ArticleHuman factors2024
Trust with increasing and decreasing reliability.
Article in Human factors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinicians' Trust in AI-Based Clinical Recommendations Across Controlled Primary Care-Style Clinical Vignettes: Nurse-Dominant Experimental Pilot Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- From Trust in Automation to Trust in AI in Healthcare: A 30-Year Longitudinal Review and an Interdisciplinary Framework.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Influence of Performance Feedback on Trust and Self-Confidence in Dynamically Reliable Automation.Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ... Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Annual meeting · 2025Article
- Calibrating Trust, Reliance and Dependence in Variable-Reliability Automation.Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ... Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Annual meeting · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe primary purpose was to determine how trust changes over time when automation reliability increases or decreases. A secondary purpose was to determine how task-specific self-confidence is associated with trust and reliability level.
backgroundBoth overtrust and undertrust can be detrimental to system performance; therefore, the temporal dynamics of trust with changing reliability level need to be explored.
methodTwo experiments used a dominant-color identification task, where automation provided a recommendation to users, with the reliability of the recommendation changing over 300 trials. In Experiment 1, two groups of participants interacted with the system: one group started with a 50% reliable system which increased to 100%, while the other used a system that decreased from 100% to 50%. Experiment 2 included a group where automation reliability increased from 70% to 100%.
resultsTrust was initially high in the decreasing group and then declined as reliability level decreased; however, trust also declined in the 50% increasing reliability group. Furthermore, when user self-confidence increased, automation reliability had a greater influence on trust. In Experiment 2, the 70% increasing reliability group showed increased trust in the system.
conclusionTrust does not always track the reliability of automated systems; in particular, it is difficult for trust to recover once the user has interacted with a low reliability system. APPLICATIONS: This study provides initial evidence into the dynamics of trust for automation that gets better over time suggesting that users should only start interacting with automation when it is sufficiently reliable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.