Enlighten Publications

In this section

Definition, conceptualisation and measurement of trust

Porcheron, M. et al. (2022) Definition, conceptualisation and measurement of trust. Dagstuhl Reports, 11(8), pp. 101-105. (doi: 10.4230/DagRep.11.8.76)

Text
271963.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
549kB

Abstract

This report documents the program and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Seminar 21381 "Conversational Agent as Trustworthy Autonomous System (Trust-CA)". First, we present the abstracts of the talks delivered by the Seminar’s attendees. Then we report on the origin and process of our six breakout (working) groups. For each group, we describe its contributors, goals and key questions, key insights, and future research. The themes of the groups were derived from a pre-Seminar survey, which also led to a list of suggested readings for the topic of trust in conversational agents. The list is included in this report for references.

Item Type:	Articles
Keywords:	Human computer interaction, human robot interaction, human agent interaction, trust, beliefs, chatbots, conversational agents, conversational AI.
Status:	Published
Refereed:	Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:	Laban, Mr Guy
Authors:	Porcheron, M., Lee, M., Nesset, B., Guribye, F., van der Goot, M., K. Moore, R., Usbeck, R., Paiva, A., Pelachaud, C., Ruane, E., Schuller, B., Laban, G., Kontogiorgos, D., Kraus, M., and Følstad, A.
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > B Philosophy (General) B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General) Q Science > QA Mathematics > QA75 Electronic computers. Computer science Q Science > QA Mathematics > QA76 Computer software T Technology > T Technology (General)
College/School:	College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Psychology & Neuroscience
Research Group:	Social Brain in Action Lab
Journal Name:	Dagstuhl Reports
Publisher:	Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik GmbH
ISSN:	2192-5283
Published Online:	18 February 2022
Copyright Holders:	Copyright © 2022 The Authors
First Published:	First published in Dagstuhl Reports 11(8): 101-105
Publisher Policy:	Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record

References

1.Araujo, T., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2020). In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI and Society, 35(3), 611 – 623. 2 Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 737-758. 3 Ghazali, A. S., Ham, J., Barakova, E., & Markopoulos, P. (2019). Assessing the effect of persuasive robots interactive social cues on users’ psychological reactance, liking, trusting beliefs and compliance. Advanced Robotics, 33(7 – 8), 325 – 337. 4 Hancock, P. A., Kessler, T. T., Kaplan, A. D., Brill, J. C., & Szalma, J. L. (2020). Evolving trust in robots: specification through sequential and comparative meta-analyses. Human factors, 0018720820922080. 5 Laban, G., George, J.-N., Morrison, V., & Cross, E. S. (2021a). Tell me more! Assessing interactions with social robots from speech. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 12(1), 136 – 159. 6 Laban, G., Kappas, A., Morrison, V., & Cross, E. S. (2021b). Protocol for a Mediated Long-Term Experiment with a Social Robot. PsyArXiv. 7 Lankton, N. K., McKnight, D. H., & Tripp, J. (2015). Technology, humanness, and trust: Rethinking trust in technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(10). 8 Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors, 46(1), 50-80. 9 Lewis, M., Sycara, K., & Walker, P. (2018). The role of trust in human-robot interaction. In Foundations of trusted autonomy (pp. 135-159). Springer, Cham. 10 Malle, B. F., & Ullman, D. (2021). A multidimensional conception and measure of human- robot trust. In Trust in Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 3-25). Academic Press. 11 Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734. 12 McKnight, D. H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J. B., & Clay, P. F. (2011). Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures. ACM Transactions on management information systems (TMIS), 2(2), 1-25. 13 Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404. 14 Söllner, M., Hoffmann, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2016). Why different trust relationships matter for information systems users. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(3), 274-287. 15 Yagoda, R. E., & Gillan, D. J. (2012). You Want Me to Trust a ROBOT? The Development of a Human – Robot Interaction Trust Scale. International Journal of Social Robotics, 4(3), 235 – 248. 16 Zonca, J., Folsø, A., Sciutti, A. (2021). The role of reciprocity in human-robot social influence. iScience, 24(12), 103424.

Deposit and Record Details

ID Code:	271963
Depositing User:	Mr Guy Laban
Datestamp:	30 May 2022 09:25
Last Modified:	31 May 2022 01:31
Date of acceptance:	1 January 2022
Date of first online publication:	18 February 2022
Date Deposited:	29 May 2022
Data Availability Statement:	No