Table A2

Overview of empirical studies

Author/YearResearch approachPurposeTheory/Perspective/ModelNationalitySample and size (n = )
Bárcia De Mattos et al. (2021) Qualitative: InterviewsEffects of automation on employment and reshoring to determine implications for supply chain management and productionSupply chain management perspectiveUS, Europe & AsiaWorkers from 5 factories (n = 8)
Birkel et al. (2019) Qualitative: InterviewsDevelopment of a risk framework for Industry 4.0 in the context of sustainabilityRisk assessment theoryGermanyManagers in manufacturing sector (n = 14)
Brougham and Haar (2018) Mixed methods: Survey and open-ended questionDetermined worker’s awareness of Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Algorithms (STARA) and effects on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, turnover intention, cynicism and depressionOrganizational commitment theoryNew ZealandGeneral working population (n = 120)
Chao et al. (2017) Experimental study (lab controlled)Explored the effects of three-dimensional virtual reality and traditional training methods on mental workload and training performance in complex maintenance tasksCognitive theoriesChinaStudents (n = 48)
Cunha et al. (2022) Qualitative: Inductive approachEffects of automation on body techniquesPhysical ErgonomicsPortugalWorkers in Cork manufacturing (n = 12)
Egana-delSol et al. (2022) Quantitative comparative analysisAssessed the risk of automation for female and male workers in four Latin American countries – Bolivia, Chile, Colombia and El SalvadorTask based approachLatin AmericaWorkers from 4 Latin American countries (n = 6,602)
Fornino and Manera (2022) Quantitative modelingAutomation and the future of work: Assessing the role of labor flexibilityTask based approachUSVarious manufacturing industries (not available)
Gangwar and Date (2016) Quantitative: SurveyCritical factors of cloud computing adoption in organizations: An empirical studyTechnology Acceptance Model (TAM)IndiaWorkers in various manufacturing companies (n = 280)
Gerdenitsch et al. (2022) Mixed methods:Experimental (lab controlled) and semi-structured interviewsWorkers' experiences of sense of autonomy with AR-based assistance systemsJob Characteristics modelAustriaGeneral population and students (n = 117)
Ghadimi et al. (2022) Quantitative: SurveyAn analysis and prioritization of risks in Irish industry with implementation of industry 4.0 in manufacturingNot identifiedIrelandProfessionals in manufacturing industry (n = 12)
Gong et al. (2019) Experimental task and questionnaireDetermined effects of virtual reality support to factory layout planningNot identifiedSwedenWorkers (n = 49)
Hopko and Mehta (2022) Experimental study (Lab controlled)Determined trust in shared-space collaborative robots from a neuroscience perspectiveNeuroergonomicsUSEngineering students (n = 16)
Hopko et al. (2023) Experimental (lab controlled): Physiological/Neurological (HRV & ECG)Physiological and perceptual consequences of trust in collaborative robotsNeuroergonomicsUSEngineering students (n = 16)
Keller et al. (2020) Experimental study (lab controlled)Determined the effect of digital assistance on process complexity and employee competence in industrial assemblyNot identifiedGermanyStudents in Technical fields (n = 30)
Kumar et al. (2022) Quantitative: SurveyDeveloped a framework for assessing social acceptability of industry 4.0 technologies for the development of digital manufacturingTheory of socio-technical transition (TSTT) and social cognition theory (SCT)IndiaExperts in manufacturing sector (n = 125)
Lasota and Shah (2015) Experimental study (lab controlled) and questionnairesThe effects of human-aware motion planning on team fluency, human satisfaction, and perceived safety and comfortNot identifiedUSStudents/Post graduates in Technical fields (n = 20)
Lordan and Stringer (2022) Quantitative: SurveyJob automation risk on mental health and life satisfactionMental health modelAustraliaGeneral working population (n = 41,923)
Lowe et al. (2022) Case studiesLooked at influence of industrial robots and automation on type of injuries, productivity and worker acceptanceOccupational Health & SafetyUSWorkers (n = 63)
Marinescu et al. (2023) Experimental study (lab controlled) and questionnairesPeople’s perceptions of digital technologies in manufacturing as positive or negative (utopian vs dystopian)Human factors and ErgonomicsUKAdults of general population (varying degrees of knowledge of manufacturing field) (n = 134)
Marques et al. (2022) Qualitative: Participatory and focus groupProblem-solving abilities and level of technological literacy in collaboration with Augmented realityNot identifiedPortugalExperienced specialists in manufacturing field + professor + PhD student (n = 9)
Matsas and Vosniakos (2017) Experimental study (lab controlled) and questionnairesThe effects of a virtual reality training system for human–robot collaboration in manufacturing tasksNot identifiedGreeceMechanical engineering student (n = 30)
Meissner et al. (2020) Qualitative: Semi-structured interviewsLooked at assembly workers' level of acceptance of human–robot collaborationTheory of reasoned action (TRA) and Theory of planned behavior (TPB)GermanyWorkers from 4 manufacturing companies (n = 17)
Nakanishi and Sato (2015) Experimental study (lab controlled) and questionnairesLooked at behavioral, physiological, and psychological effects on workers in application of digital manuals with a retinal imaging display in manufacturingInformation-processing theoryJapanUniversity students (n = 29)
Palumbo et al. (2022) Quantitative: QuestionnairesPsychosocial risks at work with regards to various digital technologiesOrganizational Health & Safety, Organizational excellence theoryEuropean countriesWorkers/Personnel from service and manufacturing sectors (n = 5,673)
Panchetti et al. (2023) Experimental and QuestionnairesThe relationship between cognitive workload, workstation design, user acceptance and trust in collaborative robotsTechnology acceptance model (TAM), Cognitive ergonomicsItalyAcademic personnel part of Smart Lab (n = 14)
Papetti et al. (2020) Experimental, postural and physiological measuresLooked at workers' well-being in human-centered connected factoriesHuman factors/ErgonomicsItalyOperators in manufacturing sectors (n = 2)
Papetti et al. (2021) Case studyErgonomic manufacturing equipment through a human-centered methodologyHuman factors/Ergonomics The Human, Technology, Organisation (HTO) modelItalyOperators in manufacturing sectors (not available)
Thylén et al. (2023) Case studiesChallenges in introducing automated guided vehicles in a production facilityIt builds on socio-technical systems theory and includes three separate subsystems: human, technical, and organizational and it facilitates understanding of the interactions between themSwedenOperators, team leaders and engineers (n = 17)
Wixted et al. (2018) Quantitative: QuestionnairesDistress and worry as mediators in the relationship between psychosocial risks and upper body musculoskeletal complaints in highly automated manufacturingPhysical Ergonomics, Job demand control theoryIrelandWorkers in manufacturing sectors (n = 235)

Source(s): Author’s own creation/work

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal