This paper discusses the first experiment in a series designed to systematically understand the different characteristics of an automated system that lead to trust in automation. We also discuss a simple process model, which helps us understand the results. Our experimental paradigm suggests that participants are agnostic to the automation’s behavior; instead, they merely focus on alarm rate. A process model suggests this is the result of a simple reward structure and a non-explicit cost of trusting the automation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. R. (2007). How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe?Oxford University Press, USA.
2.
DixonS. R.WickensC. D.McCarleyJ. S. (2007). On the Independence of Compliance and Reliance: Are Automation False Alarms Worse Than Misses?Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49(4), 564–572. doi:10.1518/001872007X215656
3.
FuW.-T.AndersonJ. R. (2006). From recurrent choice to skill learning: A reinforcement-learning model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(2), 184–206. doi:10.1037/00963445.135.2.184
4.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.
5.
GunzelmannG.ByrneM. D.GluckK. A.MooreL. R.Jr. (2009). Using computational cognitive modeling to predict dual-task performance with sleep deprivation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 51(2), 251–260.
6.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50–80. doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
7.
MeyerJ. (2001). Effects of Warning Validity and Proximity on Responses to Warnings. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43(4), 563–572. doi:10.1518/001872001775870395
8.
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.
9.
ParasuramanR.MillerC. A. (2004). Trust and Etiquette in High-Criticality Automated Systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 51–55.
10.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39(2), 230–253.
11.
RescorlaR.WagnerA. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In BlackA.ProkasyW. (Eds.), Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory (pp. 64–99). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
12.
SalvucciD. D. (2006). Modeling Driver Behavior in a Cognitive Architecture. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48(2), 362–380. doi:10.1518/001872006777724417
13.
TraftonJ. G.AltmannE. M.RatwaniR. M. (2011). A memory for goals model of sequence errors. Cognitive Systems Research, 12(2), 134–143. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2010.07.010
14.
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. doi:10.1080/14639220500370105
15.
WiegmannD. A.RichA.ZhangH. (2001). Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users’ trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2(4), 352–367. doi:10.1080/14639220110110306
16.
YehM.WickensC. D. (2001). Display Signaling in Augmented Reality: Effects of Cue Reliability and Image Realism on Attention Allocation and Trust Calibration. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43(3), 355–365. doi:10.1518/001872001775898269
