The effects of misses of an automated alarm and fault diagnosis system on different manifestations of automation misuse were examined. 24 participants operated a complex multi-task process control simulation. During training, they either experienced automation misses or were only informed that failures might occur. The experience of misses reduced complacency towards the alarm function of the decision aid as well as omission errors but did neither affect complacency towards the aid's diagnostic function nor commission errors. Implications of this specific effect of automation misses for the design of training measures as well as the theoretical understanding of automation misuse are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaileyN.R.ScerboM.W. (2007). Automation-induced complacency for monitoring highly reliable systems: The role of task complexity, system experience, and operator trust. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 321–348.
2.
DixonS.R.WickensC.D.McCarleyJ.S. (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses?Human Factors, 49, 564–572.
3.
DzindoletM.T.PetersonS.A.PomrankyR.A.PierceL.G.BeckH.P. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 697–718.
4.
HockeyG.R.J.WastellD.G.SauerJ. (1998). Effects of sleep deprivation and user interface on complex performance: A multilevel analysis of compensatory control. Human Factors, 40, 233–253.
5.
LeeJ.D.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.
6.
LeeJ.D.SeeK.A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.
7.
LorenzB.Di NoceraF.RoettgerS.ParasuramanR. (2002). Automated fault-management in a simulated spaceflight micro-world. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 73, 886–897.
8.
ManzeyD.BahnerE.J.HueperA.-D. (2006). Misue of automated aids in process control: complacency, automation bias, and possible training interventions. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Francisco, 16–20 October, 2006..
9.
MeyerJ. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43, 563–572.
10.
MeyerJ. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46, 196–204.
11.
MorayN. (2003). Monitoring, complacency, scepticism and eutactic behavior. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 31, 175–178.
12.
MorayN.InagakiT. (2000). Attention and complacency. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1, 354–365.
13.
MosierK.L.SkitkaL.J. (1996). Human decision makers and automated decision aids: Made for each other? In ParasuramanR.MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications (pp. 201–220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
MosierK.L.SkitikaL.J.DunbarM.McDonnellL. (2001). Aircrews and automation bias: The advantages of teamwork?International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11, 1–14.
15.
MuirB.MorayN. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II: Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39, 429–460.
16.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI.L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation induced “complacency”. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2, 1–23.
17.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
18.
PrinzelL.J.De VriesH.FreemanF.G.MikulkaP. (2001). Examination of automation-induced complacency and individual difference variates (Tech. Memo. No. TM-2001–211413). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.
