The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Judgment and Trust in Conjunction with Automated Decision Aids: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Investigation
Abstract
The importance of understanding and supporting human operators' judgment and decision-making has been recognized in a variety of contexts. Of interest in these systems is the extent to which operators utilize and trust such systems, particularly where operators do not have any means to access the environment directly. Operators' trust in automated decision aids is the critical component affecting their performance in estimating the environmental states. A model of human operators' judgment with automated decision aids was developed using the Lens Model framework. This model shows not only different characteristics of automated decision aids, but also the representation of operators' judgment policy. An empirical investigation on operators' judgment performance and trust in conjunction with automated decision aids is described in this research. Among the potential characteristics of such systems that may affect operators' judgment performance and trust, three aspects were controlled. Results provide strong support for factors in the theoretical framework and for identification of the types of information to increase the level of operators' understanding.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“However, need for trust in collaborative tasks might increase for situations of human-AI teaming, where the human team member is dependent on the performance of the system, such as [18,24,116] report.”
From Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [116]
In the citing paper
“Moreover, providing cognitive feedback information [117] or forcing users to critically assess the trustworthiness of a system, [12] improved the trust calibration.”
From Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [117]
In the citing paper
“In contrast to that, Robinette et al. [112] and Schelble et al. [116] found no efects of apologies on trust repair.”
From Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [116]
Citations
Cites
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95 · Cited by 3,146
Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems
LEE, J., & MORAY, N. (1992) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139208967392 · Cited by 1,459
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-2769 · Cited by 1,000
MUIR, B. M., & MORAY, N. (1996) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139608964474 · Cited by 993
MUIR, B. M. (1994) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139408964957 · Cited by 873
Bisantz, A. M., & Seong, Y. (2001) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/s0169-8141(01)00015-4 · Cited by 106
Self-citationBalzer, W. K., Sulsky, L. M., Hammer, L. B., & Sumner, K. E. (1992) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90053-a · Cited by 98
Trustworthiness of Command and Control Systems
Sheridan, T. B. (1988) · IFAC Proceedings Volumes · doi:10.1016/s1474-6670(17)53945-2 · Cited by 68
Implications of decision-making research for decision support and displays.
Morrison, J. G., Kelly, R. T., Moore, R. A., & Hutchins, S. G. (1998) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/10278-015 · Cited by 49
Llinas, J., Bisantz, A. M., Drury, C., Seong, Y., & Jian, J.-Y. (1998) · doi:10.21236/ada370937 · Cited by 17
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Seong Y., 2002, Modeling Human Operators' Judgment and Trust in Conjunction with Automated Decision Aids.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wischnewski, M., Krämer, N., & Müller, E. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581197 · Cited by 146
“Moreover, providing cognitive feedback information[117] or forcing users to critically assess the trustworthiness of a system, [12] improved the trust calibration.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBostrom, A., Demuth, J. L., Wirz, C. D., Cains, M. G., Schumacher, A., Madlambayan, D., Bansal, A. S., Bearth, A., Chase, R. J., Crosman, K. M., et al. (2023) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.14245 · Cited by 81
Bisantz, A. M., & Pritchett, A. R. (2003) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.45.2.266.27243 · Cited by 41
Self-citationBass, E., & Pritchett, A. (2008) · IEEE transactions on systems, man and cybernetics. Part A. Systems and humans · doi:10.1109/tsmca.2008.923068 · Cited by 38
Vereschak, O., Alizadeh, F., Bailly, G., & Caramiaux, B. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642018 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Seong, Y., Bisantz, A. M., & Bisantz, A. M.
- Affiliations
- University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
- ORCID
- Seong, Younho
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 423-427
- ISSN
- 0163-5182 (ISSN-L)
- 1071-1813
- 2169-5067
- OpenAlex
- W2070148426
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- automated decision aids, trust in automation, human judgment, operator performance, lens model, human-automation interaction
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Judgment and Trust in Conjunction with Automated Decision Aids: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Investigation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/154193120204600344
- The paper
- Seong, Y., Bisantz, A. M., & Bisantz, A. M. (2002). Judgment and Trust in Conjunction with Automated Decision Aids: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Investigation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120204600344
