More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Public Access

The Apple Does Fall Far from the Tree: User Separation of a System from its Developers in Human-Automation Trust Repair

Authors:

Theodore Jensen,

Yusuf Albayram,

Mohammad Maifi Hasan Khan,

Md Abdullah Al Fahim,

Emil ComanAuthors Info & Claims

DIS '19: Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference

Pages 1071 - 1082

https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322349

Published: 18 June 2019 Publication History

Abstract

To promote safe and effective human-computer interactions, researchers have begun studying mechanisms for "trust repair" in response to automated system errors. The extent to which users distinguish between a system and the system's developers may be an important factor in the efficacy of trust repair messages. To investigate this, we conducted a 2 (reliability) x 3 (blame) between-group, factorial study. Participants interacted with a high or low reliability automated system that attributed blame for errors internally ("I was not able..."), pseudo-externally ("The developers were not able..."), or externally ("A third-party algorithm that I used was not able..."). We found that pseudo-external blame and internal blame influenced subjective trust differently, suggesting that the system and its developers represent distinct trustees. We discuss the implications of our findings for the design and study of human-automation trust repair.

References

[1]

Bernard Barber. 1983. The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers University Press.

[2]

Izak Benbasat and Weiquan Wang. 2005. Trust in and adoption of online recommendation agents. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 6, 3 (2005), 4.

[3]

Victoria Buchholz, Philipp Kulms, and Stefan Kopp. 2017. It's (Not) Your Fault! Blame and Trust Repair in Human-Agent Cooperation. (2017).

[4]

Ross Buck. 2014. Emotion: A biosocial synthesis. Cambridge University Press.

[5]

Shih-Yi Chien, Zhaleh Semnani-Azad, Michael Lewis, and Katia Sycara. 2014. Towards the development of an inter-cultural scale to measure trust in automation. In International Conference on Cross-Cultural Design. Springer, 35--46.

[6]

Jacob Cohen. 1973. Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement 33, 1 (1973), 107--112.

[7]

Ewart J de Visser, Samuel S Monfort, Ryan McKendrick, Melissa AB Smith, Patrick E McKnight, Frank Krueger, and Raja Parasuraman. 2016. Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 22, 3 (2016), 331.

[8]

Ewart J de Visser, Richard Pak, and Tyler H Shaw. 2018. From 'automation' to 'autonomy': the importance of trust repair in human--machine interaction. Ergonomics (2018), 1--19.

[9]

Batya Friedman. 1995. “It's the computer's fault”: reasoning about computers as moral agents. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 226--227.

Digital Library

[10]

Joseph A Gliem and Rosemary R Gliem. 2003. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community.

[11]

Victoria Groom, Jimmy Chen, Theresa Johnson, F Arda Kara, and Clifford Nass. 2010. Critic, compatriot, or chump?: Responses to robot blame attribution. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE Press, 211--218.

[12]

Kevin Anthony Hoff and Masooda Bashir. 2015. Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors 57, 3 (2015), 407--434.

[13]

Theodore Jensen, Yusuf Albayram, Mohammad Maifi Hasan Khan, Ross Buck, Emil Coman, and Md Abdullah Al Fahim. 2018. Initial Trustworthiness Perceptions of a Drone System based on Performance and Process Information. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. ACM, 229--237.

Digital Library

[14]

Jiun-Yin Jian, Ann M Bisantz, and Colin G Drury. 2000. Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics 4, 1 (2000), 53--71.

[15]

Ing-Marie Jonsson, Clifford Nass, Jack Endo, Ben Reaves, Helen Harris, Janice Le Ta, Nicholas Chan, and Sean Knapp. 2004. Don't blame me I am only the driver: impact of blame attribution on attitudes and attention to driving task. In CHI'04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1219--1222.

Digital Library

[16]

Peter H Kim, Donald L Ferrin, Cecily D Cooper, and Kurt T Dirks. 2004. Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology 89, 1 (2004), 104.

[17]

René F Kizilcec. 2016. How much information?: Effects of transparency on trust in an algorithmic interface. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2390--2395.

Digital Library

[18]

John Lee and Neville Moray. 1992. Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35, 10 (1992), 1243--1270.

[19]

John D Lee and Katrina A See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors 46, 1 (2004), 50--80.

[20]

Roy J Lewicki and Chad Brinsfield. 2017. Trust repair. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 4 (2017), 287--313.

[21]

Xin Li, Traci J Hess, and Joseph S Valacich. 2008. Why do we trust new technology? A study of initial trust formation with organizational information systems. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17, 1 (2008), 39--71.

Digital Library

[22]

Poornima Madhavan and Douglas A Wiegmann. 2007. Similarities and differences between human-human and human--automation trust: an integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 8, 4 (2007), 277--301.

[23]

Maria Madsen and Shirley Gregor. 2000. Measuring human-computer trust. In 11th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Vol. 53. Citeseer, 6--8.

[24]

Roger C Mayer and James H Davis. 1999. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 84, 1 (1999), 123.

[25]

Roger C Mayer, James H Davis, and F David Schoorman. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20, 3 (1995), 709--734.

[26]

D Harrison McKnight, Vivek Choudhury, and Charles Kacmar. 2002. Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research 13, 3 (2002), 334--359.

Digital Library

[27]

Tim R Merritt, Kian Boon Tan, Christopher Ong, Aswin Thomas, Teong Leong Chuah, and Kevin McGee. 2011. Are artificial team-mates scapegoats in computer games. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 685--688.

Digital Library

[28]

Youngme Moon and Clifford Nass. 1998. Are computers scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human-computer interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 49, 1 (1998), 79--94.

Digital Library

[29]

Clifford Nass and Youngme Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues 56, 1 (2000), 81--103.

[30]

Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R Tauber. 1994. Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 72--78.

Digital Library

[31]

Raja Parasuraman and Victor Riley. 1997. Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors 39, 2 (1997), 230--253.

[32]

S Joon Park, Craig M MacDonald, and Michael Khoo. 2012. Do you care if a computer says sorry?: User experience design through affective messages. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, 731--740.

Digital Library

[33]

Daniel B Quinn, Richard Pak, and Ewart J de Visser. 2017. Testing the Efficacy of Human-Human Trust Repair Strategies with Machines. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 61. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1794--1798.

[34]

Byron Reeves and Clifford Ivar Nass. 1996. The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press.

Digital Library

[35]

Paul Robinette, Ayanna M Howard, and Alan R Wagner. 2015. Timing is key for robot trust repair. In International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, 574--583.

[36]

Julian B Rotter. 1980. Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist 35, 1 (1980), 1.

[37]

Kelly Satterfield, Carryl Baldwin, Ewart de Visser, and Tyler Shaw. 2017. The Influence of Risky Conditions in Trust in Autonomous Systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 61. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 324--328.

[38]

Alexander Serenko. 2007. Are interface agents scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human--agent interaction. Interacting with Computers 19, 2 (2007), 293--303.

Digital Library

[39]

S Shyam Sundar and Clifford Nass. 2000. Source orientation in human-computer interaction: Programmer, networker, or independent social actor. Communication Research 27, 6 (2000), 683--703.

[40]

Edward C Tomlinson and Roger C Mayer. 2009. The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review 34, 1 (2009), 85--104.

[41]

Jeng-Yi Tzeng. 2004. Toward a more civilized design: studying the effects of computers that apologize. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 61, 3 (2004), 319--345.

Digital Library

[42]

Bernard Weiner. 1985. An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review 92, 4 (1985), 549--573.

[43]

Christopher D Wickens and Stephen R Dixon. 2007. The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 8, 3 (2007), 201--212.

Cited By

Liu PChu YWang GXu Z(2024)To Err is Automation: Can Trust be Repaired by the Automated Driving System After its Failure?IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems10.1109/THMS.2024.343468054:5(508-519)Online publication date: Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2024.3434680
Lane SEsterwood CKulić DRobinson N(2024)Robots That Use Physical Repair Strategies After Repeated Errors to Mitigate Trust Decline in Human-Robot Interaction: A Repeated Measures Experiment2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN)10.1109/RO-MAN60168.2024.10731465(936-943)Online publication date: 26-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN60168.2024.10731465
Atchley AO’Hear EBarr HCotter JHamblin BOswald GMesmer BWeger KGholston SMenon VDemir MTenhundfeld N(2023)How do Blame Attributions Impact Trust in Complex Task Environments?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting10.1177/2169506723119261867:1(495-501)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1177/21695067231192618
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

The Apple Does Fall Far from the Tree: User Separation of a System from its Developers in Human-Automation Trust Repair
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)

Recommendations

Investigating the Effects of (Empty) Promises on Human-Automation Interaction and Trust Repair
HAI '20: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction

Setting expectations for future behavior with promises is one way to manage human-human trusting relationships. To investigate the effect of promises made by an automated system, we conducted a 2 (reliability: low, high) x 3 (promise type: no-promise, ...
Toward an Understanding of Trust Repair in Human-Robot Interaction: Current Research and Future Directions

Gone are the days of robots solely operating in isolation, without direct interaction with people. Rather, robots are increasingly being deployed in environments and roles that require complex social interaction with humans. The implementation of human-...
An examination of negative e-WOM adoption: Brand commitment as a moderator

This study combines the Yale Model and Attribution Theory to examine the interaction among message, source, receiver characteristics, and receiver perceptions of information credibility. Receivers were examined as to whether negative messages would ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

DIS '19: Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference

June 2019

1628 pages

ISBN:9781450358507

DOI:10.1145/3322276

General Chairs:
Steve Harrison
Virginia Tech, USA
,
Shaowen Bardzell
Indiana University, USA
,
Program Chairs:
Carman Neustaedter
Simon Fraser University, Canada
,
Deborah Tatar
Virginia Tech, USA

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 June 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Air Force Office of Scientific Research

Conference

DIS '19

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

DIS '19: Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2019

June 23 - 28, 2019

CA, San Diego, USA

Acceptance Rates

DIS '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 105 of 415 submissions, 25%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,158 of 4,684 submissions, 25%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

19
Total Citations
View Citations
773
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)157
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)27

Reflects downloads up to 18 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Liu PChu YWang GXu Z(2024)To Err is Automation: Can Trust be Repaired by the Automated Driving System After its Failure?IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems10.1109/THMS.2024.343468054:5(508-519)Online publication date: Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2024.3434680
Lane SEsterwood CKulić DRobinson N(2024)Robots That Use Physical Repair Strategies After Repeated Errors to Mitigate Trust Decline in Human-Robot Interaction: A Repeated Measures Experiment2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN)10.1109/RO-MAN60168.2024.10731465(936-943)Online publication date: 26-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN60168.2024.10731465
Atchley AO’Hear EBarr HCotter JHamblin BOswald GMesmer BWeger KGholston SMenon VDemir MTenhundfeld N(2023)How do Blame Attributions Impact Trust in Complex Task Environments?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting10.1177/2169506723119261867:1(495-501)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1177/21695067231192618
Li JHe YYin SLiu L(2023)Effects of Automation Transparency on Trust: Evaluating HMI in the Context of Fully Autonomous DrivingProceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3580585.3607171(311-321)Online publication date: 18-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3580585.3607171
Wischnewski MKrämer NMüller E(2023)Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future DirectionsProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581197(1-16)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3581197
Pereira ABaumann MGerstner JAlthoff M(2023)Improving Efficiency of Human-Robot Coexistence While Guaranteeing Safety: Theory and User StudyIEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering10.1109/TASE.2022.320197020:4(2706-2719)Online publication date: Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2022.3201970
Al Fahim MKhan MJensen TAlbayram YComan EBuck R(2023)The Mediating Effect of Emotions on Trust in the Context of Automated System UsageIEEE Transactions on Affective Computing10.1109/TAFFC.2021.309488314:2(1572-1585)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2021.3094883
Esterwood CRobert LSakamoto DWeiss AHiatt LShiomi M(2022)Having the Right AttitudeProceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.5555/3523760.3523806(332-341)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3523760.3523806
Stuart JAul KBumbach MStephen Ade Siqueira ALok B(2022)The Effect of Virtual Humans Making Verbal Communication Mistakes on Learners’ Perspectives of their Credibility, Reliability, and Trustworthiness2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)10.1109/VR51125.2022.00065(455-463)Online publication date: Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/VR51125.2022.00065
Esterwood CRobert L(2022)Having the Right Attitude: How Attitude Impacts Trust Repair in Human—Robot Interaction2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889535(332-341)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889535
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents