It has been posited that under time pressure, humans tend to comply more often with automation recommendations. Previous research has shown that time pressure can enhance human-automation performance when reliability of the automated aid is high. In the current study, time pressure and difficulty level of the target detection task was manipulated. The results of this study show that human-automation performance was benefited by time pressure, but only in the condition when the task was difficult and the automation was highly reliable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ben-ZurH.BreznitzS. J. (1981). The effect of time pressure on risky choice behavior. Acta Psychologica, 47(2), 89-104.
2.
BockenholtU.KroegerK. (1993). The effect of time pressure in multiattribute binary choice tasks. In SvensonO.MauleA.J. (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human judgement and decision making (pp. 195-214). New York: Plenum Press.
3.
BreznitzS. (1984). Cry wolf: The psychology of false alarms (pp. 1-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
De NeysW. (2006). Dual Processing in Reasoning Two Systems but One Reasoner. Psychological Science, 17(5), 428-433.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
KaplanM. F.WanshulaL. T.ZannaM. P. (1993). Time pressure and information integration in social judgment. In Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 255-267). Springer US.
8.
KerstholtJ. H. (1995). Decision making in a dynamic situation: the effect of false alarms and time pressure. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8(3), 181-200.
9.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50-80.
10.
MauleA. J. (1997). Strategies for adapting to time pressure. Decision making under stress- Emerging themes and applications (A 99-12526 01-53), Aldershot, United Kingdom, Ashgate, 1997, 271-279.
11.
MauleA.J.EdlandA.C. (1997). The effects of time pressure on judgement and decision making. In RanyardR.CrozierW. R.SvensonO., Decision making: cognitive models and explanation (pp. 189-204). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
12.
MauleA. J.HockeyG. R. J.BdzolaL. (2000). Effects of time-pressure on decision-making under uncertainty: changes in affective state and information processing strategy. Acta Psychologica, 104(3), 283-301.
13.
MauleA. J.SvensonO. (Eds.). (1993). Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making. Springer.
14.
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.
15.
MeyerJ. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(2), 196-204.
16.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced “complacency”. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1-23.
17.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230-253.
18.
PayneJ. W.BettmanJ. R.JohnsonE. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 534.
19.
RiceS. (2009). Examining single-and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. The Journal of general psychology, 136(3), 303-322.
20.
RiceS.KellerD. (2009). Automation reliance under time pressure. International Journal of Cognitive Technology, 14(1), 36.
21.
RiceS.TrafimowD. (2012). Time pressure heuristics can improve performance due to increased consistency. The Journal of General Psychology, 139(4), 273-288.
22.
RiceS.TrafimowD.ClaytonK.HuntG. (2008). Impact of the contrast effect on trust ratings and behavior with automated systems. Cognitive Technology Journal, 13(2), 30-41.
23.
TrafimowD.RiceS. (2008). Potential performance theory (PPT): A general theory of task performance applied to morality. Psychological Review, 115(2), 447.
24.
TrafimowD.RiceS. (2009). Potential performance theory (PPT): Describing a methodology for analyzing task performance. Behavior Research Methods,41(2), 359-371.
25.
WrightP. (1974). The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions, and the use of evidence. Journal of applied psychology, 59(5), 555.
