Cited by 91Social Robot Interaction and HRIHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Trust in Human-AI Interaction: Scoping Out Models, Measures, and Methods

Open access
Ueno, Takane, Sawa, Yuto, Kim, Yeongdae, Urakami, Jacqueline, Oura, Hiroki, Seaborn, Katie·2022·Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Trust has emerged as a key factor in people's interactions with AI-infused systems. Yet, little is known about what models of trust have been used and for what systems: robots, virtual characters, smart vehicles, decision aids, or others. Moreover, there is yet no known standard approach to measuring trust in AI. This scoping review maps out the state of affairs on trust in human-AI interaction (HAII) from the perspectives of models, measures, and methods. Findings suggest that trust is an important and multi-faceted topic of study within HAII contexts. However, most work is under-theorized and under-reported, generally not using established trust models and missing details about methods, especially Wizard of Oz. We offer several targets for systematic review work as well as a research agenda for combining the strengths and addressing the weaknesses of the current literature.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3491101.3519772

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Filipa Correia, Carla Guerra, Samuel Mascarenhas, Francisco S. Melo, and Ana Paiva. 2018. Exploring the impact of fault justification in human-robot trust: Socially Interactive Agents Track. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS, 507-513. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0- 85055355424&partnerID=40&md5=4cbf8352d1f3671bfc5ab4876e81e259
  2. Maria Madsen and Shirley Gregor. 2000. Measuring human-computer trust. In Proceedings of the 11 th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 6-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ueno, T., Sawa, Y., Kim, Y., Urakami, J., Oura, H., & Seaborn, K.
Affiliations
  • Tokyo Institute of Technology (JP)
  • School of Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
  • Tokyo University of Science (JP)
Venue
Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-04-27
Pages
1-7
OpenAlex
W4225095662
Cited by
91
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 7
FWCI
29.85
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
trust in AI, human-AI interaction, trust model, trust measurement, trust in robots, virtual characters, intelligent vehicles, decision aids, Wizard of Oz, research agenda

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