Trust in hybrid human‐automated decision‐support

Research has examined trust in humans and automated decision support. Although reflecting a likely realization of support high-risk tasks such as personnel selection, hybrid human-automation teams thus far received limited attention. In two experiments (N1 = 170, N2 154) we compare trust, trustworthiness, trusting behavior for different types decision-support (automated, human, hybrid) across assessment contexts (personnel bonus payments). We additionally possible violation by presenting one group participants preselection that included predominantly male candidates, unfair bias. Whereas fully-automated decisions were trusted less, results suggest was similar to human-only Trust violations not perceived differently based on the type discuss theoretical (e.g., support) practical implications keeping loop prevent negative reactions).