Effects of Information Source, Pedigree, and Reliability on Operator Interaction With Decision Support Systems

By Poornima Madhavan, Douglas A. Wiegmann. 2007

164 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Decision Sciences, Social Psychology

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Decision Sciences

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Metrics for Explainable AI: Challenges and Prospects (2018, background): “Trust in automation can rapidly break down under conditions of time pressure, or when there are conspicuous system faults or errors, or when there is a high false alarm rate (Dzindolet et al., 2003; Madhavan and Wiegmann 2007).”
Explanations in Autonomous Driving: A Survey (2021, background): “We note that trust can break down when there are frequent failures without adequate explanations, and regaining trust once lost can be challenging [49], [50].”
Trust in Automation (2015, background): “The progression of interpersonal trust formation also differs from that of human–automation trust (Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007b).”
A Taxonomy of Emergent Trusting in the Human–Machine Relationship (2017, unknown): “Trust in automation can rapidly break down under conditions of time pressure, or when there are conspicuous system faults or errors, or when there is a high false alarm rate (Dzindolet et al. 2003; Madhavan and Wiegmann 2007).”
A Meta-Analysis of Factors Influencing the Development of Trust in Automation (2016, background): “Madhavan and Wiegmann (2007) suggested that trust degrades when the automation system misses or provides a false alarm while detecting what the operator perceives to be an easily identifiable target.”
From ‘automation’ to ‘autonomy’: the importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction (2018, background): “An emerging literature in human factors has theorised and empirically demonstrated sig nifican t diff erences between human and machine agents (Madhavan and Wiegmann 2007b; Pak et al. 2012; de Visser et al. 2016).”
Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. (2016, background): “Our results are consistent with findings that show that compared to their human-like counterparts, machine-like agents are trusted more initially, but also “fall from grace” more quickly, particularly when uncertainty about the task is low (Madhavan et al., 2006; Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007b).”
I Trust It, but I Don’t Know Why (2013, background): “These levels persist until automation errors are encountered, at which time individuals with higher propensity to trust often display a more marked decrease in trust than those with lower propensity to trust (Dzindolet, Pierce, Beck, & Dawe, 2002; Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007; Merritt & Ilgen, 2008).”
Affective Processes in Human–Automation Interactions (2011, background): “The notion is that perceptions of machine reliability will be associated with automation reliance, such that users will be more likely to disuse machines that they perceive as less reliable (Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007; Wiegmann, 2002).”
Trust in AI and Its Role in the Acceptance of AI Technologies (2022, background): “Other studies have noted that human users have a distinctive view on interacting with technologies, and those works have suggested that the principles of trust in interpersonal relations cannot be directly applicable to human-to-machine trust (e.g., Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007).”