The Role of Trust and Automation in an Intelligence Analyst Decisional Guidance Paradigm

Abstract

Trust in automation has been linked to a multitude of performance improvements and implicated in the reduction of human error, stress, and workload. In the present study, trust in automation was examined in an experiment measuring the efficacy of linguistic annotation schemes for decision support and human performance. An automated aid provided decisional guidance to assist in intelligence task performance. Four hundred and fifty-eight participants were randomly assigned to one of three annotation schemes and then subsequently performed three simulated intelligence analysis task. The results indicated that trust played a significant role in intelligence task performance, though a significant trust by annotation scheme interaction did not emerge. Specifically, an increase in trust accompanied an increase in performance across the task types. We conclude with a discussion of trust and automated annotation schemes, which has implications for the intelligence operations community.

Keywords

automation human-computer interaction intelligence analysis linguistic annotation trust

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

B. D.

Bruyn

L. E.

Houde

Angelopoulos

(2003). Trust in automated systems literature review (DRDC Toronto No. CR-2003-096). Toronto, Canada: Defence Research and Development, Canada.

Doddington

Mitchell

Przybocki

Ramshaw

Strassel

Weischedel

(2004). The automatic content extraction (ACE) program - tasks, data, and evaluation. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 837–840). Lisbon, Portugal: European Language Resources Association.

Grishman

Sundheim

(1996). Message understanding conference–6: A brief history. In Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 466–471). Copenhagen, Denmark: Association for Computational Linguistics.

Hancock

P. A.

Billings

D. R.

Schaefer

K. E.

Chen

J. Y. C.

de Visser

E. J.

Parasuraman

(2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53, 517–527. doi:10.1177/0018720811417254

Jian

Bisantz

A. M.

Drury

C. G.

(2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4, 53–71.

Kase

S. E.

Vanni

Caylor

Hoye

(2017). Human-assisted machine information exploitation: A crowdsource investigation of information-based problem solving. In Proceedings of SPIE Defense and Security: Next Generation Analyst V (pp. 1–17). Bellingham, WA: SPIE.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

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

Parasuraman

Manzey

D. H.

(2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52, 381–410. doi:10.1177/0018720810376055

Parasuraman

Riley

(1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.

10.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

T. B.

Wickens

C. D.

(2008). Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2(2), 140–160.

11.

Schaefer

K. E.

Chen

J. Y. C.

Szalma

J. L.

Hancock

P. A.

(2016). A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: Implications for understanding autonomy in future systems. Human Factors, 58, 377–400. doi:10.1177/0018720816634228

12.

Sheridan

T. B.

(1975). Considerations in modeling the human supervisory controller. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 8(1), 223–228.

13.

Sheridan

T. B.

Hennessy

R. T.

(1984). Research and modeling of supervisory control behavior. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

14.

Silver

M. S.

(1991). Decisional guidance for computer-based decision support. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 15(1), 105–122.

15.

Simpson

Cieri

Maeda

Baker

Onyshkevych

(2008). Human language technology resources for less commonly taught languages: Lessons learned toward creation of basic language resources. Proceedings of the Speech and Language Technology for Minority Languages (SALTMIL), 10, 7–11.

16.

Skitka

L. J.

Mosier

K. L.

Burdick

(1999). Does automation bias decision-making? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51, 991–1006.

17.

Wheeler

B. C.

Valacich

J. S.

(1996). Facilitation, GSS and training as sources of process restrictiveness and guidance for structured group decision making: An empirical assessment. Information Systems Research, 7, 429–450.

18.

Wright

J. L.

(2015). Transparency in human-agent teaming and its effect on automation-induced complacency. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 968–973.