The goal of our work was twofold. The first was to examine the effects of dispositional trust on performance in a target detection task. The second was to examine the effects of performance on implicit and explicit trust in cueing modalities in that same target detection task. Fifty-four participants detected targets using four cueing modalities (non-cued, auditory cue alone, tactile cue alone, and combined auditory and tactile cueing). Participants monitored three screens for targets and responded as rapidly and accurately as possible when the presence of a target was perceived. Dispositional trust proved to be a significant predictor of performance for the auditory modality. Performance was a significant predictor of explicit trust in the tactile and combined conditions. Overall, participants reported preferring the tactile and combined cueing modalities for this target detection task. These findings suggest that measures of explicit trust should be employed early in system design to enhance eventual trust and system usability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChenJ. Y. C.TerrenceP. I. (2009). Effects of imperfect automation and individual differences on concurrent performance of military and robotics tasks in a simulated multitasking environment. Ergonomics, 52(8), 907-920.
2.
CottrellN. D.BartonB. K. (2013). The role of automation in reducing stress and negative affect while driving. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 14(1), 53-68. doi:10.1080/1464536X.2011.573011
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.
ElliottL.R.CoovertM.D.ReddenE.S. (2009). Overview of meta-analyses investigating vibrotactile versus visual display options. Human-Computer Interaction. Novel Interaction Methods & Techniques, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5611, 435-443. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02577-8_47
5.
FazioR. H.OlsonM. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 297-327.
6.
GellevijM.Van Der MeijH.De JongT.PietersJ. (2002). Multimodal versus unimodal instruction in a complex learning context. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(3), 215-239.
7.
HancockP.A. (2013). In search of vigilance: The problem of iatrogenically created psychological phenomena. American Psychologist, 68(2), 97-109.
8.
HancockP.A.BillingsD.R.SchaeferK.E. (2011). Can you trust your robot?Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 19(3), 24-29
9.
HancockP.ABillingsD.R.SchaeferK.E.ChenJ.Y.C.de VisserE.J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53, 517-527.
10.
HancockP.A.MercadoJ.MerloJ.van ErpJ.V.F. (2013). Improving target detection in visual search through augmenting multisensory cues. Ergonomics, 56(5), 729-738.
11.
HancockP.A.MoulouaM.SendersJ.W. (2008). On the philosophical foundations of driving and distraction and the distracted driver. In: ReaganM.A.LeeJ.D.YoungK.L. (eds.) Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects and Mitigation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
12.
JianJ.Y.BisantzA. M.DruryC. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated system. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 53-71.
13.
KellyC. (2003). Guidelines for trust in future ATM systems: Principles. (HRS/HSP-005-GUI-03). Brussels, Belgium: European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation.
14.
LeeJ.D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(1), 153-184.
15.
LeeJ.D.SeeK.A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50-80.
16.
MadsenM.GregorS. (2000, December). Measuring human-computer trust. In: Proceedings of Eleventh Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane.
17.
ManzeyD.LuzM.MuellerS.DietzA.MeixensbergerJ.StraussG. (2011). Automation in surgery: The impact of navigated-control assistance on performance, workload, situation awareness, and acquisition of surgical skills. Human Factors, 53(6), 584-599. doi:10.1177/0018720811426141
18.
MastersJ.K.MilesG.D’SouzaD.OrrJ.P. (2004). Risk propensity, trust, and transaction costs in relational contracting. Journal of Business Strategies, 21(1), 47-67.
19.
MercadoJ.E.WhiteT.L.SandersT.WrightJ. (2012). Effects of Cross-Modal Sensory Cueing Automation Failure in a Simulated Target Detection Task. Proceedings Autumn Simulation Multi-Conference, San Diego, CA.
20.
MerloJ.HancockP.A. (2011). Quantification of tactile cueing for enhanced target search capacity. Military Psychology, 23, 137-153.
21.
MerrittS.M.IlgenD.R. (2008). Not all trust is created equal: Dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Human Factors, 50(2), 194-210. doi:10.1518/001872008X288574
22.
MuirB. (1987). Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27(5-6), 527-539.
23.
MuirB. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37(11), 1905-1922.
24.
MullerM.M.MalinoswskiP.GruberT.HillyardS.A. (2003). Sustained division of the attentional spotlight. Nature, 424(6946), 309-312.
25.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230-253. doi:10.1518/001872097778543886
26.
ThorneD.R. (2006). Throughput: A simple performance index with desirable characteristics. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 569-573.
27.
Tindall-FordS.ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 257-287.
28.
Van ErpJ.Van VeenH. (2004). Vibrotactile in-vehicle navigation system. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 7(4-5), 247-256.
29.
WhiteT.L.KehringK.L.GlummM.M. (2009). Effects of unimodal and multimodal cues about threat locations on target acquisition and workload. Military Psychology, 21(4), 497-512.
