Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures

In the citing paper

“Trustworthiness judgments in humans or technology have different characteristics, yet they both are premised on the same underlying contextual conditions: risk, uncertainty and lack of control (McKnight et al. 2011).”

In the citing paper

“Trust in technology has previously been seen in the light of the technology's functionality, ability to provide help and operational reliability and the technology provider's integrity, benevolence and competence-including privacy aspects (McKnight et al., 2011;Prakash and Das, 2020;Ta et al., 2020).”

In the citing paper

“In the canonical models of trust formation, such (Giddens, 1990; Mayer et al., 1995; McKnight et al., 2011; Misztal, 1996) trust is described to have a number of different components. First, trust depends on the personal characteristics of the trustor, such as their propensity to trust, something which I do not discuss in this article. Second, trust is a factor of the perceived or actual char”

In the citing paper

“Nevertheless, trust is a complex concept and is built upon human users’ interaction and consequent assessment of the system from cognitive, emotional, and social dimensions [91-93].”

In the citing paper

“Individual differences of users (e.g., gender, culture, age, and personality) are closely related to the propensity for or tendency toward technology users may manifest or develop (Gefen et al., 2008; McKnight et al. 2011).”

In the citing paper

“Proposition 6b. The greater the reliability an algorithm demonstrates, the higher the probability of building trust in AI algorithms over time.”

In the citing paper

“One important factor for initial trust is the user's propensity to trust, which, being tacit, bestows a positive impact on this starting phase and tends to remain stable over time (McKnight et al. 2011).”

In the citing paper

“Specific trust in people and trust in technology not only differ in terms of the nature of the object of dependence but also on important trusting beliefs.”

In the citing paper

“Interpersonal trusting beliefs reflect judgments that the other party has suitable attributes and motives for performing as expected in a risky situation (Mayer et al. 1995), whereas technology-related trust necessarily reflects beliefs about a technology's characteristics rather than its motives (McKnight et al. 2011).”

In the citing paper

“Most IS research nowadays employs a dualistic perspective on trust (see Table 1).First, trust in a specific person or organization (a moral and volitional agent) (Lankton et al. 2015;McKnight et al. 2011), such as trust in an e-vendor (Gefen et al. 2003) or virtual team members (Robert et al. 2009).”

In the citing paper

“In contrast, individuals' trust in technology commonly concerns the technology's functionality (i.e., providing features needed to complete a task), its helpfulness (i.e., help functions will provide necessary advice), and its reliability (i.e., technology will consistently operate properly) (McKnight et al. 2011;Thatcher et al. 2010).”

In the citing paper

“Trust plays a particularly important role in almost any ISenabled situation in which either uncertainty prevails or undesirable outcomes are possible (McKnight et al. 2011).”

In the citing paper

“Specific trust in persons and technology can be further positioned in a nomological net of trust, comprising general trusting beliefs and institution-based trust as antecedents and trusting intentions as consequence of specific trust in persons or technology (McKnight et al. 2011;McKnight et al. 2002; see Fig. 1).”

In the citing paper

“The trust literature suggests a causal ordering among trust constructs, such that an individual's general trusting beliefs in people or technology directly influences institutionbased trust and indirectly shapes trust in a specific person or technology (McKnight et al. 2011;McKnight and Chervany 2001).”

In the citing paper

“In line with the view of institutions-based trust in technology being an antecedent to trust in a specific technology (McKnight et al. 2011), we argue, that the limited availability of large, high-quality data in certain areas, which constraints our ability to promote human well-being through AI in those areas, could lead society to perceive the entire class of AIbased systems as not beneficent (”