As automation continues to pervade people’s lives, it is critical to understand the reasons why some interactions are successful while others fail. Previous research attempting to explain this variability in HAI through individual differences in working memory has been mixed. Research in cognitive psychology has demonstrated the importance of attention control as a fundamental mechanism underlying higher-order cognition. In the realm of automation, early work has demonstrated a link between attention control and performance (Foroughi et al., 2019). The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the relationship between attention control and attitudes towards automation, particularly trust. Our results found attention control to be correlated with propensity to trust and negative attitudes towards robots. These results encourage further inquiry into the role of attention control in HAI.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshleighM.HiggsM.DulewiczV. (2012). A new propensity to trust scale and its relationship with individual well-being: Implications for HRM policies and practices. Human Resource Management Journal, 22, 360–376.
2.
BaddeleyA. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
3.
BurgoyneA.EngleR.W. (2020). Attention control: A cornerstone of higher-order cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29, 624–630.
4.
ConwayA. R.CowanN.BuntingM.F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review8(2), 331–335.
5.
DeCaroM. S.Van StockumC. A.WiethM. B. (2015). When working memory capacity hinders insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 39–49.
6.
DraheimC.MashburnC.A.MartinJ.D.EngleR.W. (2019). Reaction time in differential and developmental research: A review and commentary on the problems and alternatives. American Psychological Association Psychological Bulletin, 145(5), 508–535.
7.
DraheimC.TsukaharaJ. S.MartinJ. D.MashburnC. A.EngleR. W. (2021). A toolbox approach to improving the measurement of attention control. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 150(2), 242–275.
8.
EngleR. W. (2018). Working memory and executive attention: A revisit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 190–193.
9.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nons-search task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.
10.
ForoughiC. K.RoviraE.RoseK.DavisD.JuradoJ. J.ChaeJ.PakR.BrownN.L.SibleyC.CoyneJ. T. (2019). How do Individual Differences in Attention Control and Working Memory Capacity Relate to Monitoring Automation? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 1409–1413.
11.
HoffK.BashirM. (2015). Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust. Human Factors. 57(3), 407–434.
12.
HutchisonK. A.SmithJ. L.FerrisA. (2013). Goals can be threatened to extinction: Using the Stroop task to clarify working memory depletion under stereotype threat. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 4, 75–82.
13.
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.
14.
KaneM. J.BleckleyM. K.ConwayA. R.EngleR. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 130(2), 169–183.
15.
KaneM. J.HambrickD. Z.TuholskiS. W.WilhelmO.PayneT. W.EngleR. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 189–217.
16.
KleiderH. M.ParrottD. J.KingT. Z. (2009). Shooting behaviour: How working memory and negative emotionality influence police shoot decisions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1–11.
17.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.
18.
MayerR.DavisJ.SchoormanF. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
19.
MerrittS.M.Ako-BrewA.BryantW.J.StaleyA.McKennaM.LeoneA.ShiraseL. (2019). Automation-induced complacency potential: Development and validation of a new scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(225).
20.
MerrittS. M.HeimbaughH.LaChapellJ.LeeD. (2012). I trust it, but I don’t know why: Effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Human Factors, 55, 520–534.
21.
NomuraT.Kanda SuzukiT.KatoK. (2004). Psychology in Human-Robot Communication: An Attempt through Investigation of Negative Attitudes and Anxiety toward Robots. Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 35–40.
22.
OnnaschL.WickensC.D.LiH.ManzeyD.H. (2014). Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: An integrated meta-analysis. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 56(3), 476–488.
23.
OswaldF. L.McAbeeS. T.RedickT. S.HambrickD. Z. (2014). The development of a short domain-general measure of working memory capacity. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1343–1355.
24.
PakR.McLaughlinA.C.LeidheiserW.RoviraE. (2017). The effect of individual differences in working memory in older adults on performance with different degrees of automated technology, Ergonomics, 60(4), 518–532.
25.
ParasuramanR.JiangY. (2012). Individual differences in cognition, affect, and performance: Behavioral, neuroimaging, and molecular genetic approaches. NeuroImage, 59(1), 70–82.
26.
ParasuramanR.Molloy SinghI.L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced ‘complacency’, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 1–23.
27.
RoviraE.PakR.McLaughlinA. (2017). Effects of individual differences in working memory on performance and trust with various degrees of automation, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(18), 573–591.
28.
SalthouseT. A.BabcockR. L.1991. Decomposing adult age differences in working memory. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 763–776.
29.
SaqerH.de VisserE.EmfieldA.ShawT.ParasuramanR. (2011). Adaptive Automation to Improve Human Performance in Supervision of Multiple Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles: Individual Markers of Performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55(1), 890–893.
30.
ShipsteadZ.HarrisonT. L.EngleR. W. (2016). Working memory capacity and fluid intelligence: Maintenance and disengagement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 771–799.
31.
ShipsteadZ.LindseyD. R.MarshallR. L.EngleR. W. (2014). The mechanisms of working memory capacity: Primary memory, secondary memory, and attention control. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 116–141.
32.
SinghI. L.MolloyR.ParasuramanR. (1993). Automation- induced “complacency”: development of the complacency-potential rating scale. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 3, 111–122.
33.
StroopJ. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
34.
WorkmanM. (2005). Expert decision support system use, disuse, and misuse: A study using the theory of planned behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 211–231.
