability. This is particularly true when situational factors help determine a
system’s performance. For example, the trust formation process used by operators depends on
the extent to which they understand how the performance of automation varies in distinct
contexts and at different temporal phases (Cohen et al., 1998). Misperceptions about these
variables can lead to misuse, disuse, and/or abuse of automation. Training is one way to reduce
the likelihood of these behaviors. Research has shown that by training operators about an aid’s
actual reliability, it is possible to alter trust and reliance patterns (Cassidy, 2009; Koustanaï,
Cavallo, Delhomme, & Mas, 2012; Masalonis, 2003), facilitate better task performance
(Koustanaï et al., 2012; Wilkison, 2008), and reduce complacency (Manzey, Bahner, & Hueper,
2006). In addition to training, several studies have shown that decision aids designed to
supplement their decision-making with real-time confidence levels help users calibrate their trust
appropriately (Antifakos, Kern, Schiele, Schwaninger, 2005; McGuirl & Sarter, 2006). While
system confidence information does not explicitly reveal anything about purpose or process, it
Trust in Automation: Review
reminds operators that automation is imperfect and can only provide a “best guess” based on the
information available in a given situation.
The variables discussed in this section can bias operators’ trust before any interaction
with a system has occurred. Because preexisting knowledge does not usually change in the
course of a single interaction, it impacts only initial learned trust, not dynamic learned trust.
Once an operator begins interacting with a system, its performance can impact dynamic learned
trust, which can change drastically over the course of an interaction. However, perceptions of
performance depend largely on the manner in which information is presented to an operator.
Thus, the design features of automation are significant, because they can indirectly influence
trust by altering perceptions of system performance.
2) Design Features: Substantial research has shown that design features can alter trust in
automation. The appearance of automation is one important consideration. Computer interfaces
are often the primary visual component of systems. When this is the case, interfaces must be
thoughtfully arranged. Several e-commerce studies have shown that aesthetically pleasing
websites are trusted more than less attractive sites (Kim & Moon, 1998; Li & Yeh, 2010;
Wakefield, Stocks, & Wilder, 2004). Those findings prompted Weinstock, Oron-Gilad, and
Parmet (2012) to test the effect of system aesthetics on trust in an in-vehicle automated system.
Based on inconclusive results, Weinstock et al. suggested that aesthetic design may be less
relevant to trust in automation than to trust in e-commerce websites.
Nevertheless, other research suggests that the anthropomorphism of an interface can be a
significant variable (de Visser et al., 2012; Gong, 2008; Green, 2010; Pak et al., 2012). For
example, a recent study found that adding a picture of a physician to the interface of a diabetes
management application led younger participants to place greater trust in the system’s advice
Trust in Automation: Review
(Pak et al., 2012). Additionally, de Visser et al. (2012) found that increasing the
anthropomorphism of an automated aid caused participants to exhibit greater trust resilience (i.e.,
their trust declined less rapidly) following system errors. Taken together, these findings suggest
that increasing the humanness of systems may help reduce automation disuse with certain types
of automation. However, designers must consider the expected characteristics of potential users
(e.g., age, gender, culture), as anthropomorphizing an interface can impact the trust formation
process differently for diverse individuals (Pak et al., 2012).
The ease-of-use of a system must also be taken into account. Numerous e-commerce
studies have found a positive relationship between the ease-of-use of a website and consumer
trust (e.g., Gefen et al., 2003; Li & Yeh, 2010; Ou & Sia, 2010; Zhou, 2011). On the other hand,
surprisingly little research has studied this variable in the context of automation. Atoyan, Duquet,
and Robert (2006) showed that trust ratings of an Intelligent Data Fusion System (IDFS)
increased as the usability of the system improved through “giving better traceability of the
results, enhanced visual clarity, and effective feedback” (p. 120). The findings of this study are
limited, however, in that there were only six participants. Wang, Jamieson, and Hollands (2011)
may have indirectly studied ease-of-use by assessing the impact of design features on trust in a
combat identification aid. The researchers found that participants trusted the aid’s unknown
feedback more when it was displayed explicitly rather than implicitly. This suggests that
increasing the saliency of automated feedback can promote greater trust.
Automated systems can communicate with their users in a variety of ways. Different
modes of communication can lead operators to incongruent levels of trust in automation. For
example, some automated systems utilize verbal communication from embodied computer
agents, rather than basic text, in order to provoke feelings of human-human trust. However,
Trust in Automation: Review
research has revealed that people sometimes prefer text interfaces over anthropomorphic agents
(Gong, 2008). In order to promote trust, embodied computer agents must be carefully
constructed to appear both anthropomorphic and trustworthy (Gong, 2008). Results from one
study suggest that a computer agent’s eye movement, normality of form, and chin shape are
important variables that can impact trust (Green, 2010). Additionally, the gender of a computer
agent can be influential. E. J. Lee (2008) found that participants complied more to male
computer agents communicating via text than female agents. Overall, this body of research
suggests that an automated system’s communication style can be a important variable. In order to
promote appropriate trust in automation, designers should choose a mode of communication that
corresponds to the actual capabilities of a system.
Within a given mode of communication, automated systems can exhibit a wide range of
distinct “personalities.” Research has shown that certain artificially assigned traits can bias
operators’ trust. For example, Parasuraman and Miller (2004) found that instilling automation
with good etiquette, operationally defined as “a communication style that was ‘non-interruptive’
and ‘patient,’” led to greater trust and improved diagnostic performance (p. 54). In a later study,
Spain and Madhavan (2009) defined automation etiquette as “politeness.” By manipulating word
choice alone, the researchers elicited different levels of subjective trust in an automated aid.
These findings demonstrates the role of “automation personality” in guiding operators’ trust
Another influential variable is the transparency of automation. Transparency refers to the
degree to which “the inner workings or logic [used by] the automated systems are known to
human operators to assist their understanding about the system” (Seong & Bisantz, 2008, p. 611).
Numerous studies have shown that designing systems that provide users with accurate feedback
Trust in Automation: Review
about their reliability or how they operate can better facilitate appropriate trust (Dadashi,
Stedmon, & Pridmore, 2012; Gao & Lee, 2006; Jamieson, Wang, & Neyedli, 2008; Seong &
Bisantz, 2008; Wang, Jamieson, & Hollands, 2009) and improve human-automation task
performance (Bagheri & Jamieson, 2004; Bass, Baumgart, & Shepley, 2013; Bean, Rice, &
Keller, 2011; Beck, Dzindolet, & Pierce, 2007; Dzindolet, Pierce, Peterson, Purcell, & Beck,
2002; Oduor & Wiebe, 2008; Seppelt & Lee, 2007). For example, Seong and Bisantz (2008)
found that providing participants with cognitive feedback from a system (in the form of meta-
information) led to higher trust ratings in low-reliability automation, but lower trust ratings in
high-reliability automation. The authors attribute this outcome to the meta-information’s effect
of helping operators in the low-reliability condition ignore the aid when appropriate, and
reminding the operators in the high-reliability condition that the aid was imperfect (Seong &
Bisantz, 2008). In a similar study, Wang, Jamieson, and Hollands (2009) found that providing
operators with system reliability information can improve the appropriateness of trust. However,
displaying this information in different ways can alter reliance strategies and human-automation
performance (Lacson, Wiegmann, & Madhavan, 2005; Neyedli, Hollands, & Jamieson, 2011).
Finally, Dzindolet et al. (2003) showed that providing operators with explanations of why
automation failures occur can lead to increased trust. Overall, this research suggests that
designing transparent systems that provide accurate, useful feedback can reduce the frequency of
automation misuse and disuse.
Trust in automation also depends on the level of control the operator has over automated
functions (de Visser & Parasuraman, 2011; Rovira et al., 2007; Verberne, Ham, & Midden,
2012; Willems & Heiney, 2002). For example, a recent study showed that automation that takes
over functions while providing information to the operator (~level 7 automation) is perceived as
Trust in Automation: Review
more trustworthy than automation that takes over functions without providing any information to
the operator (~level 10 automation) (Verberne et al., 2012). This finding suggests that operators
may have a tendency to trust lower levels of complex automation more than higher levels.
Unfortunately, low-level automation often decreases efficiency through the added delays that
arise when a system provides information to its operator and then waits for input. Still, although
high-level automation can perform tasks quicker, human operators are taken “out-of-the-loop.
This means that operators cannot prevent errors in systems so instead they must be addressed
after they occur. Additionally, operators who are taken “out-of-the-loop” may become dependent
on automation to perform tasks and if failures occur, they will likely have a more difficult time
completing tasks manually. In order to determine an optimal level of control, designers should
consider the potential demands of the environment in which a system will likely be used.
In certain environments, adaptive automation can be an effective solution to the trade-off
regarding different levels of control. Adaptive automation offers the potential to improve both
the safety and efficiency of human-automation work systems by adapting its level of control to
match the needs of the current situation (de Visser & Parasuraman, 2011; Kaber & Endsley,
2004). Adaptive automation can also be useful because it can alter its behavior based on the
preferences of the user. For example, research suggests that operators with different levels of
attentional control may prefer distinct levels of automation (Thropp, 2006). In spite of the
potential benefits, adaptive automation is not always practical for use in the real world.
The present review identified five major design features which must be carefully
considered: appearance, ease-of-use, communication style, transparency, and level of control.
Table 3 below presents specific design recommendations for each of these features based on the
research discussed in this section. Readers with an interest in design are encouraged to revisit
Trust in Automation: Review
Lee and See’s (2004) review for more design principles.
Table 3. Design Recommendations for Creating Trustworthy Automation
Design Feature
Source of Empirical Support
de Visser et al. (2012); Pak et al.
E.J. Lee (2008)*; Pak et al.
Atoyan et al. (2006); Gefen et al.
(2003)**; Li & Yeh (2010)**; Ou
& Sia (2010)**; Zhou (2011)**
Wang et al. (2011)
Gong (2008)*; Green (2010)*;
E.J. Lee (2008)*
Parasuraman & Miller (2004);
Spain & Madhavan (2009)
Bagheri & Jamieson (2004); Bass
et al. (2013); Bean et al. (2011);
Beck et al. (2007); Dadashi et al.
(2012); Dzindolet et al. (2002);
Dzindolet et al. (2003); Gao &
Lee (2006); Jamieson et al.
(2008); Oduor & Wiebe (2008);
Seong & Bisantz (2008); Seppelt
& Lee (2007); Wang et al. (2009)
Lacson et al. (2005); Neyedli et
al. (2011)
Madhavan et al., 2006; Manzey et
al., 2012; Sanchez, 2006
Level of Control
Verberne et al. (2012)
Thropp (2006)
Note: *indicates study on trust in embodied computer agents; **indicates study on trust in websites
3) Performance: Trust depends on results. Substantial research has shown that human
operators adjust their trust in automation to reflect its real-time performance. Several different
Trust in Automation: Review
aspects of performance have been studied. First, numerous studies have shown that the reliability
and validity of an automated system’s functions are important antecedents of trust (Bailey &
Scerbo, 2007; de Visser & Parasuraman, 2011; Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007A; Oduor &
Campbell, 2007; Seong & Bisantz, 2008; Ross, 2008; Ross, Szalma, Hancock, Barnett, &
Taylor, 2008; Sanchez et al., 2004; Wetzel, 2005). Reliability refers to the consistency of an
automated system’s functions, while validity refers to the degree to which an automated system
performs the intended task. The predictability and dependability of automation are also
important. Predictability refers to the extent to which automation performs in a manner
consistent with the operator’s expectations, while dependability refers to the frequency of
automation breakdowns or error messages (Merritt & Ilgen, 2008). Research has shown that
operators trust automated systems more when they are highly predictable and dependable (Biros
et al., 2004; Merritt & Ilgen, 2008).
When automation failures occur, distinct error types can have different effects on trust
and subsequent trusting behaviors. In particular, research has shown that false alarms (when
systems incorrectly alert operators to the presence of a signal) and misses (when automation fails
to detect a true signal) generally have different effects on trust-dependent behaviors (Sanchez,
2006). Importantly, false alarms call for compliance (operators must assume that a signal is
present), while misses require reliance (operators must assume that a signal is absent). This
distinction is significant because numerous studies have found that false-alarm-prone automation
reduces operator compliance more than reliance, while miss-prone automation reduces reliance
more than compliance (Davenport & Bustamante, 2010; Dixon, 2007; Dixon & Wickens, 2006;
Levinthal & Wickens, 2006; Rice, 2009). It is important to note, however, that compliance and
reliance are not completely independent of each other (Dixon, Wickens, & McCarley, 2007).
Trust in Automation: Review
In addition to their distinctive influences on trust-dependent behavior, false alarms and
misses may affect subjective feelings of trust differently. One potential reason for this is that
false alarms are usually more salient than misses and require the operator to put effort into
unnecessary investigations. As a result, false alarms may have a greater negative impact on trust
than misses. While some research has supported this hypothesis (Johnson, 2004), other research
suggests that false alarms and misses have similar effects (Madhavan et al., 2006; Rovira &
Parasuraman, 2010). Additionally, at least two studies have found that participants trusted false-
alarm-prone automation more than miss-prone automation (Stanton, Ragsdale, & Bustamante,
2009; Davenport & Bustamante, 2010). Overall, the specific impact that false alarms and misses
have on trust likely depends on the negative consequences associated with each error type in a
specific context. For example, while a false alarm from a carbon monoxide detector is a minor
inconvenience, a miss can result in death. In this case, misses will likely cause greater damage to
trust than false alarms will. The relative influence of other types of automation failures, such as
breakdowns and error messages, have yet to be determined.
The negative effect that automation errors have on trust also depends on the timing of the
error and the relative difficulty associated with the error. Research has shown that automation
errors that occur early in the course of an interaction have a greater negative impact on trust than
errors occurring later (Manzey et al., 2012; Sanchez, 2006). This suggests that first impressions
with automation are important, and early errors can have a lasting impact on the trust formation
process. This may be particularly true in dealings with unfamiliar automation, because a
system’s initial performance is the primary basis for trust. In addition, automation failures on
tasks perceived as “easy” have a greater negative impact on trust than errors on tasks perceived
as “difficult” (Madhavan et al., 2006). Human operators may be less willing to trust automation
Trust in Automation: Review
after “easy” failures because of an assumption that machines and humans process information in
similar ways. Thus, operators may assume that if an automated system is incapable of
performing a seemingly basic function, it will not be able to perform complex tasks either. In
order to prevent automation disuse stemming from early or “easy” automation errors, system
designers should consider providing operators with additional feedback after these types of errors
The usefulness of an automated system is the final performance-based variable that can
influence trust. Trust in automation is always relative to a task that the operator wants performed.
If an operator realizes that using automation to perform a task actually makes the task more
arduous, he or she will likely see no need to use and therefore trust automation. Thus, automation
must first prove itself useful to operators in order for trust to be at stake. Little empirical research
has studied usefulness directly. However, Parkes (2009) found that participants relied more on
advice from a decision support system when they perceived it as useful. Additionally, in two
separate studies, Abe and Richardson (2004, 2006) showed that drivers trusted a collision
warning system significantly less when the system provided alarms after braking had already
been initiated. The reduction in trust may have been the result of the late alarms’ providing
weaker benefits to drivers.
The research discussed in this section shows how operators adjust their trust in
automation to correspond to its ongoing performance. Although trust is largely dependent on
performance, the trust formation process also depends on situational factors, the design features
of automation, the operator’s dispositional trust and preexisting knowledge. Within the context
of a single interaction, most of those variables are stable, while performance is not.
This distinction can be seen in both Figure 5 above and Figure 6 below, wherein initial
Trust in Automation: Review
learned trust represents trust factors that do not change within a single interaction, while
dynamic learned trust reflects the variable nature of trust. An operator’s initial learned trust helps
determine his or her initial reliance strategy. The degree to which a system is initially relied upon
can affect its subsequent performance. The performance of a system can then impact its
operator’s dynamic learned trust. If this occurs, the operator’s reliance strategy may change,
which will likely affect the system’s future performance. This interdependent relationship
exemplifies the dynamic nature of trust in automation.
4) Situational Factors Not Related to Trust: Although both initial and dynamic learned
trust influence reliance on automation, they are not the only contributing factors. Lee and See
(2004) explain, “trust guides—but does not completely determine—reliance” (p. 51). Additional
situational factors, such as the level of effort required to engage a system, the alternatives to
using automation, time constraints, and the operator’s situational awareness and physical well-
being, can guide reliance without necessarily impacting trust. For example, Rice and Keller
(2009) showed that participants were more likely to comply with a diagnostic aid when their
decision time was reduced. Thus, an operator’s degree of decisional freedom, as well as other
situational factors, can sway the undercurrents of the interdependent relationship among trust,
reliance, and performance.
[Insert Figure 6.]
Trust in Automation: Review
5) Future Research Directions: Although considerable research has studied factors
related to learned trust, there are numerous areas where future studies can build on existing
knowledge and provide new insight. For preexisting knowledge, more research is needed to
discern the relative influence that different types of past experience have on trust and reliance.
The present review identified the discrepancy between domain experience (a situational trust
factor) and system experience (a learned trust factor) to be an important distinction, but studies
have yet to examine the effects of other types of past experience (e.g., positive vs negative
experience) in much detail. Additionally, scarce research has examined how cultural differences
in expectations and knowledge regarding automation can impact trust and reliance behaviors.
There are several areas related to design where existing research is lacking. The present
review identified thirty-three studies in which design features were experimentally manipulated,
but only four of these studies utilized automated systems that most people might encounter on a
day-to-day basis, independent of their occupation (Pak et al., 2012; Seppelt & Lee, 2007;
Verberne et al., 2012; Weinstock et al., 2012). In contrast, eighteen of these studies utilized
combat or target identification aids. This trend is noteworthy because complex automated
systems with critical functionalities are becoming increasingly relied upon outside of work
settings. Future studies should address this transition by examining the design implications of
more diverse automation, such as medical technology, smart home interfaces, and information
management systems.
Additionally, more research is needed on the impact of system aesthetics on trust in
automation. Although aesthetics have been shown to quite influential in promoting trust in e-
commerce websites (Kim & Moon, 1998; Li & Yeh, 2010; Wakefield, Stocks, & Wilder, 2004),
the one study that looked at this variable in the context of route-planning automation did not find
Trust in Automation: Review
any significant effects (Weinstock et al., 2012). Likewise, e-commerce research suggests that
ease-of-use could be influential in guiding operators’ trust in automated systems (Gefen et al.,
2003; Li & Yeh, 2010; Ou & Sia, 2010; Zhou, 2011), but the one study that directly looked at
this variable in the context of automation only had six participants (Atoyan et al., 2006). In
addition, future studies are needed to determine how design features interact with dispositional
factors (e.g., age, culture, gender, and personality) to guide the trust formation process.
Researchers should consider evaluating tendencies in how diverse individuals trust automated
systems with different communication styles, degrees of anthropomorphism, and levels of
control. Expanding this type of research is crucial in order to aid designers in building more
adaptable systems that can alter their behavior based on user preferences.
Future studies are also needed to provide new insight into the interdependent
relationships between operator trust, operator reliance, and system performance. In particular,
studies should look at factors that affect the strength of these relationships. Findings from the
present review suggest that trust and reliance are more strongly positively correlated when
operators have greater decisional freedom and when information about an automated system’s
performance relative to unaided manual performance is available for a given task.
Researchers should also consider studying how operators naturally react to preplanned
automation breakdowns and error messages because these types of failures have yet to be studied
in much detail. Most of the existing research on error types has focused on the differential effects
of automation false alarms and automation misses on trust, reliance, and compliance. The present
review identified twelve studies on this topic, but a consistent trend regarding the relative
influence of false alarms versus misses on trust was not found. Rather, it seems that the degree of
influence depends on the consequences of each error type in a given environment. Future studies
Trust in Automation: Review
could investigate this hypothesis further by systematically manipulating the negative
consequences of false alarms versus misses in multiple experimental tasks.
The purpose of this paper was to review and synthesize findings from recent research on
human-automation trust and reliance. Through a systematic review process of academic literature
from January 2002-June 2013, we identified 101 empirical papers on the topic, consisting of 127
separate studies. Our analysis led to the construction of a model that conceptualizes the various
factors that influence trust and reliance using a layered approach. As displayed in the model (See
Figure 6), the complexities of trust can be reduced to three broad layers of variability:
dispositional trust, situational trust, and learned trust. Distinct factors influence each layer, but
any given operator’s trust in an automated system is a compilation of the operator’s trusting
tendencies, the situation, and the operator’s perceptions of the system. This framework can serve
as a useful guide for future research into the intricacies of trust in automation. It can also be
applied to help develop training interventions and design procedures that encourage appropriate
trust. (See Table 3 for specific design recommendations.)
Although trust is a particularly influential variable that guides human reliance on
automation, its degree of influence depends on a number of situational factors. For example,
findings from the present review suggest that trust may carry less meaning in situations where
operators have minimal decisional freedom or are unable to effectively compare the performance
of automation to unaided manual performance. Additionally, trust tends to have less of an effect
on reliance in anticipated situations and when operators are able to fully understand automation
Trust in Automation: Review
(Lee & See, 2004). These environmental conditions are important to consider in order to more
accurately gauge the extent to which an operator’s trust in an automation system will affect his or
her reliance on the system in a specific setting. (See Figure 4 for a representation of these
environmental conditions.)
Due to the wide variety of experimental paradigms included in this analysis, it is rather
difficult to hypothesize about the relative influence that each layer has on trust in automation.
However, a recent meta-analysis of factors that affect trust in human-robot interactions offers
some insight. Hancock et al. (2011) quantitatively examined the relative weight of human,
environmental, and robot-related factors that influence human-robot trust. In their meta-analysis
of eleven experimental studies, the authors found trust to be most influenced by characteristics of
the robot, followed by characteristics of the environment. Human-related trust factors were found
to be the least significant, but the authors attributed this finding to the shortage of experiments
focused on individual differences. In the context of automation, research on dispositional trust is
also somewhat scarce compared to research on situational and learned trust. Nevertheless, the
existing research on dispositional trust is vast enough to show that individual differences are
important to consider and should be the focus of more research in the coming years. More
specific directions for future research on dispositional trust, as well as situational and learned
trust, are discussed at the end of each corresponding subsection.
Automation offers tremendous potential to improve the safety and efficiency of countless
processes. Already, humans rely on the proper functioning of numerous automated systems on a
day-to-day basis. This dependency is constantly increasing and will only grow further in the
coming years as our society becomes increasingly modernized. In order to promote the proper
use of automation and minimize the frequency of related accidents, trust formation should be
Trust in Automation: Review
viewed as a dynamic process guided by a complex interaction of factors stemming from three
interdependent layers of variability: dispositional trust, situational trust, and learned trust.
Key Points
Recent empirical research on factors that influence trust in automation was
systematically reviewed leading to the construction of a trust model based on three
interdependent layers of variability (dispositional trust, situational trust, and
learned trust)
Designers can better facilitate appropriate trust by providing users with ongoing
feedback concerning the reliability of automation and the situational factors that
affect its performance
In order to promote greater trust and discourage automation disuse, designers
should consider increasing an automated system’s degree of anthropomorphism,
transparency, politeness, and ease-of-use
The strength of the relationship between trust and reliance depends on the
complexity of automation, the novelty of the situation, the operator’s ability to
compare manual to automated performance, and the operator’s degree of decisional
Future research directions are suggested for each trust layer based on gaps, trends,
and patterns found in existing research
Trust in Automation: Review
Kevin Hoff is a research assistant at the Information Trust Institute at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. He received a Bachelor of Science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign in 2012.
Dr. Masooda Bashir is an Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Library and Information
Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Dr. Bashir also has appointments at
the Coordinated Science laboratory and directs social science research at the College of
Engineering. Dr. Bashir’s areas of research interests lie at the interface of IT, Psychology, and
Society, especially how privacy, trust, and security factors intersect from a psychological point
of view with information technology.
Trust in Automation: Review
Abe, G., & Richardson, J. (2004). The effect of alarm timing on driver behaviour: an
investigation of differences in driver trust and response to alarms according to alarm
timing. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 7(4), 307-
Abe, G., & Richardson, J. (2006). Alarm timing, trust and driver expectation for forward
collision warning systems. Applied ergonomics, 37(5), 577-586.
Antifakos, S. Kern, N., Schiele, B. & Schwaninger, A. (2005). Towards improving trust in
context-aware systems by displaying system confidence. Proceedings of Mobile HCI
2005, 9-14.
Atoyan, H., Duquet, J. R., & Robert, J. M. (2006, April). Trust in new decision aid systems.
Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Association Francophone
d'Interaction Homme-Machine, 115-122. New York, NY: ACM.
Bagheri, N., & Jamieson, G. A. (2004, October). The impact of context-related reliability on
automation failure detection and scanning behaviour. 2004 IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1, 212-217.
Bailey, N. R., & Scerbo, M. W. (2007). Automation-induced complacency for monitoring highly
reliable systems: the role of task complexity, system experience, and operator trust.
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(4), 321-348.
Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Bass, E. J., Baumgart, L. A., & Shepley, K. K. (2013). The effect of information analysis
automation display content on human judgment performance in noisy
environments. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 7(1), 49-65.
Bean, N. H., Rice, S. C., & Keller, M. D. (2011, September). The Effect of Gestalt Psychology
on the System-Wide Trust Strategy in Automation. Proceedings of the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55(1), 1417-1421.
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: The Journal of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49(3), 429-437.
Beck, H. P., McKinney, J. B., Dzindolet, M. T., & Pierce, L. G. (2009). Effects of Human-
Machine Competition on Intent Errors in a Target Detection Task. Human Factors: The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 51(4), 477-486.
Biros, D. P., Daly, M., & Gunsch, G. (2004). The influence of task load and automation trust on
deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(2), 173-189.
Trust in Automation: Review
Biros, D. P., Fields, G., & Gunsch, G. (2003, January). The effect of external safeguards on
human-information system trust in an information warfare environment. Proceedings of
the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 10.
Bisantz, A. M., & Seong, Y. (2001). Assessment of operator trust in and utilization of automated
decision-aids under different framing conditions. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 28(2), 85–97.
Burns et al. (2011). Harnessing context sensing to develop a mobile intervention for
depression. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(3).
Cassidy, A. M. (2009). Mental models, trust, and reliance: Exploring the effect of human
perceptions on automation use. (Unpublished Masters Thesis). Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey CA.
Cohen, M. S., Parasuraman, R., & Freeman, J. (1998). Trust in decision aids: A model and a
training strategy. Proceedings of the Command and Control Research and Technology
Symposium, Washington DC.
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. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909.
Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-line trust: concepts, evolving
themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,58(6), 737-758.
Cummings, M. L., Clare, A., & Hart, C. (2010). The role of human-automation consensus in
multiple unmanned vehicle scheduling. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society, 52(1), 17-27.
Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (1998). Age differences in attitudes toward computers. The Journals of
Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53(5), 329-340.
Dadashi, N., Stedmon, A. W., & Pridmore, T. P. (2012). Semi-automated CCTV surveillance:
The effects of system confidence, system accuracy and task complexity on operator
vigilance, reliance and workload. Applied Ergonomics, 44(5), 730-738.
Daly, M. A. (2002). Task Load and Automation Use in an Uncertain Environment. (Masters
Thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Davenport, R. B., & Bustamante, E. A. (2010, September). Effects of False-Alarm vs. Miss-
Prone Automation and Likelihood Alarm Technology on Trust, Reliance, and
Compliance in a Miss-Prone Task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society Annual Meeting, 54(19), 1513-1517.
Trust in Automation: Review
de Visser et al. (2012, September). The World is not Enough: Trust in Cognitive Agents.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56(1), 263-
de Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011). Adaptive Aiding of Human-Robot Teaming Effects
of Imperfect Automation on Performance, Trust, and Workload. Journal of Cognitive
Engineering and Decision Making, 5(2), 209-231.
de Vries, P., & Midden, C. (2008). Effect of indirect information on system trust and control
allocation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27(1), 17-29.
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.
Deutsch, M. (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human
Relations, 13, 123–139.
Dimoka, A. (2010). What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? Evidence from a
functional neuroimaging study. MIS Quarterly, 34, 373–396.
Dishaw, M. T., Strong, D. M., & Bandy, D. B. (2002, August). Extending the task-technology fit
model with self-efficacy constructs. Eighth Americas Conference on Information
Systems, 1021-1027.
Dixon, S. R. (2007). Imperfect diagnostic automation: How adjusting bias and saliency affects
operator trust. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Dixon, S. R., & Wickens, C. D. (2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle
control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload.
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48(3), 474-
Dixon, S. R., Wickens, C. D., & McCarley, J. S. (2007). On the independence of compliance and
reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses? Human Factors: The Journal of
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49(4), 564-572.
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–
Dzindolet, M., Pierce, L., Peterson, S., Purcell, L., & Beck, H. (2002, September). The influence
of feedback on automation use, misuse, and disuse. Proceedings of the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 46(3), 551-555.
Trust in Automation: Review
Engell, A. D., Haxby, J. V., & Todorov, A. (2007). Implicit trustworthiness decisions: Automatic
coding of face properties in human amygdala. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19,
Ezer, N., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2007, October). Reliance on automation as a function of
expectation of reliability, cost of verification, and age. Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 51(1), 6-10.
Ezer, N., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2008). Age-related differences in reliance behavior
attributable to costs within a human-decision aid system. Human Factors: The Journal of
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(6), 853-863.
Fan et al. (2008, January). The influence of agent reliability on trust in human-agent
collaboration. In Proceedings of the 15th European conference on Cognitive ergonomics:
the ergonomics of cool interaction. Paper presented at ECCE, Madeira, Portugal (7). New
York, NY: ACM.
Faulty reading helped cause dutch plane crash. (2009, March 04). CNN Europe. Retrieved from
Gao, J., & Lee, J. D. (2006, October). Effect of Shared Information on Trust and Reliance in a
Demand Forecasting Task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Annual Meeting, 50(3), 215-219.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an
integrated model. MIS quarterly, 51-90.
Gong, L. (2008). How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of
anthropomorphism in computer representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4),
Green, B. D. (2010). Applying human characteristics of trust to animated anthropomorphic
software agents (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Hancock, P.A., Billings, D. R., Oleson, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., de Visser, E., & Parasuraman, R.
(2011). A meta-analysis of factors impacting trust in human-robot interaction. Human
Factors, The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(5), 517-527.
Hardin, R. (2006). Trust. Cambridge, England: Polity.
Ho, G., Kiff, L. M., Plocher, T., & Haigh, K. Z. (2005). A model of trust and reliance of
automation technology for older users. In The AAAI 2005 Fall Symposium on Caring
Machines, (45-50). Washington, DC.
Trust in Automation: Review
Ho, G., Wheatley, D., & Scialfa, C. T. (2005). Age differences in trust and reliance of a
medication management system. Interacting with Computers, 17, 690-710.
Hoffman, R. R., Lee, J. D., Woods, D. D., Shadbolt, N., Miller, J., & Bradshaw, J. M. (2009).
The dynamics of trust in cyberdomains. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 24(6), 5-11.
Huerta, E., Glandon, T., & Petrides, Y. (2012). Framing, decision-aid systems, and culture:
Exploring influences on fraud investigations. International Journal of Accounting
Information Systems, 13(4), 316-333.
Jamieson, G. A., Wang, L., & Neyedli, H. F. (2008, March). Developing Human-Machine
Interfaces to Support Appropriate Trust and Reliance on Automated Combat
Identification Systems. Toronto, Canada: Department of National Defence.
Jian, J. Y., Bisantz, A. M., Drury, C. G, & Llinas, J. (2000). Foundations for an empirically
determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive
Ergonomics, 4(1), 53-71.
Johnson, J. D. (2004). Type of automation failure: The effects on trust and reliance in
automation (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Kaber, D. B., & Endsley, M. R. (2004). The effects of level of automation and adaptive
automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic
control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(2), 113-153.
Kim, J. & Moon, J.Y. (1998). Designing towards emotional usability in customer interfaces --
trustworthiness of cyber-banking system interfaces. Interaction with computers, 10, 1-29.
Koustanaï, A., Cavallo, V., Delhomme, P., & Mas, A. (2012). Simulator Training With a
Forward Collision Warning System Effects on Driver-System Interactions and Driver
Trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society, 54(5), 709-721.
Lacson, F. C., Wiegmann, D. A., & Madhavan, P. (2005, September). Effects of attribute and
goal framing on automation reliance and compliance. Proceedings of the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 49(3), 482-486.
Lee, E.-J. (2008). Flattery May Get Computers Somewhere, Sometimes: the Moderating Role of
Output Modality, Computer Gender, and User Gender. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 66, 789–800.
Lee, J. D. & Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human
machine systems. Ergonomics, 22, 671–691.
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Human
Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50–80.
Trust in Automation: Review
Lees, M. N., & Lee, J. D. (2007). The influence of distraction and driving context on driver
response to imperfect collision warning systems. Ergonomics, 50(8), 1264-1286.
Lerch, F. J., Prietula, M. J. & Kulik, C. T. (1997). The Turing effect: the nature of trust in expert
system advice. In Expertise in Context: Human and Machine, (pp. 417–448). Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Levinthal, B. R., & Wickens, C. D. (2006, October). Management of multiple UAVs with
imperfect automation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Annual Meeting, 50(17), 1941-1944.
Levs, J. (2012, January). What caused the cruise ship disaster? CNN. Retrieved September 23,
2012 from
Li, D., Rau, P. P., & Li, Y. (2010). A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task.
International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(2), 175-186.
Li, Y. M., & Yeh, Y. S. (2010, July). Increasing trust in mobile commerce through design
aesthetics. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 673–684.
Lyons, J. B., & Stokes, C. K. (2012, February). Human–human reliance in the context of
automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society, 54(1), 112-121.
Madhavan, P., & Phillips, R. R. (2010). Effects of computer self-efficacy and system reliability
on user interaction with decision support systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2),
Madhavan, P., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2005A). Cognitive anchoring on self-generated decisions
reduces operator reliance on automated diagnostic aids. Human Factors: The Journal of
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 47(2), 332-341.
Madhavan, P., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2005B). Effects of Information Source, Pedigree, and
Reliability on Operators' Utilization of Diagnostic Advice. Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 49(3), 487-491.
Madhavan, P., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2007A). Effects of information source, pedigree, and
reliability on operator interaction with decision support systems. Human Factors: The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49(5), 773-785.
Madhavan, P., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2007B). Similarities and differences between human-human
and human-automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics
Science, 8, 277–301.
Trust in Automation: Review
Madhavan, P., Wiegmann, D. A., & Lacson, F. C. (2006). Automation failures on tasks easily
performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids. Human Factors: The Journal
of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48(2), 241-256.
Manzey, D., Bahner, J. E., & Hueper, A. D. (2006, October). Misuse of automated aids in
process control: Complacency, automation bias and possible training interventions.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(3), 220-
Manzey, D., Reichenbach, J., & Onnasch, L. (2012). Human Performance Consequences of
Automated Decision Aids The Impact of Degree of Automation and System
Experience. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 6(1), 57-87.
Marsh, S., & Dibben, M. R. (2003). The role of trust in information science and technology.
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 465–498.
Masalonis, A. J. (2003, October). Effects of training operators on situation-specific automation
reliability. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2, 1595-
Mayer, A. (2008). The manipulation of user expectancies: Effects on reliance, compliance, and
trust using an automated system. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta.
Mayer, A. K., Sanchez, J., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2006, October). Don't Let Me Down:
The Role of Operator Expectations in Human-Automation Interaction. Proceedings of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(21), 2345-2349.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
McBride, M., Carter, L., & Ntuen, C. (2012). The impact of personality on nurses' bias towards
automated decision aid acceptance. International Journal of Information Systems and
Change Management, 6(2), 132-146.
McBride, S. E., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2010). Do Younger and Older Adults
Differentially Depend on an Automated System? Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 54(2), 175-179.
McBride, S. E., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2011). Understanding the effect of workload on
automation use for younger and older adults. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(6), 672-686.
McCarley, J. S., Wiegmann, D. A., Wickens, C. D., & Kramer, A. F. (2003, October). Effects of
age on utilization and perceived reliability of an automated decision-making aid for
luggage screening. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Trust in Automation: Review
Meeting, 47(3), 340-343.
McGarry, K. A. (2007). Effects of false alarms and misses on reliance, compliance, and attention
when using an automated warning system. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
McGuirl, J. M., & Sarter, N. B. (2006). Supporting trust calibration and the effective use of
decision aids by presenting dynamic system confidence information. Human Factors:
The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48, 656-665.
Merritt, S. M. (2011). Affective processes in human-automation interactions. Human Factors:
The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(4), 356-370.
Merritt, S. M., Heimbaugh, H., LaChapell, J., & Lee, D. (2012). I Trust It, But I Don’t Know
Why Effects of Implicit Attitudes Toward Automation on Trust in an Automated
System. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
55(3), 520-534.
Merritt, S. M., & Ilgen, D. R. (2008). Not all trust is created equal: Dispositional and history-
based trust in human–automation interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50, 194–210.
Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Carney, P. (1999). Are People Polite to Computers? Responses to
Computer-Based Interviewing Systems. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5),
Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994, April). Computers are social actors. Proceedings of
the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM.
Naef, M., E. Fehr, U. Fischbacher, J. Schupp, and G. Wagner. (2008). Decomposing Trust:
Explaining National and Ethnical Trust Differences. Working Paper, Institute for
Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.
Neyedli, H. F., Hollands, J. G., & Jamieson, G. A. (2011). Beyond identity: Incorporating system
reliability information into an automated combat identification system. Human Factors:
The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(4), 338–355.
Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Kato, K. (2008). Prediction of Human Behavior in Human-
-Robot Interaction Using Psychological Scales for Anxiety and Negative Attitudes
Toward Robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 24(2), 442-451.
Oduor, K. F., & Campbell, C. S. (2007, March). Deciding when to trust automation in a policy-
based city management game: policity. In Proceedings of the 2007 symposium on
Computer human interaction for the management of information technology. Paper
presented at CHIMIT, Cambridge, MA (pp. 2). New York, NY: ACM.
Trust in Automation: Review
Oduor, K. F., & Wiebe, E. N. (2008, September). The Effects of Automated Decision Algorithm
Modality and Transparency on Reported Trust and Task Performance. Proceedings of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 52(4), 302-306.
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.
Pak, R., Fink, N., Price, M., Bass, B., & Sturre, L. (2012). Decision support aids with
anthropomorphic characteristics influence trust and performance in younger and older
adults. Ergonomics, 55(9), 1059-1072.
Parasuraman, R. & Miller, C. A. (2004). Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated
systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 51-55.
Parasuraman, R. & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse,
abuse. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society, 39(2), 230-253.
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B. & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of
human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 286–297.
Parkes, A. (2009, July). Persuasive Decision Support: Improving Reliance on Decision Support
Systems. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 4(3), 1-13.
Perkins, L., Miller, J. E., Hashemi, A., & Burns, G. (2010, September). Designing for Human-
Centered Systems: Situational Risk as a Factor of Trust in Automation. Proceedings of
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 54(25), 2130-2134.
Phillips, R. R., & Madhavan, P. (2011). The effect of distractor modality and processing code on
human-automation interaction. Cognition, Technology & Work, 13(4), 233-244.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, statement, and settlement. New
York: Random House.
Rajaonah, B., Tricot, N., Anceaux, F., & Millot, P. (2008). The role of intervening variables in
driver–ACC cooperation. International journal of human-computer studies, 66(3), 185-
Rau, P. L., Li, Y., & Li, D. (2009). Effects of communication style and culture on ability to
accept recommendations from robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 587-595.
Reichenbach, J., Onnasch, L., & Manzey, D. (2011). Human performance consequences of
automated decision aids in states of sleep loss. Human Factors: The Journal of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(6), 717-728.
Trust in Automation: Review
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.
Rice, S. (2009). Examining single and multiple process theories of trust in automation. The
Journal of General Psychology, 136(3), 303-322.
Rice, S., & Keller, D. (2009). Automation reliance under time pressure. International Journal of
Cognitive Technology, 14(1), 36.
Rice, S., Trafimow, D., Clayton, K., & Hunt, G. (2008). Impact of the contrast effect on trust
ratings and behavior with automated systems. Cognitive Technology Journal, 13(2), 30-
Riedl, R., Hubert, M., & Kenning, P. (2010). Are there neural gender differences in online trust?
An fMRI study on the perceived trustworthiness of eBay offers. MIS Quarterly, 34(2),
Riedl, R., & Javor, A. (2012). The Biology of Trust. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and
Economics, 5(2), 63-91.
Riley, V. (1996). Operator reliance on automation: theory and data. Automation and Human
Performance: Theory and Application, 22–27.
Ross, J. M. (2008). Moderators of trust and reliance across multiple decision aids (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando.
Ross, J. M., Szalma, J. L., Hancock, P. A., Barnett, J. S., & Taylor, G. (2008, September). The
Effect of Automation Reliability on User Automation Trust and Reliance in a Search-
and-Rescue Scenario. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Annual Meeting, 52(19),1340-1344.
Rotter, J.B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
Personality, 35, 651–665.
Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist,
35, 1-7.
Rovira, E., & Parasuraman, R. (2010). Transitioning to future air traffic management: Effects of
imperfect automation on controller attention and performance. Human Factors: The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 52(3), 411-425.
Rovira, E., McGarry, K., & Parasuraman, R. (2007). Effects of imperfect automation on decision
making in a simulated command and control task. Human Factors: The Journal of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49(1), 76-87.
Sanchez, J. (2006). Factors that affect trust and reliance on an automated aid. (Unpublished
Trust in Automation: Review
Doctoral Dissertation). Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia.
Sanchez, J., Fisk, A.D., & Rogers, W.A. (2004). Reliability and age-related effects on trust and
reliance of a decision support aid. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society Annual Meeting, 48, 586–589.
Sanchez, J., Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D., & Rovira, E. (2011). Understanding reliance on
automation: effects of error type, error distribution, age and experience. Theoretical
Issues in Ergonomics Science, doi:10.1080/1463922X.2011.611269.
Sauer, J., Felsing, T., Franke, H., & Rüttinger, B. (2006). Cognitive diversity and team
performance in a complex multiple task environment. Ergonomics, 49(10), 934-954.
Schwark, J., Dolgov, I., Graves, W., & Hor, D. (2010, September). The Influence of Perceived
Task Difficulty and Importance on Automation Use. Proceedings of the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 54(19), 1503-1507.
Seong Y., & Bisantz, A. M. (2008). The impact of cognitive feedback on judgment performance
and trust with decision aids. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38, 608–
Seppelt, B. D., & Lee, J. D. (2007). Making adaptive cruise control (ACC) limits
visible. International journal of human-computer studies, 65(3), 192-205.
Spain, R. D., & Madhavan, P. (2009). The role of automation etiquette and pedigree in trust and
dependence. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
(54)4, 339-343.
Spain, R. D. (2009). The effects of automation expertise, system confidence, and image quality
on trust, compliance, and performance. (Doctoral Dissertation). Old Dominion
University, Norfolk, VA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Stanton, N. S., Ragsdale, S. A., & Bustamante, E. A. (2009, October). The effects of system
technology and probability type on trust, compliance, and reliance. Proceedings of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 53(18), 1368-1372.
Steinke, F., Fritsch, T., & Silbermann, L. (2012, January). A systematic review of trust in
automation and assistance systems for older persons’ overall requirements. eTELEMED
2012, The Fourth International Conference on eHealth, Telemedicine, and Social
Medicine, 155-163.
Stokes, C. K., Lyons, J. B., Littlejohn, K., Natarian, J., Case, E., & Speranza, N. (2010).
Accounting for the human in cyberspace: Effects of mood on trust in automation.
Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and
Systems, 180–187. Chicago, IL: IEEE. doi:10.1109/CTS.2010.5478512.
Trust in Automation: Review
Szalma, J. L., & Taylor, G. S. (2011). Individual differences in response to automation: the five
factor model of personality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(2), 71.
Thropp, J. E. (2006). Individual preferences using automation. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
Tung, F-W., & Jacko, J.A. (2011). Influence of Gender and Age on the Attitudes of Children
towards Humanoid Robots. In Human-Computer Interaction, Part IV, 637–646.
Verberne, F. M., Ham, J., & Midden, C. J. (2012). Trust in Smart Systems Sharing Driving
Goals and Giving Information to Increase Trustworthiness and Acceptability of Smart
Systems in Cars. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society, 54(5), 799-810.
Wakefield, R.L., Stocks, M.H. & Wilder, W.M. (2004). The role of web site characteristics in
initial trust formation. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45(1), 94-103.
Wang, L., Jamieson, G. A., & Hollands, J. G. (2009). Trust and reliance on an automated combat
identification system: The role of aid reliability and reliability disclosure. Human
Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 51, 281–291.
Wang, L., Jamieson, G. A., & Hollands, J. G. (2011, September). The Effects of Design Features
on Users’ Trust in and Reliance on a Combat Identification System. Proceedings of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55(1), 375-379.
Weinstock, A., Oron-Gilad, T., & Parmet, Y. (2012). The effect of system aesthetics on trust,
cooperation, satisfaction and annoyance in an imperfect automated system. Work: A
Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41, 258-265. doi: 10.3233/WOR-
Wetzel, J. M. (2005). Driver Trust, Annoyance, and Compliance for an Automated Calendar
System. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Wilkison, B. D. (2008). Effects of mental model quality on collaborative system performance.
(Masters Thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Willems, B., & Heiney, M. (2002). Decision support automation research in the en route air
traffic control environment (DOT/FAA/CT-TN02/10). Atlantic City International
Airport: Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center.
Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100–ms
exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592–598.
Workman, M. (2005). Expert decision support system use, disuse, and misuse: a study using the
theory of planned behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(2), 211-231.
Trust in Automation: Review
Yuviler-Gavish, N., & Gopher, D. (2011). Effect of descriptive information and experience on
automation reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society, 53(3), 230-244.
Zhou, T. (2011). The effect of initial trust on user adoption of mobile payment. Information
Development, 27(4), 290-300.
... It was manipulated by varying the reliability of the automation. Related research indicates that system reliability affects peoples' trust (Hoff and Bashir, 2015;Lee and See, 2004), i.e., it is lower after experiencing a system with automation failures compared to a flawless one (Sauer, Chavaillaz and Wastell, 2016). Accordingly, participants in both studies were randomly assigned to one of two groups in an induction phase prior to the actual experiment. ...
... But trust is a dynamic construct and changes depending on the operator, the automation, and the context of operations (Lee and See, 2004). Automation failures decrease trust in automation (Hoff and Bashir, 2015), but this decrease seems to be only temporary with trust being rebuilt when the automation works properly again (Lee et al., 2021). In line with this, we found that trust in an automated vehicle was reduced by experiencing an automation failure in the induction phase but changed again during the subsequent test phase. ...
... Risk perception, for example, may affect trust in automation and reliance on automated systems. Situational trust depends on internal characteristics of the operator as well as on external factors, such as risk (Hoff and Bashir, 2015). The authors discuss that the effect of perceived risk on trust and reliance behavior may depend on the complexity of an automated system and on the level of control an operator has. Lee and See (2004) suggest that drivers' risk perception may interact with trust in automation to predict reliance behavior. ...
Transitions of vehicle control between automated vehicle and driver remain a necessity in the near future. Most research focuses on system-initiated transitions of control. However, drivers may also actively decide to take over without being prompted by the automation. The present study aims to uncover predictors of such driver-initiated take-overs in automated driving and to examine their impact on traffic safety. We conducted two driving simulator studies with a total of 100 participants examining whether trust in automation and the criticality of the driving situation predict driver-initiated take-overs during highly dynamic braking maneuvers. Trust was varied via automation reliability in a prior induction phase, while criticality was manipulated via different levels of time headway (THW) and traction usage (TU). Potential limitations of study 1 concerning trust induction and predictor operationalization were addressed and eliminated in study 2. Results of both studies show that drivers’ trust in automation and THW affected the probability of driver-initiated take-overs. TU affected take-over probability only in interaction with THW and trust. Moreover, TU was associated with rear-end collisions. Our experiments demonstrate that driver-initiated take-overs in automated driving do occur and that drivers’ subsequent behavior may impair traffic safety. A better understanding of driver-initiated take-overs helps to increase the safety potential of automated vehicles, e.g., by designing assistance systems which will support drivers who initiate a take-over under critical, highly dynamic conditions.
... Trust is a crucial component within these HATs for effective team interactions and performance. The importance of trust in teaming has been supported by numerous empirical studies on human-automation interaction, HATs, and human-robot teams (de Visser et al., 2020;Hancock et al., 2011;Hoff & Bashir, 2015;Lee & See, 2004;Lyons et al., 2019;McNeese et al., 2021a;Schaefer et al., 2016). Specifically, appropriately developed trust, which refers to relationship between the user's trust and the system's actual abilities (Lee & Moray, 1994;Lee & See, 2004;Muir, 1987), is tied to human-AI teaming processes and outcomes like overall effectiveness (McNeese et al., 2021b) and confidence . ...
... The goal of XAI is to help calibrate trust between agents so that technology can be appropriately relied upon. Our findings support previous literature emphasizing the role of reliability in humanmachine trust (Hoff & Bashir, 2015;Lee & Moray, 1992;Lee & See, 2004) but also demonstrate the importance of ethics. Users will need to understand not only the AI's decision criteria but also the ethical framework it is operating within. ...
Advancements and implementations of autonomous systems coincide with an increased concern for the ethical implications resulting from their use. This is increasingly relevant as autonomy fulfills teammate roles in contexts that demand ethical considerations. As AI teammates (ATs) enter these roles, research is needed to explore how an AT’s ethics influences human trust. This current research presents two studies which explore how an AT’s ethical or unethical behavior impacts trust in that teammate. In Study 1, participants responded to scenarios of an AT recommending actions which violated or abided by a set of ethical principles. The results suggest that ethicality perceptions and trust are influenced by ethical violations, but only ethicality depends on the type of ethical violation. Participants in Study 2 completed a focus group interview after performing a team task with a simulated AT that committed ethical violations and attempted to repair trust (apology or denial). The focus group responses suggest that ethical violations worsened perceptions of the AT and decreased trust, but it could still be trusted to perform tasks. The AT’s apologies and denials did not repair damaged trust. The studies’ findings suggest a nuanced relationship between trust and ethics and a need for further investigation into trust repair strategies following ethical violations.
... First, there is no widely accepted definition for trust in intelligent systems, although many definitions have been proposed [72][73][74]. Second, measuring trust is very challenging because it evolves [75][76][77] and is affected by many factors [78], for example, domain expertise [75,77], visualised information and uncertainty [48,79], model accuracy [80,81], and level of transparency [82]. In addition, there is growing consensus among XAI researchers that optimising trust is not always desirable; rather, the stress should lie on appropriate trust [58] and trust calibration [83,84]. ...
... Our results subscribe to the multi-faceted and evolving nature of people's trust in a prediction model (RQ4), similar to many previous studies [75][76][77][78]. We identified four themes that influenced people's trust: the model's performance, understanding the model, uncertainty in the model's outcomes, and explanations about the development process or the prediction model itself. ...
Full-text available
The rise of ‘big data’ in agrifood has increased the need for decision support systems that harvest the power of artificial intelligence. While many such systems have been proposed, their uptake is limited, for example because they often lack uncertainty representations and are rarely designed in a user-centred way. We present a prototypical visual decision support system that incorporates price prediction, uncertainty, and visual analytics techniques. We evaluated our prototype with 10 participants who are active in different parts of agrifood. Through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires, we collected quantitative and qualitative data about four metrics: usability, usefulness and needs, model understanding, and trust. Our results reveal that the first three metrics can directly and indirectly affect appropriate trust, and that perception differences exist between people with diverging experience levels in predictive modelling. Overall, this suggests that user-centred approaches are key for increasing uptake of visual decision support systems in agrifood.
... The general dispositional tendency to trust automated technology has been defined as an overarching individual predisposition to trust automated technology across different contexts, systems, and tasks (e.g., Hoff and Bashir 2015;Kraus 2020). It describes a user's individual personality tendency to trust a broad set of automatized technology across a range of situations. ...
Full-text available
This contribution to the journal Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. (GIO) presents a checklist of questions and design recommendations for designing acceptable and trustworthy human-robot interaction (HRI). In order to extend the application scope of robots towards more complex contexts in the public domain and in private households, robots have to fulfill requirements regarding social interaction between humans and robots in addition to safety and efficiency. In particular, this results in recommendations for the design of the appearance, behavior, and interaction strategies of robots that can contribute to acceptance and appropriate trust. The presented checklist was derived from existing guidelines of associated fields of application, the current state of research on HRI, and the results of the BMBF-funded project RobotKoop. The trustworthy and acceptable HRI checklist (TA-HRI) contains 60 design topics with questions and design recommendations for the development and design of acceptable and trustworthy robots. The TA-HRI Checklist provides a basis for discussion of the design of service robots for use in public and private environments and will be continuously refined based on feedback from the community.
The operation of automated vehicles (AVs) on shared roads requires attention concerning their interactions with vulnerable road users (VRUs), such as cyclists. This study investigates the safety of cyclists when they interact with an AV and compares it with their interaction with a conventional vehicle. Overall, 29 cyclists participated in a controlled field experiment consisting of interaction scenarios in which a vehicle approached the cyclist from behind. Four interaction scenarios were included: manual and automated following and manual and automated overtaking of the cyclist. The vehicle operated in all scenarios in a manual mode for safety reasons. However, before each ride, participants received information about the vehicle’s operation mode (automated or manual). The following attributes were considered: overtaking speed, overtaking lateral distance, following distance, and roadside objects. The objective and the subjective risks were evaluated in each scenario. The objective risk was assessed using the probabilistic driving risk field, and the subjective risk was assessed based on the cyclists’ self-reported risk values, cycling behavior, and their trust in AVs. The results show that automated and manual following have similar objective and subjective risks, while automated overtaking has a higher level of objective and subjective risks than manual overtaking. The results also show that a longer interaction time leads to an increase in cycling speed and a decrease in the lateral distance of the cyclist to the curb. Thus, we conclude that automated following is a safer option for short traveling distances, while for longer traveling distances, manual overtaking is preferred. Additionally, a short lateral distance from the cyclist when overtaking increases the subjective and objective risks.
Objective Determining the efficacy of two trust repair strategies (apology and denial) for trust violations of an ethical nature by an autonomous teammate. Background While ethics in human-AI interaction is extensively studied, little research has investigated how decisions with ethical implications impact trust and performance within human-AI teams and their subsequent repair. Method Forty teams of two participants and one autonomous teammate completed three team missions within a synthetic task environment. The autonomous teammate made an ethical or unethical action during each mission, followed by an apology or denial. Measures of individual team trust, autonomous teammate trust, human teammate trust, perceived autonomous teammate ethicality, and team performance were taken. Results Teams with unethical autonomous teammates had significantly lower trust in the team and trust in the autonomous teammate. Unethical autonomous teammates were also perceived as substantially more unethical. Neither trust repair strategy effectively restored trust after an ethical violation, and autonomous teammate ethicality was not related to the team score, but unethical autonomous teammates did have shorter times. Conclusion Ethical violations significantly harm trust in the overall team and autonomous teammate but do not negatively impact team score. However, current trust repair strategies like apologies and denials appear ineffective in restoring trust after this type of violation. Application This research highlights the need to develop trust repair strategies specific to human-AI teams and trust violations of an ethical nature.
Organizations make substantial investments in implementing enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems to improve the efficiency and utilization of ERP systems. This study examined the factors influencing and moderating the use of ERP systems. The research variables' hypothetical relationships and moderation analysis were examined through factor analysis and partial least squares structural equation modeling. This study suggests that specific factors significantly influence and moderate the employees' system use. The research results could serve as a reference for vendors when planning the implementation of an ERP system.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Infrastructure-mounted sensors that monitor roads can provide essential information for manual drivers and automated vehicles, e.g., positions of other vehicles occluded by buildings. However, human drivers and passengers have to trust and accept their use. This raises the question of how trust can be increased in such a scenario. One important factor for this is understanding the available information, including its quality and, for passengers of automated vehicles, the actions planned based on it. For this, augmented reality is a promising visualization technology because it can present the relevant information integrated into the physical world. Thus, this work develops a taxonomy of augmented reality visualizations for connected automated and manual driving. It is intended to classify and compare existing visualizations, identify novel visualizations, and provide a common language for discussions. The use case infrastructure-supported automated driving is explored by suggesting augmented reality visualizations to inform passengers of automated vehicles and are intended to increase trust. They present information available from infrastructure and onboard sensors as well as the driving decisions based on it. Finally, we evaluated the visualizations' influence on trust in an automated vehicle by conducting a driving simulator study (N=18). Results indicate a high dependency of trust on presenting driving decisions and information on road users but less on location-specific information.
User trust plays a key role in determining whether autonomous computer applications are relied upon. It will play a key role in the acceptance of emerging AI applications such as optimisation. Two important factors known to affect trust are system transparency, i.e. how well the user understands how the system works, and system performance. However, in the case of optimisation it is difficult for the end-user to understand the underlying algorithms or to judge the quality of the solution. Through two controlled user studies we explore whether the user is better able to calibrate their trust in the system when: (a) they are provided feedback on the system operation in the form of visualisation of intermediate solutions and their quality; (b) they can interactively explore the solution space by modifying the solution returned by the system. We found that showing intermediate solutions can lead to over-trust while interactive exploration leads to more accurately calibrated trust.
Full-text available
Advances in modern day technology are rapidly increasing the ability of engineers to automate ever more complicated tasks. Often these automated aids are paired with human operators who can supervise their work to ensure that it is free of errors and to even take control of the system if it malfunctions (e.g., pilots supervising an autopilot feature). The goal of this collaboration, between humans and machines, is that it can enhance performance beyond what would be possible by either alone. Arguably the success of this partnership depends in part upon attributions an operator develops that help guide their interaction with the automation. One particular factor that has been shown to guide operator reliance on an automated ‘teammate’ is trust. The following study examined 140 participants performing a simulated search-and-rescue task. The goal of this experiment was to examine the relationship between automated agent's reliability, operator trust, operator reliance, and performance scores. Results indicated that greater automation reliability is positively correlated with greater user reliance (r = .66), perceived trust (r = .21), and performance scores (r = .34). These results indicate that more reliable aids are rated as significantly higher in terms of perceived trust and relied upon more than less reliable aids. Additionally, the size of the effect is much larger for operator behaviors (i.e., reliance) compared to more subjective measures (i.e., self-reported trust).
Full-text available
To address the growing needs for care for our aging population, both the public and private sectors are turning to advanced technologies to facilitate or automate aspects of caregiving. The user, who is often an older adult, must now appropriately trust and rely upon the technology to perform its task accurately. However, there is reason to believe that older adults may be more susceptible to unreliable technologies. This paper reviews the work on trust and complacency with older adults and examines the cognitive reasons why older adults are more at risk from faulty technologies. Lessons learned from Honeywell's Independent LifeStyle Assistant™ (I.L.S.A.) are discussed with respect to new high-level requirements for future designs.
Automation is often problematic because people fail to rely upon it appropriately. Because people respond to technology socially, trust influences reliance on automation. In particular, trust guides reliance when complexity and unanticipated situations make a complete understanding of the automation impractical. This review considers trust from the organizational, sociological, interpersonal, psychological, and neurological perspectives. It considers how the context, automation characteristics, and cognitive processes affect the appropriateness of trust. The context in which the automation is used influences automation performance and provides a goal-oriented perspective to assess automation characteristics along a dimension of attributional abstraction. These characteristics can influence trust through analytic, analogical, and affective processes. The challenges of extrapolating the concept of trust in people to trust in automation are discussed. A conceptual model integrates research regarding trust in automation and describes the dynamics of trust, the role of context, and the influence of display characteristics. Actual or potential applications of this research include improved designs of systems that require people to manage imperfect automation. Copyright © 2004, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.