Quantitative analysis of the relationship between humans and automation becomes increasingly important as the reliance of humans upon automation becomes more commonplace. We present a literature review of key factors—categorized as effects from automation, operator, and the environment—that influence trust in or reliance upon automation. Those factors are treated as parameters in a dynamical systems analysis (DSA) model whose manipulation induces phase transitions in the decision to use automation. A review of the most recent dynamical models indicates a trend toward including increasingly more parameters in increasingly sophisticated models. We review the challenges inherent in that approach and suggest an alternative with precedence in the broader DSA literature that is more parsimonious and amenable to real-time analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmazeenP. G. (2018). From physics to social interactions: Scientific unification via dynamics. Cognitive Systems Research, 52, 640-657.
2.
BaronR. M.AmazeenP. G.BeekP. J. (1994). Local and global dynamics of social relations. In Dynamical Systems in Social Psychology (pp. 111138). Academic Press.
DemirM.CookeN. J.AmazeenP. G. (2018). A conceptual model of team dynamical behaviors and performance in human-autonomy teaming. Cognitive Systems Research, 52, 497-507.
5.
DemirM.McNeeseN. J.CookeN. J. (2017). Team situation awareness within the context of human-autonomy teaming. Cognitive Systems Research, 46, 3–12.
6.
DrnecK.MaratheA. R.LukosJ. R.MetcalfeJ. S. (2016). From trust in automation to decision neuroscience: Applying cognitive neuroscience methods to understand and improve interaction decisions involved in human automation interaction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 114.
7.
DrnecK.MetcalfeJ. S. (2016, July). Paradigm development for identifying and validating indicators of trust in automation in the operational environment of human automation integration. In International Conference on Augmented Cognition (pp. 157-167). Springer.
8.
FinanP. H.HesslerE. E.AmazeenP. G.ButnerJ.ZautraA. J.TennenH. (2010). Nonlinear oscillations in pain prediction accuracy: A dynamical systems approach to understanding daily pain prediction. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 14(1), 27-46.
9.
GaoJ.LeeJ. D. (2006). Extending the decision field theory to model operators' reliance on automation in supervisory control situations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 36(5), 943-959.
10.
GilmoreR.DeansS. R. (1981). Phase transitions and the geometric properties of the interacting boson model. Physical Review C, 23(3), 12541258.
11.
GormanJ. C.AmazeenP. G.CookeN. J. (2010). Team coordination dynamics. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 14(3), 265-289.
12.
GormanJ. C.CookeN. J.AmazeenP. G.FouseS. (2012). Measuring patterns in team interaction sequences using a discrete recurrence approach. Human Factors, 54(4), 503-517.
13.
GremillionG. M.DonavanikD.NeubauerC. E.BrodyJ. D.SchaeferK. E. (2018). Estimating human state from simulated assisted driving with stochastic filtering techniques. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp. 113-125). Springer, Cham.
14.
GremillionG. M.MetcalfeJ. S.MaratheA. R.PaulV. J.ChristensenJ.DrnecK. ...
AtwaterC. (2016). Analysis of trust in autonomy for convoy operations. In Micro-and Nanotechnology Sensors, Systems, and Applications VIII (Vol. 9836, pp. 356-365). SPIE.
15.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human factors, 57(3), 407-434.
16.
HuangL.CookeN. J.GutzwillerR. S.BermanS.ChiouE. K.DemirM.ZhangW. (2021). Distributed dynamic team trust in human, artificial intelligence, and robot teaming. In Trust in human-robot interaction (pp. 301-319). Academic Press.
17.
ItohM.TanakaK. (2000). Mathematical modeling of trust in automation: Trust, distrust, and mistrust. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 9-12). SAGE Publications.
18.
KarvonenK.CardholmL.KarlssonS. (2001). Designing trust for a universal audience: a multicultural study on the formation of trust in the Internet in the Nordic Countries. In HCI (pp. 1078-1082).
19.
KellyC.BoardmanM.GoillauP.JeannotE. (2003). Guidelines for trust in future ATM systems: A literature review.
20.
KhasawnehM. T.BowlingS. R.JiangX.GramopadhyeA. K.MelloyB. J. (2003). A model for predicting human trust in automated systems. Origins, 5, 216-222.
21.
LeeJ. D. (1991). The dynamics of trust in a supervisory control simulation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 35, No. 17, pp. 1228-1232). SAGE Publications.
22.
LeeJ.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1243-1270.
23.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International journal of human-computer studies, 40(1), 153-184.
24.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors, 46(1), 50-80.
25.
LewandowskyS.MundyM.TanG. P. A. (2000). The dynamics of trust: Comparing humans to automation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(2), 104–123.
26.
LewisM. (1998). Designing for human-agent interaction. AI Magazine, 19(2), 67-67.
27.
LewisM.SycaraK.WalkerP. (2018). The Role of Trust in Human-Robot Interaction. In: AbbassH.ScholzJ.ReidD. (eds) Foundations of Trusted Autonomy. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol 117. Springer, Cham.
28.
LikensA. D.AmazeenP. G.StevensR.GallowayT.GormanJ. C. (2014). Neural signatures of team coordination are revealed by multifractal analysis. Social neuroscience, 9(3), 219-234.
29.
LikensA. D.FineJ. M.AmazeenE. L.AmazeenP. G. (2015). Experimental control of scaling behavior: what is not fractal?. Experimental brain research, 233(10), 2813-2821.
30.
MasalonisA. J.ParasuramanR. (2003). Effects of situation-specific reliability on trust and usage of automated air traffic control decision aids. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 533-537). SAGE Publications.
31.
MuirB. M.MorayN. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429-460.
32.
MorayN.InagakiT.ItohM. (2000). Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. Journal of experimental psychology: Applied, 6(1), 203-211.
33.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human factors, 39(2), 230-253.
34.
RileyV. (2018). Operator reliance on automation: Theory and data. In Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 19-35). CRC Press.
35.
Rodriguez LuceroL.Bustamante OrellanaC.LandfairJ.MagaldinoC.DemirM.AmazeenP. G.... KangY. (2021). Dynamics of Trust in Automation and Interactive Decision Making during Driving Simulation Tasks. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 786-790). SAGE Publications.
36.
RotterJ. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651–665.
37.
StantonN. S.RagsdaleS. A.BustamanteE. A. (2009). The effects of system technology and probability type on trust, compliance, and reliance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 53, No. 18, pp. 1368-1372). SAGE Publications.
38.
ThelenE.SchönerG.ScheierC.SmithL. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 1-34.
39.
Van OrdenG. C.HoldenJ. G.TurveyM. T. (2003). Self-organization of cognitive performance. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 132(3), 331-350.
40.
XuA.DudekG. (2015). Optimo: Online probabilistic trust inference model for asymmetric human-robot collaborations. 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (221-228).
