Risk has been a key factor influencing trust in Human-Automation interactions, though there is no unified tool to study its dynamics. We provide a framework for defining and assessing relative risk of automation usage through performance dynamics and apply this framework to a dataset from a previous study. Our approach allows us to explore how operators’ ability and different automation conditions impact the performance and relative risk dynamics. Our results on performance dynamics show that, on average, operators perform better (1) using automation that is more reliable and (2) using partial automation (more workload) than full automation (less workload). Our analysis of relative risk dynamics indicates that automation with higher reliability has higher relative risk dynamics. This suggests that operators are willing to take more risk for automation with higher reliability. Additionally, when the reliability of automation is lower, operators adapt their behavior to result in lower risk.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChanceyE. T.BlissJ. P.YamaniY.HandleyH. A. H. (2017). Trust and the compliance-reliance paradigm: The effects of risk, error bias, and reliability on trust and dependence [PMID: 28430544]. Human Factors, 59(3), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816682648
2.
de VriesP.MiddenC.BouwhuisD. (2003). The effects of errors on system trust, self-confidence, and the allocation of control in route planning [Trust and Technology]. InternationalJournalof Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 719–735. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1071-5819(03)00039-9
3.
DrnecK.MetcalfeJ. S. (2016). Paradigm development for identifying and validating indicators of trust in automation in the operational environment of human automation integration. In SchmorrowD. D.FidopiastisC. M. (Eds.), Foundations of augmented cognition: Neuroergonomics and operational neuroscience (pp. 157– 167). Springer International Publishing.
4.
GaoJ.LeeJ. (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. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2005.855783
5.
GremillionG. M.MetcalfeJ. S.MaratheA. R.PaulV. J.ChristensenJ.DrnecK.HaynesB.AtwaterC. (2016). Analysis of trust in autonomy for convoy operations. In GeorgeT.DuttaA. K.IslamM. S. (Eds.), Micro-and nanotechnology sensors, systems, and applications viii (pp. 356–365). SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2224009
6.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human factors, 57(3), 407–434.
7.
ItohM.TanakaK. (2000). Mathematical modeling of trust in automation: Trust, distrust, and mistrust. Proceedingsof the HumanFactors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 44(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004400103
8.
KramerR. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual review of psychology, 50, 569–98.
9.
LeeJ.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1243–1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139208967392
LoftS.BhaskaraA.LockB. A.SkinnerM.BrooksJ.LiR.BellJ. (2021). The impact of transparency and decision risk on human–automation teaming outcomes. Human Factors, 00187208211033445.
12.
LyonsJ. B.StokesC. K. (2012). Human-human reliance in the context of automation [PMID: 22409106]. HumanFactors, 54(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811427034
13.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. http://www.jstor.org/stable/258792
14.
NeubauerC.GremillionG.PerelmanB. S.La FleurC.MetcalfeJ. S.SchaeferK. E. (2020). Analysis of facial expressions explain affective state and trust-based decisions during interaction with autonomy. In AhramT.KarwowskiW.VergnanoA.LealiF.TaiarR. (Eds.), Intelligent human systems integration 2020 (pp. 999–1006). Springer International Publishing.
15.
RodriguezL. R.OrellanaC. B.LandfairJ.MagaldinoC.DemirM.AmazeenP. G.MetcalfeJ. S.HuangL.KangY. (2021). Dynamics of trust in automation and interactive decision making during driving simulation tasks. Proceedings of the HumanFactorsandErgonomics Society Annual Meeting, 65(1), 786–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181321651288
16.
SatoT.YamaniY.LiechtyM.ChanceyE. T. (2020). Automation trust increases under high-workload multitasking scenarios involving risk. Cognition,Technology&Work, 22(2), 399–407.
17.
SchmidtC. O.KohlmannT. (2008). When to use the odds ratio or the relative risk?International journal of public health, 53(3), 165.
18.
SheridanT. B. (2008). Risk, human error, and system resilience: Fundamental ideas [PMID: 18689048]. Human Factors, 50(3), 418–426. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X250773
19.
SitkinS. B.PabloA. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/258646
20.
StuckR. E. (2020). Perceived relational risk and perceived situational risk: Scale development (Doctoral dissertation). Georgia Institute of Technology.
21.
StuckR. E.TomlinsonB. J.WalkerB. N. (2021). The importance of incorporating risk into human-automation trust. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 0(0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2021.1975170
22.
XuA.DudekG. (2015). Optimo: Online probabilistic trust inference model for asymmetric human-robot collaborations. 2015 10thACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 221–228.
23.
ZhangJ.YuK. F.(1998). What’s the Relative Risk?A Method of Correcting the Odds Ratio in Cohort Studies of Common Outcomes. JAMA, 280(19), 1690–1691. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.19.1690
