Effects of Information Source,Pedigree,and Reliability on Operators' Utilizaton of Diagnostic Advice

Abstract

Studies have demonstrated that humans appear to apply norms of humanhuman interaction to their interaction with machines. Yet, there exist subtle differences in peoples' perceptions of automated aids compared to humans. We examined factors differentiating human-human and human-automation interaction, wherein participants (n = 180) performed a luggage-screening task with the assistance of human or automated advisers that differed in pedigree (expert vs. novice) and reliability (high vs. low). Dependence on advice was assessed. Participants agreed more with an automated 'novice' than a human 'novice' suggesting a bias toward automation. Automation biases broke down when automated aids portrayed as 'experts' generated errors, leading to a drop in compliance and reliance on automation relative to humans. The results have implications for the development of theoretical and computational models of optimal user dependence on decision aids.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bowers

C. A.

Jentsch

Salas

Braun

C. C.

(1998). Analyzing communication sequences for team training needs assessment. Human Factors, 40(4), 672–680.

Dijkstra

J. J.

(1999). User agreement with incorrect expert system advice. Behaviour and Information Technology, 18(6), 399–411.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Pierce

L. G.

Beck

H. P.

Dawe

L. A.

Anderson

B. W.

(2001). Predicting misuse and disuse of combat identification systems. Military Psychology, 13(3), 147–164.

Klein

Woods

D. D.

Bradshaw

J. M.

Hoffman

R. R.

Feltovich

P. J.

(2004). Ten challenges for making automation a “team player” in joint human-agent activity. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 4, 1541–1672.

Krupinski

E. A.

Nodine

C. F.

Kundel

H. L.

(1993). Perceptual enhancement of tumor targets in chest x-ray images. Perception and Psychophysics, 53 (5), 519–526.

Lee

J. D.

Moray

(1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human machine systems. Ergonomics, 22 (6), 671–691.

Lee

J. D.

See

S. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance, Human Factors.

Lerch

F. J.

Prietula

M. J.

Kulik

C. T.

(1997). The Turing effect: The nature of trust in expert system advice. In Feltovich

P. J.

Ford

K. M.

, (Eds.), Expertise in Context: Human and Machine. (pp. 417–448). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Muir

B. M.

(1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37(11), 1905–1922.

10.

Nass

Fogg

B.J.

Moon

(1996). Can computers be teammates?. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 45(6), 669–678.

11.

Nass

Lee

K.M.

(2001). Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 171–181.

12.

Nass

Moon

(2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103.

13.

Nass

Moon

Carney

(1999). Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systems. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 1093–1110.

14.

Nass

Steuer

Tauber

Reeder

(1993). Anthropomorphism, agency and ethopoeia: computers as social actors, Proceedings of the International CHI Conference (Amsterdam).

15.

Sheridan (2002). Human performance in relation to automation. In Sheridan

T. B.

(Ed.), Human and Automation: System Design and Research Issues. (pp. 69–89). Santa Monica, CA: John Wiley.