Abstract
Studies have demonstrated that humans appear to apply norms of human-human interaction to interaction with automated decision aids. We examined the differences in perceptions of automation vs. humans when the expertise and reliability of these advisers varied. 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), but had a similar neutral beta setting of 1.0. Shifts in sensitivity, criterion settings and accuracy were assessed. Participants who were presented with a low-reliable “expert” adviser shifted their bias away from the neutral bias of the adviser and more toward optimal beta compared to participants receiving unreliable advice from a ‘novice’. This effect increased across trials for participants using low-reliability automated advisers but not human advisers. The results have implications for the development of models of optimal utilization of decision aids.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.