Operators in high-risk domains such as aviation often need to make decisions under time pressure and uncertainty. One way to support them in this task is through the introduction of decision support systems (DSSs). The present study examined the effectiveness of two different DSS implementations: status and command displays. Twenty-seven pilots (9 pilots each in a baseline, status, and command group) flew 20 simulated approaches involving icing encounters. Accuracy of the decision aid (a smart icing system), familiarity with the icing condition, timing of icing onset, and autopilot usage were varied within subjects. Accurate information from either decision aid led to improved handling of the icing encounter. However, when inaccurate information was presented, performance dropped below that of the baseline condition. The cost of inaccurate information was particularly high for command displays and in the case of unfamiliar icing conditions. Our findings suggest that unless perfect reliability of a decision aid can be assumed, status displays may be preferable to command displays in high-risk domains (e.g., space flight, medicine, and process control), as the former yield more robust performance benefits and appear less vulnerable to automation biases.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andre, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1992). Compatibility and consistency in display-control systems: Implications for aircraft decision aid design. Human Factors, 34, 639–653.
2.
Barnett, B. J. (1990). Aiding type and format compatibility for decision aid interface design. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 1552–1556). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
3.
Bragg, M. B., Perkins, W. R., Sarter, N. B., Basar, T., Voulgaris, P. G., Gurbacki, H. M., Melody, J. W., & McCray, S. A. (1998). An interdisciplinary approach to in-flight aircraft icing safety. In Proceedings of the 36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit of the AIAA (AIAA Paper No. 98--0095). Washington, DC: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.
4.
Crocoll, W. M., & Coury, B. G. (1990). Status or recommendation: Selecting the type of information for decision aiding. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 1524–1528). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
5.
Endsley, M. R. (1996). Automation and situation awareness. In R. Parasuraman, & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 163–181). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37, 381–394.
7.
Green, S. D. (1998). In-flight icing: The handling event. Air Line Pilot, 67, 10–15.
8.
Green, S. D., Bettcher, J., Erickson, S., & Brachen, J. (1996). Tools for the operational management of inflight icing in the 21st century. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA Paper 96--0136). Washington, DC: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
9.
Kantowitz, B., Hanowski, R., & Kantowitz, S. (1997). Driver acceptance of unreliable traffic information in familiar and unfamiliar settings. Human Factors, 39, 164–176.
10.
Klein, G. (1996). The effect of acute stressors on decision making. In E. Salas (Ed.), Stress and human performance (pp. 49–88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
Klein, G. (1997). The recognition-primed decision (RPD) model: Looking back, looking forward. In C. Zsambok, & G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 285–292). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
Lee, J., & Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.
13.
Lee, J., & Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153–184.
14.
Leveson, N. J. (1995). Safeware: System safety and computers.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
15.
MacMillan, J., Deutsch, S., & Young, M. (1997). A comparison of alternatives for automated decision support in a multi-task environment. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting (pp. 190–194). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
16.
Maule, J. (1997). Strategies for adapting to time pressure. In R. Flin, E. Salas, M. Strub, & L. Martin, Decision-making under stress: Emerging themes and applications (pp. 271–279). Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
17.
Mosier, K., Palmer, E., & Degani, A. (1992). Electronic checklists: Implications for decision making. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 7–11). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
18.
Muir, B. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37, 1905–1922.
19.
Murray, S. (1997). Deliberate decision making by aircraft pilots: A simple reminder to avoid decision making under panic. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7, 83–100.
20.
Orasanu, J. (1997). Stress and naturalistic decision making: Strengthening the weak links. In R. Flin, E. Salas, M. Strub, & L. Martin (Eds.), Decision-making under stress: Emerging themes and applications (pp. 43–66). Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
21.
Orasanu, J., & Fischer, U. (1997). Finding decisions in natural environments: The view from the cockpit. In C. Zsambok and G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 343–357). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., Mouloua, M., & Hilburn, B. (1996). Monitoring of automated systems. In R. Parasuraman, & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 91–115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
24.
Riley, V. (1996). Operator reliance on automation: Theory and data. In R. Parasuraman, & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 19–35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
Stokes, A. F., Barnett, B. J., & Wickens, C. D. (1987). Modeling stress and bias in pilot decision-making. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Human Factors Association of Canada (pp. 45–48). Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: Human Factors Association of Canada.
26.
Stokes, A. F., & Wickens, C. D. (1988). Aviation displays. In E. L. Wiener, & D. C. Nagel (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 387–431). San Diego, CA: Academic.
27.
Wickens, C. D., & Flach, J. M. (1988). Information processing. In E. Wiener, & D. Nagel (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 111–155). London: Academic.
28.
Wickens, C. D., Gempler, K., & Morphew, E. (2000). Workload and reliability of predictor displays in aircraft traffic avoidance. Transportation Human Factors, 2, 99–126.
29.
Wickens, C. D., Gordon, S. E., & Liu, Y. (1998). An introduction to human factors engineering.New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
30.
Yeh, M., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). Attention and trust biases in the design of augmented reality displays (Tech. Report ARL- 00-3/FED-LAB-00-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Aviation Research Laboratory.
31.
Zachary, W. W. (1988). Decision support systems: Designing to extend the cognitive limits. In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 997–1030). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
32.
Zsambok, C. (1997). Naturalistic decision making: Where are we now? In C. Zsambok, & G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 3–16). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
