The purpose of the current work was to clarify how subjective trust determines response behavior when interacting with a signaling system.
Background:
In multiple theoretical frameworks, trust is acknowledged as a prime mediator between system error characteristics and automation dependence. Some researchers have operationally defined trust as the behavior exhibited. Other researchers have suggested that although trust may guide operator responses, trust does not completely determine the behavior.
Method:
Forty-four participants interacted with a primary flight simulation task and a secondary signaling system task. The signaling system varied in reliability (90%, 60%) and error bias (false alarm, miss prone). Trust was measured halfway through the experimental session to address the criterion of temporal precedence in determining the effect of trust on behavior.
Results:
Analyses indicated that trust partially mediated the relationship between reliability and agreement rate. Trust did not mediate the relationship between reliability and reaction time. Trust also did not mediate the relationships between error bias and reaction time or agreement rate. Analyses of variance generally supported specific behavioral and trust hypotheses, indicating that the paradigm employed produced similar effects on response behaviors and subjective estimates of trust observed in other studies.
Conclusion:
These results indicate that strong assumptions of trust acting as the prime mediator between system error characteristics and response behaviors should be viewed with caution.
Application:
Practitioners should consider assessing factors other than trust to determine potential operator response behaviors, which may be more predictive.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
3.
BlissJ. P.ChanceyE. (2010). The effects of alarm system reliability and reaction training strategy on alarm responses. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting (pp. 2248–2252). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
4.
BlissJ. P.DunnM. C. (2000). Behavioural implications of alarm mistrust as a function of task workload. Ergonomics, 43, 1283–1300.
5.
BlissJ. P.DunnM.FullerB. S. (1995). Reversal of the cry-wolf effect: An investigation of two methods to increase alarm response rates. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38, 1231–1242.
6.
BlissJ. P.GilsonR. D. (1998). Emergency signal failure: Implications and recommendations. Ergonomics, 41, 57–72.
7.
BlissJ. P.GilsonR. D.DeatonJ. E. (1995). Human probability matching behavior in response to alarms of varying reliability. Ergonomics, 38, 2300–2312.
8.
BreznitzS. (1984). Cry wolf: The psychology of false alarms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
BustamanteE. A. (2009). A reexamination of the mediating effect of trust among alarm systems’ characteristics and human compliance and reliance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting (pp. 249–253). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
10.
ChanceyE. T.ProapsA.BlissJ. P. (2013). The role of trust as a mediator between signaling system reliability and response behaviors. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting (pp. 285–289). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
11.
DixonS. R.WickensC. D. (2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48, 474–486.
12.
DixonS. R.WickensC. D.McCarleyJ. S. (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses?Human Factors, 49, 564–572.
13.
GettyD. J.SwetsJ. A.PickettR. M.GonthierD. (1995). System operator response to warnings of danger: A laboratory investigation of the effects of the predictive value of a warning on human response time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 19–33.
14.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.
15.
HoaglinD.C.IglewiczB. (1987). Fine tuning some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of American Statistical Association, 82, 1147–1149.
16.
HollandsJ. G.NeyedliH. F. (2011). A reliance model for automated combat identification systems: Implications for trust in automation. In StantonN. (Ed.), Trust in military teams (pp. 151–182). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
17.
JianJ.BisantzA. M.DruryC. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(53), 53–71.
18.
LeeJ.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.
19.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 40, 153–184.
20.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.
21.
LeesM. N.LeeJ. D. (2007). The influence of distraction and driving context on driver response to imperfect collision warning systems. Ergonomics, 50, 1264–1286.
22.
MacKinnonD. P.KrullJ. L.LockwoodC. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding, and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.
23.
MadhavanP.WiegmannD. A. (2007). Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 277–301.
24.
MaxwellS. E.DelaneyH. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
25.
MeredithC.EdworthyJ. (1995). Are there too many alarms in the intensive care unit? An overview of the problems. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 15–20.
26.
MeyerJ. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43, 563–572.
27.
MorayN.InagakiT.ItohM. (2000). Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 44–58.
28.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
29.
ParasuramanR.WickensC. D. (2008). Humans: Still vital after all these years of automation. Human Factors, 50, 511–520.
30.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.
31.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
32.
PritchettA. R. (2001). Reviewing the role of cockpit alerting systems. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 1, 5–38.
33.
RiceS. (2009). Examining single- and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. Journal of General Psychology, 13, 303–319.
34.
RiceS.TrafimowD.HuntG.KellerD. (2010). We don’t dislike the alarm: We dislike complying with the alarm. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 6, 93–105.
35.
Santiago-EspadaY.MyerR. R.LatorellaK. A.ComstockJ. R. (2011). The Multi-Attribute Task Battery II (MATB-II) software for human performance and workload research: A user’s guide. Hampton, VA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center.
36.
ShroutP. E.BolgerN. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.
37.
SorkinR. D. (1988). Why are people turning off our alarms?Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 1107–1108.
38.
WangL.JamiesonG. A.HollandsJ. G. (2009). Trust and reliance on an automated combat identification system. Human Factors, 51, 281–291.
39.
WickensC. D.DixonS. R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 201–212.
40.
WiczorekR.ManzeyD. (2010). Is operators’ compliance with alarm systems a product of rational consideration? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting (pp. 1722–1726). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
41.
WiegmannD. A.RichA.ZhangH. (2001). Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users’ trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 2, 352–367.
