The DOI matches its Crossref record; 155 of the 155 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 252 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature
Open accessAbstract
Objective: We define human–autonomy teaming and offer a synthesis of the existing empirical research on the topic. Specifically, we identify the research environments, dependent variables, themes representing the key findings, and critical future research directions. Background: Whereas a burgeoning literature on high-performance teamwork identifies the factors critical to success, much less is known about how human–autonomy teams (HATs) achieve success. Human–autonomy teamwork involves humans working interdependently toward a common goal along with autonomous agents. Autonomous agents involve a degree of self-government and self-directed behavior (agency), and autonomous agents take on a unique role or set of tasks and work interdependently with human team members to achieve a shared objective. Method: We searched the literature on human–autonomy teaming. To meet our criteria for inclusion, the paper needed to involve empirical research and meet our definition of human–autonomy teaming. We found 76 articles that met our criteria for inclusion. Results: We report on research environments and we find that the key independent variables involve autonomous agent characteristics, team composition, task characteristics, human individual differences, training, and communication. We identify themes for each of these and discuss the future research needs. Conclusion: There are areas where research findings are clear and consistent, but there are many opportunities for future research. Particularly important will be research that identifies mechanisms linking team input to team output variables.
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
This integrative review synthesizes 76 empirical articles on human–autonomy teaming (HAT), defines HATs as interdependent human(s) and autonomous agent(s) occupying distinct team roles, and maps findings using an I-M-O framework. It finds generally positive effects of higher agent autonomy, reliability, interdependence, and training, but human–human teams usually outperform HATs and transparency/communication quantity show mixed effects.
Key findings
- The review identified 76 empirical articles; all were simulation/lab studies, none field-based. Of these, 57 were military- or emergency-related simulations, 17 were nonmilitary/emergency simulations, and 2 could not be classified; the most represented testbeds were CERTT-UAS-STE (18 articles) and MIX (15 articles).
- Agent autonomy was coded as high in 26 articles, partial in 31, and multiple levels in 15. Higher agent autonomy generally had positive effects (e.g., easier to work with, higher communication efficiency, stronger coordination, higher performance, lower workload), though some studies found a moderate level ideal; reliability was consistently positive, while transparency had mixed effects (e.g., improved performance/trust/understanding but also complacency, conflict, and workload).
- Human–human teams generally outperformed HATs; interdependence led to positive outcomes; higher task difficulty led to negative outcomes such as higher workload and lower performance; training produced consistently positive results; communication quality was associated with stronger team functioning, but communication quantity findings were mixed.
- Dependent variables studied most often were team and individual performance (70 studies), workload (39), trust (24), situation awareness (23), team coordination (15), and shared mental models (6); little research addressed Hackman’s team viability and individual learning/growth outcomes.
Methods
- Narrative/integrative literature review with four-step search. Inclusion required empirical research, sufficient description to code agent autonomy, and at least one autonomous agent and one human working interdependently toward a common goal; the agent had to reach at least Level 5 on Parasuraman et al.’s (2000) automation continuum.
- Searches covered ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and Sage Journals: initial search returned 1,942 articles, reduced to 476 after full-text “team” filtering, yielding 33 included; author-focused search returned 930 potential articles, yielding 31 included; Google Scholar search returned 152 articles, yielding 8 included; adding “human–automation interaction” yielded 4 more; total unique articles = 76.
- Coding was inductive and iterative, organized within the I-M-O model of team effectiveness. After calibration, 30% of remaining articles were randomly selected for independent coding; inter-coder agreement was 89% overall.
Limitations
- Stated: the search may have missed relevant articles; using “teamwork” as a search term may have constrained coverage; a disproportionate number of papers came from two laboratories/testbeds (CERTT-UAS-STE 24%, MIX 20%); it is unclear whether humans perceived the autonomous agents as team members; and HRI and autonomous vehicle literatures were omitted.
- Evident from the text: all included studies were simulation/lab-based, most involved short-term “zero-history” teams, often single human–single agent dyads, limited communication, and mostly partial rather than high autonomy, limiting generalizability.
- Evident from the text: no studies formally reported mediation analyses, so mechanisms linking team inputs to outputs remain largely untested.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 10 Not valid · 200 Not checked · 136 Own results and interpretations
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We report on research environments and we find that the key independent variables involve autonomous agent characteristics, team composition, task characteristics, human individual differences, training, and communication.”
§ Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found 76 articles that met our criteria for inclusion.”
§ Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature > Abstract > Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most individual studies in the current review only considered a single path in the I-M-O chain (i.e., did not test mediating mechanisms).”
§ Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature > Method > Coding Framework Development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“(II) Cultural variables have an impact on user trust in the autonomous agent.”
§ Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature > Results of Literature Review: Research Environments, Themes, and Future Research Opportunities
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chien et al. (2016)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Team coordination | 15 |”
§ Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature > Results of Literature Review: Research Environments, Themes, and Future Research Opportunities
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
179 more claims
Create a free account to see all 346 claims and to verify the 150 references still open.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 118
- It may state two separate claims as one. 80
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature > Introduction > Defining Autonomy and Human–Autonomy Teams (HAT)
“Partial levels of agent autonomy can spontaneously recommend and execute actions unless they are vetoed (Levels 5–6).”
§ Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature > Introduction > Defining Autonomy and Human–Autonomy Teams (HAT)
“At Levels 5–6, Parasuraman et al. (2000) noted that the automation will generate decisions and actions that are communicated to the human(s) and then will execute with approval (Level 5) or with limited time for veto before the actions are implemented autonomously (Level 6).”
Citations
Cites
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 45,910
TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning
Abadi, M., Barham, P., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Davis, A., Dean, J., Devin, M., Ghemawat, S., Irving, G., Isard, M., et al. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1605.08695 · Cited by 11,822
Artificial intelligence: A modern approach
Nilsson, N. J. (1996) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(96)00007-0 · Cited by 10,583
Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values
Gladwin, T. N., & Hofstede, G. (1981) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257651 · Cited by 9,275
Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis
MacKinnon, D. P. (2012) · doi:10.4324/9780203809556 · Cited by 5,618
A Cyber-Physical Systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems
Lee, J., Bagheri, B., & Kao, H.-A. (2015) · Manufacturing Letters · doi:10.1016/j.mfglet.2014.12.001 · Cited by 5,113
Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 · Cited by 4,554
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 · cited 12×
“Between Sheridan’s (1980) levels of automation and the taxonomy of automation types proposed by Parasuraman et al. (2000), there are existing taxonomies that relate to the notion of varying levels of agency among automation.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259182 · Cited by 3,659
Groups: Interaction and Performance.
Polley, R. B., & McGrath, J. E. (1984) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393041 · Cited by 3,290
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- Abadi M., 2016, 12th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, 16, 265
- *Boyce M. W., 2015, Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (pp. 179–180).
- Byrne D. E, 1971, The attraction paradigm
- *Chen J. Y., 2013, [Conference session]. 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 103–104)
- *Chen J. Y., 2016, Companion Publication of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) (pp. 28–31).
- *Chien S., 2016, In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) (pp.2884–2889).
- *Demir M., 2016, 2016 IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA) (pp. 28–34). IEEE
- *Demir M., 2019, 2019 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA) (pp. 122–126).
- Endsley M. R., 2012, Designing for situation awareness: An approach to human-centered design
- Endsley M. R., 1995, Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT) TRACON air traffic control version user guide
- Fitts P. M, 1951, Human engineering for an effective air-navigation and traffic-control system
- Hackman J. R, 1990, Groups that work and those that don't (No E10 H123)
- *Hafızoğlu F. M., 2018, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS) (pp. 514–522).
- *Hanna N., 2014, Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (pp. 1485–1486).
- Hanna N., 2014, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp.1369–1370).
- *Hanna N., 2015, Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 1777–1778).
- Kazi S., Human Factors.
- Kidd C. D., 2005, Proceeding of AISB, 5, 141
- 10.1037/0021-9010.61.4.395 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.61.4.395 · Paper page
- Powers A., 2007, Proceedings of the Acm/ieee International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 145–152).
- Reig S., 2019, 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 742–744).
- Sheridan T. B, 1980, Technology Review, 83, 60
- 10.1177/014920639902500205 · doi:10.1177/014920639902500205 · Paper page
- Woods D. D, 1985, Conference Record for 1985 IEEE Third Conference on Human Factors and Nuclear Safety
- Woods D. D, 1994, Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (pp. 961–971).
- Woods D. D. (1996). Decomposing automation: Apparent simplicity, real complexity (pp. 3–17). Theory and applications.
- You S., 2018, International Journal of Robotic Engineering, (IJRE), 2
Cited by
Xu, W., Dainoff, M. J., Ge, L., & Gao, Z. (2023) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2041900 · Cited by 363
Langer, M., & Landers, R. N. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106878 · Cited by 338
Measurement of trust in automation: A narrative review and reference guide
Kohn, S. C., de Visser, E. J., Wiese, E., Lee, Y.-C., & Shaw, T. H. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.604977 · Cited by 315
Supporting Human-AI Teams:Transparency, explainability, and situation awareness
Endsley, M. R. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107574 · Cited by 309
Dennis, A. R., Lakhiwal, A., & Sachdeva, A. (2023) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2023.2196773 · Cited by 258
Defining human-AI teaming the human-centered way: a scoping review and network analysis
Berretta, S., Tausch, A., Ontrup, G., Gilles, B. T., Peifer, C., & Kluge, A. (2023) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1250725 · Cited by 235
Help Me Help the AI": Understanding How Explainability Can Support Human-AI Interaction
Kim, S. S. Y., Watkins, E. A., Russakovsky, O., Fong, R., & Monroy-Hernández, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581001 · Cited by 233
Tossell, C. C., Tenhundfeld, N. L., Momen, A., Cooley, K., & de Visser, E. J. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2024.3355015 · Cited by 218
Digital Transformation and Competitive Advantage in the Service Sector: A Moderated-Mediation Model
Shehadeh, M., Almohtaseb, A. A., Aldehayyat, J. S., & Abu-AlSondos, I. A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15032077 · Cited by 218
AI-teaming: Redefining collaboration in the digital era
Schmutz, J. B., Outland, N. B., Kerstan, S., Georganta, E., & Ulfert, A. (2024) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101837 · Cited by 208
van de Merwe, K., Mallam, S., & Nazir, S. (2022) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208221077804 · Cited by 195
Social perception in Human-AI teams: Warmth and competence predict receptivity to AI teammates
Harris, A. M., Larson, L., Lauharatanahirun, N., DeChurch, L. A., & Contractor, N. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107765 · Cited by 191
Comparing artificial intelligence and human coaching goal attainment efficacy
Terblanche, N. H. D., Molyn, J., de Haan, E., & Nilsson, V. O. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270255 · Cited by 180
Smooth and Resilient Human–Machine Teamwork as an Industry 5.0 Design Challenge
Kaasinen, E., Anttila, A.-H., Heikkilä, P., Laarni, J., Koskinen, H. M. K., & Väätänen, A. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14052773 · Cited by 176
Bayesian modeling of human–AI complementarity
Mark Steyvers, B., Tejeda, H., Kerrigan, G., & Smyth, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2111547119 · Cited by 165
Simón, C., Revilla, E., & Sáenz, M. J. (2024) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114783 · Cited by 139
Theory‐Driven Perspectives on Generative Artificial Intelligence in Business and Management
Brown, O., Davison, R. M., Decker, S., Ellis, D. A., Faulconbridge, J., Gore, J., Greenwood, M., Islam, G., Lubinski, C., MacKenzie, N. G., et al. (2024) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12788 · Cited by 128
Who/What Is My Teammate? Team Composition Considerations in Human–AI Teaming
McNeese, N. J., Schelble, B. G., Canonico, L. B., & Demir, M. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2021.3086018 · Cited by 119
Self-citationAdapt and overcome: Perceptions of adaptive autonomous agents for human-AI teaming
Hauptman, A. I., Schelble, B. G., McNeese, N. J., & Madathil, K. C. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107451 · Cited by 110
Self-citationSchelble, B. G., Lopez, J., Textor, C., Zhang, R., McNeese, N. J., Pak, R., & Freeman, G. (2022) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208221116952 · Cited by 110
Self-citationFostering Collective Intelligence in Human–AI Collaboration: Laying the Groundwork for COHUMAIN
Gupta, P., Nguyen, T. N., González, C., & Woolley, A. W. (2023) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12679 · Cited by 108
Musick, G., O’Neill, T., Schelble, B. G., McNeese, N. J., & Henke, J. B. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106852 · Cited by 105
Self-citationExplanations and trust: What happens to trust when a robot partner does something unexpected?
Lyons, J. B., Hamdan, I. A., & Vo, T. Q. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107473 · Cited by 104
A Conceptual Model of Trust, Perceived Risk, and Reliance on AI Decision Aids
Solberg, E., Kaarstad, M., Eitrheim, M. H. R., Bisio, R., Reegård, K., & Bloch, M. (2022) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011221081238 · Cited by 102
Human-autonomy Teaming: Need for a guiding team-based framework?
O’Neill, T., Flathmann, C., McNeese, N. J., & Salas, E. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107762 · Cited by 97
Self-citationHuman control of AI systems: from supervision to teaming
Tsamados, A., Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00489-4 · Cited by 92
Shaping a multidisciplinary understanding of team trust in human-AI teams: a theoretical framework
Ulfert, A., Georganta, E., Jorge, C. C., Mehrotra, S., & Tielman, M. L. (2023) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2023.2200172 · Cited by 92
Would you trust an AI team member? Team trust in human– AI teams
Georganta, E., & Ulfert, A. (2024) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/joop.12504 · Cited by 87
The role of agent autonomy in using decision support systems at work
Ulfert, A., Antoni, C. H., & Ellwart, T. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106987 · Cited by 84
Humans as teammates: The signal of human–AI teaming enhances consumer acceptance of chatbots
Li, Y., Li, Y., Chen, Q., & Chang, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102771 · Cited by 83
From Teams to Teamness: Future Directions in the Science of Team Cognition
Cooke, N. J., Cohen, M. C., Fazio, W. C., Inderberg, L. H., Johnson, C. J., Lematta, G. J., Peel, M. A., & Teo, A. (2023) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208231162449 · Cited by 79
Examining the impact of varying levels of AI teammate influence on human-AI teams
Flathmann, C., Schelble, B. G., Rosopa, P. J., McNeese, N. J., Mallick, R., & Madathil, K. C. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103061 · Cited by 78
Self-citationAttention-Based Interrelation Modeling for Explainable Automated Driving
Zhang, Z. J., Tian, R., Sherony, R., Domeyer, J. E., & Ding, Z. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles · doi:10.1109/tiv.2022.3229682 · Cited by 76
A cognitive approach to human–AI complementarity in dynamic decision-making
González, C., & Heidari, H. (2025) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-025-00499-x · Cited by 74
Textor, C., Zhang, R., Lopez, J., Schelble, B. G., McNeese, N. J., Freeman, G., Pak, R., Tossell, C. C., & de Visser, E. J. (2022) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/15553434221113964 · Cited by 71
Self-citationHuman-AI teams—Challenges for a team-centered AI at work
Hagemann, V., Rieth, M., Suresh, A., & Kirchner, F. (2023) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1252897 · Cited by 70
McNeese, N. J., Flathmann, C., O’Neill, T., & Salas, E. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107874 · Cited by 69
Self-citationUnpacking the Role of Feedback in Virtual Team Effectiveness
Handke, L., Klonek, F. E., O’Neill, T., & Kerschreiter, R. (2021) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/10464964211057116 · Cited by 64
Self-citationHuman Factors Requirements for Human-AI Teaming in Aviation
Kirwan, B. (2025) · Future Transportation · doi:10.3390/futuretransp5020042 · Cited by 60
Hauptman, A. I., Schelble, B. G., Duan, W., Flathmann, C., & McNeese, N. J. (2024) · Cognition Technology & Work · doi:10.1007/s10111-024-00765-7 · Cited by 58
Self-citationTrust and AI weight: human-AI collaboration in organizational management decision-making
Wen, Y., Wang, J., & Chen, X. (2025) · Frontiers in Organizational Psychology · doi:10.3389/forgp.2025.1419403 · Cited by 57
Langer, M., Hunsicker, T., Feldkamp, T., König, C. J., & Grgić-Hlača, N. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517527 · Cited by 55
Human-AI teaming: leveraging transactive memory and speaking up for enhanced team effectiveness
Bienefeld, N., Kolbe, M., Camen, G., Huser, D., & Buehler, P. K. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1208019 · Cited by 53
The pursuit of happiness: the power and influence of AI teammate emotion in human-AI teamwork
Mallick, R., Flathmann, C., Lancaster, C., Hauptman, A. I., McNeese, N. J., & Freeman, G. (2023) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2023.2277909 · Cited by 52
Self-citationArtificial Intelligence and Groups: Effects of Attitudes and Discretion on Collaboration
Bezrukova, K., Griffith, T. L., Spell, C., Rice, V., & Yang, H. E. (2023) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011231160574 · Cited by 51
Zhang, X., Yu, P., Ma, L., & Liang, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2379719 · Cited by 51
Human-AI cooperation: Modes and their effects on attitudes
Li, J., Huang, J., Liu, J., & Zheng, T. (2022) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2022.101862 · Cited by 49
AI literacy and trust: A multi-method study of Human-GAI team collaboration
Pan, Z., Moore, O. A., Papadimitriou, A., & Zhu, J. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100162 · Cited by 48
Investigating the Effects of Perceived Teammate Artificiality on Human Performance and Cognition
Schelble, B. G., Flathmann, C., McNeese, N. J., O’Neill, T., Pak, R., & Namara, M. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2085191 · Cited by 46
Self-citationRix, J. (2022) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2022.048 · Cited by 43
Human–Agent Team Dynamics: A Review and Future Research Opportunities
Iftikhar, R., Chiu, Y.-T., Khan, M. S., & Caudwell, C. B. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2023.3331369 · Cited by 43
Zercher, D., Jussupow, E., Benke, I., & Heinzl, A. (2025) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2898 · Cited by 41
Mallick, R., Flathmann, C., Duan, W., Schelble, B. G., & McNeese, N. J. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103355 · Cited by 39
Self-citationTowards Meaningfully Integrating Human-Autonomy Teaming in Applied Settings
Schelble, B. G., Flathmann, C., & McNeese, N. J. (2020) · International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI) · doi:10.1145/3406499.3415077 · Cited by 39
Self-citationTeaming with Your Car: Redefining the Driver–Automation Relationship in Highly Automated Vehicles
Lee, J., Rheem, H., Lee, J. D., Szczerba, J. F., & Tsimhoni, O. (2022) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/15553434221132636 · Cited by 39
Zhang, R., Flathmann, C., Musick, G., Schelble, B. G., McNeese, N. J., Knijnenburg, B. P., & Duan, W. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3635474 · Cited by 38
Self-citationWho’s in Charge Here? A Survey on Trustworthy AI in Variable Autonomy Robotic Systems
Methnani, L., Chiou, M., Dignum, V., & Theodorou, A. A. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3645090 · Cited by 38
Rieth, M., & Hagemann, V. (2021) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103552 · Cited by 38
Cohesion in human–autonomy teams: an approach for future research
Lakhmani, S. G., Neubauer, C. E., Krausman, A., Fitzhugh, S. M., Berg, S. K., Wright, J. L., Rovira, E. M., Blackman, J., & Schaefer, K. E. (2022) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/1463922x.2022.2033876 · Cited by 37
Exploring system wide trust prevalence and mitigation strategies with multiple autonomous agents
Walliser, J. C., de Visser, E. J., & Shaw, T. H. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107671 · Cited by 37
Vero: An accessible method for studying human–AI teamwork
Schecter, A., Hohenstein, J., Larson, L., Harris, A. M., Hou, T.-Y., Lee, W.-Y., Lauharatanahirun, N., DeChurch, L. A., Contractor, N., & Jung, M. F. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107606 · Cited by 36
High hopes, hard falls: consumer expectations and reactions to AI-human collaboration in advertising
Ryoo, Y., Bakpayev, M., Jeon, Y. A., Kim, K. K., & Yoon, S. (2025) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/02650487.2025.2458996 · Cited by 36
Klonek, F. E., & Parker, S. K. (2025) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.70000 · Cited by 36
Verhagen, R., Neerincx, M. A., & Tielman, M. L. (2022) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2022.993997 · Cited by 35
Collective Intelligence in Human-AI Teams: A Bayesian Theory of Mind Approach
Westby, S., & Riedl, C. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i5.25755 · Cited by 34
Trust in Human-Agent Teams: A Multilevel Perspective and Future Research Agenda
Wildman, J. L., Nguyen, D., Thayer, A. L., Robbins-Roth, V. T., Carroll, M. B., Carmody, K., Ficke, C., Akib, M., & Addis, A. (2024) · Organizational Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/20413866241253278 · Cited by 34
Bringing Together Ergonomic Concepts and Cognitive Mechanisms for Human—AI Agents Cooperation
Guillou, M. L., Prévot, L., & Berberian, B. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2129741 · Cited by 34
21st Century teaming and beyond: Advances in human-autonomy teamwork
O’Neill, T., Flathmann, C., McNeese, N. J., & Salas, E. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107865 · Cited by 33
Self-citationThe Purposeful Presentation of AI Teammates: Impacts on Human Acceptance and Perception
Flathmann, C., Schelble, B. G., McNeese, N. J., Knijnenburg, B. P., Gramopadhye, A. K., & Madathil, K. C. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2254984 · Cited by 33
Self-citationYou, Me, and the AI: The Role of Third‐Party Human Teammates for Trust Formation Toward AI Teammates
Erengin, T., Briker, R., & de Jong, S. B. (2025) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2857 · Cited by 33
Carter, W., & Wynne, K. T. (2024) · European Management Review · doi:10.1111/emre.12685 · Cited by 31
The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Defence
Taddeo, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197745441.001.0001 · Cited by 31
The Future of Motivation in and of Teams
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2023) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-111821-031621 · Cited by 30
The Dynamics of Trust and Verbal Anthropomorphism in Human-Autonomy Teaming
Cohen, M. C., Demir, M., Chiou, E. K., & Cooke, N. J. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS) · doi:10.1109/ichms53169.2021.9582655 · Cited by 29
Understanding the impact and design of AI teammate etiquette
Flathmann, C., McNeese, N. J., Schelble, B. G., Knijnenburg, B. P., & Freeman, G. (2023) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.2023.2189595 · Cited by 29
Self-citationNaikar, N., Brady, A., Moy, G., & Kwok, H.-W. (2023) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2023.2281898 · Cited by 28
Demir, M., Cohen, M. C., Johnson, C. J., Chiou, E. K., & Cooke, N. J. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2143004 · Cited by 27
The future of virtual team learning: navigating the intersection of AI and education
Darban, M. (2023) · Journal of Research on Technology in Education · doi:10.1080/15391523.2023.2288912 · Cited by 27
Cognitive Spillover in Human–AI Teams
Riedl, C., Savage, S., & Zvelebilova, J. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3805039 · Cited by 27
Metrics for Human-Robot Team Design: A Teamwork Perspective on Evaluation of Human-Robot Teams
Ma, L. M., IJtsma, M., Feigh, K. M., & Pritchett, A. R. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3522581 · Cited by 27
Tenhundfeld, N. L., Demir, M., & de Visser, E. J. (2022) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/15553434221096261 · Cited by 27
FOCUS AND MODALITY: DEFINING A ROADMAP TO FUTURE AI-HUMAN TEAMING IN DESIGN
McComb, C., Boatwright, P., & Cagan, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the Design Society · doi:10.1017/pds.2023.191 · Cited by 26
AI as a Team Member: Redefining Collaboration
Tummala, V., Burris-Melville, T. S., & Eskridge, T. C. (2025) · Journal of Leadership Studies · doi:10.1002/jls.70003 · Cited by 26
Human-Centered Human-AI Collaboration (HC-HAC)
Gao, Q., Xu, W., Pan, H., Shen, M., & Gao, Z. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-5585-7_7 · Cited by 26
Zhang, X., Sun, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2021.3116115 · Cited by 26
Attig, C., Wollstadt, P., Schrills, T., Franke, T., & Wiebel-Herboth, C. B. (2024) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3613905.3650853 · Cited by 26
Selective Trust: Understanding Human-AI Partnerships in Personal Health Decision-Making Process
van Arum, S., Genç, H. U., Reidsma, D., & Karahanoğlu, A. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713462 · Cited by 24
How emerging technologies shape the future of work
Blanc, P. M. L., Ulfert, A., Peeters, M. C. W., Rispens, S., & Scherer, S. (2024) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2024.2324937 · Cited by 24
Li, M., Erickson, I. M., Cross, E. V., & Lee, J. D. (2023) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208231166624 · Cited by 23
Validating metrics for reward alignment in human-autonomy teaming
Sanneman, L., & Shah, J. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107809 · Cited by 23
Capiola, A., Lyons, J. B., Harris, K. N., Hamdan, I. A., Kailas, S., & Sycara, K. P. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107966 · Cited by 22
Yu, R., Xu, X., & Peng, S. (2025) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2025.103745 · Cited by 22
Mensch-KI-Teaming: Mensch und Künstliche Intelligenz in der Arbeitswelt von morgen
Kluge, A., Ontrup, G., Langholf, V., & Wilkens, U. (2021) · Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb · doi:10.1515/zwf-2021-0112 · Cited by 22
Conversation dynamics in a multiplayer video game with knowledge asymmetry
Simpson, J., Nalepka, P., Kallen, R. W., Dras, M., Reichle, E. D., Hosking, S. G., Best, C. J., Richards, D., & Richardson, M. J. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1039431 · Cited by 22
Wohleber, R. W., Stowers, K. L., Barnes, M., & Chen, J. Y. C. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107866 · Cited by 22
Bocklisch, F., & Huchler, N. (2023) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1247755 · Cited by 22
Zhang, R., Duan, W., Flathmann, C., McNeese, N. J., Knijnenburg, B. P., & Freeman, G. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3686976 · Cited by 22
Self-citationYu, J. H., Wen, Q., & Xu, Q. (2023) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-06-2022-0292 · Cited by 21
Zhao, M., Eadeh, F. R., Nguyen, T. N., Gupta, P., Admoni, H., González, C., & Woolley, A. W. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107524 · Cited by 21
ChatCollab: Exploring Collaboration Between Humans and AI Agents in Software TeamsPreprint
Klieger, B., Charitsis, C., Suzara, M., Wang, S., Haber, N., & Mitchell, J. C. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.01992 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- O’Neill, T., McNeese, N., Barron, A., & Schelble, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
- Clemson University (US)
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-10-22
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 904-938
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- PMC
- PMC9284085
- OpenAlex
- W3093840653
- Cited by
- 695
- References
- 155
- Citations by year
- 2026: 225 · 2025: 174 · 2024: 120 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 8.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- TigerPrints (Clemson University) (submittedVersion)
- Sage Journals Data (cc-by)
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Keywords
- human-autonomy teaming, autonomous agents, team composition, task characteristics, individual differences, team training, team communication, team performance, human agency
- MeSH terms
- Communication, Humans
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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.
