Cited by 875Human-Automation Interaction and SafetySocial Robot Interaction and HRIUsability and User Interface Design

Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems

MUIR, BONNIE M.·1994·Ergonomics

Abstract

Today many systems are highly automated. The human operator's role in these systems is to supervise the automation and intervene to take manual control when necessary. The operator's choice of automatic or manual control has important consequences for system performance, and therefore it is important to understand and optimize this decision process. One important determinant of operators' choice of manual or automatic control may be their degree of trust in the automation. However, there have been no experimental tests of this hypothesis until recently, nor is there a model of human trust in machines to form a theoretical foundation for empirical studies. In this paper a model of human trust in machines is developed, taking models of trust between people as a starting point, and extending them to the human-machine relationship. The resulting model defines human trust in machines and specifies how trust changes with experience on a system, providing a framework for experimental research on trust and human intervention in automated systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00140139408964957

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Most existing studies on trust calibration have investigated how to maintain appropriate trust calibration by continuously presenting system information to prevent over-trust or under-trust.

    “Most of the studies investigated how to maintain appropriate trust calibration by continuously presenting system information to prevent over-trust or under-trust.”

    From Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration (2020) · cites this paper as [2]

  • Successful collaborations between users and agents require users to appropriately adjust their level of trust with the actual reliability of the agents.

    “Successful collaborations between users and agents would require the users to appropriately adjust their level of trust with the actual reliability of the agents.”

    From Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration (2020) · cites this paper as [2]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MUIR, B. M.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
MUIR, BONNIE M.
Venue
Ergonomics
Published
1994-11
Volume
37
Issue
11
Pages
1905-1922
ISSN
  • 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5847
OpenAlex
W2032426551
Cited by
873
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 27
FWCI
2.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
trust in automation, human-machine trust, human intervention, manual control, automated systems, operator decision-making, trust model, human oversight

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