CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 315

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measurement of Trust in Automation: A Narrative Review and Reference Guide

Kohn, Spencer C., de Visser, Ewart J., Wiese, Eva, Lee, Yi-Ching, Shaw, Tyler H.·2021·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.604977PMC PMC8562383
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

With the rise of automated and autonomous agents, research examining Trust in Automation (TiA) has attracted considerable attention over the last few decades. Trust is a rich and complex construct which has sparked a multitude of measures and approaches to study and understand it. This comprehensive narrative review addresses known methods that have been used to capture TiA. We examined measurements deployed in existing empirical works, categorized those measures into self-report, behavioral, and physiological indices, and examined them within the context of an existing model of trust. The resulting work provides a reference guide for researchers, providing a list of available TiA measurement methods along with the model-derived constructs that they capture including judgments of trustworthiness, trust attitudes, and trusting behaviors. The article concludes with recommendations on how to improve the current state of TiA measurement.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.604977

Cites

28 of 28 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

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 134

  1. Aasman, 1987, Operator effort and the measurement of heart-rate variability, Hum. Factors, 29, 161, 10.1177/001872088702900204 · DOI
  2. Akash, 2018, A classification model for sensing human trust in machines using EEG and GSR, ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. (TiiS), 8, 1, 10.1145/3132743 · DOI
  3. Alarcon, 2021, Exploring the differential effects of trust violations in human-human and human-robot interactions, Appl. Ergon., 93, 103350, 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103350 · DOI
  4. Alarcon, 2018, Trustworthiness perceptions of computer code: A heuristic-systematic processing model, 10.24251/HICSS.2018.671 · DOI
  5. Bahner, 2008, Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., 66, 688, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.06.001 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Beller, 2013, Improving the driver–automation interaction: An approach using automation uncertainty, Hum. Factors, 55, 1130, 10.1177/0018720813482327 · DOI
  7. Bellucci, 2017, Neural signatures of trust in reciprocity: A coordinate-based meta-analysis, Hum. Brain Mapp., 38, 1233, 10.1002/hbm.23451 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Berberian, 2017, The out-of-the-loop brain: a neuroergonomic approach of the human automation interaction, Annu. Rev. Control., 44, 303, 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2017.09.010 · DOI
  9. Berg, 1995, Trust, reciprocity, and social history, Games Econ. Behav., 10, 122, 10.1006/game.1995.1027 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Bergkvist, 2007, The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs, J. Mark. Res., 44, 175, 10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Bergkvist, 2009, Tailor-made single-item measures of doubly concrete constructs, Int. J. Advert., 28, 607, 10.2501/S0265048709200783 · DOI
  12. Bethel, 2007, Survey of psychophysiology measurements applied to human-robot interaction, RO-MAN 2007-The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication., 10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415182 · DOI
  13. Biros, 2004, The influence of task load and automation trust on deception detection, Group Decis. Negot., 13, 173, 10.1023/B:GRUP.0000021840.85686.57 · DOI
  14. Chancey, 2015, The role of trust as a mediator between system characteristics and response behaviors, Hum. Factors, 57, 947, 10.1177/0018720815582261 · DOI
  15. Chancey, 2017, Trust and the compliance–reliance paradigm: The effects of risk, error bias, and reliability on trust and dependence, Hum. Factors, 59, 333, 10.1177/0018720816682648 · DOI
  16. Chen, 2014, Human–agent teaming for multirobot control: A review of human factors issues, IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst., 44, 13, 10.1109/THMS.2013.2293535 · DOI
  17. Chien, 2014, Towards the development of an inter-cultural scale to measure trust in automation, 10.1007/978-3-319-07308-8_4 · DOI
  18. Chita-Tegmark, 2021, Can you trust your trust measure, 10.1145/3434073.3444677 · DOI
  19. Christensen, 2014, Lack of association between human plasma oxytocin and interpersonal trust in a prisoner’s dilemma paradigm, PLoS One, 9, e116172, 10.1371/journal.pone.0116172 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Das, 2004, The risk-based view of trust: A conceptual framework, J. Bus. Psychol., 19, 85, 10.1023/B:JOBU.0000040274.23551.1b · DOI
  21. de Visser, 2018, Learning from the slips of others: neural correlates of trust in automated agents, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 12, 309, 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00309 · DOI · Paper page
  22. de Visser, 2012, Interpersonal trust as a dynamic belief?, 95
  23. de Visser, 2017, A little anthropomorphism goes a long way: effects of oxytocin on trust, compliance, and team performance with automated agents, Hum. Factors, 59, 116, 10.1177/0018720816687205 · DOI
  24. de Visser, 2010, A Neuroergonomic perspective on human-automation etiquette and trust, 211, 10.1201/EBK1439835012-c21 · DOI
  25. de Visser, 2011, The Social Brain: Behavioral, Computational, and Neuroergonomic Perspectives. Human–Computer Etiquette: Understanding the Impact of Human Culture and Expectations on the Use and Effectiveness of Computers and Technology., 263
  26. de Visser, 2020, Towards a theory of longitudinal trust calibration in human–robot teams, Int. J. Soc. Robot., 12, 459, 10.1007/s12369-019-00596-x · DOI · Paper page
  27. Desai, 2012, Modeling trust to improve human-robot interaction. doctoral dissertation
  28. Desmet, 2014, How social is error observation? The neural mechanisms underlying the observation of human and machine errors, Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci., 9, 427, 10.1093/scan/nst002 · DOI
  29. DiSalvo, 2002, All robots are not created equal: The design and perception of humanoid robot heads, 10.1145/778712.778756 · DOI
  30. Dong, 2015, A preliminary study on human trust measurements by EEG for human-machine interactions, 10.1145/2814940.2814993 · DOI
  31. Drnec, 2016, From trust in automation to decision neuroscience: applying cognitive neuroscience methods to understand and improve interaction decisions involved in human automation interaction, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 10, 290, 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00290 · DOI
  32. Ezer, 2008, Age-related differences in reliance behavior attributable to costs within a human-decision aid system, Hum. Factors, 50, 853, 10.1518/001872008X375018 · DOI
  33. Fedota, 2010, Neuroergonomics and human error, Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci., 11, 402, 10.1080/14639220902853104 · DOI
  34. Fine, 1996, Secrecy, trust, and dangerous leisure: Generating group cohesion in voluntary organizations, Soc. Psychol. Q., 59, 22, 10.2307/2787117 · DOI
  35. Geels-Blair, 2013, Using system-wide trust theory to reveal the contagion effects of automation false alarms and misses on compliance and reliance in a simulated aviation task, Int. J. Aviat. Psychol., 23, 245, 10.1080/10508414.2013.799355 · DOI
  36. Gold, 2015, Trust in automation–before and after the experience of take-over scenarios in a highly automated vehicle, Procedia Manuf., 3, 3025, 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.847 · DOI
  37. Goodyear, 2017, An fMRI and effective connectivity study investigating miss errors during advice utilization from human and machine agents, Soc. Neurosci., 12, 570, 10.1080/17470919.2016.1205131 · DOI
  38. Goodyear, 2016, Advice taking from humans and machines: An fMRI and effective connectivity study, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 10, 542, 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00542 · DOI
  39. Gramann, 2017, Trends in neuroergonomics, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 11, 165, 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00165 · DOI
  40. Güth, 1982, An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining, J. Econ. Behav. Organ., 3, 367, 10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7 · DOI
  41. Gutzwiller, 2019, Positive bias in the ‘Trust in Automated Systems Survey’? An examination of the Jian et al. (2000) scale, Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet., 63, 217, 10.1177/1071181319631201 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Henschel, 2020, Social cognition in the age of human–robot interaction, Trends Neurosci., 43, 373, 10.1016/j.tins.2020.03.013 · DOI
  43. Hergeth, 2016, Keep your scanners peeled: gaze behavior as a measure of automation trust during highly automated driving, Hum. Factors, 58, 509, 10.1177/0018720815625744 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Hertz, 2019, Good advice is beyond all price, but what if it comes from a machine?, J. Exp. Psychol. Appl., 25, 386, 10.1037/xap0000205 · DOI
  45. Hirshfield, 2014, Using noninvasive brain measurement to explore the psychological effects of computer malfunctions on users during human-computer interactions, Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact., 2014, 101038, 10.1155/2014/101038 · DOI
  46. Ho, 2005, Age differences in trust and reliance of a medication management system, Interacting with Computers, 17, 690, 10.1016/j.intcom.2005.09.007 · DOI
  47. Hoenen, 2016, Non-anthropomorphic robots as social entities on a neurophysiological level, Comput. Hum. Behav., 57, 182, 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.034 · DOI
  48. Itoh, 1999, Trust in and use of automation: their dependence on occurrence patterns of malfunctions, 10.1109/ICSMC.1999.823316 · DOI
  49. Jackson, 2014, The neurophysiological bases of EEG and EEG measurement: A review for the rest of us, Psychophysiology, 51, 1061, 10.1111/psyp.12283 · DOI
  50. Jacobs, 1994, Use of skin conductance changes during mental stress testing as an index of autonomic arousal in cardiovascular research, Am. Heart J., 128, 1170, 10.1016/0002-8703(94)90748-X · DOI
  51. Jung, 2019, Neural correlates of variations in human trust in human-like machines during non-reciprocal interactions, Sci. Rep., 9, 1, 10.1038/s41598-019-46098-8 · DOI
  52. Kaber, 2018, A conceptual framework of autonomous and automated agents, Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci., 19, 406, 10.1080/1463922X.2017.1363314 · DOI
  53. Khawaji, 2015, Using galvanic skin response (GSR) to measure trust and cognitive load in the text-chat environment, 10.1145/2702613.2732766 · DOI
  54. King-Casas, 2005, Getting to know you: reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange, Science, 308, 78, 10.1126/science.1108062 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Kircher, 2009, Online mentalising investigated with functional MRI, Neurosci. Lett., 454, 176, 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.03.026 · DOI
  56. Kohn, 2020, A brief review of frequently used self-report measures of trust in automation, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting., 64, 1436, 10.1177/1071181320641342 · DOI
  57. Körber, 2018, Theoretical considerations and development of a questionnaire to measure trust in automation, 13
  58. Krach, 2008, Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via fMRI, PLoS One, 3, e2597, 10.1371/journal.pone.0002597 · DOI
  59. Krueger, 2007, Neural correlates of trust, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104, 20084, 10.1073/pnas.0710103104 · DOI
  60. Krueger, 2019, Toward a model of interpersonal trust drawn from neuroscience, psychology, and economics, Trends Neurosci., 42, 92, 10.1016/j.tins.2018.10.004 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Lee, 1991, Trust, self-confidence and supervisory control in a process control simulation, 10.1109/ICSMC.1991.169700 · DOI
  62. Lee, 1992, Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems, Ergonomics, 35, 1243, 10.1080/00140139208967392 · DOI · Paper page
  63. Lee, 1994, Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., 40, 153, 10.1006/ijhc.1994.1007 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Lee, 2004, Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance, Hum. Factors, 46, 50, 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392 · DOI · Paper page
  65. Lewicki, 1998, Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities, Acad. Manag. Rev., 23, 438, 10.5465/amr.1998.926620 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Lewicki, 2006, Models of interpersonal trust development: theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions, J. Manag., 32, 991, 10.1177/0149206306294405 · DOI
  67. Lyons, 2019, Individual differences in human–machine trust: A multi-study look at the perfect automation schema, Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci., 20, 440, 10.1080/1463922X.2018.1491071 · DOI
  68. Lyons, 2012, Human–human reliance in the context of automation, Hum. Factors, 54, 112, 10.1177/0018720811427034 · DOI
  69. Lyons, 2011, Trustworthiness and IT suspicion: An evaluation of the nomological network, Hum. Factors, 53, 219, 10.1177/0018720811406726 · DOI
  70. Madhavan, 2007, Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review, Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci., 8, 277, 10.1080/14639220500337708 · DOI · Paper page
  71. Malle, 2021, A multi-dimensional conception and measure of human-robot trust, 3, 10.1016/B978-0-12-819472-0.00001-0 · DOI
  72. Mayer, 1999, The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment, J. Appl. Psychol., 84, 123, 10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123 · DOI
  73. Mayer, 1995, An integrative model of organizational trust, Acad. Manag. Rev., 20, 709, 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 · DOI · Paper page
  74. McCroskey, 1966, Scales for the measurement of ethos, Speech Monogr., 33, 65, 10.1080/03637756609375482 · DOI
  75. Merritt, 2011, Affective processes in human–automation interactions, Hum. Factors, 53, 356, 10.1177/0018720811411912 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Merritt, 2013, I trust it, but I don’t know why: effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system, Hum. Factors, 55, 520, 10.1177/0018720812465081 · DOI
  77. Merritt, 2015, Measuring individual differences in the perfect automation schema, Hum. Factors, 57, 740, 10.1177/0018720815581247 · DOI
  78. Meyer, 2004, Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings, Hum. Factors, 46, 196, 10.1518/hfes.46.2.196.37335 · DOI
  79. Monfort, 2018, A single-item assessment for remaining mental resources: development and validation of the gas tank questionnaire (GTQ), Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci., 19, 530, 10.1080/1463922X.2017.1397228 · DOI
  80. Montague, 2014, Shared experiences of technology and trust: An experimental study of physiological compliance between active and passive users in technology-mediated collaborative encounters, IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst., 44, 614, 10.1109/THMS.2014.2325859 · DOI
  81. Moray, 2000, Attention and complacency, Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci., 1, 354, 10.1080/14639220052399159 · DOI
  82. Moreau, 2020, Midline frontal and occipito-temporal activity during error monitoring in dyadic motor interactions, Cortex, 127, 131, 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.01.020 · DOI · Paper page
  83. Moroney, 1995, Some measurement and methodological considerations in the application of subjective workload measurement techniques, Int. J. Aviat. Psychol., 5, 87, 10.1207/s15327108ijap0501_6 · DOI
  84. Mower, 2007, Investigating implicit cues for user state estimation in human-robot interaction using physiological measurements, 10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415249 · DOI
  85. Muir, 1983, Operators’ trust in and use of automatic controllers in a supervisory process control task. doctoral Dissertation
  86. Muir, 1987, Trust between humans and machines and the design of decision aids, Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud., 27, 527, 10.1016/S0020-7373(87)80013-5 · DOI
  87. Muir, 1989, Operators’ trust in and percentage of time spent using the automatic controllers in supervisory process control task. doctoral dissertation. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto
  88. Muralidharan, 2014, The effects of pitch contour and flanging on trust in speaking cognitive agents, 10.1145/2559206.2581231 · DOI
  89. Nagasawa, 2015, Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human-dog bonds, Science, 348, 333, 10.1126/science.1261022 · DOI · Paper page
  90. Nikula, 1991, Psychological correlates of nonspecific skin conductance responses, Psychophysiology, 28, 86, 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb03392.x · DOI
  91. O’Neill, 2020, Human–autonomy teaming: A review and analysis of the empirical literature, Hum. Factors, 1, 1, 10.1177/0018720820960865 · DOI
  92. Özdem, 2017, Believing androids–fMRI activation in the right temporo-parietal junction is modulated by ascribing intentions to non-human agents, Soc. Neurosci., 12, 582, 10.1080/17470919.2016.1207702 · DOI
  93. Pak, 2012, Decision support aids with anthropomorphic characteristics influence trust and performance in younger and older adults, Ergonomics, 55, 1059, 10.1080/00140139.2012.691554 · DOI
  94. Parasuraman, 2000, Designing automation for human use: empirical studies and quantitative models, Ergonomics, 43, 931, 10.1080/001401300409125 · DOI · Paper page
  95. Parasuraman, 2003, Neuroergonomics: research and practice, Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci., 4, 5, 10.1080/14639220210199753 · DOI
  96. Parasuraman, 2011, Neuroergonomics: brain, cognition, and performance at work, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci., 20, 181, 10.1177/0963721411409176 · DOI
  97. Parasuraman, 2004, Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems, Commun. ACM, 47, 51, 10.1145/975817.975844 · DOI · Paper page
  98. Parasuraman, 2008, Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs, J. Cognit. Eng. Decis. Making, 2, 140, 10.1518/155534308X284417 · DOI
  99. Pautasso, 2013, Ten simple rules for writing a literature review, PLoS Comput. Biol., 9, e1003149, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149 · DOI · Paper page
  100. Payne, 1986, Heart rate as an indicator of stress in surgeons and anesthetists, J. Psychosom. Res., 30, 411, 10.1016/0022-3999(86)90080-2 · DOI
  101. Petersen, 2019, Situational awareness, driver’s trust in automated driving systems and secondary task performance, SAE Int. J. Connected Auton. Veh., 2, 10.4271/12-02-02-0009 · DOI
  102. Rice, 2009, Examining single-and multiple-process theories of trust in automation, J.Gen. Psychol., 136, 303, 10.3200/GENP.136.3.303-322 · DOI
  103. Riedl, 2014, Trusting humans and avatars: A brain imaging study based on evolution theory, J. Manag. Inf. Syst., 30, 83, 10.2753/MIS0742-1222300404 · DOI
  104. Robinette, 2016, Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios.” in 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), March, 2016; 101–108
  105. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, 2019, Neural mechanisms for accepting and rejecting artificial social partners in the uncanny valley, J. Neurosci., 39, 6555, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2956-18.2019 · DOI
  106. Rotter, 1971, Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust, Am. Psychol., 26, 443, 10.1037/h0031464 · DOI
  107. Rousseau, 1998, Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust, Acad. Manag. Rev., 23, 393, 10.5465/amr.1998.926617 · DOI · Paper page
  108. Satterfield, 2017, The influence of risky conditions in trust in autonomous systems, Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet., 61, 324, 10.1177/1541931213601562 · DOI
  109. Schaefer, 2016, Measuring trust in human robot interactions: development of the “trust perception scale-HRI”, 191, 10.1007/978-1-4899-7668-0_10 · DOI
  110. Schaefer, 2016, A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: implications for understanding autonomy in future systems, Hum. Factors, 58, 377, 10.1177/0018720816634228 · DOI · Paper page
  111. Serva, 2005, The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitudinal study of interacting teams, J. Organ. Behav., 26, 625, 10.1002/job.331 · DOI
  112. Sharma, 2016, A brief introduction and review on galvanic skin response, Int. J. Med. Res. Prof., 2, 13, 10.21276/ijmrp.2016.2.6.003 · DOI
  113. Singh, 1993, Automation-induced “complacency”: development of the complacency-potential rating scale, Int. J. Aviat. Psychol., 3, 111, 10.1207/s15327108ijap0302_2 · DOI
  114. Somon, 2019, Human or not human? Performance monitoring ERPs during human agent and machine supervision, NeuroImage, 186, 266, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.11.013 · DOI
  115. Strait, 2014, Using Near infrared spectroscopy to index temporal changes in affect in realistic human-robot interactions, PhyCS, 14, 385, 10.5220/0004902203850392 · DOI
  116. Sylvester, 2003, Switching attention and resolving interference: fMRI measures of executive functions, Neuropsychologia, 41, 357, 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00167-7 · DOI
  117. Szalma, 2011, Individual differences in response to automation: the five factor model of personality, J. Exp. Psychol. Appl., 17, 71, 10.1037/a0024170 · DOI
  118. Tenhundfeld, 2019, Calibrating trust in automation through familiarity with the autoparking feature of a tesla model X, J. Cognit. Eng. Decis. Making, 13, 279, 10.1177/1555343419869083 · DOI
  119. Tenhundfeld, 2020, Trust and distrust of automated parking in a tesla model X, Hum. Factors, 62, 194, 10.1177/0018720819865412 · DOI
  120. Torraco, 2005, Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples, Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev., 4, 356, 10.4018/IJAVET.2016070106 · DOI
  121. Tsunashima, 2009, Measurement of brain function of car driver using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), Comput. Intell. Neurosci., 2009, 164958, 10.1155/2009/164958 · DOI
  122. Van Dongen, 2013, A framework for explaining reliance on decision aids, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., 71, 410, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.10.018 · DOI
  123. Van Nieuwenburg, 2019, The subtle signaling strength of smells: A masked odor enhances interpersonal trust, Front. Psychol., 10, 1890, 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01890 · DOI
  124. Walliser, 2011, Trust in Automated Systems: The Effect of Automation Level on Trust Calibration.
  125. Walliser, 2016, Application of a system-wide trust strategy when supervising multiple autonomous agents, Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon Soc. Annu. Meet., 60, 133, 10.1177/1541931213601031 · DOI
  126. Walliser, 2019, Team structure and team building improve human–machine teaming with autonomous agents, J. Cognit. Eng. Decis. Making, 13, 258, 10.1177/1555343419867563 · DOI
  127. Wang, 2018, EEG-based neural correlates of trust in human-autonomy interaction.” in 2018 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI), November, 2018; 350–357
  128. Wang, 2015, In our own image? Emotional and neural processing differences when observing human–human vs human–robot interactions, Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci., 10, 1515, 10.1093/scan/nsv043 · DOI
  129. Waytz, 2014, The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 52, 113, 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005 · DOI · Paper page
  130. Wiese, 2017, Robots as intentional agents: using neuroscientific methods to make robots appear more social, Front. Psychol., 8, 1663, 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01663 · DOI
  131. Wilson, 1992, Applied use of cardiac and respiration measures: practical considerations and precautions, Biol. Psychol., 34, 163, 10.1016/0301-0511(92)90014-L · DOI
  132. Wojton, 2020, Initial validation of the trust of automated systems test (TOAST), J. Soc. Psychol., 160, 735, 10.1080/00224545.2020.1749020 · DOI
  133. Xie, 2019, Robot capability and intention in trust-based decisions across tasks, 10.1109/HRI.2019.8673084 · DOI
  134. Zhao, 2012, Eye movements and attention: The role of pre-saccadic shifts of attention in perception, memory and the control of saccades, Vis. Res., 74, 40, 10.1016/j.visres.2012.06.017 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kohn, S. C., de Visser, E. J., Wiese, E., Lee, Y.-C., & Shaw, T. H.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2021-10-19
Volume
12
ISSN
1664-1078
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.604977
PMC
PMC8562383
Cited by
315
References
28
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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