Research suggests that signaling system false alarms tend to affect operator compliance, whereas misses tend to affect operator reliance. Conceptually, false alarms and misses affect compliance and reliance via independent cognitive processes, assumed to be two types of trust. The purpose of this study was to test for these underlying processes using a subjective estimate of trust. Method: Using a sample of 44 college students, we tested for trust as a mediator between reliability (90%, 60%) and reliance, compliance, and response rate, for a false alarm prone (FP) system and a miss prone (MP) system. Results: As predicted, trust mediated the relationships between reliability and signal compliance and response rate, but only for the FP system. Additionally, the MP system more directly affected reliance, whereas the FP system more directly affected compliance. Applications of this work indicate that designing for trustable signaling systems may be more important for FP systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and sta-tistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
2.
BlissJ. P.GilsonR. D. (1998). Emergency signal failure: Implications and recommendations. Ergonomics, 41 (1), 57-72.
3.
BlissJ. P.GilsonR. D.DeatonJ. E. (1995). Human probability matching behavior in response to alarms of varying reliability. Ergonomics, 38(11), 2300-2312.
4.
BustamanteE. A. (2009). A reexamination of the mediating effect of trust among alarm systems’ characteristics and human compliance and reliance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting (pp. 249-253). Las Vegas, NV.
5.
ChanceyE.T.BlissJ. P.ProapsA. B.MadhavanP. (in press). The role of trust as a mediator between system characteristics and response behaviors. Human Factors.
6.
ChanceyE.T.ProapsA.BlissJ.P. (2013). The role of trust as a media-tor between signaling system reliability and response behaviors. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting (pp. 285-289). San Diego, CA.
7.
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.
8.
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.
9.
HearstE. (1991). Psychology and nothing. American Scientist, 79, 432-443.
10.
JianJ.BisantzA. M.DruryC. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4 (53), 53-71.
11.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46 (1), 50-80.
12.
LuhmannN. (1988). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In GambettaD.G. (Ed.), Trust (pp. 94-107). New York: Basil Blackwell.
13.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 709-734.
14.
MeyerJ. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43 (4), 563-572.
15.
MeyerJ.WiczorekR.GünzlerT. (2014). Measures of reliance and compliance in aided visual scanning. Human Factors, 56, 840-849.
16.
ParasuramanR.ManzeyD. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52 (3), 381-410.
17.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (4), 717-731.
18.
RiceS. (2009). Examining single- and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. The Journal of General Psychology, 13 (3), 303-319.
19.
Santiago-EspadaY.MyerR. R.LatorellaK. A.ComstockJ. R. (2011). The Multi-Attribute Task Battery II (MATB-II) Software for Human Performance and Workload Research: A User’s Guide. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA.
20.
SorkinR. D.WoodsD. D. (1985). Systems with human monitors, a signal detection analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 49-75.
21.
WhalenD. A.CovelleP. M.PiepenbrinkJ. C.VillanovaK. L.CuneoC. L.AwtryE. H. (2014). Novel approach to cardiac alarm management on telemetry units. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 29 (5), E13-E22.
22.
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.
23.
WiczorekR.ManzeyD. (2010). Is operators’ compliance with alarm systems a product of rational consideration?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting, (pp. 1722-1726). San Francisco, CA.
24.
WiegmannD. A.RichA.ZhangH. (2001). Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users’ trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 2 (4), 352-367.
