The Effect of Gestalt Psychology on the System-Wide Trust Strategy in Automation

Abstract

Recent research has indicated that operators may utilize the system-wide trust strategy when presented with two automation aids of unknown reliability (Keller, Bean, & Rice, 2009; Keller & Rice, 2010; Keller & Rice, 2009). This is undesirable as operators may under-utilize reliable aids when they are paired with unreliable aids. Two variables derived from Gestalt psychology’s law of similarity were employed in an attempt to overcome this effect: gauge shape congruence and operator knowledge of the aids’ reliability. Results indicated that altering the gauge shapes had no effect on operator performance. However, providing aid reliability information to the operator did have a positive effect on operator performance. More specifically, operators reacted to alarms more quickly and reduced their false alarm rates; however, they did not improve their hit rates. Future work should be conducted to assess more fully the role of aid reliability information and Gestalt psychology as they relate to the system-wide trust strategy.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Department of Homeland Security (2004). Department of Homeland Security unmanned aerial vehicles operating in Arizona to support border security.

Dixon

S. R.

Wickens

C. D.

(2006). Automation Reliability in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Control: A Reliance-Compliance Model of Automation Dependence in High Workload. Human Factors, 48(3), 474-486.

Dixon

S. R.

Wickens

C. D.

McCarley

J. S.

(2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses? Human Factors, 49(4), 564-572.

Fulmer

Christensen

C. M.

(2000). U.S. Department of Defense: The case of the unmanned aerial vehicles. Technical Report 300-109.

Keller

Rice

(2009). How is the reliability of automated aids determined using system-wide trust? Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Keller

Rice

(2010). System-wide versus component-specific trust using multiple aids. Journal of General Psychology, 137(1), 114–128.

Keller

Rice

Bean

(2009). A comparison of system-wide versus component-specific trust using multiple automation aids. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technology, Knowledge and Society.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, Vol. 46(1), 50-80. Lefton

L. A.

Brannon

(2006). Psychology: Ninth Edition. Allyn and Bacon, Boston MA.

Muir

B. M.

Moray

(1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, Vol. 39(3), 429-460.

10.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

T. B.

Wickens

C. D.

(2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 30(3), 286-297.

11.

Rice

(2009). Examining single and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. Journal of General Psychology, 136(3), 303-319.

12.

Rock

Palmer

(1990). The legacy of Gestalt psychology. Scientific American, 48-61.

13.

Sharps

M. J.

Wertheimer

(2000). Gestalt perspectives on cognitive science and on experimental psychology. Review of General Psychology, 4(4), 315-336.

14.

Wickens

C. D.

Carswell

C. M.

(1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37(3), 473-494.

15.

Wickens

C. D.

Dixon

S. R.

(2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(3), 201-212.

16.

Zimbardo

P. G.

Johnson

R. L.

Weber

A. L.

(2006). Psychology: Core Concepts: Fifth Edition. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.