Skip to main content

Are Teammate Trust and Confidence Dissociable in Risk Intensive Human Machine Teaming?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Human Systems Engineering and Design (IHSED 2018)

Abstract

Although automation has become the focus of an increasingly expansive body of research literature in human machine team development, few studies have examined the distinction between confidence in a teammate’s capabilities and trust in their intentions. Fewer still have examined the relationship between these two important components of reliance under naturalistic conditions of high risk. We launch into this void with an initial examination of historical case studies which suggest that risk can act as a catalyst that surprisingly and profoundly transforms the relationship between confidence and trust from a typically convergent and positive influence on teammate reliance to a divergent one that can substantially diminish it. We further examine these historical events as rare yet profound occurrences which take place outside the university/hospital laboratory environment in which the vast majority of scientific conclusions are drawn from the behavior of young college students with immature frontal lobes performing artificial tasks under emotionally sterile, risk-averse conditions. We close with the ambitious goal of inspiring a shift within the Human Machine Interaction and Cognitive Engineering fields toward naturalistic, risk intensive research with increased ecological validity for the military and first responder communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Change history

  • 08 January 2019

    The original version of the book was inadvertently published with incorrect copyright names in Chapters “Measuring collaborative emergent behavior in multi-agent reinforcement learning”.

References

  1. Schaefer, K.E., et al.: A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: implications for understanding autonomy in future systems. Hum. Factors 58(3), 377–400 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee, J.D., Moray, N.: Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 40(1), 153 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Strauss, G., et al.: Accuracy and precision in the evaluation of computer assisted surgical systems. A definition. HNO 54(2), 78–84 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen, J.Y., Barnes, M.J.: Human–agent teaming for multirobot control: a review of human factors issues. IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst. 44(1), 13–29 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Adams, B.D.: Trust vs. Confidence. Defence Research and Development Canada-Toronto, Toronto Canada (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Griffin, D., Tversky, A.: The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cogn. Psychol. 24(3), 411–435 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Petrusic, W.M., Baranski, J.V.: Judging confidence influences decision processing in comparative judgments. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 10(1), 177–183 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H., Earle, T.C.: Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. J. Risk Res. 8(2), 145–156 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Henrich, J., Heine, S.J., Norenzayan, A.: The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33(2–3), 61–83 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nielsen, M., et al.: The persistent sampling bias in developmental psychology: a call to action. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 162, 31–38 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lyons, J.B., et al.: Trust-based analysis of an air force collision avoidance system. Ergon. Des. 24(1), 9–12 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Clarke, A.C.: 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hutchinson, UK (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tanaka, Y.: Japan’s Kamikaze pilots and contemporary suicide bombers: war and terror. The Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, 25 November 2005

    Google Scholar 

  14. Markoff, J.: Computer wins on ‘jeopardy!’: trivial, it’s not. New York Times, 16 February 2011

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rubin, A.J.: As Afghan Forces Kill, Trust Is Also a Casualty, in New York Times (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Long, A.: ‘Green on blue’: insider attacks in Afghanistan. Survival 55(3), 167–182 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guttridge, L.F.: Mutiny: A History of Naval Insurrection. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Colwill, C.: Human factors in information security: the insider threat–who can you trust these days? Inf. Secur. Tech. Rep. 14(4), 186–196 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bluth, C.: The British road to war: Blair, Bush and the decision to invade Iraq. Int. Aff. 80(5), 871–892 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Talwar, V., Crossman, A.M.: Children’s lies and their detection: implications for child witness testimony. Dev. Rev. 32(4), 337–359 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Green, R.: Greater Love Hath No Man: Death and Dying in the American Military. The McNair Scholars Journal of the University of California Davis, pp. 49–57 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Haley, N.: State of the state address. South Carolina State Documents Depository (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Leland, A.: Medal of Honor Recipients: 1979-2014. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Steward, J.: Sustaining emotional resilience for school leadership. School Leadersh. Manag. 34(1), 52–68 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bryant, P.J.: The tort of negligence in stem laboratories (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gunsalus, C.K., et al.: The Illinois white paper: improving the system for protecting human subjects: counteracting IRB “mission creep”. Qual. Inq. 13(5), 617–649 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Taleb, N.N.: The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, vol. 2 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Madhavan, P., Wiegmann, D.A.: Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 8(4), 277–301 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was sponsored by the Warfighter Interface Division of the 711th Human Performance Wing at the Air Force Research Laboratory. The authors would like to thank Dr. Robert S. Gutzwiller his sage perspective and advice regarding controversial aspects of human-machine teaming and trust.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John G. Blitch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Blitch, J.G., Skinner, A.D. (2019). Are Teammate Trust and Confidence Dissociable in Risk Intensive Human Machine Teaming?. In: Ahram, T., Karwowski, W., Taiar, R. (eds) Human Systems Engineering and Design. IHSED 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 876. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02053-8_106

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics