4.6 Article

Empirical Assessment of Alternative Designs for Enhancing Different Types of Trusting Beliefs in Online Recommendation Agents

Journal

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 744-775

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07421222.2016.1243949

Keywords

advice quality; cognitive effort; decision support; recommendation agent; restrictiveness; transparency; trust; trusting beliefs

Funding

  1. Research Grants Council of Hong Kong S.A.R. [CityU 150207]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [71471156]
  3. Shenzhen Research Institute of the City University of Hong Kong

Ask authors/readers for more resources

competence, integrity, and benevolence are the three key trusting beliefs that are widely acknowledged in the trust literature. Drawing on users' different dispositional attribution of these trusting beliefs, we investigate the different influence of two sets of experiential reasons on the competence belief versus the benevolence and integrity beliefs in online recommendation agents (RAs). The two sets of experiential reasons encompass interactive reason, including three performance factors (namely, perceived cognitive effort, advice quality, and perceived strategy restrictiveness), and knowledge-based reason (i.e., perceived transparency of an RA). Data were collected through a laboratory experiment to test our hypotheses. Results demonstrate that the three performance factors affect only the competence belief, whereas perceived RA transparency influences all three trusting beliefs. In addition, the effects of perceived transparency on competence are partially mediated by perceived cognitive effort and advice quality. The research contributes to the trust literature by revealing the different antecedents of the three trusting beliefs and provides guidelines for designers to choose specific design elements to improve a particular trusting belief of the user toward an RA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available