Technology, Humanness, and Trust: Rethinking Trust in Technology

554 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

How perceptions of intelligence and anthropomorphism affect adoption of personal intelligent agents (2020, background): “…belief that the PIA responds according to a set of rules and principles; benevolence is the belief that the PIA acts with the user ’ s best interest in mind; and ability or competence refers to the belief that the PIA can successfully perform its tasks (Lankton et al., 2015; McKnight et al., 2002).”
AI literacy and its implications for prompt engineering strategies (2024, background): “To control for other variables potentially affecting AI literacy and the quality of prompt engineering, trust in generative AI (Lankton et al., 2015) and personal innovativeness (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998) were assessed additionally, as these typically pose relevant constructs when assessing usage of…”
Trust in AI and Its Role in the Acceptance of AI Technologies (2022, background): “In one of McKnight’s later studies, Lankton et al. (2015) demonstrated that for technology with greater humanness, a trust-inhumans scale works better at predicting relevant outcomes than a trust-in-technology scale.”
Trustworthy artificial intelligence (2020, background): “…relationships in such scenarios, two research streams emerged that either adapted the concept of interpersonal trust to conceptualize trust in human-like IT artifacts (Lankton et al. 2015), or revised the concept of trust in technology to account for automation technology and autonomous systems (J.”