Can we make sense of the notion of trustworthy technology?

P.J. Nickel, M.P.M. Franssen, P.A. Kroes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

In this paper we raise the question whether technological artifacts can properly speaking be trusted or said to be trustworthy. First, we set out some prevalent accounts of trust and trustworthiness and explain how they compare with the engineer’s notion of reliability. We distinguish between pure rational-choice accounts of trust, which do not differ in principle from mere judgments of reliability, and what we call "motivation-attributing" accounts of trust, which attribute specific motivations to trustworthy entities. Then we consider some examples of technological entities that are, at first glance, best suited to serve as the objects of trust: intelligent systems that interact with users, and complex socio-technical systems. We conclude that the motivation-attributing concept of trustworthiness cannot be straightforwardly applied to these entities. Any applicable notion of trustworthy technology would have to depart significantly from the full-blown notion of trustworthiness associated with interpersonal trust.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)429-444
Number of pages16
JournalKnowledge, Technology & Policy
Volume23
Issue number3-4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

trustworthiness
speaking
artifact
Entity
Trustworthiness

Cite this

Nickel, P.J. ; Franssen, M.P.M. ; Kroes, P.A. / Can we make sense of the notion of trustworthy technology?. In: Knowledge, Technology & Policy. 2010 ; Vol. 23, No. 3-4. pp. 429-444.
@article{977b1039d43c4d3b8a1914d747a87fd8,
title = "Can we make sense of the notion of trustworthy technology?",
abstract = "In this paper we raise the question whether technological artifacts can properly speaking be trusted or said to be trustworthy. First, we set out some prevalent accounts of trust and trustworthiness and explain how they compare with the engineer’s notion of reliability. We distinguish between pure rational-choice accounts of trust, which do not differ in principle from mere judgments of reliability, and what we call {"}motivation-attributing{"} accounts of trust, which attribute specific motivations to trustworthy entities. Then we consider some examples of technological entities that are, at first glance, best suited to serve as the objects of trust: intelligent systems that interact with users, and complex socio-technical systems. We conclude that the motivation-attributing concept of trustworthiness cannot be straightforwardly applied to these entities. Any applicable notion of trustworthy technology would have to depart significantly from the full-blown notion of trustworthiness associated with interpersonal trust.",
author = "P.J. Nickel and M.P.M. Franssen and P.A. Kroes",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1007/s12130-010-9124-6",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "429--444",
journal = "Knowledge, Technology & Policy",
issn = "0897-1986",
publisher = "Rutgers University",
number = "3-4",

}

Can we make sense of the notion of trustworthy technology? / Nickel, P.J.; Franssen, M.P.M.; Kroes, P.A.

In: Knowledge, Technology & Policy, Vol. 23, No. 3-4, 2010, p. 429-444.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can we make sense of the notion of trustworthy technology?

AU - Nickel, P.J.

AU - Franssen, M.P.M.

AU - Kroes, P.A.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - In this paper we raise the question whether technological artifacts can properly speaking be trusted or said to be trustworthy. First, we set out some prevalent accounts of trust and trustworthiness and explain how they compare with the engineer’s notion of reliability. We distinguish between pure rational-choice accounts of trust, which do not differ in principle from mere judgments of reliability, and what we call "motivation-attributing" accounts of trust, which attribute specific motivations to trustworthy entities. Then we consider some examples of technological entities that are, at first glance, best suited to serve as the objects of trust: intelligent systems that interact with users, and complex socio-technical systems. We conclude that the motivation-attributing concept of trustworthiness cannot be straightforwardly applied to these entities. Any applicable notion of trustworthy technology would have to depart significantly from the full-blown notion of trustworthiness associated with interpersonal trust.

AB - In this paper we raise the question whether technological artifacts can properly speaking be trusted or said to be trustworthy. First, we set out some prevalent accounts of trust and trustworthiness and explain how they compare with the engineer’s notion of reliability. We distinguish between pure rational-choice accounts of trust, which do not differ in principle from mere judgments of reliability, and what we call "motivation-attributing" accounts of trust, which attribute specific motivations to trustworthy entities. Then we consider some examples of technological entities that are, at first glance, best suited to serve as the objects of trust: intelligent systems that interact with users, and complex socio-technical systems. We conclude that the motivation-attributing concept of trustworthiness cannot be straightforwardly applied to these entities. Any applicable notion of trustworthy technology would have to depart significantly from the full-blown notion of trustworthiness associated with interpersonal trust.

U2 - 10.1007/s12130-010-9124-6

DO - 10.1007/s12130-010-9124-6

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 429

EP - 444

JO - Knowledge, Technology & Policy

JF - Knowledge, Technology & Policy

SN - 0897-1986

IS - 3-4

ER -