The Construct of State-Level Suspicion

Objective: The objective was to review and integrate available research about the construct of state-level suspicion as it appears in social science literatures and apply the resulting findings to information technology (IT) contexts. Background: Although the human factors literature is replete with articles about trust (and distrust) in automation, there is little on the related, but distinct, construct of “suspicion” (in either automated or IT contexts). The construct of suspicion—its precise definition, theoretical correlates, and role in such applications—deserves further study. Method: Literatures that consider suspicion are reviewed and integrated. Literatures include communication, psychology, human factors, management, marketing, information technology, and brain/neurology. We first develop a generic model of state-level suspicion. Research propositions are then derived within IT contexts. Results: Fundamental components of suspicion include (a) uncertainty, (b) increased cognitive processing (e.g., generation of alternative explanations for perceived discrepancies), and (c) perceptions of (mal)intent. State suspicion is defined as the simultaneous occurrence of these three components. Our analysis also suggests that trust inhibits suspicion, whereas distrust can be a catalyst of state-level suspicion. Based on a three-stage model of state-level suspicion, associated research propositions and questions are developed. These propositions and questions are intended to help guide future work on the measurement of suspicion (self-report and neurological), as well as the role of the construct of suspicion in models of decision making and detection of deception. Conclusion: The study of suspicion, including its correlates, antecedents, and consequences, is important. We hope that the social sciences will benefit from our integrated definition and model of state suspicion. The research propositions regarding suspicion in IT contexts should motivate substantial research in human factors and related fields.

[1]  Donald L. Ferrin,et al.  Special Issue: Trust in an Organizational Context: The Use of Rewards to Increase and Decrease Trust: Mediating Processes and Differential Effects , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[2]  Robert W. Lissitz,et al.  A Methodological Study of the Torrance Tests of Creativity: Can Creativity Be Faked? Measurement and Statistics. , 1982 .

[3]  R. Petty,et al.  Source Attributions and Persuasion: Perceived Honesty as a Determinant of Message Scrutiny , 1995 .

[4]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction , 2011, Hum. Factors.

[5]  R. Simons,et al.  Error-related psychophysiology and negative affect , 2004, Brain and Cognition.

[6]  Christopher A. Miller,et al.  Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems , 2004, CACM.

[7]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  Supervisory Control of Multiple Robots: Human-Performance Issues and User-Interface Design , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[8]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[10]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Attributions of Trust in Decision Support Technologies: A Study of Recommendation Agents for E-Commerce , 2008, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

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

[12]  R. Schlant.  Treating type a behavior and your heart meyer friedman diane ulmeralfred A. Knopf, New York (1984) 285 pages, $15.95 ISBN: 0–394–52286–9 , 1985 .

[13]  Xin Li,et al.  Why do we trust new technology? A study of initial trust formation with organizational information systems , 2008, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Special Issue: Trust in Online Environments , 2008, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

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

[16]  Aaron M. Hoffman.  The Structural Causes of Trusting Relationships: Why Rivals Do Not Overcome Suspicion Step by Step , 2007 .

[17]  Joshua L. Ray,et al.  Organizational Mindfulness in Business Schools , 2011 .

[18]  M. Bond,et al.  The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth , 1988 .

[19]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Suspicion and Dispositional Inference , 1993 .

[20]  David A. Hofmann,et al.  Outsourcing inspiration: The performance effects of ideological messages from leaders and beneficiaries , 2011 .

[21]  Dongsong Zhang,et al.  Typing or messaging? Modality effect on deception detection in computer-mediated communication , 2007, Decis. Support Syst..

[22]  David Goodman,et al.  Performance Monitoring in the Anterior Cingulate is Not All Error Related: Expectancy Deviation and the Representation of Action-Outcome Associations , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[23]  Mark W. Scerbo,et al.  Automation-induced complacency for monitoring highly reliable systems: the role of task complexity, system experience, and operator trust , 2007 .

[24]  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 .

[25]  N. Kriegeskorte,et al.  Neural correlates of trust , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  Thomas E. DeCarlo,et al.  The Effects of Sales Message and Suspicion of Ulterior Motives on Salesperson Evaluation , 2005 .

[27]  Ebenbach,et al.  Incomplete Information, Inferences, and Individual Differences: The Case of Environmental Judgments. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[28]  Joseph N. Wilson,et al.  APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED , 1989 .

[29]  Denise Potosky,et al.  The Internet knowledge (iKnow) measure , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[30]  Carla H. Lagorio,et al.  Psychology , 1929, Nature.

[31]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Social and Heuristic Approaches to Credibility Evaluation Online , 2010 .

[32]  M. Deutsch.  Trust and suspicion , 1958 .

[33]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  A Research Agenda for Trust in Online Environments , 2008, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[34]  Ingrid Kurz.  A look into the “black box” , 1994 .

[35]  Ricky W. Griffin,et al.  Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations , 1992 .

[36]  Daniel J. McAllister.  Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations , 1995 .

[37]  Jeffrey W. Sherman,et al.  On the Encoding of Stereotype-Relevant Information Under Cognitive Load , 2000 .

[38]  Carolyn M. Jagacinski,et al.  Personnel decision making : the impact of missing information , 1991 .

[39]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception Theory , 1996 .

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

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

[42]  P. Bobko.  Correlation and Regression: Applications for Industrial Organizational Psychology and Management , 2001 .

[43]  Agustin Echebarria-Echabe.  Effects of Suspicion on Willingness to Engage in Systematic Processing of Persuasive Arguments , 2010, The Journal of social psychology.

[44]  Ronald F. Piccolo,et al.  Explaining the justice-performance relationship: trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? , 2012, The Journal of applied psychology.

[45]  M. Olson,et al.  The Development of IT Suspicion as a Construct and Subsequent Measure , 2012 .

[46]  David Gefen,et al.  Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities , 2002, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[47]  Hiroki Yamamoto,et al.  Judgments About Others’ Trustworthiness: An fMRI Study , 2011 .

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

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

[50]  R. Vonk,et al.  The slime effect : Suspicion and dislike of likeable behavior toward superiors , 1998 .

[51]  S. Feldman,et al.  Americans respond politically to 9/11: understanding the impact of the terrorist attacks and their aftermath. , 2011, The American psychologist.

[52]  Michael D Matthews,et al.  Comprehensive soldier fitness: building resilience in a challenging institutional context. , 2011, The American psychologist.

[53]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[54]  Zhiyong Feng,et al.  Swift Trust in a Virtual Temporary System: A Model Based on the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions , 2007, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[55]  K. Fernow.  New York , 1896, American Potato Journal.

[56]  Stephen B. Manuck,et al.  Trait positive affect and antibody response to hepatitis B vaccination , 2006, Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.

[57]  Terri D Patterson,et al.  The effect of cognitive load on deception , 2009 .

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

[59]  Charles J. Kacmar,et al.  The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: a trust building model , 2002, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[60]  G. S. Reynolds.  A Primer of Operant Conditioning , 1968 .

[61]  A. Buss,et al.  An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. , 1957, Journal of consulting psychology.

[62]  C. Frith,et al.  Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’ , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[63]  Gary D. Bond.  Focus on basic cognitive mechanisms and strategies in deception research (and remand custody of ‘wizards’ to Harry Potter movies) , 2012 .

[64]  Steven Fein.  Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias , 1996 .

[65]  Paul Benjamin Lowry,et al.  Explaining and Predicting the Impact of Branding Alliances and Web Site Quality on Initial Consumer Trust of E-Commerce Web Sites , 2007, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[66]  M. Born,et al.  Intentional response distortion on personality tests: using eye-tracking to understand response processes when faking. , 2012, The Journal of applied psychology.

[67]  Paul A. Buhler,et al.  Agents on the Web: Trust and Persistence , 2001, IEEE Internet Comput..

[68]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  More than Meets the Eye: The Effect of Missing Information on Purchase Evaluations , 1985 .

[69]  N. Schwarz,et al.  The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities on Companies With Bad Reputations , 2006 .

[70]  Joseph B. Lyons,et al.  Trustworthiness and IT Suspicion: An Evaluation of the Nomological Network , 2011, Hum. Factors.

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

[72]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[73]  Ann M. Bisantz,et al.  Assessment of operator trust in and utilization of automated decision-aids under different framing conditions , 2001 .

[74]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  The Effect of Suspicion on Deception Detection Accuracy: Optimal Level or Opposing Effects? , 2011 .

[75]  Amna Kirmani,et al.  Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent , 2000 .

[76]  Leonard Mlodinow,et al.  Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior , 2012 .

[77]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration , 2010, Hum. Factors.

[78]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[79]  Pierre A. Balthazard,et al.  Leadership and Neuroscience: Can We Revolutionize the Way That Inspirational Leaders Are Identified and Developed? , 2011 .

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

[81]  Henriette Cramer,et al.  Effects of Autonomy, Traffic Conditions and Driver Personality Traits on Attitudes and Trust towards In-Vehicle Agents , 2008, 2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology.

[82]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Improving automotive safety by pairing driver emotion and car voice emotion , 2005, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[83]  C. Neil Macrae,et al.  Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. , 1994 .

[84]  Philip Bobko,et al.  The Computer Understanding and Experience Scale: a self-report measure of computer experience , 1998 .

[85]  Walter C. Borman,et al.  Models of supervisory job performance ratings , 1991 .

[86]  Gregory S. Kolt,et al.  Eustress, distress, and interpretation in occupational stress , 2003 .

[87]  D. Gilbert,et al.  The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. , 1991 .

[88]  Michael N. Huhns,et al.  Trusted Autonomy , 2002, IEEE Internet Comput..

[89]  A. Buss,et al.  The aggression questionnaire. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[90]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Heuristics and Modalities in Determining Truth Versus Deception , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.