Cited by 118Human-Automation Interaction and SafetySocial Robot Interaction and HRIDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

We and it: an interdisciplinary review of the experimental evidence on how humans interact with machines

Chugunova, Marina, Sele, Daniela·2022·Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socec.2022.101897

Cites

183 of 183 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chugunova, M., & Sele, D.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (DE)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Chugunova, Marina
Venue
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-08
Volume
99
Pages
101897
ISSN
2214-8043 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4281256336
Cited by
118
References
183
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 24 · 2020: 1
FWCI
22.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
human-automation interaction, automated agents, trust in automation, decision-making power, algorithmic decision support, task context, performance expectations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review