Assessing Technology in the Absence of Proof

Abstract

Running head: Process feedback and system trust Document type: Extended Multi-Phase Study (4 studies) Word count: 12 969 (max. 13 500 for a 4-study article). 1 Structured abstractObjective: The present research addresses the question how trust in systems is formed when unequivocal information about system accuracy and reliability is absent, and focuses on the interaction of indirect information (others' evaluations) and direct (experiential) information stemming from the interaction process.Background: Trust in decision-supporting technology, such as route planners, is important for satisfactory user interactions. Little is known, however, about trust formation in the absence of outcome feedback, i.e. when users have not yet had opportunity to verify actual outcomes. Method:Three experiments manipulated others' evaluations ("endorsement cues") and various forms of experience-based information ("process feedback") in interactions with a route planner, and measured resulting trust using rating scales and credits staked on the outcome. Subsequently, an overall analysis was conducted.Results: Study 1 showed that effectiveness of endorsement cues on trust is moderated by mere process feedback. In Study 2, consistent (i.e., non-random) process feedback overruled the effect of endorsement cues on trust, whereas inconsistent process feedback did not. Study 3 showed that while the effects of consistent and inconsistent process feedback largely remained regardless of face validity, high face validity in process feedback caused higher trust than those with low face validity. An overall analysis confirmed these findings. Conclusion:Experiential information impacts trust even if outcome feedback is not available, and, moreover, overrules indirect trust cues -depending on the nature of the former.Application: Designing systems so that they allow novice users to make inferences about their inner workings may foster initial trust.Keywords: system trust; process feedback; outcome feedback; consistency; face validity Précis: System outcomes have been found to impact user trust. Less is known about trust formation when users cannot verify actual outcomes. Experiential information derived from the interaction 2 process impacts trust even if outcome feedback is absent, and overrules indirect trust cues -depending on whether the former appears consistent or random. Assessing Technology In The Absence Of Proof: Trust Based On The Interplay Of Others' 1 Opinions And The Interaction Process 2Trust is generally acknowledged to play an important role in our interactions with technology, such 3 as process automation, online applications, or consumer electronics. As with interpersonal trust, 4 meaningful interaction requires sufficient levels of trust to enable reductions of uncertainty regarding 5 the functioning of this particular system and its capabilities. Hence, the concept of system trust is 6 crucial in understanding how people interact with systems, an idea that has firmly taken root in 7 research in this field (for instance, see H...

Trust repair in human-agent teams: the effectiveness of explanations and expressing regret

“…"I am sorry" or "I apologize") were trusted more than agents that did not [3,24]. Moreover, people are more likely to trust and rely on an automated decision-support system when given an explanation why the decision aid might err [6], or when they inferred such explanations after observing system behaviour themselves [60]. The effectiveness of a trust repair strategy seems to depend on situational factors such as timing [46], violation type [50,54] and agent type [19].…”

“…For trust to be calibrated, however, humans would need to be able to determine whether the intelligent agent is to blame for the violation or rather the situation [41]; failure to attribute a trust violation to the situation may cause an unwarranted decrease in the human's trust and reliance. Other studies have shown that people may be more forgiving when they understand why a trust violation may sometimes occur [6,60]. Considering this, optimal collaboration between humans and intelligent agents relies heavily on the agent's capacity to effectively communicate with the human, i.e., to explain why a violation has occurred, so as to remedy damaged trust.…”