Alarm researchers have frequently operationally defined operator trust as response rate and reaction time to agree with the signaling system. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the role of subjective estimates of trust in the relationship between signaling system reliability and response behaviors. Method: Using a sample of 56 college students, we tested the effects of reliability (20% and 40%) on response frequency, alarm reaction time, and subjective trust, using an alarm-based task. Results: Supporting expectations, we found that the more reliable system led to higher response frequency and higher ratings of trust. We did not find, however, that trust mediated the relationship between reliability and response rate. Considering these findings, the minimally trained participants we tested may not have relied on trust. Alternatively, our trust assessments may have lacked specificity for the experimental task. Replication efforts should focus on task experts and refined trust assessment techniques.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.
3.
BlissJ. P.GilsonR. D.DeatonJ. E. (1995). Human probability matching behavior in response to alarms of varying reliability. Ergonomics, 38 (11), 2300-2312.
4.
BlissJ. P.GilsonR. D. (1998). Emergency signal failure: Implications and recommendations. Ergonomics, 41 (1), 57-72.
5.
BlissJ. P.LiebmanR.ChanceyE. (2012). Training time estimation to improve reactions. Work, 41, 3580-3585.
6.
BreznitzS. (1984). Cry Wolf: The Psychology of False Alarms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7.
BustamanteE. A. (2009). A reexamination of the mediating effect of trust among alarm systems’ characteristics and human compliance and reliance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting (pp. 249-253). Las Vegas, NV.
8.
ChanceyE.T. (2012) The role of trust as a mediator between system characteristics and response behaviors (Master’s thesis). Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
9.
ChanceyE. T.BlissJ. P. (1012). Reliability of a cued combat identification aid on Soldier performance and trust. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.
10.
DixonS. R.WickensC. 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.
11.
DixonS. R.WickensC. D.McCarleyJ. S. (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses?Human Factors, 49 (4), 564-572.
12.
GettyD. J.SwetsJ. A.PickettR. M.GonthierD. (1995). System operator response to warnings of danger: A laboratory investigation of the effects of the predictive value of a warning on human response time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1 (1), 19-33.
13.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.
14.
JianJ.BisantzA. M.DruryC. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4 (53), 53-71.
15.
LeeJ.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35 (10), 1243-1270.
16.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153-184.
17.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46 (1), 50-80.
18.
MadhavanP.WiegmannD. A. (2007). Similarities and differences between human-human and human-automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8 (4), 277-301.
19.
MeyerJ. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43 (4), 563-572.
20.
MeyerJ. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46 (2), 196-204.
21.
MorayN.InagakiT.ItohM. (2000). Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6 (1), 44-58.
22.
MuirB. M. (1987). Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 527-539.
23.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (1), 81-103.
24.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39 (2), 230-253.
25.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (4), 717-731.
26.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40 (3), 879-891.
27.
PreacherK. J.KelleyK. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93-115.
28.
PritchettA. R. (2001). Reviewing the role of cockpit alerting systems. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 1 (1), 5-38.
29.
RiceS. (2009). Examining single- and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. The Journal of General Psychology, 13 (3), 303-319.
30.
RiceS.TrafimowD.HuntG.KellerD. (2010). We don’t dislike the alarm: We dislike complying with the alarm. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 6(1), 93-105.
31.
SafarJ. A.TurnerC. W. (2005). Validation of a two factor structure for system trust. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting, (pp. 497-501). Orlando, FL.
32.
SampsonR. (2002). False burglar alarms. (Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series, Report No. 5). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
33.
WangL.JamiesonG. A.HollandsJ. G. (2009). Trust and reliance on an automated combat identification system. Human Factors, 51 (3), 281-291.
34.
WickensC. D.DixonS. R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8 (3), 201-212.
35.
WiczorekR.ManzeyD. (2010). Is operators’ compliance with alarm systems a product of rational consideration?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting, (pp. 1722-1726). San Francisco, CA.
36.
WiegmannD. A.RichA.ZhangH. (2001). Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users’ trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 2 (4), 352-367.
