Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trust in Smart Systems: Sharing Driving Goals and Giving Information to Increase Trustworthiness and Acceptability of Smart Systems in Cars

Verberne, Frank M. F., Ham, Jaap, Midden, Cees J. H.·2012·Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Abstract

Objective: We examine whether trust in smart systems is generated analogously to trust in humans and whether the automation level of smart systems affects trustworthiness and acceptability of those systems. Background: Trust is an important factor when considering acceptability of automation technology. As shared goals lead to social trust, and intelligent machines tend to be treated like humans, the authors expected that shared driving goals would also lead to increased trustworthiness and acceptability of adaptive cruise control (ACC) systems. Method: In an experiment, participants ( N = 57) were presented with descriptions of three ACCs with different automation levels that were described as systems that either shared their driving goals or did not. Trustworthiness and acceptability of all the ACCs were measured. Results: ACCs sharing the driving goals of the user were more trustworthy and acceptable than were ACCs not sharing the driving goals of the user. Furthermore, ACCs that took over driving tasks while providing information were more trustworthy and acceptable than were ACCs that took over driving tasks without providing information. Trustworthiness mediated the effects of both driving goals and automation level on acceptability of ACCs. Conclusion: As when trusting other humans, trusting smart systems depends on those systems sharing the user’s goals. Furthermore, based on their description, smart systems that take over tasks are judged more trustworthy and acceptable when they also provide information. Application: For optimal acceptability of smart systems, goals of the user should be shared by the smart systems, and smart systems should provide information to their user.

Overview

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 · 10.1177/0018720812443825

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Cited by

See all 262

Metadata

Authors
Verberne, F. M. F., Ham, J., & Midden, C. J. H.
Venue
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Published
2012-05-16
Volume
54
Issue
5
Pages
799-810
ISSN
  • 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-8181
OpenAlex
W2055529535
Cited by
262
References
34
FWCI
14.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trust in Smart Systems: Sharing Driving Goals and Giving Information to Increase Trustworthiness and Acceptability of Smart Systems in Cars. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0018720812443825
The paper
Verberne, F. M. F., Ham, J., & Midden, C. J. H. (2012). Trust in Smart Systems: Sharing Driving Goals and Giving Information to Increase Trustworthiness and Acceptability of Smart Systems in Cars. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812443825

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.