Abstract
Advancing automation in many technical areas (mobility, production, medicine, etc.) is accompanied by new challenges for the interaction between humans and technical systems. Trust in automation is a key element for the use of technology and for compliance with its recommendations. This also applies to decision support systems (DSS) in the production domain. These can make the increasing complexity of production processes and networks manageable but can lead to serious financial losses in case of error as well. The present study addresses the restoring of trust in those DSS after a failure. In an exploratory two-stage approach, interviews were used to identify user requirements for trust restoring measures, followed by a questionnaire study including a business simulation game to quantify those measures in an exemplary manner. Preliminary results suggest that trust can only be restored to a very limited extent by specific intervention measures, but that systems must laboriously rebuild trust by long-term error-free functioning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Gorry, G.A., Morton, M.S.S.: A framework for management information systems. Sloan Manag. Rev. 13, 50–70 (1971)
Burstein, F., Holsapple, C.: Handbook on Decision Support Systems 1. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
de Vries, P., Midden, C., Bouwhuis, D.: The effects of errors on system trust, self-confidence, and the allocation of control in route planning. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 58, 719–735 (2003)
Brauner, P., Calero Valdez, A., Philipsen, R., Ziefle, M.: Defective still deflective – how correctness of decision support systems influences user’s performance in production environments. In: HCI in Business, Government, and Organizations: Information Systems, pp. 16–27. Springer, Cham (2016)
Rovira, E., McGarry, K., Parasuraman, R.: Effects of imperfect automation on decision making in a simulated command and control task. Hum. Factors 49(1), 76–87 (2007)
Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors 46, 50–80 (2004)
Parasuraman, R., Riley, V.: Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 39, 230–253 (1997)
Brauner, P., Calero Valdez, A., Philipsen, R., Ziefle, M.: How correct and defect decision support systems influence trust, compliance, and performance in supply chain and quality management. LNCS, pp. 333–348 (2017)
Schweitzer, M.E., Hershey, J.C., Bradlow, E.T.: Promises and lies: restoring violated trust. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 101(1), 1–19 (2006)
Vasalou, A., Hopfensitz, A., Pitt, J.V.: In praise of forgiveness: ways for repairing trust breakdowns in one-off online interactions. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 66(6), 466–480 (2008)
Tomlinson, E.C., Mryer, R.C.: The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34(1), 85–104 (2009)
Tschannen-Moran, M.: Collaboration and the need for trust. J. Educ. Adm. 39(4), 308–331 (2001)
Gillespie, N., Dietz, G.: Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34(1), 127–145 (2009)
Johnson, J.D., Sanchez, J., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A.: Type of automation failure: the effects on trust and reliance in automation. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 48, no. 18, pp. 2163–2167. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2014)
Lewandowsky, S., Mundy, M., Tan, G.: The dynamics of trust: comparing humans to automation. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 6(2), 104 (2000)
Kim, P.H., Dirks, K.T., Cooper, C., Ferrin, D.L.: When more blame is better than less: the implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 99, 49–65 (2006)
Quinn, D.B., Pak, R., de Visser, E.J.: Testing the efficacy of human-human trust repair strategies with machines. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 1794–1798. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2017)
Robinette, P., Wagner, A.R., Howard, A.M.: Investigating human-robot trust in emergency scenarios: methodological lessons learned. In: Robust Intelligence and Trust in Autonomous Systems, pp. 143–166. Springer, Boston (2016)
Buchholz, V., Kulms, P., Kopp, S.: It’s (Not) Your Fault! Blame and Trust Repair in Human-Agent Cooperation. Kognitive Systeme 1 (2017)
Philipsen, R., Brauner, P., Stiller, S., Ziefle, M., Schmitt, R.: The role of human factors in production networks and quality management. In: International Conference on HCI in Business, pp. 80–91. Springer, Cham (2014)
Brauner, P., Philipsen, R., Fels, A., Fuhrmann, M., Ngo, Q.H., Stiller, S., Schmitt, R., Ziefle, M.: A game-based approach to raise quality awareness in ramp-up processes. Qual. Manag. J. 23, 55–69 (2016)
Karrer, K., Glaser, C., Clemens, C., Bruder, C.: Technikaffinität erfassen – der Fragebogen TA-EG. Mensch Mittelpunkt techn. Syst. 8, 196–201 (2009)
Beierlein, C., Kemper, C., Kovaleva, A.J., Rammstedt, B.: Interpersonales Vertrauen (KUSIV3). In: Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (2014)
Schuler, H., Prochaska, M.: Entwicklung und Konstruktvalidierung eines berufsbezogenen Leistungsmotivationstests. Diagnostica 46(2), 61–72 (2000)
Wagenmakers, E., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., Love, J., Selker, R., Gronau, Q.F., Šmíra, M., Epskamp, S., Matzke, D., Rouder, J., Morey, R.: Bayesian inference for psychology. part I: theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 25(1), 35–57 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1343-3
Chavaillaz, A., Wastell, D., Sauer, J.: System reliability, performance and trust in adaptable automation. Appl. Ergon. 52, 333–342 (2016)
Haselhuhn, M.P., Schweitzer, M.E., Wood, A.M.: How implicit beliefs influence trust recovery. Psychol. Sci. 21(5), 645–648 (2010)
Schlick, C., et al.: Cognition-enhanced, self-optimizing production networks. In: Integrative Production Technology, pp. 645–743. Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg (2017)
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the Cluster of Excellence „Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries” (EXC 128) and the Integrated Cluster Domain “Self-Optimizing Production Networks” [28] (ICD D1). The authors thank all participants for sharing opinions on a novel technology. Furthermore, thanks go to Christin Gatzka, Felix Glawe, Susanne Gohr, Nils Plettenberg, Lisanne Simons, and Jacqueline Bialas for their research support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Philipsen, R., Brauner, P., Valdez, A.C., Ziefle, M. (2019). Evaluating Strategies to Restore Trust in Decision Support Systems in Cross-Company Cooperation. In: Karwowski, W., Trzcielinski, S., Mrugalska, B., Di Nicolantonio, M., Rossi, E. (eds) Advances in Manufacturing, Production Management and Process Control. AHFE 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 793. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94196-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94196-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94195-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94196-7
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)