Human trust in technology and etiquette John D

Human trust in technology and etiquette John D. Lee & Katrina See Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering University of Iowa Sponsored by NSF Grant IIS 01 -17494 1

Beyond theoretical importance The University of Iowa 10/3/20 2

Affect, decision making, and reliance n Damasio (1994): Neurological basis for affect as a key element in effective decision making n Norman (2002): Affect and cognition interact with technology to influence behavior Picard (1997): Affective computing can enhance acceptance and The University of Iowa performance n 10/3/20 3

Strange case of Phineus Gage Left intellectual abilities intact, but greatly impaired decision mak and emotional response The University of Iowa 10/3/20 4

Affect, decision making, and reliance n Kramer (1999) Trust as an important social decision heuristic in organizations n Nass (1996): People respond to technology as they do people n Zuboff (1987): Operators report role of trust on reliance in working with computerized controllers n Lee & Moray (1992): Trust influences reliance on automation Trust: a critical social lubricant that mitigates the cognitive complexity of increasingly unstructured relationships The University of Iowa 10/3/20 5

Trust in technology? n Trust: An attitude that reflects a person’s expectation that technology will achieve his or her goals based on: • Performance of the system (What it has done) • Process that governs operation (How it works) • Purpose of the design (Why is was created) The University of Iowa n Similar to trust between people? 10/3/20 6

Belief Attitude Intention Behavior The University of Iowa 10/3/20 7

Calibration and resolution of trust The University of Iowa 10/3/20 8

Calibration of trust in automation n Consider cognitive complexity and social constraints to support trustable behavior (make algorithm understandable) n Reveal behavior to calibrate trust (make behavior understandable) The University of Iowa 10/3/20 9

An experiment with a supervisory control microworld n Evaluate role of sonification in calibrating trust to enhance supervisory control n Investigate individual differences in trusting tendency “it sounded ‘hollow’ and didn’t feel right so we got out” The University of Iowa 10/3/20 10

Pasteurization plant microworld The University of Iowa 10/3/20 11

Day Two Day One 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 The University of Iowa 8 8 Day Three 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Auto. Fault Man. Fault No fault (Length indicative of severity of fault) 10/3/20 12

Performance as a function of sound automatic controller fault The University of Iowa 10/3/20 13

Sonification and reliance during automatic controller faults The University of Iowa 10/3/20 14

Sonification and trust during automatic pump controller faults The University of Iowa 10/3/20 15

Increasingly complex automation and human-automation interactions The University of Iowa 10/3/20 16

Conclusions n Trust influences reliance as an attitude in the context of beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Reliance is not a good measure of trust n Designers should focus on calibrating trust not enhancing trust n Trust calibration may depend on the design of the algorithm and feedback n Systems that mimic human characteristics, may lead to inappropriate trust as human characteristics lead to false expectations The University of Iowa 10/3/20 17

n Layers of etiquette • Pragmatic (communicate, co • Role identification • Empathetic, affective The University of Iowa 10/3/20 18

Thoughts? Human Etiquette Machine Etiquette System Etiquette Mapping function to define system etiquette Layers of Level of abstraction in etiquette Etiquette Pragmatic Role specification Empathetic/affe ctive translation Literal vs. figurative Functional vs. physical “Please, can I interrupt” The University of Iowa 10/3/20 19