The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Trust in Smart Personal Assistants: A Systematic Literature Review and Development of a Research Agenda
Abstract
Smart Personal Assistants (SPA) fundamentally influence the way individuals perform tasks, use services and interact with organizations. They thus bear an immense economic and societal potential. However, a lack of trust - rooted in perceptions of uncertainty and risk - when interacting with intelligent computer agents can inhibit their adoption. In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review to investigate the state of knowledge on trust in SPAs. Based on a concept-centric analysis of 50 papers, we derive three distinct research perspectives that constitute this nascent field: user interface-driven, interaction-driven, and explanation-driven trust in SPAs. Building on the results of our analysis, we develop a research agenda to spark and guide future research surrounding trust in SPAs. Ultimately, this paper intends to contribute to the body of knowledge of trust in artificial intelligence-based systems, specifically SPAs. It does so by proposing a novel framework mapping out their relationship.
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?
In the citing paper
“This has helped identify factors contributing to positive or negative user experience [118] and has addressed specific aspects such as trust [119], perceived social support [71], human likeness [4], and how these aspects are impacted by chatbot design [42].”
From Future directions for chatbot research: An interdisciplinary research agenda (2021) · cites this paper as [119]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Trust in AI: progress, challenges, and future directions
Afroogh, S., Akbari, A., Malone, E., Kargar, M., & Alambeigi, H. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-04044-8 · Cited by 718
“…2021; Hui et al., 2021; Jacobs et al., 2021; D. K. D. Kim and Kim, 2021a), fi nance (Chandra et al., 2010; Kumar et al., 2021; Zierau et al., 2021), personal assistance (Fan et al., 2021b; Pitardi and Marriott, 2021a; Zierau et al., 2020), autonomous vehicles (Ajenaghughrure et al., 2020a), etc.”
Future directions for chatbot research: An interdisciplinary research agenda
Følstad, A., Araujo, T., Law, E. L.-C., Brandtzaeg, P. B., Papadopoulos, S., Reis, L., Baez, M., Laban, G., McAllister, P., Ischen, C., et al. (2021) · Computing · doi:10.1007/s00607-021-01016-7 · Cited by 247
“This has helped identify factors contributing to positive or negative user experience [118] and has addressed specific aspects such as trust [119], perceived social support [71], human likeness [4], and how these aspects are impacted by chatbot design [42].”
BackgroundHornung, O., & Smolnik, S. (2021) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-021-00493-0 · Cited by 98
“Regarding PVAs, trust and privacy issues mostly lead to users rejecting this technology (Cho et al., 2020; Liao et al., 2019; Zierau et al., 2020).”
BackgroundEthical Design of Conversational Agents: Towards Principles for a Value-Sensitive Design
Wambsganß, T., Höch, A., Zierau, N., & Söllner, M. (2021) · Lecture notes in information systems and organisation · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-86790-4_37 · Cited by 31
“Thus, a plethora of positive user outcomes have been recorded, such as engagement [4], trust [5, 6], rapport, and ease of use, in several domains, such as education [7–9], healthcare [10] and customer service [11, 12].”
BackgroundSelf-citationMicroexpressions in digital humans: perceived affect, sincerity, and trustworthiness
Tastemirova, A., Schneider, J., Kruse, L. C., Heinzle, S., & Brocke, J. V. (2022) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-022-00563-x · Cited by 35
“Digital humans are increasingly built to establish emotional bonds, where friendly style and social-emotional cues positively influence the perceived trustworthiness and level of interactivity (Zierau et al., 2020).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- University of St.Gallen, I. O. I. M., Zierau, N., Engel, C., Söllner, M., University of Kassel, I. S. A. S. E., Leimeister, J. M., & University of Kassel, I. S.
- Venue
- WI2020 Zentrale Tracks
- Publisher
- GITO Verlag
- Published
- 2020-03-09
- Pages
- 99-114
- OpenAlex
- W4230628669
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5
- FWCI
- 0.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Alexandria (UniSG) (University of St.Gallen) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- smart personal assistants, trust in AI, user interface design, interaction design, explanation, uncertainty, risk perception, 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
