Article published In: The Pragmatics of Trusting (Artificial) Others
Edited by Kerstin Fischer and Bracha Nir
[Pragmatics and Society 17:5] 2026
► pp. 728–751

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Theoretical and methodological perspectives on the interrelation of authenticity and trustworthiness in human‑agent interaction

ORCiD logo with link | University of Salzburg
 | TU Wien
Published online: 12 October 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.24071.han
Abstract
Contemporary research on human-agent interaction (HAI) has raised a number of social and ethical concerns over the authenticity and trustworthiness of computer-based agents with high degrees of apparent agency (e.g., chatbots, voice assistants, recommender systems, social robots). Although it is important to address these concerns in pursuit of successful HAI, researchers often examine authenticity and trustworthiness as distinct concepts rather than closely related aspects of a single issue. Based on our analysis of the conceptual relationship between authenticity and trustworthiness, we argue that they should be considered interrelated dimensions, as they are both situated phenomena. We also present a roadmap detailing how to study the authenticity and trustworthiness of computer-based agents for HAI applications, which are already a feature of daily life. Through this delineation of suggested approaches and methodological decisions, we propose exploring perceptions of two concepts on individual and institutional levels across both technologically embodied and non-embodied agents. Moreover, we argue for a more interaction-centered approach that considers how these phenomena emerge during everyday encounters between people and computer-based agents.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Agency in human-agent interaction
  • 3.Authenticity and trustworthiness as interrelated concepts in HAI
  • 4.Studying the interrelation between authenticity and trustworthiness in HAI
    • 4.1Event approach
    • 4.2Embodiment variations
    • 4.3Everyday life context
  • 5.Roadmap
    • 5.1Embodiment dimension
    • 5.2Individual and institutional dimensions
    • 5.3Research approach
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (47)
References
Abercrombie, Gavin, Amanda Cercas Curry, Tanvi Dinkar, Verena Rieser, and Zeerak Talat. 2023. “Mirages: On Anthropomorphism in Dialogue Systems.” In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 4776–4790. Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allen, James F., and George Ferguson. 1994. “Actions and Events in Interval Temporal Logic.” Journal of Logic and Computation 4 (5): 531–579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bailey, Elizabeth R., and Sheena S. Iyengar. 2022. “Yours Truly: On the Complex Relationship between Authenticity and Honesty.” Current Opinion in Psychology 47: 101419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baron, Naomi S. 2013. “Lessons from Venice: Authenticity, Emotions, and ICTs.” Intervalla 1: 7–16.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beerends, Stijn, and Ciano Aydin. 2021. “Negotiating Authenticity in Technological Environments.” Philosophy & Technology 34 (4): 1665–1685. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2024. “Negotiating the Authenticity of AI: How the Discourse on AI Rejects Human Indeterminacy.” AI & Society 40(2): 263–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blut, Markus, Cheng Wang, Nancy V. Wünderlich, and Christian Brock. 2021. “Understanding Anthropomorphism in Service Provision: A Meta-analysis of Physical Robots, Chatbots, and Other AI.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 49: 632–658. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cassell, Justine, and Alicia Tartaro. 2007. “Intersubjectivity in Human–Agent Interaction.” Interaction Studies 8 (3): 391–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chan, Emunah. 2024. “Understanding Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models.” SSRN Electronic Journal. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Leigh, Nadia Pantidi, Orla Cooney, Philip Doyle, Diego Garaialde, Justin Edwards, Brendan Spillane, Emer Gilmartin, Christine Murad, Cosmin Munteanu, Vincent Wafe, Benjamin R. Cowan. 2019. “What Makes a Good Conversation? Challenges in Designing Truly Conversational Agents.” In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corti, Kevin, and Alex Gillespie. 2016. “Co-constructing Intersubjectivity with Artificial Conversational Agents: People Are More Likely to Initiate Repairs of Misunderstandings with Agents Represented as Human.” Computers in Human Behavior 58: 431–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danaher, John. 2020. “Robot Betrayal: A Guide to the Ethics of Robotic Deception.” Ethics and Information Technology 22 (2): 117–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dautenhahn, Kerstin. 1998a. “The Art of Designing Socially Intelligent Agents: Science, Fiction, and the Human in the Loop.” Applied Artificial Intelligence 12 (7–8): 573–617. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998b. “Embodiment and Interaction in Socially Intelligent Life-like Agents.” In Computation for Metaphors, Analogy, and Agents, edited by Chrystopher L. Nehaniv, 102–141. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deng, Eric, Bilge Mutlu, and Maja J. Matarić. 2019. “Embodiment in Socially Interactive Robots.” Foundations and Trends® in Robotics 7 (4): 251–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dobrosovestnova, Anna, Tim Reinboth, and Astrid Weiss. 2024. “Towards an Integrative Framework for Robot Personality Research.” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 13(1): 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elshan, Edona, Niklas Zierau, Christian Engel, Andreas Janson, and Jan Marco Leimeister. 2022. “Understanding the Design Elements Affecting User Acceptance of Intelligent Agents: Past, Present and Future.” Information Systems Frontiers 24 (3): 699–730. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eyssel, Friederike, and Steve Loughnan. 2013. “‘It Don’t Matter if You’re Black or White’? Effects of Robot Appearance and User Prejudice on Evaluations of a Newly Developed Robot Companion.” In Social Robotics: 5th International Conference, ICSR 2013, Bristol, UK, October 27–29, 2013, Proceedings, 422–431. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fortunati, Leopoldina. 2013. “Afterword: Robot Conceptualizations between Continuity and Innovation.” Intervalla 1: 116–129.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frost-Arnold, Karen. 2014. “Imposters, Tricksters, and Trustworthiness as an Epistemic Virtue.” Hypatia 29 (4): 790–807. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hannibal, Glenda, Astrid Weiss, and Vicky Charisi (2021). “The robot may not notice my discomfort” — Examining the Experience of Vulnerability for Trust in Human-Robot Interaction. In 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2021, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 08–12, 2021, Proceedings, 704–711. IEEE. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hannibal, Glenda, Anna Dobrosovestnova, and Astrid Weiss (2022). Tolerating Untrustworthy Robots: Studying Human Vulnerability Experience Within a Privacy Scenario for Trust in Robots. In 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2022, Napoli, Italy, August 29-September 02, Proceedings, 821–828, IEEE. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hannibal, Glenda. 2023. “The Trust–Vulnerability Relation: A Theory-Driven and Multidisciplinary Approach to the Study of Interpersonal Trust in Human–Robot Interaction.” Dissertation, Technische Universität Wien. reposiTUm.
Hannibal, Glenda, and Astrid Weiss. 2022. “Exploring the Situated Vulnerabilities of Robots for Interpersonal Trust in Human–Robot Interaction.” In Trust in Robots, edited by Sabine T. Köszegi, and Markus Vincze, 33–55. Vienna: TU Wien Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inie, Nanna, Stefania Druga, Peter Zukerman, and Emily M. Bender. 2024. “From ‘AI’ to Probabilistic Automation: How Does Anthropomorphization of Technical Systems Descriptions Influence Trust?” In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2322–2347. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janlert, Lars-Erik, and Erik Stolterman. 2008. “Complex Interaction.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 17 (2): 1–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jensen, Theodore, Mohammad Maifi Hasan Khan, Md Abdullah Al Fahim, and Yusuf Albayram. 2021. “Trust and Anthropomorphism in Tandem: The Interrelated Nature of Automated Agent Appearance and Reliability in Trustworthiness Perceptions.” In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 1470–1480. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koller, Michael, Astrid Weiss, Matthias Hirschmanner, and Markus Vincze. 2023. “Robotic Gaze and Human Views: A Systematic Exploration of Robotic Gaze Aversion and Its Effects on Human Behaviors and Attitudes.” Frontiers in Robotics and AI 10: 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krämer, Nicole C., Astrid von der Pütten, and Sabrina Eimler. 2012. “Human-Agent and Human-Robot Interaction Theory: Similarities to and Differences from Human-Human Interaction.” In Human–Computer Interaction: The Agency Perspective, edited by Marielba Zacarias, and José Valente Oliveira, 215–240. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ng, Magdalene, Kovila P. L. Coopamootoo, Ehsan Toreini, Mhairi Aitken, Karen Elliot, and Aad van Moorsel. 2020. “Simulating the Effects of Social Presence on Trust, Privacy Concerns & Usage Intentions in Automated Bots for Finance.” In 2020 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW), 190–199. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olson, Danielle Marie, and Yan Xu. 2021. “Building Trust over Time in Human-Agent Relationships.” In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, 193–201. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Osawa, Hirotaka. 2023. “Human–Agent Interaction as Augmentation of Social Intelligence.” Artificial Life and Robotics 28 (2): 273–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perez-Cruz, Fernando, and Hyun Song Shin. 2024. Testing the Cognitive Limits of Large Language Models. Technical report. Bank for International Settlements.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reeves, Byron, and Clifford Nass. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, Stuart, and Peter Norvig. 1995. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sætra, Henrik Skaug. 2021. “Social Robot Deception and the Culture of Trust.” Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 12 (1): 276–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharkey, Amanda, and Noel Sharkey. 2021. “We Need to Talk about Deception in Social Robotics!” Ethics and Information Technology 23: 309–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sundar, S. Shyam. 2020. “Rise of Machine Agency: A Framework for Studying the Psychology of Human–AI Interaction (HAII).” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 25 (1): 74–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turkle, Sherry. 2011. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Pinxteren, Michelle M. E., Mark Pluymaekers, and Jos G. A. M. Lemmink. 2020. “Human-like Communication in Conversational Agents: A Literature Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of Service Management 31 (2): 203–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weiss, Astrid. 2022. One Cannot Know Everything: On the Need of Epistemological Diversity in Human-Centered HRI Research. Habilitation treatise, Universität Salzburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weiss, Astrid, Nicole Mirnig, Ulrike Bruckenberger, Ewald Strasser, Manfred Tscheligi, Barbara Kühnlenz (Gonsior), Dirk Wollherr, and Bartolmiey Stanczyk. 2015. “The Interactive Urban Robot: User-Centered Development and Final Field Trial of a Direction Requesting Robot.” Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 6 (1): 21–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weiss, Astrid, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2012. “Rethinking the Human–Agent Relationship: Which Social Cues Do Interactive Agents Really Need to Have?” In Believable Bots: Can Computers Play Like People?, edited by Philip Hingston, 1–28. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weizenbaum, Joseph. 1966. “ELIZA — A Computer Program for the Study of Natural Language Communication between Man and Machine.” Communications of the ACM 9 (1): 36–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wendehorst, Christiane, Magdalena Eitenberger, Jana Winter, Astrid Mager, Barbara Prainsack, Astrid Weiss et al. 2024. Narratives of Digital Ethics. AGIDE (Academies for Global Innovation and Digital Ethics) Report. Austrian Academy of Sciences. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, Ruoxi, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Yingfei Sun. 2024. “Academically Intelligent LLMs Are Not Necessarily Socially Intelligent.” arXiv. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zawieska, Karolina, and Glenda Hannibal. 2023. “Towards a Conceptualisation and Critique of Everyday Life in HRI.” Frontiers in Robotics and AI 10:1212034. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue