Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Automation users often disagree with diagnostic aids that are imperfectly reliable. The extent to which users' agreements with an aid are anchored to their personal, self-generated diagnoses was explored. Participants (N = 75) performed 200 trials in which they diagnosed pump failures using an imperfectly reliable automated aid. One group (nonforced anchor, n = 50) provided diagnoses only after consulting the aid. Another group (forced anchor, n = 25) provided diagnoses both before and after receiving feedback from the aid. Within the nonforced anchor group, participants' self-reported tendency to prediagnose system failures significantly predicted their tendency to disagree with the aid, revealing a cognitive anchoring effect. Agreement rates of participants in the forced anchor group indicated that public commitment to a diagnosis did not strengthen this effect. Potential applications include the development of methods for reducing cognitive anchoring effects and improving automation utilization in high-risk domains.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Block, R. A. , & Harper, D. R. (1991). Overconfidence in estimation: Testing the anchoring-and-adjustment hypothesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49, 188–207.

Brehm, J. , & Cohen, A. R. (1962). Explorations in cognitive dissonance. New York: Wiley.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, J. , & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Erlbaum.

Cook, T. D. , & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Dzindolet, M. T. , Pierce, L. G. , Beck, H. P. , & Dawe, L. A. (2002). The perceived utility of human and automated aids in a visual detection task. Human Factors, 44, 79–94.

Dzindolet, M. T. , Pierce, L. G. , Beck, H. P. , Dawe, L. A. , & Anderson, B. W. (2001). Predicting misuse and disuse of combat identification systems. Military Psychology, 13, 147–164.

Einhorn, H. J. , & Hogarth, R. M. (1982). Theory of diagnostic interference: 1. Imagination and the psychophysics of evidence (Tech. Report No. 2). Chicago: University of Chicago, School of Business.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

10.

Harvey, J. H. , Town, J. P. , & Yarkin, L. K. (1981). How fundamental is the "fundamental attribution error"? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 346–349.

11.

Hogarth, R. M. , & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1–55.

12.

Krull, D. S. (2001). On partitioning the fundamental attribution error: Dispositionalism and the correspondence bias. In G. B. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition (pp. 211–227). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

13.

Lee, J. , & Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.

14.

Oshikawa, S. (1970). Consumer pre-decision conflict and postdecision dissonance. Behavioral Science, 15, 132–140.

15.

Parasuraman, R. , Hancock, P. A. , & Olofinboba, O. (1997). Alarm effectiveness in driver-centered collision-warning systems. Ergonomics, 40, 390–399.

16.

Parasuraman, R. , & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.

17.

Riley, V. (1989). A general model of mixed-initiative humanmachine systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting (pp. 124–128). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

18.

Tabachnik, B. G. , & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

19.

Tversky, A. , & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

20.

Wickens, C. D. , & Hollands, J. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

21.

Wiegmann, D. A. (2002). Agreeing with automated diagnostic aids: A study of users' concurrence strategies. Human Factors, 44, 44–50.

22.

Wiegmann, D. A. , Rich, A. , & Zhang, H. (2001). Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2, 352–367.

Cognitive Anchoring on Self-Generated Decisions Reduces Operator Reliance on Automated Diagnostic Aids

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References