Towards the Development of an Inter-cultural Scale to Measure Trust in Automation

  • Shih-Yi Chien
  • Zhaleh Semnani-Azad
  • Michael Lewis
  • Katia Sycara
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8528)


Trust is conceived as an attitude leading to intentions resulting in user actions involving automation. It is generally believed that trust is dynamic and that a user’s prior experience with automation affects future behavior indirectly through causing changes in trust. Additionally, individual differences and cultural factors have been frequently cited as the contributors to influencing trust beliefs about using and monitoring automation. The presented research focuses on modeling human’s trust when interacting with automated systems across cultures. The initial trust assessment instrument, comprising 110 items along with 2 perceptions (general vs. specific use of automation), has been empirically validated. Detailed results comparing items and dimensionality with our new pooled measure will be presented.


Trust Automation Culture Technology Adoption Human Computer Interaction (HCI) Human Factors 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lyons, J.B., Stokes, C.K.: Human-Human Reliance in the Context of Automation. Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee, J., Moray, N.: Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35(10), 1243–1270 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muir, B., Moray, N.: Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lewandowsky, S., Mundy, M., Tan, G.P.: The dynamics of trust: comparing humans to automation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Masalonis, A.J., Parasuraman, R.: Effects of training operators on situation-specific automation reliability 2, 1595–1599 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moray, N., Inagaki, T., Itoh, M.: Adaptive Automation, Trust, and Self-Confidence in Fault Management of Time-Critical Tasks. Experimental Psychology: Applieed (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Madsen, M., Gregor, S.: Measuring human-computer trust. In: 11th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, vol. 53, pp. 6–8 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones, G.R., George, J.M.: The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork. The Academy of Management Review (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adams, B., Webb, R.: Trust in small military teams. In: 7th International Command and Control Technology Symposium (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis, J., Weigert, A.: Trust as a social reality. Social Forces (1985)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muir, B.: Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics 37(11), 1905–1922 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, J., See, K.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors 46(1), 50–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moray, N., Inagaki, T.: Laboratory studies of trust between humans and machines in automated systems. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh, I.L., Molloy, R., Parasuraman, R.: Individual differences in monitoring failures of automation. Journal of General Psychology 120(3), 357–373 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Merritt, S., Ilgen, D.: Not All Trust Is Created Equal: Dispositional and History-Based Trust in Human-Automation Interactions. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50(2), 194–210 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karvonen, K.: Designing trust for a universal audience: A multicultural study on the formation of trust in the internet in the nordic countries. In: HCI (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Merritt: Culture in the Cockpit: Do Hofstede’s Dimensions Replicate? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31(3), 283–301 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hofstede: Cultures And Organizations - Software of the Mind. Development (1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gunia, B.C., Brett, J.M., Nandkeolyar, A.K., Kamdar, D.: Paying a price: culture, trust, and negotiation consequences. The Journal of Applied Psychology (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fulmer, C.A., Gelfand, M.J.: Dynamic Trust Processes: Trust Dissolution and Restoration, pp. 1–32 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim, D.: Cognition-Based Versus Affect-Based Trust Determinants in E-Commerce: Cross-Cultural Comparison Study. In: ICIS, pp. 741–753 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee, I., Choi, B., Kim, J., Hong, S.: Culture-technology fit: effects of cultural characteristics on the post-adoption beliefs of mobile internet users. International Journal of Electronic 11(4), 11–51 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jian, J., Bisantz, A., Drury, C.: Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spain, R.D., Bustamante, E.A., Bliss, J.P.: Towards an Empirically Developed Scale for System Trust: Take Two. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 52(19), 1335–1339 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Master, R., Jiang, X., Khasawneh, M.T., Bowling, S.R., Grimes, L., Gramopadhye, A.K., Melloy, B.J.: Measurement of trust over time in hybrid inspection systems. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing 15(2), 177–196 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Luz, M.: Validation of a Trust survey on example of MTCD in real time simulation with Irish controllers (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Organisation, E., The, F.O.R., Of, S., Navigation, A.I.R., Air, E., Management, T.: Guidelines for Trust in Future ATM Systems: Measures Guidelines for Trust in Future ATM Systems: Measures Guidelines for Trust in Future ATM Systems: Measures (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Im, I., Hong, S., Kang, M.S.: An international comparison of technology adoption. Information & Management 48(1), 1–8 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., Davis, F.: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3), 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hwang, Y., Lee, K.C.: Investigating the moderating role of uncertainty avoidance cultural values on multidimensional online trust. Information & Management (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Srite, M., Karahanna, E.: The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly 30(3), 679–704 (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Limayem, M., Khalifa, M., Frini, A.: What makes consumers buy from Internet? A longitudinal study of online shopping. Systems, Man and Cybernetics (2000)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mcknight, D., Carter, M.: Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Halpert, A., Horvath, A., Preston, F., Somerville, K., Semnani-azad, Z.: Technological Adoptiveness Scale (TAS): Internal Properties and Construct Validity (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shih-Yi Chien
    • 1
  • Zhaleh Semnani-Azad
    • 2
  • Michael Lewis
    • 1
  • Katia Sycara
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Information SciencesUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.Robotics InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations