1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interaction Studies
  4. Volume 26, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 26, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

As human-agent teaming (HAT) research continues to grow, computational methods for modeling HAT behaviors and measuring HAT effectiveness also continue to develop. One rising method involves the use of human digital twins (HDT) to approximate human behaviors and socio-emotional-cognitive reactions to AI-driven agent team members. To help HDT research effectively model human trust in HATs, we offer two lines of insight. First, through a review of the HAT trust literature, we identify key characteristics and attributes of trust that must be considered in order to properly conceptualize, model, and measure trust. Through this review, we outline the theoretical foundations of trust needed for effective HDTs capable of emulating human trust and offer guidance on where and how extant HAT research should translate into HDT modeling and future research. Second, through causal analyses of archival team communication data from a HAT experiment, we supplement theoretical foundations for modeling trust with data-driven insights to guide the trust-related language HDTs may need to effectively emulate human trust. Finally, we discuss implications of these combined theoretical and empirical insights for future HDT research, highlighting the necessity of ongoing validation against human behaviors and the refinement of computational methods. This paper ultimately aims to advance both the fidelity and applicability of HDTs in modeling nuanced human-agent trust dynamics, fostering more effective and realistic human-agent collaborations.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/is.24052.ngu
2026-02-27
2026-03-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/is.24052.ngu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdurahman, S., Atari, M., Karimi-Malekabadi, F., Xue, M. J., Trager, J., Park, P. S., Golazizian, P., Omrani, A., & Dehghani, M.
    (2024) Perils and opportunities in using large language models in psychological research. PNAS nexus, 3(7), pgae245. 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae245
     https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae245 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramov, G., Miellet, S., Kautz, J., Grenyer, B. F. S., & Deane, F. P.
    (2020) The paradoxical decline and growth of trust as a function of borderline personality disorder trait count: Using discontinuous growth modelling to examine trust dynamics in response to violation and repair. PloS One, 15(7), e0236170. 10.1371/journal.pone.0236170
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236170 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, A. L., Phillips, E. K., Ullman, D., & Keebler, J. R.
    (2018) Toward an Understanding of Trust Repair in Human-Robot Interaction: Current Research and Future Directions. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst., 8(4), 301:1–30:30. 10.1145/3181671
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3181671 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barricelli, B. R., & Fogli, D.
    (2024) Digital Twins in Human-Computer Interaction: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40(2), 79–97. 10.1080/10447318.2022.2118189
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2118189 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barsade, S. G.
    (2002) The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and its Influence on Group Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644–675. 10.2307/3094912
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cai, W., Jin, Y., & Chen, L.
    (2022) Impacts of personal characteristics on user trust in conversational recommender systems. Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 1–14. 10.1145/3491102.3517471
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517471 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chancey, E. T., Bliss, J. P., Yamani, Y., & Handley, H. A. H.
    (2017) Trust and the Compliance-Reliance Paradigm: The Effects of Risk, Error Bias, and Reliability on Trust and Dependence. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59(3), 333–345. 10.1177/0018720816682648
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816682648 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chiou, E. K., & Lee, J. D.
    (2023) Trusting Automation: Designing for Responsivity and Resilience. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 65(1), 137–165. 10.1177/00187208211009995
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211009995 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen, M. C., Demir, M., Chiou, E. K., & Cooke, N. J.
    (2021) The Dynamics of Trust and Verbal Anthropomorphism in Human-Autonomy Teaming. 2021 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS), 1–6. 10.1109/ICHMS53169.2021.9582655
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHMS53169.2021.9582655 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohen, M. C., Peel, M. A., Scalia, M. J., Willett, M. M., Chiou, E. K., Gorman, J. C., & Cooke, N. J.
    (2023) Anthropomorphism Moderates the Relationships of Dispositional, Perceptual, and Behavioral Trust in a Robot Teammate. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 671, 529–536. 10.1177/21695067231196240
     https://doi.org/10.1177/21695067231196240 [Google Scholar]
  11. Collins, A. L., Lawrence, S. A., Troth, A. C., & Jordan, P. J.
    (2013) Group affective tone: A review and future research directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S43–S62. 10.1002/job.1887
     https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1887 [Google Scholar]
  12. de Visser, E. J., Peeters, M. M. M., Jung, M. F., Kohn, S., Shaw, T. H., Pak, R., & Neerincx, M. A.
    (2020) Towards a Theory of Longitudinal Trust Calibration in Human-Robot Teams. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12(2), 459–478. 10.1007/s12369‑019‑00596‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00596-x [Google Scholar]
  13. DeCastellarnau, A.
    (2018) A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1523–1559. 10.1007/s11135‑017‑0533‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0533-4 [Google Scholar]
  14. Demir, M., McNeese, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Cooke, N. J., Myers, C. W., & Grimm, D. A.
    (2021) Exploration of Teammate Trust and Interaction Dynamics in Human-Autonomy Teaming. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 51(6), 696–705. 10.1109/THMS.2021.3115058
     https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3115058 [Google Scholar]
  15. Duan, W., McNeese, N., & Zhang, R.
    (2023) Communication in Human-AI Teaming. InGroup Communication. Routledge. 10.4324/9781003227458‑27
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003227458-27 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dzindolet, M. T., Peterson, S. A., Pomranky, R. A., Pierce, L. G., & Beck, H. P.
    (2003) The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 697–718. 10.1016/S1071‑5819(03)00038‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fan, C., Tariq, Z., Saadiq Bhuiyan, N., Yankoski, M. G., & Ford, T. W.
    (2024) Comp-husim: Persistent digital personality simulation platform. Adjunct Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, 98–101. 10.1145/3631700.3664883
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3631700.3664883 [Google Scholar]
  18. Forgas, J. P.
    (1995) Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39–66. 10.1037/0033‑2909.117.1.39
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  19. Garten, J., Boghrati, R., Hoover, J., Johnson, K. M., & Dehghani, M.
    (2016) Morality between the lines: Detecting moral sentiment in text. Proceedings of IJCAI 2016 Workshop on Computational Modeling of Attitudes.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Glenski, M., Ayton, E., Saldanha, E., Mendoza, J., Arendt, D., Shaw, Z., Cronk, K., Smith, S., & Greaves, M.
    (2021) Machine intelligence to detect, characterise, and defend against influence operations in the information environment. Journal of Information Warfare, 20(2), 42–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W.
    (2020) Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627–660. 10.5465/annals.2018.0057
     https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057 [Google Scholar]
  22. Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H.
    (2013) Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. InAdvances in experimental social psychology (pp.55–130, Vol.471). Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., de Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R.
    (2011) A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(5), 517–527. 10.1177/0018720811417254
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hanu, L., Thewlis, J., & Haco, S.
    (2021) How AI is learning to identify toxic online content. Scientific American, 81.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hanu, L., & Unitary team
    (2020) Detoxify.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M.
    (2015) Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407–434. 10.1177/0018720814547570
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570 [Google Scholar]
  27. Huang, L., Freeman, J., Cooke, N., John “JCR” Colonna-Romano, Wood, M., Buchanan, V., & Caufman, S.
    (2022) Artificial Social Intelligence for Successful Teams (ASIST) Study31. 10.48349/ASU/QDQ4MH
     https://doi.org/10.48349/ASU/QDQ4MH [Google Scholar]
  28. Jessup, S. A., Schneider, T. R., Alarcon, G. M., Ryan, T. J., & Capiola, A.
    (2019) The Measurement of the Propensity to Trust Automation. InJ. Y. Chen & G. Fragomeni (Eds.), Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Applications and Case Studies (pp.476–489). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑21565‑1_32
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21565-1_32 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jian, J.-Y., Bisantz, A. M., & Drury, C. G.
    (2000) Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 53–71. 10.1207/S15327566IJCE0401_04
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327566IJCE0401_04 [Google Scholar]
  30. Karpinsky, N. D., Chancey, E. T., Palmer, D. B., & Yamani, Y.
    (2018) Automation trust and attention allocation in multitasking workspace. Applied Ergonomics, 701, 194–201. 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.03.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kohn, S. C., de Visser, E. J., Wiese, E., Lee, Y.-C., & Shaw, T. H.
    (2021) Measurement of Trust in Automation: A Narrative Review and Reference Guide. Frontiers in Psychology, 121. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.604977
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.604977 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee, J. D., & See, K. A.
    (2004) Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80. 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392
     https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee, Y.-J., Lim, C.-G., & Choi, H.-J.
    (2022, October). Does GPT-3 Generate Empathetic Dialogues? A Novel In-Context Example Selection Method and Automatic Evaluation Metric for Empathetic Dialogue Generation. InN. Calzolari, C.-R. Huang, H. Kim, J. Pustejovsky, L. Wanner, K.-S. Choi, P.-M. Ryu, H.-H. Chen, L. Donatelli, H. Ji, S. Kurohashi, P. Paggio, N. Xue, S. Kim, Y. Hahm, Z. He, T. K. Lee, E. Santus, F. Bond, & S.-H. Na (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.669–683). International Committee on Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Li, M., Erickson, I. M., Cross, E. V., & Lee, J. D.
    (2022) Estimating Trust in Conversational Agent with Lexical and Acoustic Features. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 66(1), 544–548. 10.1177/1071181322661147
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181322661147 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2024) It’s Not Only What You Say, But Also How You Say It: Machine Learning Approach to Estimate Trust from Conversation. Human Factors, 66(6), 1724–1741. 10.1177/00187208231166624
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208231166624 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lin, C.-P., He, H., Baruch, Y., & Ashforth, B. E.
    (2017) The Effect of Team Affective Tone on Team Performance: The Roles of Team Identification and Team Cooperation. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 931–952. 10.1002/hrm.21810
     https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21810 [Google Scholar]
  37. Luca, J., & Tarricone, P.
    (2001) Does emotional intelligence affect successful teamwork?Research Outputs Pre 2011.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Madhavan, P., & Wiegmann, D. A.
    (2007) Similarities and differences between human-human and human-automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(4), 277–301. 10.1080/14639220500337708
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500337708 [Google Scholar]
  39. Madsen, M., & Gregor, S.
    (2000) Measuring human-computer trust. 11th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 531, 6–8.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Malle, B. F., & Ullman, D.
    (2021, January). Chapter 1 — A multidimensional conception and measure of human-robot trust. InC. S. Nam & J. B. Lyons (Eds.), Trust in Human-Robot Interaction (pp.3–25). Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑819472‑0.00001‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819472-0.00001-0 [Google Scholar]
  41. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D.
    (1995) An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709. 10.2307/258792
     https://doi.org/10.2307/258792 [Google Scholar]
  42. McDuff, D., Schaekermann, M., Tu, T., Palepu, A., Wang, A., Garrison, J., Singhal, K., Sharma, Y., Azizi, S., Kulkarni, K.,
    (2025) Towards accurate differential diagnosis with large language models. Nature, 1–7. 10.1038/s41586‑025‑08869‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08869-4 [Google Scholar]
  43. McNeese, N. J., Demir, M., Chiou, E. K., & Cooke, N. J.
    (2021) Trust and team performance in human-autonomy teaming. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 25(1), 51–72. 10.1080/10864415.2021.1846854
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2021.1846854 [Google Scholar]
  44. Merritt, S. M., & Ilgen, D. R.
    (2008) Not all trust is created equal: Dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Human Factors, 50(2), 194–210. 10.1518/001872008X288574
     https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288574 [Google Scholar]
  45. Meyer, J., & Lee, J. D.
    (2013) Trust, reliance, and compliance. InThe Oxford handbook of cognitive engineering (pp.109–124). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199757183.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199757183.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Miller, M. E., & Spatz, E.
    (2022) A unified view of a human digital twin. Human-Intelligent Systems Integration, 4(1), 23–33. 10.1007/s42454‑022‑00041‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s42454-022-00041-x [Google Scholar]
  47. Mirzadeh, I., Alizadeh, K., Shahrokhi, H., Tuzel, O., Bengio, S., & Farajtabar, M.
    (2024, October). GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models. 10.48550/arXiv.2410.05229
     https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.05229 [Google Scholar]
  48. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2024, March). Foundational Research Gaps and Future Directions for Digital Twins. National Academies Press. 10.17226/26894
     https://doi.org/10.17226/26894 [Google Scholar]
  49. Niraula, D., Cuneo, K. C., Dinov, I. D., Gonzalez, B. D., Jamaluddin, J. B., Jin, J. J., Luo, Y., Matuszak, M. M., Ten Haken, R. K., Bryant, A. K.,
    (2025) Intricacies of human-ai interaction in dynamic decision-making for precision oncology. Nature Communications, 16(1), 1138. 10.1038/s41467‑024‑55259‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-55259-x [Google Scholar]
  50. Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V.
    (1997) Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253. 10.1518/001872097778543886
     https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886 [Google Scholar]
  51. Park, J. S., O’Brien, J. C., Cai, C. J., Morris, M. R., Liang, P., & Bernstein, M. S.
    (2023, August). Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior. 10.48550/arXiv.2304.03442
     https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.03442 [Google Scholar]
  52. Patton, C. E., & Wickens, C. D.
    (2024) The relationship of trust and dependence. Ergonomics, 1–17. 10.1080/00140139.2024.2342436
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2024.2342436 [Google Scholar]
  53. QuantumBlack Labs
    QuantumBlack Labs (2020) CausalNex: A python library for causal reasoning with bayesian networks [Version 0.x].
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Rashkin, H., Choi, E., Jang, J. Y., Volkova, S., & Choi, Y.
    (2017, September). Truth of Varying Shades: Analyzing Language in Fake News and Political Fact-Checking. InM. Palmer, R. Hwa, & S. Riedel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp.2931–2937). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/D17‑1317
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D17-1317 [Google Scholar]
  55. Rashkin, H., Singh, S., & Choi, Y.
    (2016, August). Connotation Frames: A Data-Driven Investigation. 10.48550/arXiv.1506.02739
     https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1506.02739 [Google Scholar]
  56. Razin, Y. S., & Feigh, K. M.
    (2023, March). Converging Measures and an Emergent Model: A Meta-Analysis of Human-Automation Trust Questionnaires. 10.48550/arXiv.2303.13799
     https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.13799 [Google Scholar]
  57. Reinert, A., Rebensky, S., Osman, M. C., Prebot, B., Gonzalez, C., Morrison, D., Yerdon, V., & Nguyen, D.
    (2023) Using cognitive models to develop digital twin synthetic known user persona. Human Factors and Simulation, 83(83). 10.54941/ahfe1003572
     https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1003572 [Google Scholar]
  58. Sanh, V., Debut, L., Chaumond, J., & Wolf, T.
    (2020, March). DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: Smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. 10.48550/arXiv.1910.01108
     https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1910.01108 [Google Scholar]
  59. Sato, T., Yamani, Y., Liechty, M., & Chancey, E. T.
    (2020) Automation trust increases under high-workload multitasking scenarios involving risk. Cognition, Technology & Work, 22(2), 399–407. 10.1007/s10111‑019‑00580‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00580-5 [Google Scholar]
  60. Savani, B.
    (2024, May). DistilBERT for emotion recognition.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., Szalma, J. L., & Hancock, P. A.
    (2016) A Meta-Analysis of Factors Influencing the Development of Trust in Automation: Implications for Understanding Autonomy in Future Systems. Human Factors, 58(3), 377–400. 10.1177/0018720816634228
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816634228 [Google Scholar]
  62. See, A., Roller, S., Kiela, D., & Weston, J.
    (2019) What makes a good conversation? how controllable attributes affect human judgments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.08654. 10.18653/v1/N19‑1170
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1170 [Google Scholar]
  63. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T.
    (2001) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Sharma, A., & Kiciman, E.
    (2020, November). DoWhy: An End-to-End Library for Causal Inference. 10.48550/arXiv.2011.04216
     https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.04216 [Google Scholar]
  65. Shengli, W.
    (2021) Is human digital twin possible?Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, 11, 100014. 10.1016/j.cmpbup.2021.100014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2021.100014 [Google Scholar]
  66. Snow, T.
    (2021) From satisficing to artificing: The evolution of administrative decision-making in the age of the algorithm. Data & Policy, 31, e3. 10.1017/dap.2020.25
     https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2020.25 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sumers, T., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K., & Griffiths, T.
    (2023) Cognitive architectures for language agents. Transactions on Machine Learning Research.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Textor, C., Zhang, R., Lopez, J., Schelble, B. G., McNeese, N. J., Freeman, G., Pak, R., Tossell, C., & de Visser, E. J.
    (2022) Exploring the Relationship Between Ethics and Trust in Human-Artificial Intelligence Teaming: A Mixed Methods Approach. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 16(4), 252–281. 10.1177/15553434221113964
     https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434221113964 [Google Scholar]
  69. Tu, T., Schaekermann, M., Palepu, A., Saab, K., Freyberg, J., Tanno, R., Wang, A., Li, B., Amin, M., Cheng, Y.,
    (2025) Towards conversational diagnostic artificial intelligence. Nature, 1–9. 10.1038/s41586‑025‑08866‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08866-7 [Google Scholar]
  70. Volkova, S., Orvis, K.,
    (2024) Compound ai ecosystem: Agents and tools to improve training and learning. Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Widayati, C. C., Arijanto, A., Magita, M., & Septiana, D.
    (2022) The Effect of Emotional Intelligence, Teamwork, Organizational Culture and Empathy on Employee Performance. 4th Social and Humanities Research Symposium (SoRes 2021), 584–588. 10.2991/assehr.k.220407.120
     https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220407.120 [Google Scholar]
  72. Wildman, J. L., Nguyen, D., Thayer, A. L., Robbins-Roth, V. T., Carroll, M., Carmody, K., Ficke, C., Akib, M., & Addis, A.
    (2024) Trust in Human-Agent Teams: A Multilevel Perspective and Future Research Agenda. Organizational Psychology Review, 14(3), 373–402. 10.1177/20413866241253278
     https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241253278 [Google Scholar]
  73. Yaghini, M., Liu, P., Boenisch, F., & Papernot, N.
    (2024, February). Regulation Games for Trustworthy Machine Learning. 10.48550/arXiv.2402.03540
     https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.03540 [Google Scholar]
  74. Yang, X. J., Schemanske, C., & Searle, C.
    (2023) Toward Quantifying Trust Dynamics: How People Adjust Their Trust After Moment-to-Moment Interaction With Automation. Human Factors, 65(5), 862–878. 10.1177/00187208211034716
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211034716 [Google Scholar]
  75. Zaharia, M., Khattab, O., Chen, L., Davis, J. Q., Miller, H., Potts, C., Zou, J., Carbin, M., Frankle, J., Rao, N., & Ghodsi, A.
    (2024) The shift from models to compound ai systems.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Zheng, X., Aragam, B., Ravikumar, P., & Xing, E. P.
    (2018) Dags with no tears: Continuous optimization for structure learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 311, 9472–9483.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Zhou, X., Zhu, H., Mathur, L., Zhang, R., Qi, Z., Yu, H., Morency, L.-P., Bisk, Y., Fried, D., Neubig, G., & Sap, M.
    (2024) Sotopia: Interactive evaluation for social intelligence in language agents. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). https://openreview.net/forum?id=mM7VurbA4r
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/is.24052.ngu
Loading
Exploratory models of human-AI teams
Interaction Studies 26, 267 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/is.24052.ngu
/content/journals/10.1075/is.24052.ngu
/content/journals/10.1075/is.24052.ngu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): causal discovery; HAT trust modeling; human digital twins (HDT); human-AI agent teaming (HAT)

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error