Evaluating Strategies to Restore Trust in Decision Support Systems in Cross-Company Cooperation

  • Ralf PhilipsenEmail author
  • Philipp Brauner
  • André Calero Valdez
  • Martina Ziefle
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 793)


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.


Repairing trust in automation Decision Support Systems Failure management Cyber-physical production systems Human factors 



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.


  1. 1.
    Gorry, G.A., Morton, M.S.S.: A framework for management information systems. Sloan Manag. Rev. 13, 50–70 (1971)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burstein, F., Holsapple, C.: Handbook on Decision Support Systems 1. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors 46, 50–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parasuraman, R., Riley, V.: Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 39, 230–253 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tomlinson, E.C., Mryer, R.C.: The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34(1), 85–104 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tschannen-Moran, M.: Collaboration and the need for trust. J. Educ. Adm. 39(4), 308–331 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gillespie, N., Dietz, G.: Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34(1), 127–145 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lewandowsky, S., Mundy, M., Tan, G.: The dynamics of trust: comparing humans to automation. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 6(2), 104 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buchholz, V., Kulms, P., Kopp, S.: It’s (Not) Your Fault! Blame and Trust Repair in Human-Agent Cooperation. Kognitive Systeme 1 (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karrer, K., Glaser, C., Clemens, C., Bruder, C.: Technikaffinität erfassen – der Fragebogen TA-EG. Mensch Mittelpunkt techn. Syst. 8, 196–201 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beierlein, C., Kemper, C., Kovaleva, A.J., Rammstedt, B.: Interpersonales Vertrauen (KUSIV3). In: Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schuler, H., Prochaska, M.: Entwicklung und Konstruktvalidierung eines berufsbezogenen Leistungsmotivationstests. Diagnostica 46(2), 61–72 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chavaillaz, A., Wastell, D., Sauer, J.: System reliability, performance and trust in adaptable automation. Appl. Ergon. 52, 333–342 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haselhuhn, M.P., Schweitzer, M.E., Wood, A.M.: How implicit beliefs influence trust recovery. Psychol. Sci. 21(5), 645–648 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schlick, C., et al.: Cognition-enhanced, self-optimizing production networks. In: Integrative Production Technology, pp. 645–743. Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralf Philipsen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philipp Brauner
    • 1
  • André Calero Valdez
    • 1
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction CenterRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations