1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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)

10. 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)

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

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

16. 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

17. Questions ?