Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems

By Raja Parasuraman, Christopher Allen Miller. CACM, 2004

363 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d69fcadb50388e1b8fe6d7d8242572dafeb12e32

How researchers see this paper

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

In Computer Networks and Communications

In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2020, background): “Prior work suggests that politely communicating the existence of uncertainty could promote trust [142].”
Fundamentals of physiological computing (2009, methodology): “The perception of accuracy is an important determinant of system reliability that influences the level of trust in an adaptive system (Lee and See, 2004; Muir and Moray, 1996; Parasuraman and Miller, 2004 ).”
Are Well-Calibrated Users Effective Users? Associations Between Calibration of Trust and Performance on an Automation-Aided Task (2015, background): “…of trust has been defined as “the correspondence between the person’s trust in the automation and the automation’s capabilities” (Lee & See, 2004, p. 55), and facilitating calibration has been suggested as a goal for system designers (Lee & See, 2004; Parasuraman & Miller, 2004; Wiegmann, 2002).”
Human–Agent Teaming for Multirobot Control: A Review of Human Factors Issues (2014, background): “Miller and Parasuraman [19] have developed an adjustable system (Playbook) wherein specified algorithms known as plays can be elicited by the operator to improve performance during high workload mission segments.”
I Trust It, but I Don’t Know Why (2013, background): “To prevent misuse and disuse, it may be necessary to calibrate user trust in the automated system so that appropriate levels of trust are experienced given the automation’s reliability (Lee & See, 2004; Parasuraman & Miller, 2004).”
Situation awareness-based agent transparency and human-autonomy teaming effectiveness (2018, background): “At higher levels, agents can be set to take imitative in prede ﬁ ned circumstances (e.g. when the human is overloaded or too slow to react), taking over the implementation of a plan – prompting the human for decisions when needed – or implementing pre-speci ﬁ ed algorithms to achieve the objective, ”
Affective Processes in Human–Automation Interactions (2011, background): “Poor human–automation interaction has been implicated in numerous transportation incidents and even the near meltdown at Three Mile Island (Akre, 2009; Associated Press, 2009; Parasuraman & Miller, 2004; Parasuraman & Riley, 1997).”
Towards a Theory of Longitudinal Trust Calibration in Human–Robot Teams (2019, background): “…\ Equip machine with social behaviors Designing automation that conforms to social norms, such as politeness or etiquette [46,56,64,100,109,112], or adding anthropomorphic features to an interface [1,26,54,110,118] Methods for explanation Description \ Intuitive confidence measure…”
Human-Automation Interaction (2005, background): “A recent experiment by Parasuraman and Miller (2004) suggests that etiquette can influence efficiency and therefore possibly safety.”
Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. (2016, background): “…paradigm have examined human characteristics, they have done so in a piecemeal fashion, focusing separately on the effects of appearance (Nass & Moon, 2000; Pak, McLaughlin, & Bass, 2014), social etiquette (Hayes & Miller, 2011; Parasuraman & Miller, 2004), and backstory (Madhavan et al., 2006).”
Measurement of Trust in Automation: A Narrative Review and Reference Guide (2021, background): “, 2014), or etiquette (Parasuraman and Miller, 2004; de Visser and Parasuraman, 2010), among many other characteristics.”
The effects of transparency on trust in and acceptance of a content-based art recommender (2008, methodology): “Parasuraman and Miller (2004) state that trust is users’ willingness to believe information from a system or make use of its capabilities.”
Trust in Automation (2015, background): “…Gong (2008)a; Green (2010)a; Lee (2008)a Increase the politeness of an automated system’s communication style to promote greater trust Parasuraman & Miller (2004); Spain & Madhavan (2009) Transparency/ feedback Provide users with accurate, ongoing feedback concerning the reliability…”
From ‘automation’ to ‘autonomy’: the importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction (2018, neutral): “…autonomy in the light of demanding more from these new autonomous relationships, with the notable exception of the research and discussions on etiquette and politeness with automated agents and robotic systems (Bickmore and Cassell 2001; Jung 2017; Meyer et al. 2016; Parasuraman and Miller 2004).”