Machine Agency in Human-Machine Networks; Impacts and Trust Implications

Trust and its predictors within a cyber-physical system context

“…Interpretations of service and its provision may need to evolve so as to align with the blurring boundaries between physical objects and services provided to the extent that "every static and discrete object could have the opportunity of becoming a pseudo-provider" (Medina-Borja, 2015, p. ii), aligning with the computer science perspective of a CPS. From a consumer perspective, everyday devices will exhibit what may be increasingly interpreted as agency through perceived smartness (Bandura, 2000;Rose and Truex, 2000;Engen et al, 2016).…”

“…These include a growing number of household devices as outlined above with other customers, businesses, public services and software (Frow et al, 2014). Actors will collectively coordinate their behaviour as a complex adaptive system (Mele and Polese, 2011;Chandler and Lusch, 2015;Engen et al, 2016) where new "entities" (human and non-human actors) will be continually joining and leaving the CPS to ensure service and experiential optimisation (Ng and Wakenshaw, 2017, p. 6). From a networked actor's perspective (e.g.…”

“…The all-pervasive but inconspicuous nature of many emergent technologies creates potentially new dimensions of complexity with actors (machine and human) working collectively as adaptive socio-technical service systems (Fritsch et al, 2012). Consequently, the nature of trust may differ according to the agency of human actors and machine objects within these technologically advanced service systems (Engen et al, 2016). One such technologically advancing context for service systems is the internet of things (IoT), a term first coined in 1999 (Ashton, 2009).…”