Human-automation interactions are rapidly transitioning from single-component automated systems to multiple-component systems. The human-automation literature has yet to adequately explore trust within multiple-component systems. A currently unanswered question is whether one faulty component causes an operator to lose trust in that one component (Component-Specific Trust; CST) or in every component in the system (System-Wide Trust; SWT). The goals of this paper were to 1) summarize the current work on trust in multiple-component systems, and 2) identify any trends that emerge during the literature review. We reviewed 17 experimental studies that tested whether operators tend to adopt CST or SWT under different conditions. Overall, most studies suggest that operators adopt SWT. However, studies that provided the operator with high decisional freedom and more time with the automated systems suggest that CST is the dominant strategy. Future work should explicitly test these and other variables that may promote users to adopt CST.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LeeJ.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1243-1270.
2.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. InternationalJournal of human-computer studies, 40(1), 153-184.
3.
RossJ. (2008). Moderators of trust and reliance across multiple decision aids (Doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando.
4.
KellerD.RiceS. (2009). System-wide versus component-specific trust using multiple aids. The Journal of General Psychology: Experimental, Psychological, and Comparative Psychology, 137(1), 114-128.
5.
RiceS.GeelsK. (2010). Using system-wide trust theory to make predictions about dependence on four diagnostic aids. The Journal of general psychology, 137(4), 362-375.
6.
SandryJ.SchwarkJ.HuntG.GeelsK.RiceS. (2011, September). Operator aid-switching in a case of redundant automation with single-aid failure. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 1427-1431). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
7.
BeanN. HRiceS. CKellerM. D. (2011, September). The effect of gestalt psychology on the system-wide trust strategy in automation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 1417-1421). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
8.
RiceS.TrafimowD.KellerD.BeanN. (2012). Confluence theory: uniting two houses divided. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 13(4), 411-429.
9.
BlairKSandryJ.RiceS. (2012, September). An expansion of system wide trust theory using in-vehicle automation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 1679-1683). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
10.
Geels-BlairK.RiceS.SchwarkJ. (2013). Using system-wide trust theory to reveal the contagion effects of automation false alarms and misses on compliance and reliance in a simulated aviation task. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 23(3), 245-266.
11.
WinterS. RRiceS.ReidK. M. (2014). Using system-wide trust theory to analyze passenger loss of trust in aircraft automation. Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation: Part II, 8,462.
12.
WalliserJ. CDe VisserE. J.ShawT. H. (2016, September). Application of a system-wide trust strategy when supervising multiple autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 133-137). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
13.
RiceS.WinterS. RDeatonJ. E.CremerI. (2016). What Are the Predictors of System-Wide Trust Loss in Transportation Automation?. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, 6(1), 1.
14.
MehtaRRiceS. (2018). System wide trust: A possible contagion effect. The Collegiate Aviation Review International, 34(1).
15.
KluckM.KohnS. CWalliserJ. Cde VisserE. J.ShawT. H. (2018, September). Stereotypical of Us to Stereotype Them: The Effect of System-Wide Trust on Heterogeneous Populations of Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 1103-1107). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
16.
MehtaRChauhanB.EdwardsM.RosserT.DunbarV.RiceS. (2019). Does a SWT Reverse Contagion Effect Exist from Humans to Automation?. The Collegiate Aviation Review International, 37(1).
17.
ForoughiC. KSibleyCBrownN. L.RoviraE.PakRCoyneJ. T. (2019). Detecting automation failures in a simulated supervisory control environment. Ergonomics, 62(9), 1150-1161.
18.
BeckH. P.DzindoletM. T.PierceL. G. (2007). Automation usage decisions: Controlling intent and appraisal errors in a target detection task. Human Factors, 49(3), 429-437.
19.
BirosD. P.DalyM.GunschG. (2004). The influence of task load and automation trust on deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(2), 173-189.
20.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human factors, 57(3), 407-434.
21.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors, 46(1), 50-80.
22.
NassCSteuerJ.TauberE. R. (1994, April). Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 72-78).
23.
OnnaschL.WickensC. D.LiHManzeyD. (2014). Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: An integrated meta-analysis. Human factors, 56(3), 476-488.
24.
ParasuramanRRileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human factors, 39(2), 230-253.
25.
ParasuramanRSheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2008). Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of cognitive engineering and decisionmaking, 2(2), 140-160.
26.
WangL.JamiesonG. A.HollandsJ. G. (2009). Trust and reliance on an automated combat identification system. Human factors, 51(3), 281-291.
27.
WickensC. (2018). Automation stages & levels, 20 years after. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 12(1), 35-41
