TÜRKİYE HIZLI TÜKETİM MALLARI SEKTÖRÜNDE İNSAN-ROBOT İŞBİRLİĞİ GÜVEN MODELLERİNDE GELIŞTIRICININ ROLÜNÜN KEŞFİ: BİR VAKA ÇALIŞMASI

Fallett, Jonathon, Designing for emerging technologies: UX for Genomics, Robotics, and The Internet of Things, ISBN-13: 978-1449370510, 2014

Odważny F., Szymańska O., Cyplik P., 2018. Smart Factory: The requirements for implementation of the Industry4.0 solutions in FMCG environment – case study. LogForum 14 (2), 257-267,

R.R. Murphy, T. Nomura, A. Billard, J.L. BurkeHuman–robot interaction

IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 17 (2) (2010), pp. 85-89

H.A. Yanco, J.L. Drury A taxonomy for human-robot interaction Proceedings of the AAAI fall symposium on human-robot interaction (2002), pp. 111-119

Model Checking of Security Properties: A Case Study on Human-Robot Interaction Processes Farulla, GA (Farulla, Giuseppe Airo) ; Lamprecht, AL (Lamprecht, Anna-Lena) 2017 12th IEEE International Conference On Design & Technology Of Integrated Systems In Nanoscale Era (Dtis 2017) Univ Balearic Isl, Palma de Mallorca, SPAIN Date: APR 04-06, 2017

Inaki Maurtua, Aitor Ibarguren, Johan Kildal, Loreto Susperregi and Basilio Sierra

Human–robot collaboration in industrial applications: Safety, interaction and trust

International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems July-August 2017: 1–10

Michael Lewis, Katia Sycara and PhillipWalker, The Role of Trust in Human-Robot Interaction 2018, H. A. Abbass et al. (eds.), Foundations of Trusted Autonomy, Studies in Systems, Decision and Control 117, Mutlu B., Roy N., Šabanović S. (2016) Cognitive Human–Robot Interaction. In: Siciliano B., Khatib O. (eds) Springer Handbook of Robotics. Springer Handbooks. Springer, Cham

Raja Parasuraman,Victor Riley, Humans&automation : Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors: The Journal of he Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39(2), 230–253 (1997)

Peter A. Hancock, Kimberly L. Stowers, Theresa T. Kessler University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, United States 2019, Can We Trust Autonomous Systems?

McKnight, D. & Chervany, Norman. (1996). The Meanings of Trust.

Gambetta, D. (1988), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Mcknight, D. Harrison, Chervany,Norman L., The Meanings Of Trust, University Of Minnesota 1996

Modeling Trust in Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey (Khavas, Zahra Rezaei; Ahmadzadeh, S. Reza; Robinette, Paul (2020)

A. Xu and G. Dudek. Towards modeling real-time trust in asymmetric human-robot collaborations. In Int. Sym. on Robotics Research (ISRR'13), 2013.

Chen, M., Nikolaidis, S., Soh, H., Hsu, D., Srinivasa, S.: Planning with trust for human-robot collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE Intl Conf on HRI. pp. 307–315 (2018)

Khavas, Zahra Rezaei; Perkins, Russell; Robinette, Paul, Trust Calibration and Trust Respect: A Method for Building Team Cohesion in Human Robot Teams, 2021

Okamura, K.; and Yamada, S. 2020a. Calibrating Trust in Human-Drone Cooperative Navigation. In 2020 29th IEEE Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 1274–1279.

de Visser, E.; Cohen, M.; Freedy, A.; and Parasuraman, R. 2014. A Design Methodology for Trust Cue Calibration in Cognitive Agents. volume 8525, 251–262. ISBN 978-3- 319-07457-3.

Rauch, A., van Doorn, R., & Hulsink, W. (2014). A Qualitative Approach to Evidence–Based Entrepreneurship: Theoretical Considerations and an Example Involving Business Clusters. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 333-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12093

Unilever web sitesi: https://www.unilever.com.tr/our-company/, Unilever Türkiye 2025

Madeleine Akrich, Michel Callon, Bruno Latour. A quoi tient le succès des innovations L’art de l’intéressement; 2 : Le choix des porte-parole. Gérer et Comprendre. Annales des Mines, 1988, 11 & 12, pp.4-17 & 14-29. ffhalshs-00081741

Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psy

Kuorikoski J, Marchionni C. Evidential Variety and Mixed-Methods Research in Social Science. Philosophy of Science. 2023;90(5):1449-1458. doi:10.1017/psa.2023.34

Busetto, L., Wick, W. & Gumbinger, C. How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurol. Res. Pract. 2, 14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z

Kumar, Manoj. (2022). Classification of Research Design: Descriptive, Diagnostic, Exploratory and Experimental.

Diagnostic research in support of innovation J. Jiggins Pages 115-121 | Received 30 Sep 2011, Accepted 23 Jun 2012, Published online: 24 Mar 2022

Gordon Baxter, Ian Sommerville, Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering, Interacting with Computers, Volume 23, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 4–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003

Jong, Bart & Dirks, Kurt & Gillespie, Nicole. (2016). Trust and Team Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Main Effects, Moderators and Covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology. 101. 10.1037/apl0000110.

Earl R. Babbie, Champan University The Basics of Social Research 5th Edition, 2011 ISBN-13: 978-0-495-81224-1

Priya, A. (2021). Case Study Methodology of Qualitative Research: Key Attributes and Navigating the Conundrums in Its Application. Sociological Bulletin, 70(1), 94-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022920970318

Ramos, R. (2014). Meta-analysis. In: Michalos, A.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_1794

Kumar, Manoj. (2022). Classification of Research Design: Descriptive, Diagnostic, Exploratory and Experimental.

Salem, M., Lakatos, G., Amirabdollahian, F., & Dautenhahn, K. (2015). Would you trust a (faulty) robot?: Effects of error, task type and personality on human-robot cooperation and trust. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 141-148). Hatfield, UK: ACM.

De Visser, E., & Parasuraman, R. (2011). Adaptive aiding of human-robot teaming: Effects of imperfect automation on performance, trust, and workload. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 5, 209–231.

Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., & Schaefer, K. E. (2011). Can you trust your robot? Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 19, 24–29.

Lyons, J. (2013). Trust and Influence. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)

Schaefer, K. E., Billings, D. R., Szalma, J. L., Adams, J. K., Sanders, T. L., Chen, J. Y., & Hancock, P. A. (2014). A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: Implications for human-robot interaction (No. ARL-TR-6984). Army Research Lab, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Human Research Engineering Directorate.

Kessler, T. T., Larios, C., Walker, T., Yerdon, V., & Hancock, P. A. (2017). A comparison of trust measures in human–robot interaction scenarios. In Advances in human factors in robots and unmanned systems (pp. 353–364). Springer.

J. D. Lee and K. A. See, "Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance," Human Factors, vol. 46, pp. 50-80, 2004.

Ososky, S., Schuster, D., Phillips, E., & Jentsch, F. G. (2013). Building appropriate trust in human-robot teams. In AAAI Spring Symposium Series (pp. 60–65). AAAI.

P. A. Hancock , University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA, and Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA, Theresa T. Kessler, Alexandra D. Kaplan, University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA, John C. Brill, United States Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, USA, and James L. Szalma, University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

, Evolving Trust in Robots: Specification Through Sequential and Comparative Meta-Analyses

Moyano, F., Fernandez-Gago, C., Lopez, J. (2012). A Conceptual Framework for Trust Models. In: Fischer-Hübner, S., Katsikas, S., Quirchmayr, G. (eds) Trust, Privacy and Security in Digital Business. TrustBus 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7449. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32287-7_8

D. Cameron, E. C. Collins, User, Robot, Deployer: A New Model for Measuring Trust in HRI. UK, 2021

A positioning paper by the International Federation of Robotics, April 2017

https://ifr.org/img/office/IFR_The_Impact_of_Robots_on_Employment.pdf

World Robotics 2022 by the International Federation of Robotics, October 2022

https://ifr.org/downloads/press2018/2022_WR_extended_version.pdf

Cynthia S. Franklin, Patricia A. Cody, Michelle Ballan, 2010, The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods, Chapter 19 Page 354, Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research

A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing ConstructsAuthor(s): Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr.Source: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Feb., 1979), pp. 64-73

N. Amira M. Saffie, Nur ‘Amirah Mohd Shukor, Khairul A. Rasmani

Fuzzy delphi method: Issues and challenges. LISS 2016: 1-7

Likert, Rensis (1932). "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes". Archives of Psychology. 140: 1–55.

Pritha Bhandari and Kassiani Nikolopoulou. 2023, | Guide & Examples Published on July 3, 2020 by Revised on June 22, 2023.

Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Mudge, Suzie & Kayes, Nicola & Stavric, Verna & Channon, Alexis & Kersten, Paula & Mcpherson, Kathryn. (2013). Living well with disability: Needs, values and competing factors. The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity. 10. 100. 10.1186/1479-5868-10-100.