Cited by 58Human-Automation Interaction and SafetySocial Robot Interaction and HRICultural Differences and Values

The Effect of Culture on Trust in Automation: Reliability and Workload

Open access
Chien, Shih-Yi, Lewis, Michael, Sycara, Katia, Liu, Jyi-Shane, Kumru, Asiye·2018·ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems

Abstract

Trust in automation has become a topic of intensive study since the late 1990s and is of increasing importance with the advent of intelligent interacting systems. While the earliest trust experiments involved human interventions to correct failures/errors in automated control systems, a majority of subsequent studies have investigated information acquisition and analysis decision aiding tasks such as target detection for which automation reliability is more easily manipulated. Despite the high level of international dependence on automation in industry, almost all current studies have employed Western samples primarily from the U.S. The present study addresses these gaps by running a large sample experiment in three (U.S., Taiwan, and Turkey) diverse cultures using a “trust sensitive task” consisting of both automated control and target detection subtasks. This article presents results for the target detection subtask for which reliability and task load were manipulated. The current experiments allow us to determine whether reported effects are universal or specific to Western culture, vary in baseline or magnitude, or differ across cultures. Results generally confirm consistent effects of manipulations across the three cultures as well as cultural differences in initial trust and variation in effects of manipulations consistent with 10 cultural hypotheses based on Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions and Leung and Cohen's theory of Cultural Syndromes. These results provide critical implications and insights for correct trust calibration and to enhance human trust in intelligent automation systems across cultures. Additionally, our results would be useful in designing intelligent systems for users of different cultures. Our article presents the following contributions: First, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first set of studies that deal with cultural factors across all the cultural syndromes identified in the literature by comparing trust in the Honor, Face, Dignity cultures. Second, this is the first set of studies that uses a validated cross-cultural trust measure for measuring trust in automation. Third, our experiments are the first to study the dynamics of trust across cultures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3230736

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • As workload increases, workers may cut back on actively monitoring automated systems and uncritically accept the decision outputs to keep up with task demands.

    “That is, as workload increases, the workers may cut back on actively monitoring automated systems and uncritically accept the decision outputs to keep up with task demands (Chien et al., 2018).”

    From Algorithmic management in a work context (2021) · cites this paper as Chien et al., 2018

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 96 · Cited by 58

Authors
Chien, S.-Y., Lewis, M., Sycara, K., Liu, J.-S., & Kumru, A.
Affiliations
  • National Chengchi University (TW)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Özyeğin University (TR)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems
Published
2018-11-16
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
1-31
ISSN
  • 2160-6455 (ISSN-L)
  • 2160-6463
OpenAlex
W2900390255
Cited by
58
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3
FWCI
4.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (publishedVersion)
  • D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) (submittedVersion)
  • eResearch@Ozyegin (submittedVersion)
Funders
AFOSR (FA9550-13-1-0129)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
Keywords
trust in automation, cultural differences, cross-cultural trust, target detection, automatic control, trust calibration, cultural syndromes, Hofstede cultural dimensions, trust dynamics, intelligent systems, workload, automation reliability

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