Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Increasingly autonomous machines may lead to issues in human-automation systems that go beyond the typical concerns of reliance and compliance. This study used an interaction-oriented approach that considers interdependence in coordinating and cooperating on a joint task. A shared-resource microworld environment was developed to assess how changes in environmental demands and agent behavior affect cooperation and system performance. Seventy-two participants were recruited to perform a scheduling task that required coordination with a cooperative and a relatively uncooperative automated agent. Cooperative automation enhanced performance because it provided more resources to the person and because the person provided more resources to the automation. Considering interdependence theory and the associated structure, signal, strategy, and sequence of human-automation interaction can guide design for appropriate trust and cooperation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Axelrod

(1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

Chiou

E. K.

Lee

J. D.

(n.d.). Trusting technology: Designing for coordination and cooperation.

Cooke

N. J.

Gorman

J. C.

Myers

C. W.

Duran

J. L.

(2013). Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science, 37(2), 255–85.

Cummings

T. G.

(1978). Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical synthesis. The Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 625–634.

Dabbish

Kraut

R. E.

(2004). Controlling Interruptions : Awareness Displays and Social Motivation for Coordination, 182–191.

Guastello

S. J.

(2013). Emergence in organizations and human collective intelligence. In Lee

J. D.

Kirlik

(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Engineering (pp. 534–555). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hudson

S. E.

Fogarty

Atkeson

C. G.

Avrahami

Forlizzi

Kiesler

… Yang

(2003). Predicting Human Interruptibility with Sensors : A Wizard of Oz Feasibility Study, (5), 257–264.

Klein

Feltovich

P. J.

Bradshaw

J. M.

Woods

D. D.

(2005). Common ground and coordination in joint activity. In Rouse

W. B.

Kenneth

R. B.

(Eds.), Organizational Simulation (pp. 139–184). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Songs, Inc.

Kramer

R. M.

(1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.

10.

Lacher

A. R.

Grabowski

Cook

(2014). Autonomy, trust, and transportation. In The Intersection of Robust Intelligence and Trust in Autonomous Systems: Papers from the AAAI Spring Symposium (pp. 42–49).

11.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80.

12.

Merritt

S. M.

Ilgen

D. R.

(2008). Not All Trust Is Created Equal: Dispositional and History-Based Trust in Human-Automation Interactions. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(2), 194–210.

13.

Meyer

Wiczorek

Gunzler

(2013). Measures of Reliance and Compliance in Aided Visual Scanning. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 56(5), 840–849.

14.

Muir

(1987). Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27(5-6), 527–539.

15.

Ostrom

(2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137–158.

16.

Parasuraman

Riley

(1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39(2), 230–253.

17.

Parasuraman

Wickens

(2008). Humans: Still Vital After All These Years of Automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 511–520.

18.

Sanders

Oleson

K. E.

Billings

D. R.

Chen

J. Y. C.

Hancock

P. a.

(2011). A Model of Human-Robot Trust: Theoretical Model Development. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55(1), 1432–1436.

19.

Thibaut

J. W.

Kelley

H. H.

(1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Songs, Inc.

20.

Verberne

F. M. F.

Ham

Midden

C. J. H.

(2012). Trust in Smart Systems: Sharing Driving Goals and Giving Information to Increase Trustworthiness and Acceptability of Smart Systems in Cars. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(5), 799–810.

21.

Wagner

A. R.

Arkin

R. C.

(2008). Analyzing social situations for human–robot interaction. Interaction Studies, 9(2), 277–300.

22.

Wajcman

Rose

(2011). Constant Connectivity: Rethinking Interruptions at Work. Organization Studies, 32(7), 941–961.

23.

Williams

K. D.

(2010). Dyads Can Be Groups (and Often Are). Small Group Research, 41(2), 268–274.

Beyond Reliance and Compliance

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References