Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 117–128 | Cite as

Incorporating behavioral trust theory into system development for ubiquitous applications

Original Article


Trust has been shown to be a key factor for technology adoption by users, that is, users prefer to use applications they trust. While existing literature on trust originating in computer science mostly revolves around aspects of information security, authentication, etc., research on trust in automation—originating from behavioral sciences—almost exclusively focuses on the sociotechnical context in which applications are embedded. The behavioral theory of trust in automation aims at explaining the formation of trust, helping to identify countermeasures for users’ uncertainties that lead to lessened trust in an application. We hence propose an approach to augment the system development process of ubiquitous systems with insights into behavioral trust theory. Our approach enables developers to derive design elements that help foster trust in their application by performing four key activities: identifying users’ uncertainties, linking them to trust antecedents from theory, deducting functional requirements and finally designing trust-supporting design elements (TSDEs). Evaluating user feedback on two recommender system prototypes, gathered in a study with over 160 participants, we show that by following our process, we were able to derive four TSDEs that helped to significantly increase the users’ trust in the system.


Trust support Uncertainty Antecedent Design elements Sociotechnical system Evaluation 



The authors thank Hesse’s Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and the Arts for funding their research within the VENUS research cluster at the interdisciplinary Research Center for Information System Design (ITeG) at Kassel University as part of the research funding program "LOEWE". Parts of this research was developed in the scope of the project Value4Cloud, funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economics and Technology (FKZ: 01MD11043A).


  1. 1.
    Artz D, Gil Y (2007) A survey of trust in computer science and the semantic web. Web Semant Sci Serv Agents World Wide Web 5(2):58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stephens RT (2004) A framework for the identification of electronic commerce design elements that enable trust within the small hotel industry. Paper presented at the 42nd annual Southeast Regional Conference (ACM-SE), Huntsville, 02–03 April 2004Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gerd tom Markotten D, Kaiser J (2000) Usable security—challenges and model for e-commerce systems. Wirtschaftsinformatik 6:531–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46(1):50–80Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Söllner M, Hoffmann A, Hoffmann H, Leimeister JM (2012) How to use behavioral research insights on trust for HCI system design. Paper presented at the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2012), Austin, 05–10 May 2012Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sommerville I (2007) Software engineering, 8th edn. Addison-Wesley, HarlowMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q 27(1):51–90Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Viega J, Kohno T, Potter B (2001) Trust (and mistrust) in secure applications. Commun ACM 44(2):31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Avizienis A, Laprie J-C, Randell B, Landwehr C (2004) Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans Dependable Secure Comput 1(1):11–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sillence E, Briggs P, Fishwick L, Harris P (2004) Trust and mistrust of online health sites. Paper presented at the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2004), Vienna, 24–29 April 2004Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB (1998) Not so different at all: a cross disciplinary view of trust. Acad Manag Rev 23(3):393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):709–734Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gambetta D (1990) Can we trust trust? In: Gambetta D (ed) Trust: making and breaking cooperative relations. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp 213–237Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vance A, Elie-Dit-Cosaque C, Straub DW (2008) Examining trust in information technology artifacts: the effects of system quality and culture. J Manag Inf Syst 24(4):73–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jarvis CB, Mackenzie SB, Podsakoff PM (2003) A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. J Consum Res 30(2):199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muir BM (1994) Trust in automation: part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics 37(11):1905–1922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Söllner M, Leimeister JM (2010) 15 years of measurement model misspecification in trust research? A theory based approach to solve this problem. In: 10th Academy of Management Annual Meeting, RomeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shankar V, Urban GL, Sultan F (2002) Online trust: a stakeholder perspective, concepts, implications, and future directions. J Strateg Inf Syst 11(3–4):325–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Söllner M, Hoffmann A, Hoffmann H, Leimeister JM (2011) Towards a theory of explanation and prediction for the formation of trust in IT artifacts. Paper presented at the 10. Annual Workshop on HCI Research in MIS, Shanghai, 04 December 2011Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shirey R (2000) RFC 4949—internet security glossary, version 2. The Internet Society, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leimeister JM, Ebner W, Krcmar H (2005) Design, implementation, and evaluation of trust-supporting components in virtual communities for patients. J Manag Inf Syst 21(4):101–135Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Manouchehri S, Söllner M, Leimeister JM (2010) Trust as a design aspect of context aware systems. In: Beigl M, Cazorla-Almeida FJ (eds) Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on architecture of computing systems (ARCS 2010), Hannover, Germany, pp 183–190Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Patrick AS, Briggs P, Marsh S (2005) Designing systems that people will trust. In: Cranor L, Garfinkel S (eds) Security and usability: designing secure systems that people can use. O’Reilly, Sebastopol, pp 75–100Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sutcliffe A (1998) Scenario-based requirements analysis. Requir Eng 3(1):48–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kotonya G, Sommerville I (1996) Requirements engineering with viewpoints. Softw Eng J 11(1):5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Herrmann A, Daneva M (2008) Requirements prioritization based on benefit and cost prediction: an agenda for future research. Paper presented at the 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, Barcelona, 08–12 September 2008Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boehm B, Grünbacher P, Briggs RO (2001) Developing groupware for requirements negotiation: lessons learned. IEEE Distrib Syst Online 18(3):46–55Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pohl K (2008) Requirements engineering. dpunkt Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chung L, Nixon BA, Yu E, Mylopoulos J (2000) Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Kluwer, BostonCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cleland-Huang J, Settimi R, BenKhadra O, Berezhanskaya E, Christina S (2005) Goal-centric traceability for managing non-functional requirements. In: 27th international conference on software engineering. ACM, St. Louis, pp 362–371Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gross D, Yu E (2001) From non-functional requirements to design through patterns. Requir Eng 6(1):18–36CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Withall S (2007) Software requirement patterns. Microsoft Press, RedmondGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Martin D, Rouncefield M, Sommerville I (2006) Patterns for dependable design. In: Clarke K, Hardstone G, Rouncefield M, Sommerville I (eds) Trust in technology: a socio-technical perspective. Springer, Doordrecht, pp 147–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Melville P, Sindhwani V (2010) Recommender systems. In: Sammut C, Webb G (eds) Encyclopedia of machine learning. Springer, Berlin, pp 829–837Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lewis C, Rieman J (1993) Task-centered user interface design: a practical introduction. University of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kotonya G, Sommerville I (1998) Requirements engineering: processes and techniques. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Forrester Research (2009) North American Technographics Media and Marketing Online Survey. Forrester Research, Inc., CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Acquisti A, Gross R (2006) Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the facebook. In: Danezis G, Golle P (eds) Privacy enhancing technologies, vol 4258. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 36–58. doi: 10.1007/11957454_3
  40. 40.
    Salber D, Coutaz J (1993) Applying the Wizard of Oz technique to the study of multimodal systems. In: Bass L, Gornostaev J, Unger C (eds) Selected papers from the third international conference on human-computer interaction, vol 753. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 219–230Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Muir BM, Moray N (1996) Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics 39(3):429–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kassel UniversityKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations