Literature DB >> 24882059

How different types of users develop trust in technology: a qualitative analysis of the antecedents of active and passive user trust in a shared technology.

Jie Xu1, Kim Le1, Annika Deitermann1, Enid Montague2.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the antecedents of trust in technology for active users and passive users working with a shared technology. According to the prominence-interpretation theory, to assess the trustworthiness of a technology, a person must first perceive and evaluate elements of the system that includes the technology. An experimental study was conducted with 54 participants who worked in two-person teams in a multi-task environment with a shared technology. Trust in technology was measured using a trust in technology questionnaire and antecedents of trust were elicited using an open-ended question. A list of antecedents of trust in technology was derived using qualitative analysis techniques. The following categories emerged from the antecedent: technology factors, user factors, and task factors. Similarities and differences between active users and passive user responses, in terms of trust in technology were discussed.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Passive user; Shared technology; Team; Trust in technology

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24882059      PMCID: PMC4237160          DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.04.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Ergon        ISSN: 0003-6870            Impact factor:   3.661


  16 in total

1.  The dynamics of trust: comparing humans to automation.

Authors:  S Lewandowsky; M Mundy; G P Tan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2000-06

2.  Fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance settings: task engagement, distress, and worry.

Authors:  Gerald Matthews; Sian E Campbell; Shona Falconer; Lucy A Joyner; Jane Huggins; Kirby Gilliland; Rebecca Grier; Joel S Warm
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2002-12

Review 3.  Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance.

Authors:  John D Lee; Katrina A See
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.888

4.  Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems.

Authors:  J Lee; N Moray
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 2.778

5.  Mentoring console improves collaboration and teaching in surgical robotics.

Authors:  Eric J Hanly; Brian E Miller; Rajesh Kumar; Christopher J Hasser; Eve Coste-Maniere; Mark A Talamini; Alexander A Aurora; Noah S Schenkman; Michael R Marohn
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.878

6.  Not all trust is created equal: dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions.

Authors:  Stephanie M Merritt; Daniel R Ilgen
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.888

7.  Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids.

Authors:  Poornima Madhavan; Douglas A Wiegmann; Frank C Lacson
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.888

8.  Validation of a trust in medical technology instrument.

Authors:  Enid Montague
Journal:  Appl Ergon       Date:  2010-02-26       Impact factor: 3.661

9.  Crossing levels in systems ergonomics: a framework to support 'mesoergonomic' inquiry.

Authors:  Ben-Tzion Karsh; Patrick Waterson; Richard J Holden
Journal:  Appl Ergon       Date:  2013-05-24       Impact factor: 3.661

10.  Humans: still vital after all these years of automation.

Authors:  Raja Parasuraman; Christopher D Wickens
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.888

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.