Effects of False-Alarm vs. Miss-Prone Automation and Likelihood Alarm Technology on Trust,Reliance,and Compliance in a Miss-Prone Task

Abstract

We investigated the effects of false-alarm prone (FP) vs. miss-prone (MP) automation and the effects of likelihood alarm technology (LAT) on trust, reliance, and compliance. One hundred participants completed simulated unmanned aerial vehicle missions consisting of two primary tasks and a secondary weapon-deployment task aided by automation. It was predicted that MP automation would increase trust, LAT would increase trust, FP automation would increase reliance, and MP automation would increase compliance whereas LAT would decrease compliance when used with a FP system. Results indicated that trust was higher with the FP system, reliance was higher with the FP system, and compliance was higher with the MP system. This paper further informs the relationships among trust, reliance, and compliance, and it adds to our understanding of operator behavior in miss-prone tasks. Practical applications of this research include improving automation design and choosing the appropriate type of automation to implement for specific situations.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bailey

Scerbo

(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 (4), 321–348.

Breznitz

(1983). Cry-wolf: The psychology of false alarms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bustamante

E. A.

(2008). Implementing likelihood alarm technology in integrated aviation displays for enhancing decision making: A two-stage signal detection modeling approach. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 8 (2), 241–262.

Bustamante

E. A.

(2009). A reexamination of the mediating effects of trust among alarm systems' characteristics and human compliance and reliance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, USA, 53, 249–253.

Bustamante

E. A.

Bliss

J. P.

Anderson

B. L.

(2007). Effects of varying the threshold of alarm systems and workload on human performance. Ergonomics, 50 (7), 1127–1147.

Clark

R. M.

Peyton

G. G.

Bustamante

E. A.

(2009). Differential effects of likelihood alarm technology and false-alarm vs. miss prone automation on decision making. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, USA, 53, 349–353.

Comstock

J. R.

Arnegard

R. J.

(1992). The multi-attribute task battery for human operator workload and strategic behavior research (NASA Technical Memorandum No. 104174) Hampton, VA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center.

Dixon

S.R.

Wickens

C. D.

(2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48 (3), 474–486.

Dixon

S. R.

Wickens

C. D.

McCarley

J. S.

(2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses?. Human Factors, 49 (4), 564–572.

10.

Fallon

Bustamante

Bliss (2005). Enhancing perceived situation awareness and reducing perceived workload with a likelihood alarm display. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, USA, 49, 1677–1681.

11.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46 (1), 50–80.

12.

Madhavan

Wiegmann

D. A.

(2007). Effects of information source, pedigree, and reliability on operator interaction with decision support systems. Human Factors, 49 (5), 773–785.

13.

Meyer

(2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43 (4), 563–572.

14.

Meyer

(2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46 (2), 196–204.

15.

Parasuraman

Miller

C. A.

(2004). Trust and etiquette in high criticality automated systems. Communications of the ACM, 47 (4), 51–55.

16.

Parasuraman

Riley

(1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39 (2), 230–253.

17.

Stanton

N. S.

Ragsdale

S. A.

Bustamante

E. A.

(2009). The effects of system technology and probability type on trust, compliance, and reliance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, USA, 53, 1368–1372.

18.

Swets

J. A.

(1992). The science of choosing the right decision threshold in high-stakes diagnostics. American Psychologist, 47 (4), 522–532.

19.

Wickens

C. D.

Dixon

S. R.

(2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8 (3), 201–212.