Research exploring factors that affect an operator’s use of automated systems has gained a great deal of attention over the years; however, it is only recently that an operator’s simultaneous use of multiple automated aids has been investigated. The current study employed a target search task to examine how individuals utilize two automated aids when one of the aids fails and begins to decrease in reliability. More specifically, we were interested in investigating whether people would be able to switch from utilizing the failing aid (originally highly reliable) to the other aid (originally less reliable) when the failing aid became less reliable than the other aid. The results show that participants were able to consistently use the more reliable aid, even if this meant switching from one aid to the other. Practical implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DixonS.WickensC. (2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48(3), 474-486.
2.
DixonS.WickensC.ChangD. (2005). Mission control of multiple UAVs: A quantitative workload analysis. Human Factors, 47, 479-487.
3.
DixonS.R.WickensC.D.McCarleyJ.S. (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses?Human Factors, 49(4), 564-572.
4.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
5.
KellerD.RiceS. (2010). System-wide versus component-specific trust using multiple aids. The Journal of General Psychology, 137(1), 114-128.
6.
LeeJ.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1243-1270.
7.
LeeJ.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operator’s adaption to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(1), 153-184.
8.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors46(1), 50-80.
9.
LewandowskyS.MundyM.TanG. (2000). The dynamics of trust: Comparing humans to automation. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 104-123.
10.
MeyerJ. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43(4), 563-572.
11.
MeyerJ. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46(2), 196-204.
12.
MuirB. M.MorayN. (1996). Trust in automation: 2. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429-460.
13.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI.L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced “complacency”. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1-23.
14.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230-253.
15.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT.WickensC. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286-297.
16.
RiceS. (2009). Examining single- and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. The Journal of General Psychology, 136(3), 303-319.
17.
RiceS.GeelsK. (2010). Using system-wide trust theory to make predictions about dependence on four diagnostic aids. Journal of General Psychology, 137(4), 362-375.
18.
RiceS.KellerD. (2009). Automation reliance under time pressure. Cognitive Technology, 14(1), 36-44.
19.
RiceS.KellerD.TrafimowD.SandryJ. (2010). Retention of a time pressure heuristic in a target identification task. Journal of General Psychology, 137(3), pp. 239 - 255.
20.
RiceS.TrafimowD.ClaytonK.HuntG. (2008). Impact of the contrast effect on trust ratings and behavior with automated systems. Cognitive Technology Journal, 13(2), 30-41.
21.
WickensC.D.DixonS.R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 8(3), 201-212.
22.
WickensC. D.HollandsJ. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Person Prentice Hall.
23.
WickensC.D.RiceS.KellerD.HutchinsS.HughesJ.ClaytonK. (2009). False alerts in air traffic control traffic conflict alerting system: Is there a cry wolf effect?Human Factors, 51(4), 446-462.
24.
WiegmannD.A.RichA.ZhangH. (2001). Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users’ trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2(4), 352-367.
