Inhalt

•  
   Summary
•  
   Table of contents
•  
   Introduction
•  
   Theoretical Background
•  
   Intelligent Technologies as Co-Workers
•  
   Designing Robots to Enable Successful HRI
•  
  Intelligent Technologies as Supervisors
•  
   Justice in Organisations
•  
   Intelligent Technologies as Decision Agents
•  
   Differences Between Intelligent Technologies and Humans as Just Decision Agents
•  
   Aims and Outline of the Present Work
•  
   Study 1 – Let's Work Together: A Meta-Analysis on Robot Design Features that Enable Successful Human–Robot Interaction at Work
•  
   Study 2 – The Importance of Procedural Justice in Human–Machine Interactions: Intelligent Systems as New Decision Agents in Organizations
•  
   Study 3 – How Procedural Justice Works: Artificial Intelligence as New Decision Agent and the Mediation of Justice Effects
•  
   General Discussion
•  
   Theoretical Implications
•  
   Practical Implications
•  
   Strengths and Limitations
•  
   Directions for Future Research
•  
   Conclusion
•  
   References
•  
   Statement of Authorship
•  
  Dissertation Sonja Ötting_overview
•  
   Overview of Published and Submitted Work
•  
   Dissertation Sonja Ötting_Druck_vor der Prüfung
•  
   Manuscript of Study 3
•  
   How Procedural Justice Works in Organizations
•  
   How Procedural Justice Works for AI Decisions
•  
   Procedural Justice Mediation Differs Between Decision Agents
•  
   The Present Studies
•  
  Study 1
•  
  Method
•  
   Participants and Design
•  
   Procedure
•  
   Measures
•  
   Statistical Approach
•  
  Results
•  
   Preliminary Analyses
•  
   Descriptive Statistics
•  
   Mediation of Procedural Justice Effects
•  
   Moderated Mediation of Procedural Justice Effects
•  
   Discussion
•  
  Study 2
•  
  Method
•  
   Participants
•  
   Design, Procedure, and Measures
•  
  Results
•  
   Preliminary Analyses
•  
   Descriptive Statistics
•  
   Mediation of Procedural Justice Effects
•  
   Moderated Mediation of Procedural Justice Effects
•  
   Discussion
•  
   General Discussion
•  
   Theoretical Implications
•  
   Practical Implications
•  
   Limitations and Directions for Further Research
•  
   Conclusion
•  
   References
•  
    
•  
   CI
•  
   SE
•  
   ab
•  
   CI
•  
   SE
•  
   ab
•  
   CI
•  
   SE
•  
   ab
•  
   CI
•  
   SE
•  
   ab
•  
   Mediator
•  
   Study 1
•  
   [-0.15, -0.01]
•  
   .03
•  
   -0.07
•  
   [0.10, 0.24]
•  
   .04
•  
   0.17
•  
   [0.22, 0.39]
•  
   .04
•  
   0.31
•  
   [0.47, 0.75]
•  
   .07
•  
   0.60
•  
   Total
•  
   [-0.00, 0.08]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.04
•  
   [-0.00, 0.06]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.03
•  
   [0.02, 0.11]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.06
•  
   [0.01, 0.11]
•  
   .03
•  
   0.05
•  
   Pos. affect 
•  
   [-0.16, -0.05]
•  
   .03
•  
   -0.10
•  
   [0.03, 0.12]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.07
•  
   [-0.03, 0.05]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.01
•  
   [0.02, 0.14]
•  
   .03
•  
   0.08
•  
   Neg. affect
•  
   [-0.07, 0.08]
•  
   .04
•  
   0.01
•  
   [-0.03, 0.08]
•  
   .03
•  
   0.02
•  
   [0.09, 0.21]
•  
   .03
•  
   0.15
•  
   [0.27, 0.49]
•  
   .06
•  
   0.38
•  
   Trust
•  
   [-0.06, 0.00]
•  
   .01
•  
   -0.03
•  
   [0.02, 0.08]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.05
•  
   [0.04, 0.14]
•  
   .03
•  
   0.09
•  
   [0.04, 0.15]
•  
   .03
•  
   0.09
•  
   Identification
•  
   Study 2
•  
   [-0.32, -0.11]
•  
   .05
•  
   -0.21
•  
   [0.10, 0.34]
•  
   .06
•  
   0.21
•  
   [0.35, 0.64]
•  
   .07
•  
   0.49
•  
   [0.62, 1.02]
•  
   .10
•  
   0.82
•  
   Total
•  
   [-0.09, 0.08]
•  
   .04
•  
   0.00
•  
   [-0.03, 0.19]
•  
   .05
•  
   0.08
•  
   [0.07, 0.22]
•  
   .04
•  
   0.14
•  
   [0.01, 0.26]
•  
   .06
•  
   0.13
•  
   Pos. affect
•  
   [-0.26, -0.06]
•  
   .05
•  
   -0.15
•  
   [-0.02, 0.14]
•  
   .04
•  
   0.05
•  
   [-0.15, 0.08]
•  
   .06
•  
   -0.04
•  
   [0.08, 0.40]
•  
   .08
•  
   0.23
•  
   Neg. affect
•  
   [-0.12, 0.09]
•  
   .05
•  
   -0.02
•  
   [-0.05, 0.17]
•  
   .06
•  
   0.05
•  
   [0.10, 0.38]
•  
   .07
•  
   0.24
•  
   [0.21, 0.54]
•  
   .09
•  
   0.38
•  
   Trust
•  
   [-0.11, 0.02]
•  
   .03
•  
   -0.04
•  
   [-0.04, 0.09]
•  
   .03
•  
   0.02
•  
   [0.08, 0.24]
•  
   .04
•  
   0.15
•  
   [-0.02, 0.19]
•  
   .05
•  
   0.08
•  
   Identification
•  
   Table 5
•  
   Pairwise comparisons of the indirect effects of the moderator groups: Study 1
•  
    Level of Moderator
•  
   SE
•  
   ab
•  
   SE
•  
   ab
•  
   SE
•  
   ab
•  
   SE
•  
   ab
•  
   CI
•  
   CI
•  
   CI
•  
   CI
•  
   Mediator
•  
   [-0.00, 0.08]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.04
•  
   [-0.00, 0.06]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.03
•  
   [0.02, 0.11]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.06
•  
   [0.01, 0.11]
•  
   .03
•  
   0.05
•  
   Pos. affect
•  
   .04
•  
   .03
•  
   .03
•  
   .04
•  
   [-0.20, -0.05]
•  
   -0.12
•  
   [0.04, 0.15]
•  
   0.09
•  
   [-0.04, 0.06]
•  
   0.01
•  
   [0.03, 0.18]
•  
   0.10
•  
   Human
•  
   [-0.19, -0.05]
•  
   .04
•  
   -0.11
•  
   [0.03, 0.13]
•  
   .03
•  
   0.08
•  
   [-0.04, 0.06]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.01
•  
   [0.02, 0.17]
•  
   .04
•  
   0.09
•  
   Humanoid
•  
   Neg. affect
•  
   .03
•  
   .02
•  
   .01
•  
   .02
•  
   [-0.11, 0.00]
•  
   -0.05
•  
   [-0.00, 0.08]
•  
   0.03
•  
   [-0.02, 0.03]
•  
   0.00
•  
   [-0.00, 0.09]
•  
   0.04
•  
   Android
•  
   [-0.09, 0.11]
•  
   .05
•  
   0.02
•  
   [-0.04, 0.11]
•  
   .04
•  
   0.03
•  
   [0.13, 0.30]
•  
   .05
•  
   0.21
•  
   [0.05, 0.21]
•  
   .04
•  
   0.12
•  
   Human
•  
   .02
•  
   .02
•  
   [-0.04, 0.05]
•  
   0.01
•  
   [-0.02, 0.05]
•  
   0.01
•  
   [0.03, 0.16]
•  
   .03
•  
   0.09
•  
   [0.01, 0.19]
•  
   .04
•  
   0.09
•  
   Humanoid
•  
   Trust
•  
   [-0.04, 0.06]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.01
•  
   [-0.02, 0.05]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.01
•  
   .03
•  
   [-0.06, 0.12]
•  
   .05
•  
   0.03
•  
   Android
•  
   [0.04, 0.16]
•  
   0.09
•  
   Note: N = 229. DA = decision agent; ContrastDA1: 2/3 = human, -1/3 = humanoid, -1/3 = machinelike; ContrastDA2: 0 = human, 1/2 = humanoid, -1/2 = machinelike; Diff. = difference between indirect effects; CI = bias-corrected 95% bootstrap confidence in...
•  
   .02
•  
   [-0.08, 0.00]
•  
   -0.04
•  
   [0.02, 0.12]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.06
•  
   [0.05, 0.20]
•  
   .04
•  
   0.12
•  
   [0.39, 0.69]
•  
   .08
•  
   0.53
•  
   Human
•  
   [-0.07, 0.00]
•  
   .02
•  
   -0.03
•  
   .02
•  
   .04
•  
   .08
•  
   Humanoid
•  
   Identification
•  
   [0.01, 0.10]
•  
   0.05
•  
   [0.01, 0.18]
•  
   0.09
•  
   [0.08, 0.39]
•  
   0.23
•  
   [-0.04, 0.02]
•  
   .01
•  
   -0.01
•  
   [-0.03, 0.07]
•  
   .02
•  
   0.01
•  
   [-0.06, 0.11]
•  
   .04
•  
   0.03
•  
   [0.09, 0.38]
•  
   .07
•  
   0.23
•  
   Android
•  
   Table 5
•  
   Pairwise comparisons of the indirect effects of the moderator groups: Study 1
•  
   Note: N = 229. DA = decision agent; ContrastDA1: 2/3 = human, -1/3 = humanoid, -1/3 = machinelike; ContrastDA2: 0 = human, 1/2 = humanoid, -1/2 = machinelike; Diff. = difference between indirect effects; CI = bias-corrected 95% bootstrap confidence in...
•  
   Table 7
•  
   Pairwise comparisons of the indirect effects of the moderator groups: Study 2
•  
   Table 5
•  
   Pairwise comparisons of the indirect effects of the moderator groups: Study 1
•  
   Note: N = 229. DA = decision agent; ContrastDA1: 2/3 = human, -1/3 = humanoid, -1/3 = machinelike; ContrastDA2: 0 = human, 1/2 = humanoid, -1/2 = machinelike; Diff. = difference between indirect effects; CI = bias-corrected 95% bootstrap confidence in...
•  
   Table 10
•  
   Difference Tests of the Indirect Effects of the Two Alternative Moderators
•  
   Note: N = 132. Index = index of moderated mediation; CI = bias-corrected 95% bootstrap confidence interval, 10,000 bootstrap samples, CIs not including zero are printed in bold.
•  
   Appendix A
•  
   Printed on non-ageing paper ISO 9706