Objective: The purpose of this study is to determine how operators, if using a system-wide trust strategy, combine their experience with the multiple aids in order to determine the single reliability value for the entire system. This study tests two different hypotheses: additive vs. averaging. Background: Keller and Rice (accepted) showed that operators tend to use a system-wide trust strategy when using multiple automation aids instead of evaluating the reliability of each aid separately. Operators using system-wide trust may combine their experience with the aids using either an additive or an averaging method. Method: 48 participants monitored one or two gauges, each with an automated aid at different reliability levels, while engaged in a pursuit tracking task that simulated an unmanned aerial vehicle mission flight. Results: After accounting for increased difficulty of using two gauges vs. one gauge, the results showed that participants still performed worse when using two gauges vs. one gauge even though all the aids were the same reliability. Conclusion: The results revealed that the additive hypothesis best predicted the data. Application: This study points to a topic that designers and users of systems with multiple aids should carefully consider.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DixonS.WickensC.McCarley, (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses?Human Factors, 49(4), 564–572.
2.
KellerD.RiceS. (Accepted). A Comparison of System-Wide versus Component-Specific Trust Using Multiple Aids. Journal of General Psychology.
3.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.
4.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
5.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT.WickensD. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297.
6.
RiceS. (in press). Examining single and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. Journal of General Psychology.
7.
SheridanT.B. (1987). Handbook of Human Factors. New York: Wiley.
8.
WickensC.D.HollandsJ.G. (2000). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (3rd ed.) Prentice Hall, NJ: Upper Saddle River.
9.
WickensMcCarley (2008). Applied Attention Theory. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
10.
WogalterM. S.LaugheryK. R. (2006). Warnings and hazard communications. In SalvendyG. (Eds), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp. 889–911). New York: Wiley.
