On the Relation Between Reliance and Compliance in an Aided Visual Scanning Task

Abstract

Alarms, alerts, and other binary cues affect user behavior in complex ways. One relevant distinction is the suggestion that there are two different responses to alerts – compliance (the tendency to perform an action cued by the alert) and reliance (the tendency to refrain from actions as long as no alert is issued). An experiment tested the dependence of the two behaviors on the Positive and Negative Predictive Values of the alerts (PPV and NPV) to determine whether these are indeed two different behaviors. Results suggest that the compliance is relatively stable and unaffected by irrelevant information (the NPV), while reliance is also affected by the PPV. The results are discussed in terms of multiple-process theories of trust in information sources.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bahner

J.E.

Elepfandt

Manzey

(2008). Misuse of diagnostic aids in process control: The effects of automation misses on complacency and automation bias. Proceedings of the 52nd Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, New York, September 2008. Santa Monica: HFES.

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.

Gérard

Manzey

(2010) Are false alarms not as bad as supposed after all? A study investigating operators’ responses to imperfect alarms. In de Waard

Axelsson

Berglund

Peters

Weikert

(eds.), Human Factors. A system view of human, technology and organisation (pp. 55–70). Maastricht: Shaker Publishing.

Meyer

(2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46(2), 196–204.

Rice

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

Rice

McCarley

J.S.

(2011). Effects of response bias and judgment framing on operator use of an automated aid in a target detection task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4), 320–331.

Swets

J.A.

Dawes

R.M.

Monahan

(2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(1), 1–26.

Vashitz

Meyer

Parmet

Peleg

Goldfarb

Porath

Gilutz

(2009). Defining and measuring physician’s responses to clinical reminders. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42, 317–326.