Much research has differentiated between the effects of automation false alarms and misses on operator trust and subsequent behavior. Further research has demonstrated that trust is a multiple-process construct that mediates the relationship between automation errors and behavior. The purpose of the current study was to expand on this model by incorporating affect as a mediating variable between smoke detector errors and trust. This expanded model, which we refer to as the Affect-Trust model, is supported by two experiments. The experiments involved mediation analyses, which revealed that affect almost totally mediates the relationship between both types of smoke detector errors and trust.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AugustineA. A.LarsenR. J. (2011). Affect regulation and temporal discounting: Interactions between primed, state, and trait affect. Emotion, 11(2), 403–412.
2.
BarberB. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
3.
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, 1173–1182.
4.
BlissJ. P.HuntG.RiceS.GeelsK. (in press). Signal trust and situational experience: Theoretical and experimental evidence. Cognitive Technology.
5.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.
6.
DienerE.EmmonsR. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(5), 1105–1117.
7.
DixonS.WickensC. (2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48(3), 474–486.
8.
DixonS.WickensC.McCarleyJ. S. (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses?Human Factors, 49(4), 564–572.
9.
ForgasJ. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39–66.
10.
HardinR. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
11.
HuntsingerJ. R. (2012). Does positive affect broaden and negative affect narrow attentional scope? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, doi:10.1037/a0027709.
12.
KellerD.RiceS. (2010). System-wide versus component-specific trust using multiple aids. Journal of General Psychology, 137(1), 114–128.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(1), 153–184.
15.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.
16.
McAllisterD. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.
17.
MerrittS. M. (2011). Affective processes in human-automation interactions. Human Factors, 53, 356–370.
18.
MeyerJ. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43, 563–572.
19.
MeyerJ. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46, 196–204.
20.
MuirB. M. (1987). Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aides. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 527–539.
21.
MuirB. M.MorayN. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429–460.
22.
MurryS. LPinkusR. T.HolmesJ. G.HarrisB.GomillionS.AloniM.DerrickJ. L.LederS. (2011). Signaling when (and when not) to be cautious and self-protective: Impulsive and reflective trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 485–502.
23.
OffeC. (1999). How can we trust our fellow citizens? In WarrenM. (Ed.), Democracy and trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
25.
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.
26.
PennyS.MorettiM. M. (2010). The roles of affect dysregulation and deficient affect in youth violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(6), 709–731.
27.
RiceS. (2009). Examining single and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. Journal of General Psychology, 136(3), 303–319.
28.
RiceS.KellerD. (2009). Automation reliance under time pressure. Cognitive Technology, 14(1), 36–44.
29.
RiceS.KellerD.TrafimowD.SandryJ. (2010). Retention of a time pressure heuristic in a target identification task. Journal of General Psychology, 137(3), 239–255.
30.
RotterJ. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651–665.
31.
SiegristM.CvetkovichG.RothC. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353-362.
32.
VisschersV. H. M.SiegristM. (2008). Exploring the triangular relationship between trust, affect, and risk perception: A review of the literature. Risk Management, 10, 156-167.
33.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
34.
WickensC. D.HollandsJ. G. (2000). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
