Modelling Trust: An Empirical Assessment

Siddharth Gulati, Sonia Sousa, David Lamas

► To cite this version:

Siddharth Gulati, Sonia Sousa, David Lamas. Modelling Trust: An Empirical Assessment. 16th IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT), Sep 2017, Bombay, India. pp.40-61, 10.1007/978-3-319-68059-0_3 . hal-01679802

HAL Id: hal-01679802

https://inria.hal.science/hal-01679802

Submitted on 10 Jan 2018

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Modelling Trust: An Empirical Assessment

Siddharth Gulati*, Sonia Sousa, and David Lamas

School of Digital Technologies
Tallinn University, Narva mnt 29
Tallinn, 10120, Estonia
{sid,scs,drl}@tlu.ee

**Abstract.** Trust has shown to be a key factor influencing user uptake and acceptance of technologies. Despite the increase in interest in trust research and its stated importance in HCI, prior research has mainly focused on understanding its role in human to human interactions mediated through technology. The ongoing and rapid technological developments have made it necessary to move beyond studying trust relationships between people mediated by information technology (IT) and focus on studying the relationship of the user with the IT artifact itself. We recognize that HCI discipline lacks a focused body of knowledge on trust and there is a lack of theoretically grounded and robust psychometric instruments for quantifying trust. With this in mind, this article is aimed at empirically evaluating a socio-technical model of trust so as to assess its feasibility in user technology interactions. Using prior established measures and theories, we identify seven trust attributes and test the proposed model using partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Our study contributes to the literature by advancing the discussion of trust in human-artefact relationship.

**Keywords:** Trust in technology, Theory development, PLS-SEM

## 1 Introduction

The field of Human computer interaction (HCI) has witnessed tremendous growth over the past decade. The place that information technology has in people's lives has drastically changed as technology has now become seamlessly integrated and diffused into every aspect of a person's life. People are getting more engaged, involved and reliant on technology for their day to day tasks. Considering the kind of technology being developed and the rate at which it is being developed, it is safe to say that computing is at one its most exciting moments, playing an essential role in supporting human activities, facilitated by growing availability of services, devices and interaction modalities, all associated with tangible consequences [67]. This is also supported by Häkkinen [24] who recognize the seamless

* Please note that the LNCS Editorial assumes that all authors have used the western naming convention, with given names preceding surnames. This determines the structure of the names in the running heads and the author index.
integration of technology into modern life and call for theoretically sound and empirically grounded research to explore such a wide swath of technological applications (p.1).

In light of such exciting developments, uncertainties and increasing dependency on technologies, there has been a greater call among scholars to understand and research trust within HCI [5, 37, 64]. The main reason for this can be attributed to the fact that trust has shown to be a key factor in technology adoption and user satisfaction with technology [63, 32] and its absence could lead to a user proceeding more cautiously when using the technology and taking unnecessary time to think through their actions, which will ultimately lead to dissatisfaction, failure to continue using the system and the user not being able to fully realize the potential which the technology has to offer [9]. However, despite the benefits of studying trust in technology, the HCI community is lacking a coherent & focused body of knowledge on trust that can be referred to for developing systems which would foster trust [34]. There is also a lack of theoretically grounded and robust psychometric instruments for quantifying trust [64]. Finally, the HCI discipline needs deepening of understanding the role of trust in a user-artefact relationship [63, 37, 4, 69].

With this in mind, the main aim of the present article is twofold: (1) First, we address the need for a dedicated model to quantify trust in the HCI domain. To advance this discussion, we wish to refine and empirically assess the suitability of socio-technical model (STM) of human computer trust proposed by Sousa et al. [67] in user technology interactions and (2) secondly, we advance the discussion on understanding the role of trust with technological artefacts and suggest directions for future research on the topic.

## 1.1 Research Questions

As explained earlier, the present study is aimed at empirically assessing and refining the human-computer trust model [67]. The research questions associated with achieving this goal are as follows:

**RQ1:** How well do the proposed attributes of STM predict trust levels of a user with a system? In other words, is there a statistically significant relationship between these attributes and trust?

**RQ2:** Which attributes of the STM hold true in case of user technology interactions?

## 2 Background

One of the earliest scholarly works that addressed trust between humans and technology is that of Muir [48] who developed a trust model for studying human-machine relationships. This model by Muir was based on a prior model developed by Rempel et al. [56], which focused on understanding the role of trust in interpersonal relationships. Interestingly, in both these works, the notion of predictability was of prime importance. In the case of Muir [48], the amount of trust
that a human has on a machine would be estimated based on the predictability of the machine 's behavior. On similar lines, the study by Rempel et al. [56] found out that couples who can predict how their partners would behave with them in certain situations decides how much they will trust them in a given situation. This work by Muir [48] was further extended by Lee & Moray [38, 39] who in their studies to understand trust levels of machine operators with regards to automating their tasks pointed out that when machine operators are able to predict how the machine would behave in different circumstances, trust levels would be higher. However, they also observed that most of the times, the operators were reluctant to switch to automation because of the complexity of the machines. Due to this inherent complexity, the willingness of the operators to trust how the machine would act if given control was low.

Although research on trust was slowly progressing at this stage, Mayer et al. [43] pointed out certain deficiencies with these researches. Specifically, they pointed out three issues which were (1) Lack of understanding in the literature regarding how trustful relationships are developed between trustor(s) and trustee(s), (2) Confusion between trust and its antecedents and outcomes and (3) Problems with regards to defining trust. To address these concerns, Mayer et al. [43] proposed a model of trust and its antecedents and outcomes which was formed as a result of aggregation of research from multiple disciplines. Their model incorporated ability, benevolence and integrity as main antecedents of trust. This model was further extended by McKnight et al. [46] who proposed a theory of initial trust formation by bringing together dispositional, situational and interpersonal constructs to explain trust formation from four divergent research streams.

Researching role and effect of trust in technology gained prominence soon afterwards with plethora of scholarly research emerging on the topic in several disciplines such as group collaboration [7], e-commerce [45], e-Government [3] and social networks [36]. The increased interest in trust research is also in line with the seminal work of Luhman [41] who envisioned that "*one should expect trust to be increasingly in demand as a means of enduring the complexity of a future which technology will generate*" (p.16).

## 2.1 Relevance of trust in HCI

Before discussing the relevance of trust in HCI, it is important to understand the different school of thoughts regarding trust. Is trust really relevant in HCI? Should researchers even worry about trust? The issues of whether to study the role of trust with IT artifacts is an ongoing and a vivid discussion in our field [63]. The first view is that of Friedman et al. [16] who opine "*people trust people, not technology*" (p.36). They argue that unlike humans, technology does not possess moral agency and the ability to do right or wrong and hence it should be viewed as being a participant in a trust-distrust relationship between a user and the person who programmed the technology. This view is also held by Olson & Olson [55] who argue that when people interact through technology, it is not the technology that needs to be trustworthy. Instead, the trust-distrust relationship
is between two humans independent of whatever technology they would use. Similarly, Shneiderman [62] also claims that "if users rely on a computer and it fails, they may get frustrated or vent their anger by smashing a keyboard, but there is no relationship of trust with a computer" (p.58). Essentially, these views can be distilled to the following two points, which are:

- People cannot enter into a relationship with technology, and

- The question of people trusting the technology does not arise as people cannot develop a trusting relationship with technology because it lacks volition and moral agency.

However, both these views are extremely narrow and can easily be refuted. Firstly, research has demonstrated that computers can act as social actors and people can enter into relationships with and respond to them in a way comparable to responding to other people [4, 53]. Studies have shown that people assign personalities [51], gender [52] and readily form team relationships with computers and consider them as teammates [50]. In their work on understanding anthropomorphism of technology, Waytz et al. [72] defended the notion of people having a human like relationship with a computer by putting forth "Anthropomorphizing a nonhuman does not simply involve attributing superficial human characteristics (e.g., a humanlike face or body) to it, but rather attributing essential human characteristics to the agent (namely a humanlike mind, capable of thinking and feeling)" (p.113). Essentially, it is possible to associate human like characteristics to technology such as benevolence, competence, integrity etc and perceive it as a social actor [4].

Similarly, users can enter into trusting relationships with a technological artifact. A study by McKnight et al. [44] showed that people can and do develop a trusting relationship with an IT artifact such as Microsoft access or excel. The authors recognize the fact that trust in technology helps in shaping people's belief and behavior towards the technology. A similar assertion is also made by Lankton et al. [37], who empirically demonstrated that not only can people develop trust with technological artifacts but they also associate technology as having human like characteristics. Human computer trust becomes even more important when considering the increasingly non-deterministic and distributed nature of computing [33]. The latter has led to an increase in interest in trust research within the IS and the HCI community as scholars get engaged in identifying technological attributes that would make it more trustworthy [63, 69, 36]. Therefore, not only do people perceive technology to have human characteristics, but they also form trusting relationships with technological artifacts.

Concerning the role of trust within HCI, it has shown to be a key factor in reducing risk and uncertainty associated with a technological interaction, creating positive and meaningful experiences with technology and is crucial in helping a user adopt and maintain a gradual and steady relationship with the system [63, 44, 37].
## 2.2 Research Gap

Despite the relevance and the crucial role that trust plays in HCI, there exists a strong emphasis in the literature on understanding its role in human to human interactions mediated through technology, and neglecting technology's social presence and social affordances and also ignoring its effectiveness as a communication medium [37]. This view is supported by Söllner et al. [63] who put forth that as technology matures, it is necessary to move beyond studying trust relationships between people mediated by IT and focus on studying the relationship of the user with the IT artifact itself. As has already been pointed out that people form trusting relationships with computers and assign them human characteristics. In light of this, a comprehensive socio-technical approach taking into account user's interaction with technology is needed as this would help us determine what exactly it is about technology which makes it trustworthy [44]. Therefore, HCI discipline needs deepening of understanding the role of trust in a user-artefact relationship where the artefact is considered as a trustee and not merely a mediator of information [63, 37, 4, 69].

One of the factors underpinning the research problem is the challenge in defining and measuring trust due to its multi-dimensional nature [40]. This view is supported by Knowles et al. [34] who put forth that HCI discipline still lacks a focused body of knowledge on trust which can be referred to for developing systems which would foster trust. There is also a lack of theoretically grounded and robust psychometric instruments for quantifying trust [64]. One of the earliest works towards a psychometric instrument to measure trust in HCI is that of Madsen & Gregor [42] who developed a human computer trust scale but there is no full validation which has been reported on this and the empirical validity of the scale is questionable because of its low sample size. Another recent attempt at quantifying trust in HCI is that of Rieser et al. [59], who built on prior work by Mayer et al. [43] & McKnight et al. [45] and proposed a semantic differential scale to measure trust but such scales are difficult to analyze, require more cognitive effort on the part of the respondent and therefore can be harder to respond to when compared to likert scales [66]. There have been other empirical attempts to come up with statistical models and scales to measure trust [45, 18, 36]. However, these are proposed within a particular context such as e-commerce or social networking and the results are difficult to generalize. These limitations are also recognized by the authors themselves but there has been little attempt made within the literature to move beyond them. In their review on empirical nature of trust in technology research, Söllner & Leimeister [64] criticized empirical and methodological rigor of trust models which exist in the literature and call for future research in terms of developing trust models and scales. Finally, Riegelsberger & Sasse [57] have also proposed ten principles that can be used to develop systems that foster trust but their work is conceptual and is not empirically validated.

The present state of trust research can be regarded as being incoherent and there is a need to unify the existing body of literature so as to develop a systematic and a sound theoretical framework which would help identify the core
elements of trust [11]. As Li [40] rightly puts forth "we do not have a generally
accepted framework or model to integrate the core elements that constitute the
contextual components across diverse disciplines in social studies" (p.83). From
a HCI stand point, this holds true as there have been calls to come up with
a dedicated and robust model and scales for trust and advance theoretical and
empirical research on trust [58, 63].

With new ICT's, there is a need to develop new frameworks and models to
explain trust formation and maintenance which would complement the existing
ones [29]. Therefore, a careful approach would not be to refute the existence
of these prior models but to extend the existing body of knowledge on trust
and come up with new research ideas on conceptualizing trust to have a sound
theoretical base to understand trust in technology. This becomes even more
important when we consider the ongoing and rapid technological developments
in HCI, in light of which there is a need to re-examine, strengthen and extend
current theories to ascertain how these can be epistemologically revised [13].

3 Hypothesis development

Before discussing hypothesis formulation, it is important to point out why we are
interested in refining the human computer trust model. This model was proposed
by Sousa et al. [67] to study the role of trust in technology mediated interactions
and was developed as a result of participatory design sessions with users, exten-
sive literature review on trust and was based on the combination of unification
of Davis [10] and Venkatesh et al. [70] technology acceptance models. However,
the trust attributes proposed in this model had not been empirically assessed
in terms of how much they explain trust. The main aim of our research was to
assess which aspects of this model hold true in human technology interactions
and contribute towards developing an instrument for trust measurement in HCI.
In this section, we further refine, explain and define the different components of
the model (as shown in Figure 1), along with associated hypothesis that can be
empirically tested.

**3.1 Motivation**

We define Motivation as the degree to which an individual believes (even un-
der conditions of vulnerability and dependence) in themselves to carry out cer-
tain technologically oriented tasks. We explain this through the concept of self-
efficacy, a notion grounded in the social cognitive theory (SCT), which acts as a
theoretical framework for analyzing human motivation, thought and action and
at its very core the theory holds the view that humans acquire and maintain
certain behavioral patterns which are determined by a dynamic interaction be-
tween people and environments and central to this interaction is the concept
of self-efficacy [2]. According to Bandura [2], "people's self-efficacy beliefs deter-
mine their level of motivation, as reflected in how much effort they will exert in
an endeavor and how long they will persevere in the face of obstacles" (p.1176).
Essentially, the stronger the belief an individual has in their abilities, the more motivated they would be to carry out a certain task and their efforts would be more persistent. Studies have shown that self-efficacy has a direct affect (positive or negative) and acts as a precursor to understanding levels of motivation of an individual when performing a task. For instance, people with high level of self-efficacy are more likely to complete a task and persist longer in their efforts to complete the task. Similarly, people with low self-efficacy have less motivation to carry out a task and tend to avoid performing these tasks [1, 2]. Since self-efficacy is domain specific [2], we are specifically interested in Computer self-efficacy (CSE). CSE is an individual's inherent belief in themselves in whether or not they feel that they can execute a technologically oriented task [8]. Prior research [30] done on CSE has shown that a user would engage in an activity or attempt to use a system if they feel it is worthwhile and if they have the belief and the motivation that they would be successful. In essence, these scholarly works present self-efficacy as an important determinant of motivation of a user to use a system.

Correlating this notion of motivation (as explained through self-efficacy) and trust, if we refer to the definition of trust put forth by Mayer et al. [43], they define it as "*the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party*" (p.712). During a user's interaction with a technological artifact, the user is both vulnerable and cannot monitor how the system would behave, but if they feel that a) using the system would fulfill a certain purpose and b) that they themselves have the inner capability to complete a certain task, this would lead to an interaction with the technical artifact. Therefore, we opine that higher the CSE of an individual, the higher the trust they would place in the system and as a consequence, they would feel less vulnerable. Consequently, we hypothesize that:

**H1.** User self-efficacy has a positive effect on their trust towards using technology.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Model under investigation</figcaption></figure>
## 3.2 Willingness

We define willingness as an individual's reflection of positive or negative feelings, evaluating pros and cons and considering risk and incentives associated with performing a given action when using a system. Psychological research has also demonstrated that human behavior is goal directed [17]. Study of such a goal directed behavior can be explained using Theory of planned behavior (TPB) [1]. The underlying principle of this theory is that intention of an individual is the best predictor of their behavior. This intention is in turn determined by three constructs namely attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control. Essentially, a person will perform behaviors if:

- Advantages of success outweigh the disadvantages of failure (behavioral attitude).

- Other people with whom they are or interact think they should perform the behavior (subjective norm).

- Have sufficient control over factors which influence success or ability to perform the behavior [perceived behavioral control (PBC)].

Prior research by Belanche et al. [3] on understanding user trust in public e-services found out that evaluation of outcome expectations, both from the service (performance expectations) and what an individual would achieve using an e-service (individual expectations) play an important role in fostering trust. Outcome expectations are also an important pre-cursor for technology usage and acceptance [8]. Studies have also shown trust to be a key factor in deciding whether users will continue to interact with and use the system [18, 44]. Therefore, we assert that after evaluating pros and cons and considering risk and incentives associated with their interaction, if a user feels that their interaction will have a positive outcome, their trust with regards to the technology that they are interacting with would be well placed. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

**H2.** The higher the willingness or outcome expectations associated with performing an action, the greater the trust towards the technology.

## 3.3 Competence

We define competence as the ease of use associated with the use of a system in that it is perceived to perform its tasks accurately and correctly. While trying to understand the degree to which human operators would trust automated control of systems, Muir & Moray [49] came up with the concept of competence and defined it as the extent to which the technology performs its functions properly. On similar lines, Constantine [9] note that competence means that the system is capable of doing what the user needs it to do, performs reliably and delivers accurate results. He also states that in order for the system to be competent or in order for the user to perceive the system as being competent, it must perform with sufficient speed and meet user 's needs with respect to timeliness.

The competence of a system can be explained through the technology acceptance model (TAM) [10], specifically the perceived ease of use determinant of
TAM. According to Davis [10], a user would interact with and accept the tech-
nology when they perceive technology to be useful, easy to use and performing
as it says. When the user perceives that technology is easy to use, their PBC,
according to theory of planned behavior [1], would also be higher which means
that it is likely that they will use and interact with technology and higher the
competence that a user would assign to a system, greater would be the trust of
the user with that system [45, 4]. Therefore, this leads to our third hypothesis:

**H3.** The higher the competence associated with the use of a system, the greater the trust of the user with that system.

3.4 Benevolence

In a conventional sense, benevolence has been understood as the perceived level of courtesy and positive attitude a trustee displays towards the trustor [43]. It is also viewed as the trustee being genuinely interested in the trustor's welfare without any ulterior motives and is motivated to seek joint gain [12]. We define benevolence as a user 's perception that a particular system will act in their best interest and that most people using the system share similar social behaviors and values.

It can be further understood through the lens of social response theory [47]. According to this theory, when people interact with technology, they view it as a social actor and their relationship with it is governed by same social rules which would govern an interpersonal relationship. Hence, people look for cues to associate their interaction with technology. They expect certain human like behavior from technology i.e. the technology would act in their best interest and not try to deceive them [47, 37]. When individual 's perceive that technology would help them and act in their best interest, there is a likelihood of higher continued use and fostering a higher level of trust with that technology [36, 4]. Synthesizing these arguments, we hypothesize:

**H4.** There exists a positive relationship between perceived benevolence of a technological artifact and trust.

**3.5 Predictability**

We define predictability as the belief of an individual that systems actions
(whether good or bad) are consistent enough that one can forecast them and
it will help the user to perform a desired action in accordance with what is
expected. This can be understood based on Expectation confirmation theory
which posits that every action is associated with certain expectations and when
these expectations are met, it leads to satisfaction [54]. Though the theory was
initially proposed in a marketing context, it has been adopted in a technological
context to study user adoption and continual use of technology [27]. If a user can
predict the use of a system, then it is likely that they would use it and if the
use of the system matches their expectations, they would not only be satisfied
but also perceive the system to be trustworthy [19]. This leads us to our fifth
hypothesis:
**H5.** The greater the predictability of a technological artifact, the higher the level of the trust associated with it.

## 3.6 Honesty

Honesty can be defined as a secure belief of an individual that the other person makes good faith agreements, tells the truth, and fulfils promises [6]. Since people can enter into relationships with technology, they expect it to work towards their good, adhere to a certain set of standards and not betray them. If a user is confident that the technological artifact they are dealing with exhibits a certain level of sincerity and is genuine, then it is perceived to be honest which will affect user trust. For instance, while using electronic payment services such as PayPal for sending or receiving money, a user can be rest assured that their money is being channeled through a trustworthy, reliable source that is sincere and genuine (which basically means that PayPal as an organization exists and is not just a spoof) and in case, there are issues with regards to money transfer, it would be well taken care of by the customer services team of PayPal.

Thus, there exists a positive relationship between user perception of honesty with regards to technology/software and subsequent trust manifestation. Honesty can be best understood through the Source credibility theory, according to which people are more likely to be persuaded and follow a course of actions if the source is credible [28], which in this example was PayPal. Through this lens, if a user perceives an application or a software to not be trustworthy, it is highly unlikely that they would act on the advice or information provided by that software. This leads us to the following hypothesis:

**H6.** The higher the level of perceived honesty of a technological artifact, the higher the level of trust associated with it.

## 3.7 Reciprocity

In his seminal work, Gouldner [21] put forth that reciprocity involves a give and take relationship and asserted that people are helpful and kind to those who are helpful and kind to them. We build on this work and define reciprocity as the degree to which an individual sees oneself as a part of a group. It is built on the principle of mutual benefit, feeling a sense of belonging and feeling connected. Psychological research has demonstrated that if people feel helped, they respond in kind [26]. Within the context of HCI, research has demonstrated that people have a friendlier attitude towards a system when they have received some help from it. If people feel that a system has been helpful towards them, they respond in kind by deciding to adopt and continually use it and develop a symbiotic relationship with that system [14, 47]. This leads us to our final hypothesis:

**H7.** The higher the level of perceived reciprocity associated with a technological artifact, higher would be the level of trust associated with it.
# 4 Method

A semi-structured questionnaire was chosen to measure user trust levels with the Estonian I-voting service. The main reason behind choosing this artefact was that despite Estonia being a digitally advanced and a tech savvy EU member state and the rate of technology uptake and new technology diffusion being higher in the country when compared to other EU countries [60], trust levels of the citizens with the I-voting service are low [65]. Despite its first use in parliamentary elections in 2005, there have been issues with regards to the design of the I-voting system and questions raised as to whether it should be implemented or not [68]. A report published by Heiberg et al. [25] has identified several inconsistencies, software bugs and audit deficiencies with the electronic voting service.

The aforementioned issues, along with the fact that trust plays an an important role in maximizing voter turnout in an electronic environment, and that the next set of elections in Estonia are to be held in 2017 [65], it is important that any underlying trust issues with the I-Voting system be systematically analyzed. From a technological standpoint I-voting is also labelled as an emerging technology which will continue to develop in the years to come. Several countries such as Germany, Austria, Norway etc. have expressed a desire to use Internet voting but have rejected its adoption, primarily due to trust issues [20]. Therefore, trust issues with an I-voting service need an in-depth exploration. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to analyze user trust levels with the Estonian I-voting service.

## 4.1 Participants

The data for the survey was collected with the help of Republic of Estonia's Information Systems Authority <fnref n="1" />, a government body coordinating development and administration of the information systems of Estonia from April 2016- January 2017. We also enlisted help of local Estonian public universities and professional organizations to disseminate our research. We used LimeSurvey as a tool for making our questionnaire and collecting data. The questionnaire was constructed in both English and Estonian.

A total of 227 responses were obtained out of which 207 had used the Estonian i-voting service before. Hence, these respondents were chosen for our analysis since we were interested in understanding user trust levels with the Estonian i-voting service of people who have used it before. Totally, 122 females (53.74%) and 105 males (46.26%) took part in the survey. Most of the respondents (35.68%) were between the age of 18 and 27 years. This was followed by 32.60% and 22.47% for age groups 28-37 and 38-47 respectively.

## 4.2 Apparatus

All the survey measures were adopted from well-established prior studies. Scales measuring motivation and willingness were adapted from Compeau & Higgins

<footnote n="1">¹ https://www.ria.ee/en/</footnote>
[8]. Competence, benevolence and honesty were derived from McKnight et al. [45]. The work of Gefen & Straub [19] was referred to for adapting predictability. Each of the two measures for reciprocity were derived from Wasko & Faraj [71] & Kankanhalli et al. [31]. To collect data using these scales, we used 5 point likert scales in our questionnaire, where 1 indicates strongly disagree and 5 indicates strongly agree.

## 4.3 Procedure

The data obtained was analyzed using PLS-SEM and the main reason behind choosing this technique was because our main goal is theory development rather than theory testing, for which other covariance based SEM approaches are more appropriate [22]. Secondly, the objective of our study was to empirically assess the suitability of the human computer trust model [67] in a HCI context and assess whether the exogenous variables in the model explain the endogenous latent variable of interest which is trust. Such an approach is predictive in nature since we wish to empirically explain the variance in trust by identifying its driver constructs. Thus, the predictive nature of the study coupled with the main goal being theory development justify use of PLS-SEM for data analysis [23].

# 5 Results

It has been rightly pointed out by Hair et al [23] that hypothesis testing involving structural relationships among constructs will only be as reliable or valid as the measurement model which is explaining these constructs (p.45). Within the trust literature, Söllner & Leimeister [64] have pointed out measurement model mis-specifications wherein researchers have modelled reflective constructs as being formative and formative as being reflective. They further argue for a more systematic modelling approach to trust based on sound theory. In line with this, we use prior research done on trust by Lankton & McKnight [36] & McKnight et al. [44] and model trust as being a reflective endogenous construct conceptualized through 7 exogenous constructs.

PLS-SEM involves assessment of the outer measurement model that explains relationships between the exogenous latent variables and their indicators and an inner structural model which explains relationships between the endogenous variable of interest with its exogenous constructs. These are explained as follows:

### 5.1 Evaluation of the measurement model

An initial analysis in SmartPLS revealed certain outer loadings of the exogenous constructs to be below 0.7. We retained only those indicators that had outer loadings above 0.6 and removed all below 0.4 [23]. Finally, 20 measures were dropped and final instrument had 22 measures in total across exogenous and endogenous constructs. The evaluation of measurement model involves assessment of internal consistency [Cronbach's alpha (CA), composite reliability (CR)], convergent
validity [indicator reliability, average variance extracted (AVE)] and discriminant validity [23]. Regarding internal consistency, both CA & CR values should be between 0.60 and 0.90 [22]. Barring willingness for which the CA value was 0.574, all other latent variables were between 0.60-0.90. According to Hair et al. [23], such a low value can be attributed to the fact that CA values are sensitive to the number of items in the scale and generally tend to underestimate the internal consistency reliability (p.111). Even though our value is not considerably below the 0.60 threshold, one should generally not rely on CA values alone and also report CR values [22]. As can be seen from Figure 2, the CR values for all latent variable well exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.80 [23]. Since both the CR & CA values exceed the threshold, this establishes internal consistency reliability of the measures used in our study.

Concerning convergent validity, indicator reliability and AVE values need to be greater than 0.50 [23]. As can be observed from Figure 2, only one indicator namely WIL1 for willingness which asks the respondent to rate their agreement with the statement "If I use *i-voting*, it will help me be more efficient and organized during the voting season" has an outer loading of 0.620 and an indicator reliability of 0.384, but based on guidelines set by Hair et al. [23], this was not dropped as from a theoretical perspective, its inclusion is justified based on the premise that the Estonian i-voting service was designed and implemented not just to ease the overall voting processes in the country but to also make it easy for Estonians to vote from anywhere in the world making it more efficient for them to be involved with the democratic process of the country [65]. Further, if we observe the AVE values for Willingness, it exceeds the threshold of 0.50. The AVE values for all latent variables are above 0.50, thus establishing convergent validity for the study.

Concerning discriminant validity, which is the extent to which a construct is distinct from other constructs by empirical standards, two approaches, namely the Fornell-Lacker criterion and cross-loadings approach are to be reported [23]. For adequate discriminant validity, the Fornell-Larcker criterion requires the square root of each construct's AVE to be greater than its correlation with each of the remaining constructs [15]. If we observe the square root of these values in table 1 as shown by the bold values in the diagonal, our results meet this requirement. Secondly, regarding cross-loadings, discriminant validity is established when an indicators cross-loading on an assigned construct is higher than all of its cross-loadings with other constructs [23]. If we observe Figure 3, all the cross loadings values are highlighted and satisfies this requirement as well. Therefore, our instrument satisfies requirement for internal consistency reliability and convergent and discriminant validity.

## 5.2 Evaluation of the structural model

Addressing the issue of collinearity i.e. to examine if the predictor variables are correlated to each other is important when evaluating the structural model [22]. This is done by examining the variance inflation factor (VIF) values. Upon examination, the VIF values for benevolence, competence, honesty, motivation,
<table><caption>Fig. 2. Results summary for reflective measurement of trust</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Latent Variable</th><th rowspan="2">Indicators</th><th colspan="3">Convergent Validity</th><th colspan="2">Internal Consistency Reliability</th></tr><tr><th>Loadings</th><th>Indicator Reliability</th><th>AVE</th><th>Composite Reliability</th><th>Cronbach's Alpha</th></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>&gt;0.70</td><td>&gt;0.50</td><td>&gt;0.50</td><td>0.60-0.90</td><td>0.60-0.90</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">MOT</td><td>MOT 1</td><td>0.864</td><td>0.746</td><td rowspan="2">0.741</td><td rowspan="2">0.851</td><td rowspan="2">0.650</td></tr><tr><td>MOT 2</td><td>0.858</td><td>0.736</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">WIL</td><td>WIL 1</td><td>0.620</td><td>0.384</td><td rowspan="4">0.574</td><td rowspan="4">0.842</td><td rowspan="4">0.751</td></tr><tr><td>WIL 2</td><td>0.767</td><td>0.588</td></tr><tr><td>WIL 3</td><td>0.804</td><td>0.646</td></tr><tr><td>WIL 4</td><td>0.823</td><td>0.677</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">COM</td><td>COM 1</td><td>0.825</td><td>0.680</td><td rowspan="3">0.665</td><td rowspan="3">0.856</td><td rowspan="3">0.748</td></tr><tr><td>COM 2</td><td>0.832</td><td>0.692</td></tr><tr><td>COM 3</td><td>0.789</td><td>0.623</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">REC</td><td>REC 1</td><td>0.819</td><td>0.671</td><td rowspan="2">0.689</td><td rowspan="2">0.815</td><td rowspan="2">0.548</td></tr><tr><td>REC 2</td><td>0.840</td><td>0.706</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">PRED</td><td>PRED 1</td><td>0.858</td><td>0.736</td><td rowspan="2">0.749</td><td rowspan="2">0.857</td><td rowspan="2">0.665</td></tr><tr><td>PRED 2</td><td>0.873</td><td>0.762</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">BEN</td><td>BEN 1</td><td>0.809</td><td>0.654</td><td rowspan="3">0.631</td><td rowspan="3">0.837</td><td rowspan="3">0.707</td></tr><tr><td>BEN 2</td><td>0.781</td><td>0.610</td></tr><tr><td>BEN 3</td><td>0.792</td><td>0.627</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">HON</td><td>HON 1</td><td>0.854</td><td>0.729</td><td rowspan="3">0.713</td><td rowspan="3">0.882</td><td rowspan="3">0.799</td></tr><tr><td>HON 2</td><td>0.857</td><td>0.734</td></tr><tr><td>HON 3</td><td>0.822</td><td>0.676</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">TRU</td><td>TRU 1</td><td>0.813</td><td>0.661</td><td rowspan="3">0.702</td><td rowspan="3">0.876</td><td rowspan="3">0.788</td></tr><tr><td>TRU 2</td><td>0.850</td><td>0.722</td></tr><tr><td>TRU 3</td><td>0.850</td><td>0.722</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Fig. 3. Cross loadings of indicators with corresponding constructs</caption><thead><tr><th>Indicators</th><th>Benevolence</th><th>Competence</th><th>Honesty</th><th>Motivation</th><th>Predictability</th><th>Reciprocity</th><th>Willingness</th><th>Trust</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>BEN01</td><td>0.809</td><td>0.662</td><td>0.612</td><td>0.559</td><td>0.580</td><td>0.502</td><td>0.426</td><td>0.612</td></tr><tr><td>BEN02</td><td>0.781</td><td>0.606</td><td>0.480</td><td>0.568</td><td>0.547</td><td>0.411</td><td>0.291</td><td>0.565</td></tr><tr><td>BEN03</td><td>0.792</td><td>0.542</td><td>0.523</td><td>0.489</td><td>0.456</td><td>0.455</td><td>0.275</td><td>0.604</td></tr><tr><td>COM01</td><td>0.628</td><td>0.825</td><td>0.638</td><td>0.533</td><td>0.627</td><td>0.561</td><td>0.420</td><td>0.673</td></tr><tr><td>COM02</td><td>0.662</td><td>0.832</td><td>0.627</td><td>0.611</td><td>0.612</td><td>0.523</td><td>0.428</td><td>0.657</td></tr><tr><td>COM03</td><td>0.567</td><td>0.789</td><td>0.603</td><td>0.533</td><td>0.577</td><td>0.465</td><td>0.381</td><td>0.636</td></tr><tr><td>HON01</td><td>0.556</td><td>0.627</td><td>0.854</td><td>0.577</td><td>0.608</td><td>0.439</td><td>0.421</td><td>0.700</td></tr><tr><td>HON02</td><td>0.633</td><td>0.688</td><td>0.857</td><td>0.593</td><td>0.602</td><td>0.513</td><td>0.480</td><td>0.695</td></tr><tr><td>HON03</td><td>0.532</td><td>0.619</td><td>0.822</td><td>0.558</td><td>0.572</td><td>0.455</td><td>0.376</td><td>0.664</td></tr><tr><td>MOT01</td><td>0.577</td><td>0.561</td><td>0.570</td><td>0.864</td><td>0.542</td><td>0.498</td><td>0.304</td><td>0.601</td></tr><tr><td>MOT02</td><td>0.590</td><td>0.620</td><td>0.604</td><td>0.858</td><td>0.645</td><td>0.511</td><td>0.468</td><td>0.588</td></tr><tr><td>PRED01</td><td>0.516</td><td>0.628</td><td>0.576</td><td>0.580</td><td>0.858</td><td>0.459</td><td>0.373</td><td>0.602</td></tr><tr><td>PRED02</td><td>0.630</td><td>0.657</td><td>0.641</td><td>0.612</td><td>0.873</td><td>0.461</td><td>0.367</td><td>0.635</td></tr><tr><td>RECO1</td><td>0.411</td><td>0.496</td><td>0.448</td><td>0.441</td><td>0.445</td><td>0.819</td><td>0.275</td><td>0.476</td></tr><tr><td>RECO2</td><td>0.541</td><td>0.555</td><td>0.473</td><td>0.530</td><td>0.438</td><td>0.840</td><td>0.351</td><td>0.504</td></tr><tr><td>WIL01</td><td>0.227</td><td>0.295</td><td>0.350</td><td>0.194</td><td>0.228</td><td>0.227</td><td>0.620</td><td>0.256</td></tr><tr><td>WIL02</td><td>0.326</td><td>0.380</td><td>0.420</td><td>0.303</td><td>0.309</td><td>0.267</td><td>0.767</td><td>0.348</td></tr><tr><td>WIL03</td><td>0.347</td><td>0.402</td><td>0.395</td><td>0.382</td><td>0.365</td><td>0.362</td><td>0.804</td><td>0.398</td></tr><tr><td>WIL04</td><td>0.350</td><td>0.430</td><td>0.376</td><td>0.432</td><td>0.370</td><td>0.280</td><td>0.823</td><td>0.415</td></tr><tr><td>TRUST01</td><td>0.619</td><td>0.637</td><td>0.591</td><td>0.538</td><td>0.567</td><td>0.512</td><td>0.342</td><td>0.813</td></tr><tr><td>TRUST02</td><td>0.640</td><td>0.686</td><td>0.695</td><td>0.591</td><td>0.616</td><td>0.500</td><td>0.429</td><td>0.850</td></tr><tr><td>TRUST03</td><td>0.623</td><td>0.695</td><td>0.749</td><td>0.603</td><td>0.611</td><td>0.478</td><td>0.419</td><td>0.850</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 1. Latent construct correlations and square root of AVEs.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>BEN</th><th>COM</th><th>HON</th><th>MOT</th><th>PRED</th><th>REC</th><th>TRU</th><th>WIL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>BEN</th><td>0.794</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>COM</th><td>0.760</td><td>0.816</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>HON</th><td>0.680</td><td>0.764</td><td>0.844</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>MOT</th><td>0.678</td><td>0.686</td><td>0.682</td><td>0.861</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>PRED</th><td>0.664</td><td>0.742</td><td>0.704</td><td>0.689</td><td>0.861</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>REC</th><td>0.576</td><td>0.634</td><td>0.556</td><td>0.586</td><td>0.532</td><td>0.830</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>TRU</th><td>0.749</td><td>0.804</td><td>0.813</td><td>0.691</td><td>0.715</td><td>0.591</td><td>0.838</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>WIL</th><td>0.418</td><td>0.502</td><td>0.505</td><td>0.447</td><td>0.427</td><td>0.378</td><td>0.475</td><td>0.758</td></tr></tbody></table>

predictability, reciprocity and willingness were 2.765, 3.950, 2.976, 2.589, 2.734, 1.831 and 1.420 respectively, which are below the threshold of 5 [23]. Therefore, there is no issue of multi-collinearity in our model. Secondly, we use coefficient of determination R² to assess model explanatory power. The R² is interpreted in the same way as it would be in a conventional regression analysis [23]. In our study, both the R² and the R² adjusted values are 0.768 and 0.760 respectively. Generally, values of R² above 0.7 are substantial or strong [23, 22]. Thus, based on this, our model has a good predictive power, which essentially means that the exogenous variables predict the endogenous variable (trust) with a high degree of accuracy.

To test our proposed hypotheses and analyze the statistical significance of the path coefficients, we performed nonparametric bootstrapping with 5000 sub-samples and 207 cases (the sample size of the current study) at a significance level of 0.05 [23]. As can be seen from table 2, the only hypothesis which are statistically supported are H3 (Competence→Trust), H4 (Benevolence→Trust) and H6 (Honesty→Trust). To further assess empirical validity of the results, we used the blindfolding method and report the Q² value, which is a measure of predictive relevance [22]. According to Hair et al.[23], blindfolding procedure is a re-sampling technique that systematically deletes and predicts every data point of the indicators in the reflective measurement model of endogenous constructs (p.222). Using the cross validated redundancy approach, the Q² value which we obtained for trust was 0.502. Q-square values above zero suggest that the model has predictive relevance for a certain endogenous construct [23].

Therefore, not only do we provide bootstrapping measures, but we also go one step further in reporting the predictive relevance through the blindfolding approach. Based on our results, we can state that the constructs which are associated with the significant hypothesis in our model accurately predict trust.

# 6 Discussion

This study has explored the role of trust in HCI using Estonian I-voting service as the artefact. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically analyze user trust levels when they interact with this online voting service. The
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Significance testing results of structural model path coefficients</caption><thead><tr><th>Hypothesis</th><th>Path Coefficients</th><th>t values</th><th>p values</th><th>Sig (p &lt;0.05)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>H1</td><td>0.056</td><td>0.909</td><td>0.363</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>H2</td><td>0.009</td><td>0.207</td><td>0.836</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>H3</td><td>0.248</td><td>2.951</td><td>0.003</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>H4</td><td>0.189</td><td>2.775</td><td>0.006</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>H5</td><td>0.078</td><td>1.223</td><td>0.221</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>H6</td><td>0.376</td><td>5.369</td><td>0.000</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>H7</td><td>0.039</td><td>0.739</td><td>0.460</td><td>No</td></tr></tbody></table>

data from this study has helped us evaluate certain aspects of the socio-technical model of trust, while certain hypotheses were not statistically significant.

As can be observed from table 2, the relationship between motivation (operationalized through technology self-efficacy) and trust is statistically not significant. Even though self-efficacy predicts motivation [61] and we hypothesized that higher levels of self-efficacy are associated with higher levels of trust, this was not the case in our research. This does not mean necessarily that there exists no relationship between these constructs in general. We argue that such a limitation may only be specific to our study. Since the current study was carried out with the Estonian I-voting service within Estonia, which is not just one of the most tech savvy countries in Europe but the technology diffusion and the reliance of people on technology to carry out tasks is much higher when compared to other European countries. For instance, the number of National Digital IDs, a mandatory national card used by the citizens of the country to access Estonia's e-services has exceeded one million and nearly 95% of the Estonian population is used to declaring their taxes online [65]. The Estonian population is used to using the internet for various purposes and people's use of e-services offered by the government is considerably high. With such high technological diffusion and everyday reliance on technology, the statistically non-significant relationship between motivation (operationalized through self-efficacy) and trust is not surprising. If we recall, self-efficacy is an individual's inherent belief in themselves in whether or not they feel that they can execute a technologically oriented task [8]. If people are used to using technology on a daily basis, then immaterial of their trust levels with the technology, their innate capacity to overcome challenges using such technology would be high, which is why there is a negative relationship between motivation and trust.

The statistically non-significant relationship between Willingness and Trust (H2) and predictability and trust (H5) can also be explained on similar lines. H2 was operationalized based on how willing a user is to interact with and place trust on an artefact based on the consequences of their interaction [8]. Essentially, if a user feels that there can be positive outcomes associated with the interaction, their trust levels would be high. Similarly, H5 was concerned with assessing user's certainty or their belief of how they expect a system to behave and whether or not they can foresee or predict the actions of the system. The common
denominator in how both these hypothesis were operationalized was that the user
should either be able to foresee and predict tangible consequences associated with
interacting with an artefact or assess if the technological artefact is performing
a desired action in accordance with what is expected. The results of the study
indicated that such an operationalization does not hold true in the Estonian
context since citizens are used to interacting with numerous e-services on a daily
basis and whether or not they can expect the outcome beforehand or predict
how the service would operate is not related to how much they would trust
the service. Since the technology uptake and reliance on technology on a daily
basis is much higher in Estonia when compared to other EU countries, future
research could benefit from using alternative ways to conceptualize willingness
and predictability and see if these indicators are relevant in a user technology
interaction.

Finally, the relationship between reciprocity and trust (H7) was also statisti-
cally non-significant. To our knowledge, the existing literature on conceptualizing
reciprocity has done so using social capital theory. Since social capital is funda-
mentally how people interact with each other, it has been adopted to explain
technology mediated interactions [31, 71]. In the current context, the results of
the study demonstrated that such a conceptualization does not hold true as
social capital theory cannot be used to explain user interaction with the Esto-
nian I-voting service since it is an example of user technology interaction and
not technology mediated interactions. This result was expected since the human
computer trust model was proposed to study human to human interaction medi-
ated through technology and not user technology interactions. Hence, based on
the results of the current study, the current conceptualization of reciprocity can-
not be used to study human-technology interactions and future studies involving
the use of the current model should take this into consideration.

Our results demonstrate that it is not so much the social aspects of a user
interaction but the focus on technological attributes which tell whether or not the
Estonian I-voting system is perceived as trustworthy. For instance, our results
demonstrate that what was important to the users was how competent and
efficient is the I-voting service (competence), if the I-voting service was designed
with the user 's best interest in mind and will always operate in such a way
(benevolence) and finally if the online voting service is honest in its interaction
with the user. This also answers research question two which was aimed at
understanding which attributes of the model hold true in case of user technology
interactions. It would be interesting to see if these results could be generalized
to other e-services which are used in Estonia and see if they still hold fit.

6.1 Study Limitations

Our study is not without its own limitations which can be directions for future
research. As has been rightly put forth by Kyriakoullis & Zaphiris [35] that it is
important to pay attention to cultural aspects when studying a user interaction
with technology. They further put forth that "understanding cultural values is
essential for the design of successful and widely accepted user interfaces". In our
study, we did not take into consideration the impact of culture on trust and user acceptance of the I-voting service. However, future research involving the use of this model could take into account such cultural and ethnic considerations keeping in mind that these differences impact user trust and their desire to continually use technology in different ways [69]. These studies can either be intercultural wherein trust levels of people within a particular culture are studied and compared or cross-cultural wherein trust levels within different cultures are examined simultaneously.

Secondly, our research was situated in Estonia, a tech-savvy EU member state. Since trust research is contextual and results can vary depending on the context in which the research is situated [11, 40], future research should take into account other contexts in which citizens of the countries are not used to using technology on a regular basis and then see if there exists a positive correlation between attributes such as self-efficacy, willingness and predictability with trust.

Finally, we did not control for citizens trust with the government and the impact which that might have with their use of I-voting service. Future research can benefit by including citizen government relationship as an attribute to measure user trust with the I-voting service or e-services in general.

# 7 Conclusions

Based on well-established social psychological theories, this study has empirically assessed and refined human computer trust model [67]. Since the model was initially proposed to study trust in technologically mediated interactions, the data from this study has helped us evaluate certain aspects of this model and we empirically demonstrated which attributes of the model hold fit in the case of user technology interactions. Even though the proposed indicators explain a significant amount of variance of our dependent variable trust in our structural model, future research should work on identifying more reflective indicators and test whether or not they enrich our model and can be used to extend and refine it. There have been recent attempts made by Söllner et al. [63] & Lankton & Mcknight [37] to propose more trust in technology attributes but they also call for more research on the topic.

As technology becomes more autonomous, ubiquitous and its nature becomes increasingly non-deterministic and stochastic, it becomes more important to study trust since it is crucial for ensuring its acceptance and continual use [37, 63, 72]. It would be important to see how the current model can be used in different contexts to study user interactions with artefacts that fit this criteria. Future research should therefore focus on identifying more trust in technology attributes and developing robust psychometric instruments to measure trust as this will have enormous implications for both research and practice.

# References

1. Ajzen, I.: From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Action control, pp. 11–39. Springer (1985)
2. Bandura, A.: Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist 44(9), 1175 (1989)

3. Belanche, D., Casaló, L.V., Flavián, C., Schepers, J.: Trust transfer in the continued usage of public e-services. Information & Management 51(6), 627–640 (2014)

4. Benbasat, I., Wang, W.: Trust in and adoption of online recommendation agents. Journal of the association for information systems 6(3), 72–101 (2005)

5. Biel, B., Grill, T., Gruhn, V.: Patterns of trust in ubiquitous environments. In: Proceedings of the 6th international Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia. pp. 391–396. ACM (2008)

6. Bromiley, P., Cummings, L.L.: Transactions costs in organizations with trust. Research on negotiation in organizations 5, 219–250 (1995)

7. Cheng, X., Macaulay, L.: Investigating individual trust for collaboration using spider diagram. In: Proceedings of the 15th European conference on Cognitive ergonomics: the ergonomics of cool interaction. p. 24. ACM (2008)

8. Compeau, D.R., Higgins, C.A.: Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS quarterly pp. 189–211 (1995)

9. Constantine, L.L.: Trusted interaction: User control and system responsibilities in interaction design for information systems. In: International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering. pp. 20–30. Springer (2006)

10. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly pp. 319–340 (1989)

11. Dietz, G.: Going back to the source: Why do people trust each other? Journal of Trust Research 1(2), 215–222 (2011)

12. Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P.: An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. the Journal of Marketing pp. 35–51 (1997)

13. Farooq, U., Grudin, J.: Human-computer integration. interactions 23(6), 26–32 (2016)

14. Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity 2002(December), 5 (2002)

15. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research pp. 39–50 (1981)

16. Friedman, B., Khan Jr, P.H., Howe, D.C.: Trust online. Communications of the ACM 43(12), 34–40 (2000)

17. Fritz, H., et al.: The psychology of interpersonal relations. The Journal of Marketing 56, 322 (1958)

18. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W.: Trust and tam in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS quarterly 27(1), 51–90 (2003)

19. Gefen, D., Straub, D.W.: Consumer trust in b2c e-commerce and the importance of social presence: experiments in e-products and e-services. Omega 32(6), 407–424 (2004)

20. Gibson, J.P., Krimmer, R., Teague, V., Pomares, J.: A review of e-voting: the past, present and future. Annals of Telecommunications 71(7-8), 279–286 (2016)

21. Gouldner, A.W.: The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological review pp. 161–178 (1960)

22. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: Pls-sem: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice 19(2), 139–152 (2011)

23. Hair Jr, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M.: A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications (2016)
24. Häkkinen, P.: Evolving technologies for a variety of human practices. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments 9(1), 1-3 (2013)

25. Heiberg, S., Parsovs, A., Willemson, J.: Log analysis of estonian internet voting 2013-2014. In: International Conference on E-Voting and Identity. pp. 19-34. Springer (2015)

26. Hill, C.T., Stull, D.E.: Disclosure reciprocity: Conceptual and measurement issues. Social Psychology Quarterly pp. 238-244 (1982)

27. Hossain, M.A., Quaddus, M.: Expectation-confirmation theory in information system research: A review and analysis. In: Information systems theory, pp. 441-469. Springer (2012)

28. Hovland, C.I., Weiss, W.: The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public opinion quarterly 15(4), 635-650 (1951)

29. Hung, Y.T., Dennis, A.R., Robert, L.: Trust in virtual teams: Towards an integrative model of trust formation. In: System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on. pp. 11-pp. IEEE (2004)

30. Johnson, R.D.: An empirical investigation of sources of application-specific computer-self-efficacy and mediators of the efficacyperformance relationship. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 62(6), 737-758 (2005)

31. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C., Wei, K.K.: Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS quarterly pp. 113-143 (2005)

32. Kassim, E.S., Jailani, S.F.A.K., Hairuddin, H., Zamzuri, N.H.: Information system acceptance and user satisfaction: The mediating role of trust. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 57, 412-418 (2012)

33. Kiran, A.H., Verbeek, P.P.: Trusting our selves to technology. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 23(3-4), 409-427 (2010)

34. Knowles, B., Rouncefield, M., Harding, M., Davies, N., Blair, L., Hannon, J., Walden, J., Wang, D.: Models and patterns of trust. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. pp. 328-338. ACM (2015)

35. Kyriakoullis, L., Zaphiris, P.: Culture and hci: a review of recent cultural studies in hci and social networks. Universal Access in the Information Society 15(4), 629-642 (2016)

36. Lankton, N.K., McKnight, D.H.: What does it mean to trust facebook?: examining technology and interpersonal trust beliefs. ACM SIGMiS Database 42(2), 32-54 (2011)

37. Lankton, N.K., McKnight, D.H., Tripp, J.: Technology, humanness, and trust: Rethinking trust in technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 16(10), 880 (2015)

38. Lee, J., Moray, N.: Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35(10), 1243-1270 (1992)

39. Lee, J.D., Moray, N.: Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International journal of human-computer studies 40(1), 153-184 (1994)

40. Li, P.P.: A tentative typology of context for trust research and beyond. Journal of Trust Research 4(2), 83-89 (2014)

41. Luhmann, N.: Trust and power. John Willey & Sons (1979)

42. Madsen, M., Gregor, S.: Measuring human-computer trust. In: 11th australasian conference on information systems. vol. 53, pp. 6-8. Citeseer (2000)

43. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review 20(3), 709-734 (1995)
44. McKnight, D.H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J.B., Clay, P.F.: Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS) 2(2), 12 (2011)

45. McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmar, C.: Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information systems research 13(3), 334–359 (2002)

46. McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L., Chervany, N.L.: Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management review 23(3), 473–490 (1998)

47. Moon, Y.: Intimate exchanges: Using computers to elicit self-disclosure from consumers. Journal of consumer research 26(4), 323–339 (2000)

48. Muir, B.M.: Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 27(5-6), 527–539 (1987)

49. Muir, B.M., Moray, N.: Trust in automation. part ii. experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics 39(3), 429–460 (1996)

50. Nass, C., Fogg, B., Moon, Y.: Can computers be teammates? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45(6), 669–678 (1996)

51. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B., Reeves, B., Dryer, D.: Can computer personalities be human personalities? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43(2), 223 – 239 (1995)

52. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Green, N.: Are machines gender neutral? gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of applied social psychology 27(10), 864–876 (1997)

53. Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E.R.: Computers are social actors. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. pp. 72–78. ACM (1994)

54. Oliver, R.L.: A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research pp. 460–469 (1980)

55. Olson, J.S., Olson, G.M.: i2i trust in e-commerce. Communications of the ACM 43(12), 41–44 (2000)

56. Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G., Zanna, M.P.: Trust in close relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology 49(1), 95–112 (1985)

57. Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M.A.: Ignore these at your peril: Ten principles for trust design. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Trust and Trustworthy Computing (2010)

58. Riegelsberger, J., Vasalou, A.: Trust 2.1: Advancing the trust debate. In: CHI ’07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 2137–2140. CHI EA ’07 (2007)

59. Rieser, D.C., Bernhard, O.: Measuring trust: The simpler the better? In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 2940–2946. ACM (2016)

60. Särav, S., Kerikmäe, T.: E-residency: A cyberdream embodied in a digital identity card? In: The Future of Law and eTechnologies, pp. 57–79. Springer (2016)

61. Schunk, D.H.: Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational psychologist 25(1), 71–86 (1990)

62. Shneiderman, B.: Designing trust into online experiences. Communications of the ACM 43(12), 57–59 (2000)

63. Söllner, M., Hoffmann, A., Hoffmann, H., Wacker, A., Leimeister, J.M.: Understanding the formation of trust in it artifacts. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Association for Information Systems (2012)

64. Söllner, M., Leimeister, J.M.: What we really know about antecedents of trust: A critical review of the empirical information systems literature on trust. Nova Science Publishers (2013)

65. Solvak, M., Vassil, K.: E-voting in Estonia: Technological Diffusion and Other Developments Over Ten Years (2005-2015). The Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies, University of Tartu (2016)

66. Sommer, B., Sommer, R.: A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques. Oxford University Press (1991)

67. Sousa, S., Lamas, D., Dias, P.: A model for human-computer trust. In: International Conference on Learning and Collaboration Technologies. pp. 128–137. Springer (2014)

68. Springall, D., Finkenauer, T., Durumeric, Z., Kitcat, J., Hursti, H., MacAlpine, M., Halderman, J.A.: Security analysis of the estonian internet voting system. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. pp. 703–715. ACM (2014)

69. Vance, A., Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C., Straub, D.W.: Examining trust in information technology artifacts: the effects of system quality and culture. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(4), 73–100 (2008)

70. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly pp. 425–478 (2003)

71. Wasko, M.M., Faraj, S.: Why should i share? examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly pp. 35–57 (2005)

72. Waytz, A., Heafner, J., Epley, N.: The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 52, 113–117 (2014)

Appendix:

Further details regarding Data, Measures used for the survey research and questionnaire are available online at: https://goo.gl/PTQBEj