A Model of Controllers’ Trust in Others & in the Technology they Use in their Work Deirdre Bonini Integra S/A Denmark Eurocontrol Experimental Centre France Trinity College Dublin Ireland Very briefly introduce the topic of my PhD and how the model developed; describe the model in some detail and how it was tested; conclude with results and discussion.

Presentation Definition of trust Trust in Air Traffic Control Model of trust Hypotheses Method Results Conclusion I will start with my definition of trust. This is important as the literature on trust is vast and the background of the researcher influences their understanding of what trust means. So, for example, trust has been studied in interpersonal relationships (couples), team work, manager-employee relations, relations between an individual and certain roles (e.g. a patient and a doctor) an institution (e.g. a citizen and their national health system). Then I will describe to you why I think trust is relevant in ATC. I developed a model of trust, that is made up of three components. I will describe the hypotheses derived from this model and the way I tried to test them, results, discussion and future work.

A Definition of Trust Trust is … A choice a trustor makes to give the trustee control (e.g. delegate task) Based on a belief that the trustee will carry out an action / behave in a certain way With the view of a positive outcome for the trustor According to my point of view, we talk about trust when a trustor chooses to give a trustee (person or technology) control (e.g. delegation); because she or he believes the trustee will carry out an action or behave in a certain way, and this action or this behaviour will result in a positive outcome for the trustor.

Trust in Air Traffic Control Why is trust relevant to Air Traffic Control? A precursor of cooperation (Deutsch, 1958; Baier, 1986; Muir, 1989; Kramer, 2001) The work of a controller can be seen as a collaboration with colleagues, with pilots through technology, and with technology by using the information it provides Due to the trend towards controller mobility (standardisation of training) & introduction of technology it is increasingly important to understand how to optimise team work & the use of technology Researchers from different domains (Deutsch from interpersonal psychology, Baier from philosophy, Muir from human technology interactions and Kramer from organisational psychology) agree that trust is a precursor of cooperation. It is possible to consider the work of a controller as a collaboration with other controllers and with pilots through technology and with technology, by using the information it provides. In these terms, understanding how and why a controller collaborates with others and uses technology should tell us something about trust. Understanding trust then means making explicit what supports cooperation between controllers and optimises the use of technology. I see this as important as there will be an increase of the mobility of controllers in Europe (and thus a standardisation of training) and an increasing introduction of technology

Model of Trust Developed from: Three elements: Literature review Observation of controllers at work Three Questionnaires Focus groups One-to-one interviews Three elements: Self Belief Control To understanding trust and describe this understanding in a model I carried out a multidisciplinary literature review on trust; from the observation of controllers at work in centres and during simulations; from administering 3 questionnaires, focus groups and one to one interviews. The resulting model has three components, which I called self, belief and control.

Self Self confidence Confidence in one’s ability to judge others & situation Outlook on the world (i.e. trusting in general or not) both towards others (Zand, 1972) and towards technology (Lee & Moray,1994)

Belief Cognitive frameworks used to interpret a situation & anticipate events (e.g. mental models, schemas) Literature & controllers consider competence as relevant in trust decision Rulers/scales to describe competent controllers & technology

Competence Ruler Rulers for French, Irish, & Italian controllers (competent others & technology) Example of Italian technology competence ruler Lowest Highest 36 38 53 61 66 Fast Gain time Of help Simple to use Useful Clear Display

Control Implicit/explicit rules define, mediate & constrain trustor & trustee co-operation Roles (e.g. an actor’s role defines their behaviour & social interactions) & contracts Choice (need to understand context)

Null Hypotheses Self No difference between low/high self confidence No difference (both for others & technology) between low/high trustors Belief No difference between low/high competence (for both others & technology) Control Cultural differences will be found in trusting behaviour (for both others & technology)

Method Scenario-based questionnaires Ten scenarios Questionnaires; Incident reports; Support of 5 operational experts Iterative process (both analytical & empirical approach) Operationally sound; Not specific to one operational environment; Not a test with a right/wrong answer

Participants & Design Irish (26) Italian (44) 11 control 15 experimental condition Italian (44) 16 control 28 experimental condition Volunteers in 4 control centres Controller Technology Sc1 HIGHER Sc2 LOWER Sc3 Sc4 - Sc5 Sc6 Sc7 Sc8 Sc9 Sc10

Results: Self All respondents rated themselves high on self-confidence Towards others most respondents rated high (69-86%) Towards technology Italians low (57%) & Irish high (58%) No significant correlation between attitudes & trust decision

Results: Belief Participants under control & exp. condition chose same answer (‘trust’ or ‘no trust’) Both lower & higher characteristics were positive Narratives maybe not neutral? Significant correlation between competence & trustworthiness ratings

Results: Control Italian & Irish responded differently to 3 scenarios, but no significant difference found “what would change your answer?” Individual differences or cultural differences?

Conclusions No conclusive validation Should test model components separately (Belief component more than competence) Need to separate effect of culture versus individual differences (self, belief, & control) Consider the interaction between controller & technology competence & effect on trust Relation between ratings of competence & trustworthiness (both others & technology) Scenarios found to be effective way to interact with controllers Perhaps follow-up with interview

Questions ?