Relationship Between Trust and Usability in Virtual Environments: An Ongoing Study

  • Davide SalanitriEmail author
  • Chrisminder Hare
  • Simone Borsci
  • Glyn Lawson
  • Sarah Sharples
  • Brian Waterfield
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9169)


Usability and trust have been observed to be related in several domains including web retail, information systems, and e-health. Trust in technology reflects beliefs about the attributes of a technology. Research has shown that trust is a key factor for the success of different systems – e.g., e-market, e-commerce, and social networks. Trust in technology can be supported or prevented by the perceived usability. Therefore, a low level of usability could compromise an individual’s trust in their use of a technology, resulting in a negative attitude towards a product. Even if this relationship has been seen as important in the fields listed above, there is limited research which empirically assesses trust and usability in virtual reality (VR). This work will present the first set of data on the relationship between usability and trust in VR. To gather this data, three different VR systems (Desktop 3D tool, CAVE, and a flight simulator) were tested. The findings show that (i) the best-known questionnaire to measure usability and trust could be applied to VR, (ii) there is a strong relationship between people’s satisfaction and trust in the use of VR, (iii) the relationship between usability and trust exists for different systems.


System usability scale Trust Trust in technology measures Virtual reality Usability 



The authors of this paper would like to thank the technology strategic board (in alphabetic order: HoloVis ltd., Jaguar Land Rover, The University of Nottingham) of the Live Augmented Reality Training Environments (LARTE)– 101509 project for study one, Jaguar Land Rover in the person of Brian Waterfield for study 2 and, for study 3, the Horizon centre for Doctoral Training at the University of Nottingham (RCUK Grant No. EP/G037574/1). Study 3 has been part funded by the RCUK’s Horizon Digital Economy Research Hub grant, EP/G065802/1 and part funded by Airbus Group.


  1. 1.
    Hosmer, L.T.: Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 379–403 (1995)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seppänen, R., Blomqvist, K., Sundqvist, S.: Measuring inter-organizational trust—a critical review of the empirical research in 1990–2003. Ind. Mark. Manage. 36, 249–265 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burke, C.S., Sims, D.E., Lazzara, E.H., Salas, E.: Trust in leadership: a multi-level review and integration. Leadersh. Q. 18, 606–632 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mcknight, D.H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J.B., Clay, P.F.: Trust in a specific technology: an investigation of its components and measures. ACM Trans. Manage. Inf. Syst. (TMIS) 2, 12 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., Camerer, C.: Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23, 393–404 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friedman, B., Khan Jr., P.H., Howe, D.C.: Trust online. Commun. ACM 43, 34–40 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lippert, S.K., Swiercz, P.M.: Human resource information systems (HRIS) and technology trust. J. Inf. Sci. 31, 340–353 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmar, C.: Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf. Syst. Res. 13, 334–359 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W.: Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q. 27, 51–90 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gefen, D.: E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust. Omega 28, 725–737 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pennington, R., Wilcox, H.D., Grover, V.: The role of system trust in business-to-consumer transactions. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 20, 197–226 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lankton, N.K., McKnight, D.H.: What does it mean to trust Facebook?: examining technology and interpersonal trust beliefs. ACM SIGMIS Database 42, 32–54 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roy, M.C., Dewit, O., Aubert, B.A.: The impact of interface usability on trust in web retailers. Internet Res. 11, 388–398 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fruhling, A.L., Lee, S.M.: The influence of user interface usability on rural consumers’ trust of e-health services. Int. J. Electron. Healthc. 2, 305–321 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO: ISO 9241-11:1998 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals – Part 11: Guidance on usability. CEN, Brussels, BE (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rheingold, H.: Virtual Reality: Exploring the Brave New Technologies. Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anderson, P.L., Zimand, E., Hodges, L.F., Rothbaum, B.O.: Cognitive behavioral therapy for public-speaking anxiety using virtual reality for exposure. Depress. Anxiety 22, 156–158 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bouchard, S., Côté, S., St-Jacques, J., Robillard, G., Renaud, P.: Effectiveness of virtual reality exposure in the treatment of arachnophobia using 3D games. Technol. Health Care 14, 19–27 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rothbaum, B.O., Hodges, L.F., Ready, D., Graap, K., Alarcon, R.D.: Virtual reality exposure therapy for Vietnam veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. J. Clin. Psychiatry 62, 617–622 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gershon, J., Zimand, E., Lemos, R., Rothbaum, B.O., Hodges, L.: Use of virtual reality as a distractor for painful procedures in a patient with pediatric cancer: a case study. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 6, 657–661 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoffman, H.G., Patterson, D.R., Magula, J., Carrougher, G.J., Zeltzer, K., Dagadakis, S., Sharar, S.R.: Water-friendly virtual reality pain control during wound care. J. Clin. Psychol. 60, 189–195 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steele, E., Grimmer, K., Thomas, B., Mulley, B., Fulton, I., Hoffman, H.: Virtual reality as a pediatric pain modulation technique: a case study. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 6, 633–638 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wismeijer, A.A., Vingerhoets, A.J.: The use of virtual reality and audiovisual eyeglass systems as adjunct analgesic techniques: a review of the literature. Ann. Behav. Med. 30, 268–278 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Borsci, S., Lawson, G., Broome, S.: Empirical evidence, evaluation criteria and challenges for the effectiveness of virtual and mixed reality tools for training operators of car service maintenance. Comput. Ind. 67, 17–26 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Slater, M., Wilbur, S.: A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 6, 603–616 (1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brooke, J.: SUS-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189, 194 (1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Borsci, S., Federici, S., Lauriola, M.: On the dimensionality of the system usability scale: a test of alternative measurement models. Cogn. Process. 10, 193–197 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lewis, James R., Sauro, Jeff: The factor structure of the system usability scale. In: Kurosu, Masaaki (ed.) HCD 2009. LNCS, vol. 5619, pp. 94–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lewis, J.R.: Usability: lessons learned … and yet to be learned. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Inter. 30, 663–684 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Salanitri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chrisminder Hare
    • 1
  • Simone Borsci
    • 1
  • Glyn Lawson
    • 1
  • Sarah Sharples
    • 1
  • Brian Waterfield
    • 2
  1. 1.Human Factors Research Group, Faculty of EngineeringThe University of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Jaguar Land Rover, Virtual Innovation Centre (VIC)CoventryUK

Personalised recommendations