Measuring trust in artificial intelligence: validation of an established scale and its short form

被引:0
作者
McGrath, Melanie J. [1 ]
Lack, Oliver [2 ,3 ]
Tisch, James [4 ]
Duenser, Andreas [5 ]
机构
[1] Commonwealth Sci & Ind Res Org CSIRO, Clayton, Vic, Australia
[2] Univ Adelaide, Sch Psychol, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[3] Univ Adelaide, Australian Inst Machine Learning, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[4] Univ Melbourne, Sch Psychol Sci, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[5] Commonwealth Sci & Ind Res Org CSIRO, Sandy Bay, TAS, Australia
来源
FRONTIERS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | 2025年 / 8卷
关键词
trust; artificial intelligence; automation; human-AI teaming; collaborative intelligence; psychometrics; measurement; validation; AUTOMATION;
D O I
10.3389/frai.2025.1582880
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
An understanding of the nature and function of human trust in artificial intelligence (AI) is fundamental to the safe and effective integration of these technologies into organizational settings. The Trust in Automation Scale is a commonly used self-report measure of trust in automated systems; however, it has not yet been subjected to comprehensive psychometric validation. Across two studies, we tested the capacity of the scale to effectively measure trust across a range of AI applications. Results indicate that the Trust in Automation Scale is a valid and reliable measure of human trust in AI; however, with 12 items, it is often impractical for contexts requiring frequent and minimally disruptive measurements. To address this limitation, we developed and validated a three-item version of the TIAS, the Short Trust in Automation Scale (S-TIAS). In two further studies, we tested the sensitivity of the S-TIAS to manipulations of the trustworthiness of an AI system, as well as the convergent validity of the scale and its capacity to predict intentions to rely on AI-generated recommendations. In both studies, the S-TIAS also demonstrated convergent validity and significantly predicted intentions to rely on the AI system in patterns similar to the TIAS. This suggests that the S-TIAS is a practical and valid alternative for measuring trust in automation and AI for the purposes of identifying antecedent factors of trust and predicting trust outcomes.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2000, International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327566IJCE0401_04
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2022, Human-AI Teaming: State-of-the-Art and Research Needs
[3]   Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review [J].
Armitage, CJ ;
Conner, M .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2001, 40 :471-499
[4]   Toward an Understanding of Trust Repair in Human-Robot Interaction: Current Research and Future Directions [J].
Baker, Anthony L. ;
Phillips, Elizabeth K. ;
Ullman, Daniel ;
Keebler, Joseph R. .
ACM TRANSACTIONS ON INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, 2018, 8 (04)
[5]   Can You Trust Your Trust Measure? [J].
Chita-Tegmark, Meia ;
Law, Theresa ;
Rabb, Nicholas ;
Scheutz, Matthias .
2021 16TH ACM/IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HUMAN-ROBOT INTERACTION, HRI, 2021, :92-100
[6]   Trust in work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model, and future directions [J].
Costa, Ana Cristina ;
Fulmer, C. Ashley ;
Anderson, Neil R. .
JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, 2018, 39 (02) :169-184
[7]   Towards a Theory of Longitudinal Trust Calibration in Human-Robot Teams [J].
de Visser, Ewart J. ;
Peeters, Marieke M. M. ;
Jung, Malte F. ;
Kohn, Spencer ;
Shaw, Tyler H. ;
Pak, Richard ;
Neerincx, Mark A. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ROBOTICS, 2020, 12 (02) :459-478
[8]   The Effect of Explanations on Trust in an Assistance System for Public Transport Users and the Role of the Propensity to Trust [J].
Faulhaber, Anja K. ;
Ni, Ina ;
Schmidt, Ludger .
MENSCH AND COMPUTER 2021 (MUC 21), 2021, :303-310
[9]  
Frazier M.L., 2013, Journal of Trust Research, V3, P76, DOI [DOI 10.1080/21515581.2013.820026, 10.1080/21515581.2013.820026]
[10]   Construction and validation of an updated perfect automation schema (uPAS) scale [J].
Gibson, Anthony M. ;
Capiola, August ;
Alarcon, Gene M. ;
Lee, Michael A. ;
Jessup, Sarah A. ;
Hamdan, Izz Aldin .
THEORETICAL ISSUES IN ERGONOMICS SCIENCE, 2023, 24 (02) :241-266