The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2019 Annual Meeting
Abstract
This lecture discusses the validation of a new scale, the Trust of Automated Systems Test (TOAST). As we increasingly rely on automated systems to perform tasks, it becomes ever more important to understand the ways in which real operators will use these systems. Trust is a critical determinant of this use. Previous efforts to translate trust, typically an interpersonal human experience, into the domain of artificial cognition and inanimate objects, has met with mixed success. Existing scales tend to anthropomorphize systems and attribute intent to relatively simplistic decision processes. This anthropomorphization has led to operator dissatisfaction with these scales and, consequently, poor data quality. In two studies, I present the validation effort for a scale that avoids anthropomorphizing while still assessing the theoretically-driven underlying dimensions of trust formation. Confirmatory Factor Analyses provide evidence that the TOAST, a nine-item scale measuring operator Understanding of the system and belief in its Efficacy is a valid metric of operator trust of both military and civilian systems.
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
Cited by
Radlmayr, J., Gold, C., Lorenz, L., Farid, M., & Bengler, K. (2014) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931214581434 · Cited by 448
Explanations as Mechanisms for Supporting Algorithmic Transparency
Rader, E., Cotter, K., & Cho, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173677 · Cited by 388
Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Meta-Analytic Findings
Kaplan, A. D., Kessler, T. T., Brill, J. C., & Hancock, P. A. (2023) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208211013988 · Cited by 397
The impact of chatbot conversational skill on engagement and perceived humanness
Schuetzler, R. M., Grimes, G. M., & Scott Giboney, J. (2020) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2020.1790204 · Cited by 357
A Review of Psychophysiological Measures to Assess Cognitive States in Real-World Driving
Lohani, M., Payne, B. R., & Strayer, D. L. (2019) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00057 · Cited by 348
Metadata
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-11
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2169-2169
- ISSN
- 0163-5182 (ISSN-L)
- 1071-1813
- 2169-5067
- OpenAlex
- W4237513721
- Cited by
- 1,432
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 185.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2019 Annual Meeting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1071181319631171
- The paper
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2019 Annual Meeting. (2019). Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631171
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.