Automation use can be analyzed by looking at compliance rates (agreeing with automated alerts) and reliance rates (agreeing with automated nonalerts). The authors investigated how compliance and reliance rates in a target detection task depend on the perceived difficulty and importance of the trials and on the feedback given after each trial. Results show that focusing on trial importance significantly increased participants' compliance rates while reliance rates remained stable. When no feedback was presented, participants were more likely to comply with the automated aid in trials they perceived as difficult, but this trend reversed when importance was introduced and correlated with difficulty.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BustamanteE. A. (2009). A reexamination of the mediation effect of trust among alarm systems' characteristics and human compliance and reliance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting.
2.
DunningD.JohnsonK.EhrlingerJ.KrugerJ. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 83–87.
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.
GemplerK. S.WickensC. D. (1998). Displays of predictor reliability on a cockpit display traffic information. Technical Report ARL-98–6/ROCKWELL-98–1. (Savoy: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Lab).
5.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies, and allocation of function in human machine systems. Ergonomics, 22, 671–691.
6.
MadhavenP.WiegmannD. A.LacsonF. C. (2006). Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids. Human Facotrs, 48 (2), 241–256.
7.
MeyerJ. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46, 196–204.
8.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39 (2), 230–253.
9.
RiceS. (2009). Examining single- and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. The Journal of General Psychology, 136 (3), 303–319.
10.
WeinerE. L., 1988. Cockpit automation. In Human Factors in Aviation (WienerE. L.NagelD. C., Eds), 433–461. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
11.
WickensC. D.DixonS. R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 8, 201–212.
12.
WiegmannD. A.RichA.ZhangH. (2001). Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics, 2, 352–367.
