Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Innovative Human-Technology InteractionUsability and User Interface DesignPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Design for the Value of Trust

Nickel, Philip J.·2015·Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_21
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_21

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Franck KA, Von Sommaruga Howard T (2010) Design through dialogue: a guide for architects and clients. Wiley, Chichester
  2. Hardin R (2006) Trust. Polity, New York
  3. King B (1989) Better design in half the time: implementing QFD in America, 3rd Ed. GOAL/QPC, Methuen

Cited by

See all 33

Metadata

Authors
Nickel, P. J.
Affiliations
Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
Corresponding author
Nickel, Philip J.
ORCID
Nickel, Philip J.
Venue
Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published
2015
Pages
551-567
DOI
10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_21
OpenAlex
W17217136
Cited by
33
References
56
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.08
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Springer eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
trust, design for values, interpersonal trust, digital information, information scarcity, social cues, perceptual cues, information and communication technologies, philosophy of trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.