Trustworthiness and IT Suspicion: An Evaluation of the Nomological Network

Objective: The authors evaluated the validity of trust in automation and information technology (IT) suspicion by examining their factor structure and relationship with decision confidence. Background: Research on trust has burgeoned, yet the dimensionality of trust remains elusive. Researchers suggest that trust is a unidimensional construct, whereas others believe it is multidimensional. Additionally, novel constructs, such as IT suspicion, have yet to be distinguished from trust in automation. Research is needed to examine the overlap between these constructs and to determine the dimensionality of trust in automation. Method: Participants (N = 72) engaged in a computer-based convoy scenario involving an automated decision aid. The aid fused real-time sensor data and provided route recommendations to participants who selected a route based on (a) a map with historical enemy information, (b) sensor inputs, and (c) automation suggestions. Measures for trust in automation and IT suspicion were administered after individuals interacted with the automation. Results: Results indicated three orthogonal factors: trust, distrust, and IT suspicion. Each variable was explored as a predictor of decision confidence. Distrust and trust evidenced unique influences on decision confidence, albeit at different times. Higher distrust related to less confidence, whereas trust related to greater confidence. Conclusion: The current study found that trust in automation was best characterized by two orthogonal dimensions (trust and distrust). Both trust and distrust were found to be independent from IT suspicion, and both distrust and trust uniquely predicted decision confidence. Application: Researchers may consider using separate measures for trust and distrust in future studies.

[1]  Sheila Simsarian Webber,et al.  Development of Cognitive and Affective Trust in Teams , 2008 .

[2]  N. Moray,et al.  Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. , 1996, Ergonomics.

[3]  Joseph B. Lyons,et al.  Trust and Decision Making: An Empirical Platform , 2008 .

[4]  R. Lewicki,et al.  Trust And Distrust: New Relationships and Realities , 1998 .

[5]  D. Watson,et al.  Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  Regina A. Pomranky,et al.  The role of trust in automation reliance , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[7]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Not All Trust Is Created Equal: Dispositional and History-Based Trust in Human-Automation Interactions , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[8]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[9]  Brent A. Scott,et al.  Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[10]  T. Levine,et al.  When lovers become leery: The relationship between suspicion and accuracy in detecting deception , 1990 .

[11]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  TRUSTWORTHINESS OF COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS , 1988 .

[12]  Mark R. Lehto,et al.  Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems , 2000 .

[13]  Robert B. Lount.  The impact of positive mood on trust in interpersonal and intergroup interactions. , 2010, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  J. H. Davis,et al.  The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. , 1999 .

[15]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[16]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Effects of actual deception and suspiciousness of deception on interpersonal perceptions. , 1984 .

[17]  Angelika Dimoka,et al.  What Does the Brain Tell Us About Trust and Distrust? Evidence from a Functional Neuroimaging Study , 2010, MIS Q..

[18]  D. Harrison Charles J Vivek McKnight,et al.  Dispositional Trust And Distrust Distinctions in Predicting High- and Low-Risk Internet Expert Advice Site Perceptions , 2005 .

[19]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[20]  M. Schweitzer,et al.  Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Effects of Imperfect Automation on Decision Making in a Simulated Command and Control Task , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[22]  N. L. Chervany,et al.  WHILE TRUST IS COOL AND COLLECTED, DISTRUST IS FIERY AND FRENZIED: A MODEL OF DISTRUST CONCEPTS , 2001 .

[23]  S Lewandowsky,et al.  The dynamics of trust: comparing humans to automation. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[24]  Abuse.  Humans and Automation : Use , Misuse , Disuse , , 2008 .

[25]  Adrienne Y. Lee,et al.  The darkest side of trust: validating the generalized communication suspicion scale with prison inmates , 2005 .

[26]  Kenneth Littlejohn,et al.  Accounting for the human in cyberspace: Effects of mood on trust in automation , 2010, 2010 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems.

[27]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[28]  M. Sinaceur,et al.  Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in negotiation , 2010 .

[29]  Bonnie M. Muir,et al.  Trust in automation. I: Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems , 1994 .

[30]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[31]  T. Levine,et al.  The dark side of trust: Conceptualizing and measuring types of communicative suspicion , 1991 .

[32]  D. Wiegmann,et al.  Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review , 2007 .