A general model of automation use, which proposes that cognitive, social, and motivational processes may lead to productivity loss of human-computer teams is briefly described and data from four experiments testing aspects of the model are presented. Automation use is determined, in part, by the perceived utility of the aid, which is the outcome of a comparison process between the human operator's ability and the reliability of the aid. Perceived utility, however, is affected by a bias towards automation and by self-serving biases.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArkinR.BaumgardnerA.H. (1985). Self-handicapping. In HarveyJ.H.WearyG. (Eds.), Basic issues in attribution theory and research.New York: Academic Press.
2.
BowersC.A.OserR.L.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ.A. (1996). Team performance in automated systems. In ParasuramanR.MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3.
BuelerR.GriffinD.RossM. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 366–381.
4.
DalalN.P.KasperG.M. (1994). The design of joint cognitive systems: The effect of cognitive coupling on performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 677–702.
5.
GollwitzerP.M.WicklundR.A. (1985). Self-symbolizing and the neglect of others' perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 702–715.
6.
HamiltonD.L.ShermanS.J. (1989). Illusory correlations: Implications for stereotype theory and research. In Bar-TalD.GraumannC.F.KruglanskiA.W.StroebeW. (Eds.),Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing conceptions.New York: Springer-Verlag.
7.
KerrN.L.BruunS.E. (1983). Dispensability of members effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.
8.
LeeJ.D.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 10, 1243–1270.
9.
LeeJ.D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Man-Human Studies, 40, 153–184.
10.
LeyensJ.YzerbytV.Y. (1992). The in-group overexclusion effect: Impact of valence and confirmation on stereotypical information search. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 549–570.
11.
MosierK.L.SkitkaL.J. (1996). Human decision makers and automated decision aids: Made for each other? In ParasuramanR.MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
MullenB.JohnsonC.SalasE. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analysis interpretation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–24.
13.
NealeM.A.BazermanM.H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 34–49.
14.
ParasurmanR. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
15.
ShepperdJ.A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81.
16.
SkowronskiJ.J.CarlstonD.E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131–142.
17.
WhitleyB.E.Jr.FriezeI.H. (1985). Children's causal attributions for success or failure in achievement settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 608–616.
