arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2510.21535

Human and AI Trust: Trust Attitude Measurement Instrument

Retno Larasati
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

With the current progress of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology and its increasingly broader applications, trust is seen as a required criterion for AI usage, acceptance, and deployment. A robust measurement instrument is essential to correctly evaluate trust from a human-centered perspective. This paper describes the development and validation process of a trust measure instrument, which follows psychometric principles, and consists of a 16-items trust scale. The instrument was built explicitly for research in human-AI interaction to measure trust attitudes towards AI systems from layperson (non-expert) perspective. The use-case we used to develop the scale was in the context of AI medical support systems (specifically cancer/health prediction). The scale development (Measurement Item Development) and validation (Measurement Item Evaluation) involved six research stages: item development, item evaluation, survey administration, test of dimensionality, test of reliability, and test of validity. The results of the six-stages evaluation show that the proposed trust measurement instrument is empirically reliable and valid for systematically measuring and comparing non-experts' trust in AI Medical Support Systems.

Explore related subjects

cs.HCcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Retno Larasati. 2025-10-24. Human and AI Trust: Trust Attitude Measurement Instrument. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.21535

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Are explainable AI (XAI) evaluation strategies aligned? Comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical evaluation measures using saliency maps

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC↗