The emerging challenges in home medical device design call for the integration of trustworthy image in order to help alleviate the feeling of fear and worrying of non-professional users when interacting with medical devices. This research focuses on one particular methodology for creating perception of trustworthiness in technological agent: the incorporation of social role image. The first part of the research includes a cross-cultural survey (Thai and Japanese) on trustworthiness im¬pressions of 7 social roles that are related to home medical products. The second part is comprised of an experiment to investigate different methods of incorporating “Caretaker/Nurse” social role into blood pressure monitor (BPM)’s cuff; and their effectiveness in conveying impression of trustworthiness of BPM to Thai and Japanese young adult users. The result shows no significant differences in direct trustworthiness rating between designs with social role image and design without; in both Thai and Japanese. However; there are significant changes in mood and ratings of components that are found in literature reviews to be related to perception of trustworthiness.
Keywords: Trustworthiness; Home medical device; Social roles; Cross-cultural; Blood pressure monitor
KEER2014. Proceedings of the 5th Kanesi Engineering and Emotion Research; International Conference; Linköping; Sweden; June 11-13
Fogg; B. J. (2003). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Golder; S. A.; Donath; J. (2004). Social roles in electronic communities. The Association of Internet Researchers conference Internet Research 5.0
Hardin; R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Johnson; D.; Grayson; K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of Business Research; 500-507.
Lee; J. R.; Nass; C. I. (2010). Trust in computers: The Computers-Are-Social-Actors (CASA) Paradigm and Trustworthiness Perception in Human-Computer Communication. Trust and Technology in a Ubiquitous Modern Environment; 1-15.
Lewis; J. D.; Weigert; A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces; Vol.63:4; 967-985.
McLeod; Carolyn; “Trust”; The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition); Edward N. Zalta (ed.); URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/trust/>.
Nass; C.; Moon; Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues; Vol. 56:1; 81-103.
Nass; C.; Steuer; J. & Tauber; E. R. (1994). Computers are social Actors. Human Factors in Computing Systems; Chi ‘94; 72-78.
Prestero; T. (2012; August). Design for people; not awards [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/timothy_prestero_design_for_people_not_awards.html
Simpson; J. A. (2007). Psychological foundation of trust. Association for Psychological Science; Vol.16; No.5; 264-268.
Sztompka; P. (2003). Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tschannen-Moran; M.; Hoy; W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature; meaning; and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research; Vol. 70:4; 547-593
Weizenbaum; J. (1966). ELIZA - a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM; Vol.9:1; 36.43.
Wheeless; L. R.; Grotz; J. (1977). The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosue. Trust and Self-disclosure; Vol. 3:3; 250-257.
Yosuke; S.; Kentaro; N.; Takeshi; S. (2013). Development of the Two-Dimensional Mood Scale for self-monitoring and self-regulation of momentary mood states. Japanese Psychological Research.