Techno-Trust and Rational Trust in Technology – A Conceptual Investigation

  • Pertti Saariluoma
  • Hannu Karvonen
  • Rebekah Rousi
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 544)


Trust is essential when using technology. If people do not trust new technology, they do not accept it. If people do not accept new technologies such as autonomous ships, their development is hampered in the absence of financial support. The importance of trust brings into question the essential conceptual components of phenomena that contribute to trust. This knowledge is required for the basis of investigating trust in technology. Especially, it is important to understand why humans trust. The reasons can be intuitive but they can also be supported by rational arguments. The latter type of trust can be called rational trust. A beneficial way of considering rational trust in technology can be reached by defining aspects of technologies that should be investigated when attempting to design for trust in technology. Therefore, the basic conceptual dimensions of technology supported actions are analyzed in order to define the essential elements of rational trust in technology.


Rational trust Techno-Trust Human-technology interaction Design 


  1. 1.
    Frijda, N.H.: The Emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hawley, K.: Trust: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saariluoma, P., Cañas, J., Leikas, J.: Designing for Life: A Human Perspective on Technology Development. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Power, M., Dalgleish, T.: Cognition and Emotion: From Order to Disorder. Psychology Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saariluoma, P., Jokinen, J.P.: Emotional dimensions of user experience: a user psychological analysis. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 30(4), 303–320 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scherer, K.R.: What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Soc. Sci. Inf. 44(4), 695–729 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franken, I.H.A.: Behavioral approach system (BAS) sensitivity predicts alcohol craving. Pers. Individ. Differ. 32, 349–355 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brentano, F.: Psychologie vom Empirischen Standpunkt. Felix Meiner, Hamburg (1874/1955)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dennett, D.: Consciousness Explained. Little Brown Publishers, Boston (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Husserl, E.: Logische Unterschungen I-II [Logical Investigations]. Niemeyer, Halle (1901)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lowe, E.J.: Substance causation, powers, and human agency. In: Gibb, S.C., Lowe, E.J., Ingthorsson, R.D. (eds.) Mental Causation and Ontology, pp. 153–172. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Searle, J.: The Rediscovery of Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Damasio, A.R.: The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. Harcourt Brace, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frost-Arnold, K.: The cognitive attitude of rational trust. Synthese 191(9), 1957–1974 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Möllering, G.: Rational, institutional and active trust: just do it. In: Trust under Pressure: Empirical Investigations of Trust and Trust Building in Uncertain Circumstances, vol. 17, p. 30 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tuomela, M.: A collective’s rational trust in a collective’s action. ProtoSociology 18, 87–126 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Principles of trust for MAS: cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (July 1998), pp. 72–79. IEEE (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yao-Hua Tan, W.T.: Toward a generic model of trust for electronic commerce. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 5(2), 61–74 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leikas, J.: Life-Based Design – A Holistic Approach to Designing Human-Technology Interaction. Edita Prima Oy, Helsinki (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J.R., Benjamins, V.R.: What are ontologies, and why do we need them? IEEE Intell. Syst. Appl. 14(1), 20–26 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gero, J.S.: Generalizing design cognition research. DTRS 8, 187–198 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vezina, B.: Universals and particulars: aristotle’s ontological theory and criticism of the platonic forms. Undergrad. Rev. 3(1), 101–103 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parsons, G.: The Philosophy of Design. Wiley, Hoboken (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., Hoffmann, P.: Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, October 2005, pp. 347–354. Association for Computational Linguistics (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Waytz, A., Heafner, J., Epley, N.: The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 52, 113–117 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saariluoma, P.: Foundational Analysis: Presuppositions in Experimental Psychology. Routledge, London (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lotman, J.: On the semiosphere. Sign Syst. Stud. 33(1), 205–229 (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wittgenstein, L.: Philosophical Investigations. Wiley, Loboken (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cariani, P.: Life’s journey through the semiosphere. Semiotica-La Haye Berlin 120, 243–258 (1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saariluoma, P., Rousi, R.: Symbolic interactions: towards a cognitive scientific theory of meaning in human technology interaction. J. Adv. Hum. 3(3), 310–323 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ford, M.: Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. Basic Books, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Achinstein, P.: The Nature of Explanation. Oxford University Press on Demand, Oxford (1983)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bunge, M.: Scientific Research, vol. 1. Springer, Berlin (1967)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hempel, C.G., Oppenheim, P.: Studies in the logic of explanation. Philos. Sci. 15(2), 135–175 (1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Woodward, J.: Explanation in neurobiology: an interventionist perspective. In: Kaplan, D.M. (ed.) Integrating Psychology and Neuroscience: Prospects and problems (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pertti Saariluoma
    • 1
  • Hannu Karvonen
    • 2
  • Rebekah Rousi
    • 1
  1. 1.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.VTT Technical Research CenterEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations