Search

Objective: This study provides a theoretical link between trust and the compliance-reliance paradigm. We propose that for trust mediation to occur, the operator must be presented with a salient choice, and there must be an element of risk for dependence.Background: Research suggests that false alarms and misses affect dependence via two independent processes, hypothesized as trust in signals and trust in nonsignals. These two trust types manifest in categorically different behaviors: compliance and reliance.Method: Eighty-eight participants completed a primary flight task and a secondary signaling system task. Participants evaluated their trust according to the informational bases of trust: performance, process, and purpose. Participants were in a high- or low-risk group. Signaling systems varied by reliability (90%, 60%) within subjects and error bias (false alarm prone, miss prone) between subjects.Results: False-alarm rate affected compliance but not reliance. Miss rate affected reliance but not compliance. Mediation analyses indicated that trust mediated the relationship between false-alarm rate and compliance. Bayesian mediation analyses favored evidence indicating trust did not mediate miss rate and reliance. Conditional indirect effects indicated that factors of trust mediated the relationship between false-alarm rate and compliance (i.e., purpose) and reliance (i.e., process) but only in the high-risk group.Conclusion: The compliance-reliance paradigm is not the reflection of two types of trust.Application: This research could be used to update training and design recommendations that are based upon the assumption that trust causes operator responses regardless of error bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This work examined the relationship of the constructs measured by the trust scales developed by Chancey et al. (2017) and Jian et al. (2000) using a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).Modern theories of automation trust have been proposed based on data collected using trust scales. Chancey et al. (2017) adapted Madsen and Gregor’s (2000) trust scale to align with Lee and See’s (2004) human–automation trust framework. In contrast, Jian et al. (2000) developed a scale empirically with trust and distrust as factors. However, it remains unclear whether these two scales measure the same construct.We analyzed data collected from previous experiments to investigate the relationship between the two trust scales using a multilevel CFA.Data provided evidence that Jian et al. (2000) and Chancey et al. (2017) automation trust scales are only weakly related. Trust and distrust are found to be distinct factors in Jian et al.’s (2000) scale, whereas performance, process, and purpose are distinct factors in Chancey et al.’s (2017) trust scale.The analysis suggested that the two scales purporting to measure human–automation trust are only weakly related.Trust researchers and automation designers may consider using Chancey et al. (2017) and Jian et al. (2000) scales to capture different characteristics of human–automation trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]