To (Dis)agree with Automation: Effects of Automation Levels on Trust Attitude and Trust Behavior in High-Risk Situations

Abstract

When automation takes over many functions and is highly reliable, humans often insufficiently monitor the correct system functioning. We investigated this phenomenon by introducing automation at the action implementation stage in two conditions: Participants working with monitored automation could veto the automation, whereas participants working with consensual automation had to agree with the automation. Based on neuropsychological research on cognitive dissonance, we expected that participants would devote more resources to checking the monitored automation compared to participants working with consensual automation, because the justification of a potential disagreement (veto) should be based on sufficient information. Additionally, we examined effects of risk on trust attitude and behavior when participants worked in virtual reality at either 0.5- or 70-meters altitude. We found a decrease in dissonance discomfort and an increase in self-reported trust across experimental blocks. At high risk, participants monitored automation significantly more. However, no main effects of automation were found.

Keywords

trust automation situational risk monitoring

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ask

Reinhard

M.-A.

Marksteiner

Granhag

P. A.

(2011). Elasticity in evaluations of criminal evidence: Exploring the role of cognitive dissonance. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16(2), 289–306.

Avril

Valéry

Navarro

Wioland

Cegarra

(2021). Effect of imperfect information and action automation on attentional allocation. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(11), 1063-1073.

Bailey

N. R.

Scerbo

M. W.

(2007). Automation-induced complacency for monitoring highly reliable systems: the role of task complexity, system experience, and operator trust. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(4), 321-348.

Calhoun

G. L.

Draper

M. H.

Ruff

H. A.

(2009). Effect of level of automation on unmanned aerial vehicle routing task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 53(4), 197–201.

Chancey

E. T.

(2016). The Effects of Alarm System Errors on Dependence: Moderated Mediation of Trust With and Without Risk [Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University].

Cymek

D. H.

(2018). Redundant automation monitoring: Four eyes don’t see more than two, if everyone turns a blind eye. Human Factors, 60(7), 902-921.

Domínguez

J. F.

Taing

S. A.

Molenberghs

(2016). Why do some find it hard to disagree? An fMRI study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 718.

Endsley

M. R.

Kaber

D. B.

(1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42(3), 462-492.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.

10.

Frey

(1982). Different levels of cognitive dissonance, information seeking, and information avoidance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1175–1183.

11.

Guenzler

Manzey

(2013). Asymmetries in human tolerance of uncertainty in interaction with alarm systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57(1), 1362–1366.

12.

Hoff

K. A.

Bashir

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

13.

Hoesterey

Onnasch

(2022a). The effect of risk on trust attitude and trust behavior in interaction with information and decision automation. Cognition, Technology & Work, 1-15.

14.

Hoesterey

Onnasch

(2022b). A new experimental paradigm to manipulate risk in human-automation research. Human Factors.

15.

Huppert

Grill

Brandt

(2017). A new questionnaire for estimating the severity of visual height intolerance and acrophobia by a metric interval scale. Frontiers in Neurology, 8, 211.

16.

Jian

J.-Y.

Bisantz

A. M.

Drury

C. G.

(2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 53–71.

17.

Karau

S. J.

Williams

K. D.

(1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(4), 681.

18.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80.

19.

Manzey

Reichenbach

Onnasch

(2012). Human performance consequences of automated decision aids. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 6(1), 57–87.

20.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

21.

Onnasch

Wickens

C. D.

Manzey

(2014). Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: An integrated meta-analysis. Human Factors, 56(3), 476–488.

22.

Parasuraman

Manzey

D. H.

(2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52(3), 381–410.

23.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

T. B.

Wickens

C. D.

(2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297.

24.

Pöhler

Heine

Deml

(2016). Itemanalyse und Faktorstruktur eines Fragebogens zur Messung von Vertrauen im Umgang mit automatischen Systemen. Zeitschrift Für Arbeitswissenschaft, 70(3), 151–160.

25.

Sharp

W. H.

Jackson

K. M.

Shaw

T. H.

(2023). The frequency of positive and negative interactions influences relationship equity and trust in automation. Applied Ergonomics, 108, 103961.