Six Guidelines for Trustworthy, Ethical and Responsible Automation Design

Matouš Jelínek, Nadine Schlicker, Ewart de Visser
8/4/2025
cs.HCcs.CL

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Calibrated trust in automated systems (Lee and See 2004) is critical for their safe and seamless integration into society. Users should only rely on a system recommendation when it is actually correct and reject it when it is factually wrong. One requirement to achieve this goal is an accurate trustworthiness assessment, ensuring that the user's perception of the system's trustworthiness aligns with its actual trustworthiness, allowing users to make informed decisions about the extent to which they can rely on the system (Schlicker et al. 2022). We propose six design guidelines to help designers optimize for accurate trustworthiness assessments, thus fostering ethical and responsible human-automation interactions. The proposed guidelines are derived from existing literature in various fields, such as human-computer interaction, cognitive psychology, automation research, user-experience design, and ethics. We are incorporating key principles from the field of pragmatics, specifically the cultivation of common ground (H. H. Clark 1996) and Gricean communication maxims (Grice 1975). These principles are essential for the design of automated systems because the user's perception of the system's trustworthiness is shaped by both environmental contexts, such as organizational culture or societal norms, and by situational context, including the specific circumstances or scenarios in which the interaction occurs (Hoff and Bashir 2015). Our proposed guidelines provide actionable insights for designers to create automated systems that make relevant trustworthiness cues available. This would ideally foster calibrated trust and more satisfactory, productive, and safe interactions between humans and automated systems. Furthermore, the proposed heuristics might work as a tool for evaluating to what extent existing systems enable users to accurately assess a system's trustworthiness.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{jelnek2025guidelines,
  title  = {Six Guidelines for Trustworthy, Ethical and Responsible Automation Design},
  author = {Matouš Jelínek and Nadine Schlicker and Ewart de Visser},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2508.02371},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.02371v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2508.02371.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2508.02371)

Discussion