The Effects of Design Features on Users’ Trust in and Reliance on a Combat Identification System

Abstract

In a previous study, we found that users’ trust in and reliance on an individual combat identification system is influenced by the system’s reliability as well as users’ awareness of the reliability. In this exploratory study we test the effects of design features of the same system on users’ target identification performance as well as their trust in and reliance on the system. In a simulated task environment, we varied the automation activation mode (i.e., automatic vs. manual) and the presentation of the “unknown” feedback (i.e., explicit vs. implicit). Participants responded fastest when the “unknown” feedback was provided automatically with explicit indication. In addition, participants trusted the explicit “unknown” feedback more than the implicit feedback. However, neither reliance behavior nor identification accuracy changed significantly across conditions. This study has implications for the design of combat identification systems to achieve appropriate trust. In addition, the results suggest that when studying trust in automation using a simulation, it is important to simulate the design features.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Corritore

C. L.

Kracher

Wiedenbeck

(2003). On-line trust: Concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 737-758.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Pierce

L. G.

Beck

H. P.

Dawe

L. A.

Anderson

B. W.

(2000). Misuse of an automated decision making system. In Conference on Human Interaction with Complex Systems 2000 (pp. 81-85). Urbana-Champaign, IL.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Pierce

L. G.

Beck

H. P.

Dawe

L. A.

Anderson

B. W.

(2001a). Predicting misuse and disuse of combat identification systems. Military Psychology, 13, 147-164.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Pierce

Pomranky

Peterson

Beck

(2001b). Automation reliance on a combat iden-tification system. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 532-536). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

(1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Hancock

P. A.

Meshkati

(Eds.) Human Mental Workload. Amsterdam: North Holland Press.

Identification friend or foe. (2011). In Wikipedia. Retrieved Jan 20, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe

Ivtsenkov

Mantsvetov

Berik

(2009). CA Patent No. 2549727. Quebec, Canada: Canadian Intellectual Property Office.

Jian

Bisantz

A. M.

Drury

C. G.

(2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4, 53-71.

Karsh

Walrath

J. D.

Swoboda

J. C.

Pillalamarri

(1995). Effect of battlefield combat identification system information on target identification time and errors in a simulated tank engagement task. (Technical report ARL-TR-854). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Lab.

10.

Kogler

T. M.

(2003). The effects of degraded vision and au-tomatic combat identification reliability on infantry friendly fire engagements. Unpublished master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

11.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50-80.

12.

Lund

A. M.

(2001). Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. In Usability Interface: Usability SIG Newsletter, October. Retrieved Jan 20th, 2011, from http://www.stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/0110_measuring_with_use.html

13.

Meyer

(2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43, 563-572.

14.

Neyedli

H. F.

Hollands

J. G.

Jamieson

G. A.

(in press). Beyond identity: Incorporating system reliability information into an automated combat identification system. Human Factors.

15.

Neyedli

H. F.

Wang

Jamieson

G. A.

Hollands

J. G.

(2010). Evaluating reliance on combat identification systems: The role of reliability feedback. In Andrews

D. H.

Herz

R. P.

Wolf

M. B.

(Eds.), Human factors issues in combat identification (pp. 247-262). Farnham, England: Ashgate.

16.

Parasuraman

Miller

C.A.

(2004). Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Communications of the ACM, 47, p. 51-55.

17.

Sherman

(2000). Combat identification system for the dismounted soldier. In Proceedings of SPIE 2000: Digitization of the Battlespace V and Battlefield Biomedical Technologies II (pp.135-146). Orlando, FL: the International Society for Optical Engineering.

18.

Wang

Jamieson

G. A.

Hollands

J. G.

(2008a). Improving reliability awareness to support appropriate trust and reliance on individual combat identification systems. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp.292-296). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

19.

Wang

Jamieson

G. A.

Hollands

J. G.

(2008b). Selecting methods for the analysis of reliance on automation. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp.287-291). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

20.

Wang

Jamieson

G. A.

Hollands

J. G.

(2009). Trust and reliance on an automated combat identification system. Human Factors, 51, 281-291.