Effects of Attribute and Goal Framing on Automation Reliance and Compliance

Abstract

Presentation of an aid's reliability may have mixed results on utilization due to differences in the way the reliability is framed, as well as its effects on reliance versus compliance. Using an aided signal detection task, the current study compared effects of attribute framing (80% correct versus 20% incorrect) and goal framing (focusing on hits and correct rejections versus misses and false alarms) on sensitivity, response bias, compliance, and reliance. Sensitivity and response bias results indicated few differences between aided groups. Information framing did lead to differences in compliance, but not reliance compared to an unframed group. However, reliance differences occurred when comparing positive and negative framing group. These results indicate that the manner in which information about the reliability of a diagnostic aid is presented can have significant, albeit subtle, effects on automation utilization.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Dzindolet

M.T.

Peterson

S.A.

Pomranky

R.A.

Pierce

L.G.

Beck

H.P.

(2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 697–718.

Dzindolet

M.T.

Pierce

L.G.

Beck

H.P.

Dawe

L.A.

(2002). The perceived utility of human and automated aids in a visual detection task. Human Factors, 44(1), 79–94.

Lacson

F. C.

Wiegmann

D.W.

Madhavan

(2003, August). Effects of instructional framing on trust and reliance. American Psychological Association Conference. Toronto, Canada.

Levin

I.P.

Schneider

S.L.

Gaeth

G.J.

(1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behvior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.

Levin

I. P.

Schnittjer

S.K.

Thee

S.L.

(1988). Information framing effects in social and personal decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24(6), 520–529.

Meyer

(2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43(4), 563–572.

Nygren

T.E.

(1997). Framing of task performance strategies: Effects of performance in a multi-attribute dynamic decision making environment. Human Factors, 39(3), 425–437.

Parasuraman

(1987). Human-computer monitoring. Human Factors, 29(6), 695–706.

Perrin

B.M.

Barnett

B.J.

Walrath

Grossman

J.D.

(2001). Information order and outcome framing: An assessment of judgment bias in a naturalistic decisionmaking context. Human Factors, 43(2), 227–238.

10.

Svenson

Benson

(1993). Framing and time pressure in decision making. In Svenson

Maule

(Eds.) Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making, (pp. 27–40). New York: Plenum.

11.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1981). The framing of decisions and psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.