Trust in IT: Factors, Metrics and Models

+

Trust in IT: Factors, Metrics and ModelsDr. Clare Hooperclare@clarehooper.netwww.twitter.com/clarejhooper

+Hi! I’m Dr. Clare Hooper I enjoy exploring boundaries

quantitative and qualitative industry and academia

I’m into HCI, web science, user experience, ubicomp, hypertext

Recent topics include design, inclusive research, crime, social media and trust

+TRIFoRMTRust in IT: Factors, metRics, Models

Trust Mistrust

Reliable

Accurate

Useable

Insecure

Unpredictable

+Multidisciplinary approach

Computer science, health science, social science and engineering

The University of Southampton… Faculty of Health Sciences (Jane Prichard) Faculty of Business and Law (Melanie

Ashleigh) IT Innovation Centre (Clare Hooper, Brian

Pickering, Mike Surridge, Stefanie Wiegand)

+The problem

What are the trusting beliefs of users of IT systems?

What factors influence trust of systems?

How can we model those factors and trust levels?

+

Trust in a system may be too high or low compared with its actual trustworthiness (security) Trigger adequate trust

perceptions allowing users to make risk-aware, informed decisions

Methodologies to increase trustworthiness

www.it-innovation.soton.ac.uk/projects/optet

+TRIFoRM How do users develop

and apply trust to systems?

Models to determine when user trust is out of balance with system trustworthiness

Add to set of warnings and reassurances that OPTET can provide

+The process

Literature

• State of the art from social sciences

• Analyse trust models from OPTET

Data gathering

• Semi-structured interviews• Service users and a service

provider

Thematic analysis

• Identify and model threats• Identify threat controls and key

issues

+The process

Literature

• State of the art from social sciences

• Analyse trust models from OPTET

Data gathering

• Semi-structured interviews• Service users and a service

provider

Thematic analysis

• Identify and model threats• Identify threat controls and key

issues

+The process

Literature

• State of the art from social sciences

• Analyse trust models from OPTET

Data gathering

• Semi-structured interviews• Service users and a service

provider

Thematic analysis

• Identify and model threats• Identify threat controls and key

issues

+Model of trust

+Rheumatoid Arthritis App (RApp)

Technology Acceptanc

e (3+1)

Demographics

HCI

Trust Transfer

Cognitive Impairment

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction

Fault Tolerance

(2+1)

Usefulness (4+1) Ease of

Use (5+1)

Risk Taking (4+1)

Convenience

(4+0)

Technology Acceptanc

e (3+1)

Demographics

HCI

Trust Transfer

Cognitive Impairment

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction

Fault Tolerance

(2+1)

Usefulness (4+1) Ease of

Use (5+1)

Risk Taking (4+1)

Convenience

(4+0)

Technology Acceptanc

e (3+1)

Demographics

HCI

Trust Transfer

Cognitive Impairment

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction

Fault Tolerance

(2+1)

Usefulness (4+1) Ease of

Use (5+1)

Risk Taking (4+1)

Convenience

(4+0)

Technology Acceptanc

e (3+1)

Demographics

HCI

Trust Transfer

Cognitive Impairment

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction

Fault Tolerance

(2+1)

Usefulness (4+1) Ease of

Use (5+1)

Risk Taking (4+1)

Convenience

(4+0)

Technology Acceptanc

e (3+1)

Demographics

HCI

Trust Transfer

Cognitive Impairment

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction

Fault Tolerance

(2+1)

Usefulness (4+1) Ease of

Use (5+1)

Risk Taking (4+1)

Convenience

(4+0)

Technology Acceptanc

e (3+1)

Demographics

HCI

Trust Transfer

Cognitive Impairment

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction

Fault Tolerance

(2+1)

Usefulness (4+1) Ease of

Use (5+1)

Risk Taking (4+1)

Convenience

(4+0)

Technology Acceptanc

e (3+1)

Demographics

HCI

Trust Transfer

Cognitive Impairment

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction

Fault Tolerance

(2+1)

Usefulness (4+1) Ease of

Use (5+1)

Risk Taking (4+1)

Convenience

(4+0)

Trust Transfer (4+1)

Trust in Experts (2+1)

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (5+1)

Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)

-ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (4+1)

Experience (4+0)

Cognitive Impairmen

t (2+0)

Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-

graphics (4+1)

Trust Transfer (4+1)

Trust in Experts (2+1)

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (5+1)

Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)

-ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (4+1)

Experience (4+0)

Cognitive Impairmen

t (2+0)

Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-

graphics (4+1)

Trust Transfer (4+1)

Trust in Experts (2+1)

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (5+1)

Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)

-ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (4+1)

Experience (4+0)

Cognitive Impairmen

t (2+0)

Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-

graphics (4+1)

Trust Transfer (4+1)

Trust in Experts (2+1)

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (5+1)

Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)

-ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (4+1)

Experience (4+0)

Cognitive Impairmen

t (2+0)

Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-

graphics (4+1)

Trust Transfer (4+1)

Trust in Experts (2+1)

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (5+1)

Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)

-ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (4+1)

Experience (4+0)

Cognitive Impairmen

t (2+0)

Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-

graphics (4+1)

Trust Transfer (4+1)

Trust in Experts (2+1)

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (5+1)

Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)

-ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (4+1)

Experience (4+0)

Cognitive Impairmen

t (2+0)

Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-

graphics (4+1)

Trust Transfer (4+1)

Trust in Experts (2+1)

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (5+1)

Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)

-ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (4+1)

Experience (4+0)

Cognitive Impairmen

t (2+0)

Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-

graphics (4+1)

Trust Transfer (4+1)

Trust in Experts (2+1)

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (5+1)

Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)

-ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (4+1)

Experience (4+0)

Cognitive Impairmen

t (2+0)

Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-

graphics (4+1)

Trust Transfer (4+1)

Trust in Experts (2+1)

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (5+1)

Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)

-ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (4+1)

Experience (4+0)

Cognitive Impairmen

t (2+0)

Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-

graphics (4+1)

Trust Transfer (4+1)

Trust in Experts (2+1)

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (5+1)

Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)

-ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (4+1)

Experience (4+0)

Cognitive Impairmen

t (2+0)

Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-

graphics (4+1)

Trust Transfer (4+1)

Trust in Experts (2+1)

+ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (5+1)

Age (1+0) Physical Health (2+0)

-ve Effects on H2H

Interaction (4+1)

Experience (4+0)

Cognitive Impairmen

t (2+0)

Trust in Process (4+1) Demo-

graphics (4+1)

+Threat 1: User Disengagement

+Threat 2: Unusable System

+Monitoring technology to manage pain: issues Likelihood of user risk-taking

and fault-tolerance: users are more vulnerable. We must be cognisant of user

motivation and application domain throughout design

Relationships are important. Interviewees were concerned that such technology might change their relationship with

healthcare providers be trusted by their healthcare

providers

Users

Carers

Systems

Stake-holders

+Summary: process

+Summary: outputs and findings Usefulness and ease of use are

key – of course! Also: demographics,

motivation, domain Users managing pain are

mistake-tolerant and more likely to take risks

Trust transfer and H2H interactions affect H2T trust Technology should enhance,

not replace, H2H interaction The right amount of data Displayed in the right way,

at the right time

OPTET augmented its model

Other projects used TRIFoRM outputs

Work continued by INTRMS: Individual and Network Trust in Remote Monitoring Systems

Trust in the healthcare environment is a complex interaction between technology utility and convenience and its affect on existing human interaction

+Thank you

I’m new to Vancouver; please introduce yourself

I’m available for consultancy HCI, web science, user

experience, ubicomp, hypertext

Design, inclusive research, crime, social media and trust

Stay in touch clare@clarehooper.net twitter.com/ClareJHooper