The Interplay Between Human and Machine Agency

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10271)


Human-machine networks affect many aspects of our lives: from sharing experiences with family and friends, knowledge creation and distance learning, and managing utility bills or providing feedback on retail items, to more specialised networks providing decision support to human operators and the delivery of health care via a network of clinicians, family, friends, and both physical and virtual social robots. Such networks rely on increasingly sophisticated machine algorithms, e.g., to recommend friends or purchases, to track our online activities in order to optimise the services available, and assessing risk to help maintain or even enhance people’s health. Users are being offered ever increasing power and reach through these networks by machines which have to support and allow users to be able to achieve goals such as maintaining contact, making better decisions, and monitoring their health. As such, this comes down to a synergy between human and machine agency in which one is dependent in complex ways on the other. With that agency questions arise about trust, risk and regulation, as well as social influence and potential for computer-mediated self-efficacy. In this paper, we explore these constructs and their relationships and present a model based on review of the literature which seeks to identify the various dependencies between them.


General: HCI methods and theories Human-machine networks Agency Trust Modelling Self-efficacy 



This work has been conducted as part of the HUMANE project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 645043.


  1. 1.
    Applin, S., Fischer, M.: Watching Me, Watching You. (Process surveillance and agency in the workplace). In: 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS), Portland, OR, pp. 268–275 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tsvetkova, M., Yasseri, T., Meyer, E.T., Pickering, J.B., Engen, V., Walland, P., Lüders, M., Følstad, A., Bravos, G.: Understanding Human-Machine Networks: A Cross-Disciplinary Survey. arXiv Prepr. (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engen, V., Pickering, J.Brian, Walland, P.: Machine agency in human-machine networks; impacts and trust implications. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2016. LNCS, vol. 9733, pp. 96–106. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39513-5_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boshmaf, Y., Muslukhov, I., Beznosov, K., Ripeanu, M.: The socialbot network: when bots socialize for fame and money. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pp. 93–102 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chu, Z., Gianvecchio, S., Wang, H., Jajodia, S.: Who is tweeting on twitter: human, bot, or cyborg? In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, ACSAC 2010, p. 21 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rose, J., Jones, M.: The double dance of agency: a socio-theoretic account of how machines and humans interact. Syst. Signs Actions 1, 19–37 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee, J.D., Moray, N.: Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35, 1243–1270 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Norman, D.A.: Living with Complexity. MIT Press, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berberian, B., Sarrazin, J.-C., Le Blaye, P., Haggard, P.: Automation technology and sense of control: a window on human agency. PLoS ONE 7, e34075 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rose, J., Jones, M., Truex, D.: Socio-theoretic accounts of IS: The problem of agency. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 17, 8 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rose, J., Truex, D.: Machine agency as perceived autonomy: an action perspective. In: Baskerville, R., Stage, J., DeGross, Janice I. (eds.) Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology. IFIP, vol. 41, pp. 371–388. Springer, Boston (2000). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-35505-4_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Applin, S., Fischer, M.: Cooperation between humans and robots: applied agency in autonomous processes’. In: 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human/Robot Interaction, The Emerging Policy and Ethics of Human Robot Interaction Workshop, Portland, OR (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones, C., Healing, G.: Net generation students: agency and choice and the new technologies. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 26, 344–356 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jia, H., Wu, M., Jung, E., Shapiro, A., Sundar, S.S.: Balancing human agency and object agency: an end-user interview study of the internet of things. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 1185–1188. ACM Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leonardi, P.M.: When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Q. 35(1), 147–167 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84, 191 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 37, 122 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bandura, A.: On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. J. Manage. 38, 9–44 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thatcher, J.B., Zimmer, J.C., Gundlach, M.J., McKnight, D.H.: Internal and external dimensions of computer self-efficacy: An empirical examination. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 55, 628–644 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marakas, G.M., Johnson, R.D., Clay, P.F.: The evolving nature of the computer self-efficacy construct: An empirical investigation of measurement construction, validity, reliability and stability over time. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8, 15 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mun, Y.Y., Hwang, Y.: Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 59, 431–449 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simsek, A.: The relationship between computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy. Online Submiss. 2, 177–187 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shu, Q., Tu, Q., Wang, K.: The impact of computer self-efficacy and technology dependence on computer-related technostress: a social cognitive theory perspective. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 27, 923–939 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hildebrandt, M.: Profile transparency by design?: Re-enabling double contingency. In: Hildebrandt, M., de Vries, K. (eds.) Privacy, Due Process and the Computational Turn: The Philosophy of Law Meets the Philosophy of Technology, pp. 221–246. Routledge, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hildebrandt, M.: Promiscuous Data-Sharing in times of Data-driven Animism (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    European Commission: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hildebrandt, M.: Smart Technologies and the End of Law: Novel Entanglements of Law and Technology. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Featherman, M.S., Miyazaki, A.D., Sprott, D.E.: Reducing online privacy risk to facilitate e-service adoption: the influence of perceived ease of use and corporate credibility. J. Serv. Mark. 24, 219–229 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N.F.: Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal. 23, 961–972 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McKnight, D.H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J.B., Clay, P.F.: Trust in a specific technology. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2, 1–25 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thatcher, J.B., McKnight, D.H., Baker, E.W., Arsal, R.E., Roberts, N.H.: The role of trust in postadoption IT exploration: an empirical examination of knowledge management systems. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 58, 56–70 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miltgen, C.L., Smith, H.J.: Exploring information privacy regulation, risks, trust, and behavior. Inf. Manag. 52, 741–759 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J.: Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Secur. Priv. 3, 26–33 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., Loewenstein, G.: Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science 347(80), 509–514 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lin, K.-Y., Lu, H.-P.: Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Comput. Human Behav. 27, 1152–1161 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kwon, O., Wen, Y.: An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use. Comput. Human Behav. 26, 254–263 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hsu, M.-H., Ju, T.L., Yen, C.-H., Chang, C.-M.: Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: the relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 65, 153–169 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stewart, K.J.: Trust transfer on the world wide web. Organ. Sci. 14, 5–17 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McEvily, B., Perrone, V., Zaheer, A.: Trust as an organizing principle. Organ. Sci. 14, 91–103 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bennett, S., Maton, K., Kervin, L.: The “digital natives” debate: a critical review of the evidence. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 39, 775–786 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 709–734 (1995)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H.: An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present, and future. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 344–354 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Beldad, A., de Jong, M., Steehouder, M.: How shall I trust the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust. Comput. Human Behav. 26, 857–869 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lewis, J.D., Weigert, A.J.: The social dynamics of trust: theoretical and empirical research, 1985–2012. Soc. Forces 91, 25–31 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chaouali, W., Ben Yahia, I., Souiden, N.: The interplay of counter-conformity motivation, social influence, and trust in customers’ intention to adopt Internet banking services: the case of an emerging country. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 28, 209–218 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sarker, S., Ahuja, M., Sarker, S., Kirkeby, S.: The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: a social network perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 28, 273–310 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Friedman, B., Khan Jr., P.H., Howe, D.C.: Trust online. Commun. ACM 43, 34–40 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shin, D.-H.: The effects of trust, security and privacy in social networking: a security-based approach to understand the pattern of adoption. Interact. Comput. 22, 428–438 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bandura, A.: Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 1–26 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fogg, B.: Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. In: The SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing, pp. 225–232 (1998)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Garbarino, E., Strahilevitz, M.: Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation. J. Bus. Res. 57, 768–775 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kim, D.J., Ferrin, D.L., Rao, H.R.: A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: the role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decis. Support Syst. 44, 544–564 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Leventhal, H., Kelly, K., Leventhal, E.A.: Population risk, actual risk, perceived risk, and cancer control: a discussion. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 25, 81–85 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Covello, V.T.: Actual and perceived risk: a review of the literature. In: Technological Risk Assessment, pp. 225–245 (1984)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Brown, H.G., Poole, M.S., Rodgers, T.L.: Interpersonal traits, complementarity, and trust in virtual collaboration. J. Manag. Inf. 20, 115–137 (2004)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tufekci, Z.: Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 28, 20–36 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Strater, K., Lipford, H.R.: Strategies and struggles with privacy in an online social networking community. In: Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Culture, Creativity, Interaction-Volume 1, pp. 111–119. British Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Saravanakumar, C., Arun, C.: Survey on interoperability, security, trust, privacy standardization of cloud computing. In: 2014 International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Informatics (IC3I), pp. 977–982. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Følstad, A., Engen, V., Haugstveit, I.M., Pickering, J.B.: Automation in human-machine networks: how increasing machine agency affects human agency. In: International Conference on Man-Machine Interactions (submitted, 2017)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Pavlou, P.A.: Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 7, 101–134 (2003)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Giddens, A.: The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (1984)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Li, X., Rong, G., Thatcher, J.B.: Does technology trust substitute interpersonal trust? J. Organ. End User Comput. 24, 18–38 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Chow, W.S., Chan, L.S.: Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Inf. Manag. 45, 458–465 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yee, N., Bailenson, J.N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F., Merget, D.: The unbearable likeness of being digital: The persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtual environments. CyberPsychol. Behav. 10, 115–121 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lowry, P.B., Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Fu, X.: Effects of culture, social presence, and group composition on trust in technology-supported decision-making groups. Inf. Syst. J. 20, 297–315 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cheung, C.M.K., Lee, M.K.O.: A theoretical model of intentional social action in online social networks. Decis. Support Syst. 49, 24–30 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gefen, D., Straub, D.W.: Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance of social presence: experiments in e-Products and e-Services. Omega 32, 407–424 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gangadharbatla, H.: Facebook me. J. Interact. Advert. 8, 5–15 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rose, J., Jones, M., Truex, D.: The problem of agency: how humans act, how machines act. In: International Workshop on Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems (ALOIS 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H.: Human agency and responsible computing: implications for computer system design. J. Syst. Softw. 17, 7–14 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gist, M.E., Mitchell, T.R.: Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Acad. Manag. Rev. 17, 183–211 (1992)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Krämer, N.C., Winter, S.: Impression management 2.0. J. Media Psychol. 20, 106–116 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    İskender, M., Akin, A.: Social self-efficacy, academic locus of control, and internet addiction. Comput. Educ. 54, 1101–1106 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kim, Y.H., Kim, D.J., Hwang, Y.: Exploring online transaction self-efficacy in trust building in B2C e-commerce. J. Organ. End User Comput. 21, 37 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Dickinger, A., Arami, M., Meyer, D.: The role of perceived enjoyment and social norm in the adoption of technology with network externalities. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17, 4–11 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Brian Pickering
    • 1
  • Vegard Engen
    • 1
  • Paul Walland
    • 1
  1. 1.IT Innovation CentreUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations