Despite its rapid advancement, automation remains vulnerable to system failures. The reliability of automation may impact users’ trust and how they interact with it. Additionally, the type of error can uniquely redirect user behavior. This study investigated how reliability and error type impact operator trust and monitoring performance. Participants completed a monitoring task at either 50% or 90% reliability, experiencing either misses or false alarms from an automated alert system. It was hypothesized that automation reliability would impact trust, while error type would also impact reliance and compliance behaviors. Results indicated that misses had a greater impact on monitoring performance than false alarms, while reliability did not influence performance. Trust was not influenced by reliability or error type and showed no relationship with performance measures. These results can help further clarify the way automation failures shape how humans interact with automation and inform the design of future automated systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BagheriN.JamiesonG. A. (2004). Considering subjective trust and monitoring behavior in assessing automation induced ‘‘complacency.” In VincenziD. A.MoulouaM.HancockO. A. (Eds.), Human performance, situation awareness, and automation: Current research and trends (pp. 54–59). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
2.
BahnerJ. E.HüperA. D.ManzeyD. (2008). Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66,(9), 688–699.
3.
BaileyN. R.ScerboM. W. (2007). Automation-induced complacency for monitoring highly reliable systems: the role of task complexity, system experience, and operator trust. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(4), 321–348.
4.
BlissJ. P. (2003). Investigation of alarm-related accidents and incidents in aviation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13(3), 249–268.
5.
DixonS. R.WickensC. D. (2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48, 474–486.
6.
DixonS. R.WickensC. D.ChangD. (2004). Unmanned aerial vehicle flight control: False alarms versus misses. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, 48(1), 152–156.
7.
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.
8.
FerraroJ.ClarkL.ChristyN.MoulouaM. (2018). Effects of Automation Reliability and Trust on System Monitoring Performance in Simulated Flight Tasks. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), 1232–1236.
9.
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.
10.
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y.De VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A metaanalysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human factors, 53(5), 517–527.
11.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human factors, 57(3), 407–434.
12.
JianJ. Y.BisantzA. M.DruryC. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International journal of cognitive ergonomics, 4(1), 53–71.
13.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors, 46(1), 50–80.
14.
MackworthN.H. (1948). The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 6–21.
15.
MayP. A.MolloyR.ParasuramanR. (1993). Effects of automation reliability and failure rate on monitoring performance in a multi-task environment. Paper presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA
16.
MeyerJ. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43(4), 563–572.
17.
MeyerJ. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46(2), 196–204
18.
MoulouaM.FerraroJ.ParasuramanR.MolloyR.HilburnB. (2019). Human monitoring of automated systems. In MoulouaM.HancockP. A. (Eds.) Human Performance in Automated and Autonomous Systems: Emerging Issues and Practical Perspectives. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
19.
OakleyB.MoulouaM.HancockP. (2003). Effects of automation reliability on human monitoring performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting47(1), 188–190
20.
ParasuramanR.ManzeyD. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human factors, 52(3), 381–410.
21.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced ‘complacency’. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1–23.
22.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human factors, 39(2), 230–253.
23.
RiceS.McCarleyJ. 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
24.
RossJ. M.SzalmaJ. L.HancockP. A.BarnettJ. S.TaylorG. (2008). The effect of automation reliability on user automation trust and reliance in a search-andrescue scenario. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 52(19), 1340–1344.
25.
Santiago-EspadaY.MyerR. R.LatorellaK. A.ComstockJ. R. (2011). The Multi-Attribute Task Battery II (MATB-II) software for human performance and workload research: A user’s guide (NASA/TM2011-217164). Hampton, VA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center.
26.
SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y.SzalmaJ. L.HancockP. A. (2016). A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: Implications for understanding autonomy in future systems. Human factors, 58(3), 377–400.
27.
SinghA. L.TiwariT.SinghI. L. (2009). Effects of automation reliability and training on automation-induced complacency and perceived mental workload. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35(2009), 9–22.
28.
StaderS.LeavensJ.GonzalezB.FontaineV.MoulouaM.AlbertiP. (2013). Effects of display and task features on system monitoring performance in the original Multi-Attribute Task Battery and MATB-II. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57, (1) 1435–1439.
29.
WickensC. D. (1995). Designing for situation awareness and trust in automation. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 28(23), 365–370.
