The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An integrative model of autonomous agent teammate-likeness
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“Agency involves consideration of LOA continua (Table 1), as the above quote by Wynne and Lyons (2018) illustrates (see also Demir, Cooke, et al., 2018, Demir, Likens et al., 2018, Demir, McNeese, et al., 2018).”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Wynne and Lyons (2018)
In the citing paper
“Second, a theoretical paper by Wynne and Lyons (2018) added several factors beyond interdependence in order for humans to view autonomous agents as teammates, rather than tools.”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Wynne and Lyons (2018)
In the citing paper
“We adopt the term “partial autonomy” because at these levels the autonomous agent is proactive in bringing forth actions to the team that it recommends be executed and, as a result, will more likely be viewed as having some degree of agency (Mercado et al., 2016; Wynne & Lyons, 2018).”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Wynne & Lyons, 2018
In the citing paper
“In order to be viewed as a team member, research suggests that the autonomous agent must be humanlike, agentic, and interdependent in the activities and outcomes of the other team members (Lyons et al., 2018; Wynne & Lyons, 2018).”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Wynne & Lyons, 2018
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Intelligent agents: theory and practice
Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1995) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888900008122 · Cited by 6,810
A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans · doi:10.1109/3468.844354 · Cited by 4,195
On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864 · Cited by 4,069 · cited 5×
“Anthropomorphism refers to viewing fauna and other nonhuman objects as possessing human traits (Epley, Waytz, and Cacioppo 2007).”
BackgroundInfluentialWhat Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639702300303 · Cited by 3,526
Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust
Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720814547570 · Cited by 2,817
Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250 · Cited by 2,273
A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., de Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720811417254 · Cited by 2,051 · cited 3×
“Thus, while much of the prior work on trust of automation has focused on the role of reliability and performance (see Hancock et al. 2011) we seek to show that social factors are also important in the content of human – agent interaction.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialOut of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams
Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.615.24872 · Cited by 974
Merritt, S. M., & Ilgen, D. R. (2008) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872008x288574 · Cited by 527 · cited 1×
“Merritt and Ilgen (2008) found that dispositional trust of machines and facets of personality were predictors of trust in automation.”
BackgroundThe influence of empathy in human-robot relations
Leite, I., Pereira, A., Mascarenhas, S., Martinho, C., Prada, R., & Paiva, A. (2013) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.09.005 · Cited by 344
Research works printed but not linked: 58
- Allport G.W., 1954, The Nature of Prejudice
- 10.21236/ADA559369 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10869-014-9360-y · DOI
- 10.1109/TPC.2004.843299 · doi:10.1109/tpc.2004.843299
- 10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00029-7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1189 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/h0044721 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb01683.x · DOI
- 10.1037/h0040985 · DOI
- 10.1037/h0047299 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/TSMCB.2003.811794 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/THMS.2013.2293535 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0018720816649094 · DOI
- Dautenhahn, K., S. Woods, C. Kaouri, M.L. Walters, K.L. Koay, and I. Werry. 2005. “What is a Robot Companion – Friend, Assistant, or Butler?”. In 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 1192–1197. IEEE. · DOI · Paper page
- 10.21236/ADA566864 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797612448793 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.445 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.445 · Paper page
- 10.1177/1555343412441001 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00937.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/001872675400700202 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/1463922021000049971 · DOI
- Fong T.W., 2005, Proceedings of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Space, 2005, 1
- Forsyth D.R., 1990, Group Dynamics
- Groom V., 2007, Interaction Studies, 8, 493
- 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111 · DOI · Paper page
- Hamacher A., 2016, Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interaction Communication (RO-MAN)
- 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02.008 · DOI
- 10.1287/orsc.1050.0122 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1287/orsc.10.6.791 · DOI · Paper page
- Kiesler T., 2004, Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 85
- 10.1002/0471264385.wei1214 · DOI · Paper page
- Lawler E.E., 1992, Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management: Practices and Results in Fortune 1000 Companies
- Lyons J.B., 2013, Trust and Autonomous Systems: Papers from the AAAI Spring Symposium (Technical Report SS-13–07), 48
- 10.1177/1064804615611274 · DOI
- 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 · doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 · Paper page
- 10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803928 · DOI · Paper page
- McGrath J.E., 1984, Groups: Interaction and Performance
- 10.1348/000712600161673 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0018720815581247 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jveb.2014.03.002 · DOI
- Moran S., 2013, Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 371, 10.1145/2449396.2449445 · DOI
- 10.1609/aimag.v32i4.2376 · DOI
- 10.1080/01449290500331156 · DOI · Paper page
- Nass C., 1994, Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems, 72
- Ososky S., 2013, Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Trust in Autonomous Systems, 60
- 10.1080/00140139.2012.691554 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/975817.975844 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2147/PRBM.S74972 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5898/JHRI.5.1.Phillips · DOI
- 10.2466/pr0.1975.36.2.535 · DOI
- Russel S.J., 2009, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach
- 10.1518/001872008X288457 · DOI · Paper page
- Sheridan T., 1980, Technology Review, 10, 61
- Siegel M., 2009, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2563
- 10.1177/014920639402000210 · doi:10.1177/014920639402000210
- Tajfel H., 1985, Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 7
- 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.17 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature
O’Neill, T., McNeese, N., Barron, A., & Schelble, B. (2022) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720820960865 · Cited by 695
Towards a Theory of Longitudinal Trust Calibration in Human–Robot Teams
de Visser, E. J., Peeters, M. M. M., Jung, M. F., Kohn, S., Shaw, T. H., Pak, R., & Neerincx, M. A. (2020) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-019-00596-x · Cited by 447
When computers take the lead: The automation of leadership
Wesche, J. S., & Sonderegger, A. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.027 · Cited by 157
Zhang, R., Duan, W., Flathmann, C., McNeese, N., Freeman, G., & Williams, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3610072 · Cited by 134
Challenges of human—machine collaboration in risky decision-making
Xiong, W., Fan, H., Ma, L., & Wang, C. (2022) · Frontiers of Engineering Management · doi:10.1007/s42524-021-0182-0 · Cited by 95
Metadata
- Authors
- Wynne, K. T., & Lyons, J. B.
- Affiliations
- Consortium Research Fellows Program, Alexandria, VA, USA
- Air Force Research Laboratory Human Effectiveness Directorate, RHXS Human Trust & Interaction Branch, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, USA
- ORCID
- Wynne, Kevin T.
- Venue
- Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-02-23
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 353-374
- ISSN
- 1463-922X
- 1464-536X
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 10
- Language
- en
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
