Cited by 8Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Shared Information on Trust and Reliance in a Demand Forecasting Task

Gao, Ji, Lee, John D.·2006·Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

Abstract

People have difficulty relying on forecasting systems appropriately, which can lead to huge business losses. Sharing information regarding the performance of forecasting systems may lead to more appropriate trust and reliance. This study considered imperfect forecasting systems and investigated how sharing such information influences people's trust and reliance. A simulated demand forecasting task required participants to provide an initial forecast, select and view a model forecast, and then determine their final forecast. Results showed that participants' reliance on a forecasting model strongly depended on their trust in the model, which was often inappropriate. With shared information, participants' reliance was more sensitive to changes of their trust in the model. However, when the shared information exposed instances of poor performance of the model, it diminished compliance with the selected model forecast, which undermined the accuracy of the final forecasts. These results suggest that sharing information may promote more appropriate reliance in situations in which people over trust automation, but not in situations in which people tend to under trust automation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/154193120605000302

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • Some authors use correlations between perceived trustworthiness and system capabilities to measure calibration; larger correlation indicates better calibration.

    “Some authors work with correlations to get a better sense of perceived trustworthiness and system capabilities [5,12,24,39,66,67,81,94,130,139,142].Here the larger the correlation between perceived trustworthiness and system capabilities, the better the calibration.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Gao J., IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
  2. 10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00026-6 · DOI
  3. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199903)12:1<37::AID-BDM319>3.0.CO;2-8 · DOI
  4. Jarrett J. (1990). Business Forecasting Methods (Second ed.). 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
  5. 10.1016/S0305-0483(02)00048-8 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00085-5 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/S0305-0483(98)00069-3 · DOI
  8. 10.1080/16258312.2005.11517150 · DOI
  9. 10.1006/ijhc.1994.1007 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1016/0167-9236(95)00009-7 · DOI
  11. 10.1002/bdm.3960080302 · DOI
  12. 10.1518/001872097778543886 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gao, J., & Lee, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Intel (United States) (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Published
2006-10
Volume
50
Issue
3
Pages
215-219
ISSN
  • 0163-5182 (ISSN-L)
  • 1071-1813
  • 2169-5067
OpenAlex
W2126720376
Cited by
8
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
trust in automation, demand forecasting, human-automation interaction, forecast accuracy

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