| A series of studies are conducted to investigate differences in trust and advice processes in human-human versus human-automation communication. Study I investigates phenomenon that lead to the discounting of automated advice. Study II introduces the manipulation of advisor replacement, such as a human being replaced by automation. Study III manipulates the decision-making task. Results show that human-decision makers are generally less happy receiving advice from automated advisors and perceive automated advisors as lower quality. Furthermore, humans judge automated advisors more harshly than human advisors after the issuance of bad advice. Additionally, the replacement of a human advisor by an automated advisor is found to exaggerate these effects. Results are situated in several theoretical lenses and used to inform emergent theory comparing mortals versus machines. |
