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
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
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?
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.”
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 [39]
Citations
Cites
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605
Self-citationThe role of trust in automation reliance
Dzindolet, M. T., Peterson, S. A., Pomranky, R. A., Pierce, L. G., & Beck, H. P. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00038-7 · Cited by 1,276
Automation Bias: Decision Making and Performance in High-Tech Cockpits
Mosier, K. L., Skitka, L. J., Heers, S., & Burdick, M. (1998) · The International Journal of Aviation Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0801_3 · Cited by 353
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Gao J., IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
- 10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00026-6 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199903)12:1<37::AID-BDM319>3.0.CO;2-8 · DOI
- Jarrett J. (1990). Business Forecasting Methods (Second ed.). 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
- 10.1016/S0305-0483(02)00048-8 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00085-5 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0305-0483(98)00069-3 · DOI
- 10.1080/16258312.2005.11517150 · DOI
- 10.1006/ijhc.1994.1007 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0167-9236(95)00009-7 · DOI
- 10.1002/bdm.3960080302 · DOI
- 10.1518/001872097778543886 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Gao, J., & Lee, J. D.
- Affiliations
- Intel (United States) (US)
- University of Iowa (US)
- ORCID
- Lee, John D.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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