The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards an Empirically Developed Scale for System Trust: Take Two
Abstract
Research on human trust in automated systems has been frequently limited by the use of inappropriate and inaccurate scales of human-machine trust. An attempt is made here to validate a scale proposed by Jian, Bisantz, and Drury (2000) that measures trust and distrust in automated systems. Sixty participants completed a patient monitoring task with the aid of an imperfect signaling system. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using LISREL 8.0 to determine the best fitting measurement model. Chi-square difference tests indicated that the best fitting model was the 2-factor oblique model. These results suggest that when using the System Trust Scale, researchers should treat trust as a multi-dimensional construct comprising of two distinct, yet related, factors. Implications for future research and measurement development are discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Spain et al.'s factor analysis provided evidence for the conceptualization of trust and distrust as separate, yet related constructs.
“This factor analysis provided evidence for the conceptualization of trust and distrust as separate, yet related constructs (Spain et al., 2008).”
From Trust, distrust, and appropriate reliance in (X)AI: A conceptual clarification of user trust and survey of its empirical evaluation (2025) · cites this paper as Spain et al., 2008
In practice, distrust items are often reverse-scored and summed with trust items to form one trust score, as suggested by the original authors.
“In practice, these items are often reverse-scored and summed with the trust items to form one trust score, which was also suggested by the original authors of the scale (Spain et al., 2008).”
From Trust, distrust, and appropriate reliance in (X)AI: A conceptual clarification of user trust and survey of its empirical evaluation (2025) · cites this paper as Spain et al., 2008
In a critical validation attempt by Spain et al. (2008), a one-factor model and a two-factor model were compared.
“In a critical validation attempt of this scale by Spain et al. (2008), a one-factor model (indicating the polar opposites along a single dimension) and a two-factor model were compared.”
From Trust, distrust, and appropriate reliance in (X)AI: A conceptual clarification of user trust and survey of its empirical evaluation (2025) · cites this paper as Spain et al. (2008)
Reverse scoring distrust items and summing them with trust items entails a problematic entanglement of the two factors identified by Spain et al. (2008) and disregards the incremental insight by measuring trust and distrust individually.
“Reverse scoring distrust items to then sum with the trust items entails a problematic entanglement of the two factors identified by Spain et al. (2008) and disregards the incremental insight by measuring trust and distrust individually.”
From Trust, distrust, and appropriate reliance in (X)AI: A conceptual clarification of user trust and survey of its empirical evaluation (2025) · cites this paper as Spain et al. (2008)
Citations
Cites
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 9×
“Furthermore, Lee and See (2004) suggest that trust combines with other attitudes to influence behaviors such as compliance and reliance.”
BackgroundInfluentialHumans 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
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95 · Cited by 3,146 · cited 1×
“For instance, social psychologists suggest that trust is dependent upon a linear combination of three components: the reliability of the individual, the dependability of the individual, and faith in the trustee (Rempel, Holmes & Zanna, 1985).”
BackgroundFoundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems
Jian, J.-Y., Bisantz, A. M., & Drury, C. G. (2000) · International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics · doi:10.1207/s15327566ijce0401_04 · Cited by 1,799
MUIR, B. M., & MORAY, N. (1996) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139608964474 · Cited by 993
Trust and Distrust Definitions: One Bite at a Time
Harrison McKnight, D., & Chervany, N. L. (2001) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-45547-7_3 · Cited by 747
Type of Automation Failure: The Effects on Trust and Reliance in Automation
Johnson, J. D., Sanchez, J., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2004) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120404801807 · Cited by 41
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Allen M. J., 1979, Introduction to measurement theory
- Barber B., 1983, The logic and limits of trust
- Benamati J., Serva M.A., Fuller M.A. (2006). Are trust and distrust distinct constructs? An empirical study of the effects of trust and distrust among online banking users. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , Jan. 121b. · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.apergo.2003.07.003 · DOI
- 10.1080/001401300421743 · DOI
- 10.1080/00140139508925269 · DOI
- Brown R. D., Galster S. M. (2004). Effects of reliable and unreliable automation on subjective measures of mental workload, situation awareness, trust, and confidence in dynamic flight task. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society , New Orleans; LA, pp 147–151. · DOI
- Fallon C. K., Bustamante E. A., Ely K. M., Bliss J. P. (2005). Improving user trust with a likelihood alarm display. In Proceeding of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. (Las Vegas, NV).
- 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.16310.x · DOI
- Joreskog K. G., 1996, LISREL 8 user's reference guide
- 10.1006/ijhc.1994.1007 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1518/0018720054679489 · DOI
- 10.2307/258792 · DOI · Paper page
- Muir B. M., 1989, Operators' trust in and percentage of time spent using the automatic controllers in a supervisory process control task.
- 10.1518/001872007779598082 · DOI
- Safar J. A., Turner C. W. (2005). Validation of a two factor structure for system trust. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Orlando: FL, pp. 497–501. · DOI
- Sanchez J., 2006, Factors that affect trust and reliance on an automated aid.
- 10.1207/s15327108ijap0302_2 · DOI
- Spain R. D., Bliss J. P. (under review). The effects of sonification pulse rate and system reliability on perceived workload and trust.
- Wickens C. D., 2000, Engineering psychology and human performance.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Visser, R., Peters, T. M., Scharlau, I., & Hammer, B. (2025) · Cognitive Systems Research · doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2025.101357 · Cited by 58
Exploring the effects of human-centered AI explanations on trust and reliance
Scharowski, N., Perrig, S. A. C., Svab, M., Opwis, K., & Brühlmann, F. (2023) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2023.1151150 · Cited by 57
Gutzwiller, R. S., Chiou, E. K., Craig, S. D., Lewis, C. M., Lematta, G. J., & Hsiung, C.-P. (2019) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181319631201 · Cited by 54
Metadata
- Authors
- Spain, R. D., Bustamante, E. A., & Bliss, J. P.
- Affiliations
- Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
- University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 1335-1339
- ISSN
- 1071-1813
- 2169-5067
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 7
- Language
- en
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
