Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review

By Poornima Madhavan, Douglas A. Wiegmann. 2007

532 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Radiological and Ultrasound Technology, Social Psychology, Surgery

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dc61604783f52320c7c4130eeb260d9208d4bcd8

How researchers see this paper

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

In Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

In Social Psychology

In Surgery

Citations in the corpus

Trust in Automation (2015, background): “The progression of interpersonal trust formation also differs from that of human–automation trust (Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007b).”
Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction (2014, background): “A number of models and theories related to trust in automation (Cohen, Parasuraman, & Freeman, 1998; Dzindolet et al., 2003; Lee & See, 2004; Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007) and preliminary frameworks of trust in HRI have been proposed (Desai, Stubbs, Steinfeld, & Yanco, 2009; Hancock, Billings, &…”
Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research (2020, background): “Thus, although trust in humans generally increases with time through frequent interactions, trust in technology decreases with time, based on encounters with errors and malfunctions (Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007).”
Measurement of Trust in Automation: A Narrative Review and Reference Guide (2021, background): “While the differences may seem subtle, they are crucial and manifold, affecting the inception of trust through to its evolution and recovery (Madhavan and Wiegmann, 2007; de Visser et al., 2016).”
Humans: Still Vital After All These Years of Automation (2008, background): “…in human-automation interaction has been the focus of much research over the past decade (e.g., Dzindolet, Peterson, Pomranky, Pierce, & Beck, 2003; Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007; for a comprehensive review, see Lee & See, 2004). perfectly reliable may also lead to overreliance and failure to monitor…”
Understanding Is Key: An Analysis of Factors Pertaining to Trust in a Real-World Automation System (2018, background): “Vol. 60, No. 4, June 2018, pp. 477 –495 DOI: 10.1177/0018720818761256 Copyright © 2018, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. adapted to define human-automation trust (Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007).”
The Role of Explanations on Trust and Reliance in Clinical Decision Support Systems (2015, background): “City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ publications@city.ac.uk City Research Online See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283079634”
The Role of Trust as a Mediator Between System Characteristics and Response Behaviors (2015, background): “One of the most prevalent factors thought to guide user dependence is user trust (Lee & See, 2004). trust in Signaling Systems Several theoretical frameworks are based on the proposition that trust is a central influence on automation monitoring behavior (Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007).”
Human–Agent Teaming for Multirobot Control: A Review of Human Factors Issues (2014, background): “[83], [93], [94] and human-like versus machine-like cognitive agents [95].”
Effects of Information Source, Pedigree, and Reliability on Operator Interaction With Decision Support Systems (2007, result): “The results of the present studies support the model of trust in human advisers versus automated aids developed recently by Madhavan and Wiegmann (2007).”
Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. (2016, background): “Our results are consistent with findings that show that compared to their human-like counterparts, machine-like agents are trusted more initially, but also “fall from grace” more quickly, particularly when uncertainty about the task is low (Madhavan et al., 2006; Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007b).”
From ‘automation’ to ‘autonomy’: the importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction (2018, background): “An emerging literature in human factors has theorised and empirically demonstrated sig nifican t diff erences between human and machine agents (Madhavan and Wiegmann 2007b; Pak et al. 2012; de Visser et al. 2016).”