Is the Pull-Down Effect Overstated? An Examination of Trust Propagation Among Fighter Pilots in a High-Fidelity Simulation

Abstract

Research on trust propagation has primarily been conducted with undergraduates using low-fidelity scenarios. It is unclear if the pull-down effect (e.g., system-wide trust) occurs in more applied domains with actual operators. A sample of experienced US Air Force fighter pilots (n = 13) engaged in six trials using a high-fidelity simulation for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA). The pilots were given command of four CCAs to complete realistic targeting missions. They were asked to monitor the CCAs, report any errors, evaluate a number of potential targets, select a valid target, and select one of the CCAs to perform a strike. One of the CCAs evidenced an error in four of the six trials (17% of all observations), and if the pilots did not report the error, they were prompted to it by an experimenter playing the role of Air Battle Manager. After each trial, reliance intentions and subjective workload were assessed for each of the four CCAs. The presence of an error reduced trust and increased workload for that CCA referent only. There was no evidence of a pull-down effect, nor did the composition of the CCA group (homogenous vs. heterogenous) influence trust propagation. Implications for trust research are discussed.

Keywords

pull-down effect trust in autonomy trust propagation system-wide trust military fighter pilots contagion effect

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bahner

J. E.

Hüper

A. D.

Manzey

(2008). Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 688–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.06.001

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

Bayer

Gimpel

Markgraf

(2021). The role of domain expertise in trusting and following explainable AI decision support systems. Journal of Decision Systems, 32(1), 110–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2021.1958505

Bean

N. H.

Rice

S. C.

Keller

M. D.

(2011, September). The effect of gestalt psychology on the system-wide trust strategy in automation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 55(1), 1417–1421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181311551295

Birnbaum

Dolgikh

Skormin

O’Brien

Muller

Stracquodaine

(2015, June). Unmanned aerial vehicle security using behavioral profiling. In 2015 International conference on unmanned aircraft systems (ICUAS), Denver, CO, USA, 09-12 June 2015. (pp. 1310–1319). IEEE.

Blair

Sandry

Rice

(2012). An expansion of system wide trust theory using in-vehicle automation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 56(1), 1679–1683. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561336

Capiola

Hamdan

Lyons

J. B.

Alarcon

G. M.

Lewis

Sycara

(2022). The effect of asset degradation on trust in swarms: A reexamination of system-wide trust in human-swarm interaction. Human Factors. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208221145261.

Capiola

A. A.

Hamdan

I. A.

Fox

E. L.

Lyons

J. B.

Sycara

Lewis

(2021). “Is something amiss?” Investigating individuals’ competence in estimating swarm degradation. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 23(5), 562–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2021.1983887

Chen

J. Y.

Lakhmani

S. G.

Stowers

Selkowitz

A. R.

Wright

J. L.

Barnes

(2018). Situation awareness-based agent transparency and human-autonomy teaming effectiveness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19(3), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2017.1315750

10.

Cummings

M. L.

Guerlain

(2007). Developing operator capacity estimates for supervisory control of autonomous vehicles. Human Factors, 49(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007779598109

11.

Defense Science Board (DSB) Summer Study on Autonomy . (2016). Office of the under-secretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics. Defense Science Board (DSB) Summer Study on Autonomy.

12.

de Visser

E. J.

Peeters

M. M. M.

Jung

M. F.

Kohn

Shaw

T. H.

Pak

Neerincx

(2019). Towards a theory of longitudinal trust calibration in human–robot teams. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12, 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00596-x.

13.

Dikmen

Burns

(2022). The effects of domain knowledge on trust in explainable AI and task performance: A case of peer-to-peer lending. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 162, 102792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102792.

14.

Dixon

Wickens

(2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48(3), 474–486. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006778606822

15.

Foroughi

C. K.

Sibley

Brown

N. L.

Rovira

Pak

Coyne

J. T.

(2019). Detecting automation failures in a simulated supervisory control environment. Ergonomics, 62(9), 1150–1161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1629639

16.

Geels-BlairRice

K. S.

Schwark

(2013). Using system-wide trust theory to reveal the contagion effects of automation false alarms and misses on compliance and reliance in a simulated aviation task. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 23(3), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508414.2013.799355

17.

Gigerenzer

Todd

P. M.

(2001). Simple heuristics that make us smart: Oxford University Press.

18.

Guznov

S. Y.

Lyons

J. B.

Nelson

Woolley

(2016). The effects of automation error types on operators’ trust and reliance. International Conference on Virtual, Augmented and Mixed. Reality, 9740, 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39907-2_11.

19.

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(5), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254

20.

Hancock

P. A.

Kessler

T. T.

Kaplan

A. D.

Brill

J. C.

Szalma

J. L.

(2021). Evolving trust in robots: Specification through sequential and comparative meta-analyses. Human Factors, 63(7), 1196–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820922080

21.

N. T.

Sadler

G. G.

Hoffmann

L. C.

Lyons

J. B.

Johnson

W. W.

(2017). Trust of a military automated system in an operational context. Military Psychology, 29(6), 524–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000189

22.

Hoff

K. A.

Bashir

(2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570

23.

Keller

Rice

(2009). System-wide versus component-specific trust using multiple aids. The Journal of General Psychology: Experimental, Psychological, and Comparative Psychology, 137(1), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221300903266713

24.

Kluck

Kohn

S. C.

Walliser

J. C.

de Visser

E. J.

Shaw

T. H.

(2018). Stereotypical of us to stereotype them: The effect of system-wide trust on heterogeneous populations of unmanned autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 62(1), 1103–1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621253

25.

Kolling

Walker

Chakraborty

Sycara

Lewis

(2016). Human interaction with robot swarms: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 46(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2015.2480801

26.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392

27.

Lenth

Singmann

Love

Buerkner

Herve

(2018). Package “Emmeans”. R Package Version 4.0-3. http://cran.r-project.org/package=emmeans

28.

Lewis

Sycara

(2021). Deep learning, transparency, and trust in human robot teamwork. Trust in Human-Robot Interaction, 321–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819472-0.00014-9

29.

Lopez

Pak

(2020). Does one bad machine spoil the bunch? A review of trust in multiple-component systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 64(1), 1546–1550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641370

30.

Lopez

Watkins

Pak

(2023). Enhancing component-specific trust with consumer automated systems through humanness design. Ergonomics, 66(2), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2022.2079728

31.

Lyons

J. B.

Guznov

S. Y.

(2019). Individual differences in human–machine trust: A multi-study look at the perfect automation schema. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 20(4), 440–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2018.1491071

32.

Lyons

J. B.

N. T.

Fergueson

Sadler

Cals

Richardson

Wilkins

(2016). Trust of an automatic ground collision avoidance technology: A fighter pilot perspective. Military Psychology, 28(4), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000124

33.

Lyons

J. B.

Wynne

K. T.

Mahoney

Nam

C. S.

Gallimore

(2021). Trusting autonomous robots: The role of reliability and stated social intent. Human Factors, 63(4), 603–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12601

34.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrated model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792.

35.

Nam

Walker

Lewis

Sycara

(2017). Predicting trust in human control of swarms via inverse reinforcement learning. In 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Lisbon, Portugal, 28 August 2017 - 01 September 2017. IEEE.

36.

Nourani

King

Ragan

(2020). The role of domain expertise in user trust and the impact of first impressions with intelligent systems. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, 8(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1609/hcomp.v8i1.7469

37.

Oliver

Calvard

Potočnik

(2017). Cognition, technology, and organizational limits: Lessons from the Air France 447 disaster. Organization Science, 28(4), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1138

38.

Parasuraman

Riley

(1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886

39.

Rice

Geels

(2010). Using system-wide trust theory to make predictions about dependence on four diagnostic aids. The Journal of General Psychology, 137(4), 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2010.499397

40.

Rice

Trafimow

Keller

Bean

(2012). Confluence theory: Uniting two houses divided. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 13(4), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2010.525760

41.

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. Human Factors, 58(3), 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816634228

42.

Walliser

J. C.

de Visser

E. J.

Shaw

T. H.

(2016). Application of a system-wide trust strategy when supervising multiple autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 60(1), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601031

43.

Walliser

J. C.

de Visser

E. J.

Shaw

T. H.

(2023). Exploring system wide trust prevalence and mitigating strategies with multiple agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 143(C), 107671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107671.

44.

Wickens

C. D.

Dixon

S. R.

(2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(3), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500370105

45.

Williams

K. W.

(2006). Human factors implications of unmanned aircraft accidents: Flight-control problems, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.