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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models
Sobel, M. E. (1982) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.2307/270723 · Cited by 12,810
David, F. N., & Tukey, J. W. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529486 · Cited by 12,708
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Venkatesh, V. (2000) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 · Cited by 6,664
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605 · cited 1×
“Previous studies have shown that trust is a crucial psychological factor that contributes to the acceptability of automation technology (e.g., Lee & Moray, 1992; Lee & See, 2004; Lewandowsky, Mundy, & Tan, 2000; Muir, 1994; Muir & Moray, 1996; Parasuraman & Riley, 1997; Riley, 1996).”
Background(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3702 · Cited by 4,887
Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 · Cited by 4,554
A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans · doi:10.1109/3468.844354 · Cited by 4,195 · cited 1×
“From this continuum, we propose that both the provision of information and the execution of action by automation technology determine its automation level (also see Parasuraman, Sheridan, & Wickens, 2000).”
Background
Cited by
Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust
Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720814547570 · Cited by 2,817
Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., Szalma, J. L., & Hancock, P. A. (2016) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720816634228 · Cited by 768
Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents.
de Visser, E. J., Monfort, S. S., McKendrick, R., Smith, M. A. B., McKnight, P. E., Krueger, F., & Parasuraman, R. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000092 · Cited by 614
Human–Agent Teaming for Multirobot Control: A Review of Human Factors Issues
Chen, J. Y. C., & Barnes, M. J. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2013.2293535 · Cited by 522
Attachment and trust in artificial intelligence
Gillath, O., Ai, T., Branicky, M. S., Keshmiri, S., Davison, R. B., & Spaulding, R. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106607 · Cited by 448
Metadata
- Authors
- Verberne, F. M. F., Ham, J., & Midden, C. J. H.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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.