Trust has been identified as an important variable in the effective use of automated tools, including cyber security tools. The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate factors affecting trust in a cyber-security tool. Undergraduate participants were asked to perform a simplified network intrusion monitoring task with the help of a software agent. The reliability of the software agent was manipulated at three levels (60%, 80%, and 100% reliability). Results indicated that trust increased as the automation increased in reliability. However, contrary to our hypotheses, performance decreased as the automation increased in reliability. Implications for future research on the antecedents of trust in human-automation interaction in cyber security are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChenS.JanejaV. P. (2014). Human perspective to anomaly detection for cybersecurity. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 42(1), 133–153. doi:10.1007/s10844-013-0266-3
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(6), 697–718. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7
4.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(2), 381-394.
5.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139-183.
6.
Jian-YinJ.BisantzA. M.DruryC. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated system. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 53
7.
KraemerS.CarayonP.ClemJ. (2009). Human and organizational factors in computer and information security: Pathways to vulnerabilities. Computers and Security, 28(7), 509–520. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2009.04.006
NeumannU.Majorosa. (1998). Cognitive, performance, and systems issues for augmented reality applications in manufacturing and maintenance. Proceedings. IEEE the Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (VRAIS), 4–11. doi:10.1109/VRAIS.1998.658416
10.
NygrenT. E. (1991). Psychometric properties of subjective workload measurement techniques: Implications for their use in the assessment of perceived mental workload. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society, 33(1), 17–33. doi:10.1177/001872089103300102
11.
Onnasch. (2013). Human Performance Consequences of Stages and Levels of Automation: An Integrated Meta-Analysis.pdf, (1995). doi:10.1177/0018720813501549
12.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253. doi:10.1518/001872097778543886
13.
RempelJ. K.HolmesJ. G.ZannaM. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95
14.
SorkinR. D.WoodsD. D. (1985). Systems with Human Monitors: A Signal Detection Analysis. Human–Computer Interaction. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0101_2
van der LindenD.FreseM.MeijmanT. F. (2003). Mental fatigue and the control of cognitive processes: Effects on perseveration and planning. Acta Psychologica, 113(1), 45–65. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(02)00150-6
17.
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
18.
YurkoY. Y.ScerboM. W.PrabhuA. S.AckerC. E.StefanidisD. (2010). Higher mental workload is associated with poorer laparoscopic performance as measured by the NASA-TLX tool. Simulation in Healthcare : Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 5(5), 267–271. doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e3181e3f329
