Table I Conceptual comparisons of trust... | Emerald Publishing

Table I

Conceptual comparisons of trust between interpersonal, technological and techno-service systems literatures

Object attribute	Interpersonal	Technology	Posited within techno-service systems
Familiarity and understandability	Knowledge and understanding of dispositional attributions and traits of partner (e.g. Rempel et al., 1985)	Employing procedures, terms and cultural norms that are familiar and understandable (e.g. Madsen and Gregor, 2000)	Users forming mental models to predict future behaviour of smart service system
Reliability predictability and consistency	Acting in a predictable manner whilst exercising volition or freedom to choose (e.g. Sekhon et al., 2014)	Recognition that technology has no volition but may still function properly and on a consistent basis (e.g. McKnight et al., 2011)	Whether the smart service system may be relied on to perform its key tasks
Integrity	Adhering to a set of established norms or procedures perceived as being “fair and reasonable”. Generally referring to notions of “honesty”, “credibility”, “fulfilment of promises” (e.g. Killinger, 2010)	Refers to the notion of “data integrity” and covers users’ perceptions that personal data will not be changed without users being given notice (e.g. Pfleeger and Pfleeger, 2011)	Related to issues of procedural fairness and adherence to processes regarding the management of personal information within the smart service system
Competence/expertise and functionality	Generally signals the ability or power to achieve an outcome. Frequently associated with experience and expertise (e.g. Moorman et al., 1992)	Technology has the attributes to deliver the functionality promised to complete a task (e.g. McKnight et al., 2011)	Refers to the ability of the smart service system to complete a task
Security	Refers to notions of the risk of indiscretions and the assumption that sensitive information revealed through intimate disclosures will not deliberately or inadvertently be shared (e.g. Sheppard and Sherman, 1998)	Perceived ability to fulfil security requirements such as authentication, encryption and non-repudiation (e.g. Cheung and Lee, 2001)	Refers to feelings of security specifically related to issues of information management when interacting with another entity within a smart service system
Personalization	Dyadic interactions between intimates resulting in understanding and “caring responses” from partners (e.g. Rempel et al., 1985)	The extent to which an object understands and represents the personal needs of the user (e.g. Komiak and Benbasat, 2006)	Understanding user needs and the generation of relevant and personalized recommendations “Only here, only me and only now”
Benevolence and helpfulness	Acting in the other party’s interest and offering help when needed. Implicit within this is a lack of opportunistic behaviour (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995)	No sense of emotive caring but users may consider the “help” function will provide necessary advice to complete a task (e.g. Beatty et al., 2011)	User’s perception that the smart service system will act according to the user’s best interest
Faith/Belief	Belief based on non-rational but may be triggered by evidence, signs or experience (e.g. Castelfranchi and Falcone, 2010)	Belief that technology will perform in situations in which it is untried (e.g. Madsen and Gregor, 2000)	Belief that a smart service system will perform appropriately even when there is limited understanding and/or familiarity

Object attribute	Interpersonal	Technology	Posited within techno-service systems
Familiarity and understandability	Knowledge and understanding of dispositional attributions and traits of partner (e.g. Rempel et al., 1985)	Employing procedures, terms and cultural norms that are familiar and understandable (e.g. Madsen and Gregor, 2000)	Users forming mental models to predict future behaviour of smart service system
Reliability predictability and consistency	Acting in a predictable manner whilst exercising volition or freedom to choose (e.g. Sekhon et al., 2014)	Recognition that technology has no volition but may still function properly and on a consistent basis (e.g. McKnight et al., 2011)	Whether the smart service system may be relied on to perform its key tasks
Integrity	Adhering to a set of established norms or procedures perceived as being “fair and reasonable”. Generally referring to notions of “honesty”, “credibility”, “fulfilment of promises” (e.g. Killinger, 2010)	Refers to the notion of “data integrity” and covers users’ perceptions that personal data will not be changed without users being given notice (e.g. Pfleeger and Pfleeger, 2011)	Related to issues of procedural fairness and adherence to processes regarding the management of personal information within the smart service system
Competence/expertise and functionality	Generally signals the ability or power to achieve an outcome. Frequently associated with experience and expertise (e.g. Moorman et al., 1992)	Technology has the attributes to deliver the functionality promised to complete a task (e.g. McKnight et al., 2011)	Refers to the ability of the smart service system to complete a task
Security	Refers to notions of the risk of indiscretions and the assumption that sensitive information revealed through intimate disclosures will not deliberately or inadvertently be shared (e.g. Sheppard and Sherman, 1998)	Perceived ability to fulfil security requirements such as authentication, encryption and non-repudiation (e.g. Cheung and Lee, 2001)	Refers to feelings of security specifically related to issues of information management when interacting with another entity within a smart service system
Personalization	Dyadic interactions between intimates resulting in understanding and “caring responses” from partners (e.g. Rempel et al., 1985)	The extent to which an object understands and represents the personal needs of the user (e.g. Komiak and Benbasat, 2006)	Understanding user needs and the generation of relevant and personalized recommendations“Only here, only me and only now”
Benevolence and helpfulness	Acting in the other party’s interest and offering help when needed. Implicit within this is a lack of opportunistic behaviour (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995)	No sense of emotive caring but users may consider the “help” function will provide necessary advice to complete a task (e.g. Beatty et al., 2011)	User’s perception that the smart service system will act according to the user’s best interest
Faith/Belief	Belief based on non-rational but may be triggered by evidence, signs or experience (e.g. Castelfranchi and Falcone, 2010)	Belief that technology will perform in situations in which it is untried (e.g. Madsen and Gregor, 2000)	Belief that a smart service system will perform appropriately even when there is limited understanding and/or familiarity