Trust and Reliance in XAI -- Distinguishing Between Attitudinal and Behavioral Measures
Open accessAbstract
Trust is often cited as an essential criterion for the effective use and real-world deployment of AI. Researchers argue that AI should be more transparent to increase trust, making transparency one of the main goals of XAI. Nevertheless, empirical research on this topic is inconclusive regarding the effect of transparency on trust. An explanation for this ambiguity could be that trust is operationalized differently within XAI. In this position paper, we advocate for a clear distinction between behavioral (objective) measures of reliance and attitudinal (subjective) measures of trust. However, researchers sometimes appear to use behavioral measures when intending to capture trust, although attitudinal measures would be more appropriate. Based on past research, we emphasize that there are sound theoretical reasons to keep trust and reliance separate. Properly distinguishing these two concepts provides a more comprehensive understanding of how transparency affects trust and reliance, benefiting future XAI research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Accurate perceived trustworthiness of AI systems is essential for establishing meaningful trust and reliance on AI systems.
“According to the Trustworthiness Assessment Model (TrAM) [111], accurate perceived trustworthiness of AI systems is essential for establishing meaningful trust and reliance on AI systems.”
From Dealing with Uncertainty: Understanding the Impact of Prognostic Versus Diagnostic Tasks on Trust and Reliance in Human-AI Decision Making (2024) · cites this paper as [111]
Tasks with a larger number of constraints that need to be accounted for in decision-making are often more challenging for individuals to process, making them more likely to seek guidance from AI.
“Tasks with a larger number of constraints that need to be accounted for in decision-making are often more challenging for individuals to process, making them more likely to seek guidance from AI [63, 90, 111].”
From Dealing with Uncertainty: Understanding the Impact of Prognostic Versus Diagnostic Tasks on Trust and Reliance in Human-AI Decision Making (2024) · cites this paper as [111]
Factors such as relevance and availability of system information, as well as the ability of individuals to detect and utilize this information, play a crucial role in determining accurate perceived trustworthiness.
“Factors such as relevance and availability of system information, as well as the ability of individuals to detect and utilize this information, play a crucial role in determining accurate perceived trustworthiness.”
From Dealing with Uncertainty: Understanding the Impact of Prognostic Versus Diagnostic Tasks on Trust and Reliance in Human-AI Decision Making (2024) · cites this paper as [111]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Trust and reliance on AI — An experimental study on the extent and costs of overreliance on AI
Klingbeil, A., Grützner, C., & Schreck, P. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108352 · Cited by 450 · see citing works
Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice: Conceptualization and the Effect of Explanations
Schemmer, M., Kuehl, N., Benz, C., Bartos, A., & Satzger, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3581641.3584066 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citationSalimzadeh, S., He, G., & Gadiraju, U. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3641905 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
The Trust Recovery Journey. The Effect of Timing of Errors on the Willingness to Follow AI Advice.
Kahr, P. K., Rooks, G., Snijders, C., & Willemsen, M. C. (2024) · Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3640543.3645167 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Dynamic Selection of Reliance Calibration Cues With AI Reliance Model
Fukuchi, Y., & Yamada, S. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3339548 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Are numerical or verbal explanations of AI the key to appropriate user reliance and error detection?
Papenkordt, J., Ngonga Ngomo, A.-C., & Thommes, K. (2026) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2025.2568928 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Scharowski, N., Perrig, S. A. C., von Felten, N., & Brühlmann, F.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2203.12318
- OpenAlex
- W4221166362
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- explainable AI, trust in AI, AI reliance, transparency, behavioral measures
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
