Objective: To examine whether continually updated information about a system's confidence in its ability to perform assigned tasks improves operators' trust calibration in, and use of, an automated decision support system (DSS). Background: The introduction of decision aids often leads to performance breakdowns that are related to automation bias and trust miscalibration. This can be explained, in part, by the fact that operators are informed about overall system reliability only, which makes it impossible for them to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to follow the system's advice. Method: The application for this research was a neural net-based decision aid that assists pilots with detecting and handling in-flight icing encounters. A multifactorial experiment was carried out with two groups of 15 instructor pilots each flying a series of 28 approaches in a motion-base simulator. One group was informed about the system's overall reliability only, whereas the other group received updated system confidence information. Results: Pilots in the updated group experienced significantly fewer icing-related stalls and were more likely to reverse their initial response to an icing condition when it did not produce desired results. Their estimate of the system's accuracy was more accurate than that of the fixed group. Conclusion: The presentation of continually updated system confidence information can improve trust calibration and thus lead to better performance of the human-machine team. Application: The findings from this research can inform the design of decision support systems in a variety of event-driven high-tempo domains.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.
2.
Billings, C. E. (1997). Aviation automation: The search for a human-centered approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
Bragg, M. B., Perkins, W. R., Sarter, N. B., Basar, T., Voulgaris, P. G., Gurbacki, H. M., et al. (1998). An interdisciplinary approach to inflight aircraft icing safety. In Proceedings of the 36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit of the AIAA (AIAA Paper No. 98–0095). American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA.
4.
Fox, J. (1996). The effects of information accuracy on user trust and compliance. In Proceedings of CHI96 (1996 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems) (pp. 35–36). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.
5.
Hollnagel, E. (1987). Information and reasoning in intelligent decision support systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 665–678.
6.
Kantowitz, B. H., Hanowski, R. J., & Kantowitz, S. C. (1997). Driver acceptance of unreliable traffic information in familiar and unfamiliar settings. Human Factors, 39, 164–176.
7.
Lee, J., & Moray, N. (1992). Trust and the allocation of function in the control of automatic systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.
8.
Lee, J., & Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153–184.
9.
McGuirl, J. M., Schroeder, B., & Sarter, N. B. (2001) In-flight icing: A survey of pilots' perceived information needs and operational experiences (Cognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory Report to NASA Glenn Research Center). Columbus: Ohio State University.
10.
Mosier, K. L., & Skitka, L. J. (1996). Human decision makers and automated decision aids: Made for each other? In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 201–220). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
Muir, B. M. (1988). Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. In E. Hollnagel, G. Mancini, & D. D. Woods (Eds.), Cognitive engineering in complex dynamic worlds (pp. 71–83). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
12.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
13.
Rasmussen, J., & Goodstein, L. P. (1985). Decision support in supervisory control (Riso Rep. M-2525). Roskilde, Denmark: Riso National Laboratory.
14.
Sarter, N. B., & Schroeder, B. (2001). Supporting decision making under time pressure and uncertainty: The case of in-flight icing. Human Factors, 43, 580–590.
15.
Sorkin, R. D., Kantowitz, B. H., & Kantowitz, S. C. (1988). Likelihood alarm displays. Human Factors, 30, 445–459.
16.
Woods, D. D., & Roth, E. M. (1988). Cognitive systems engineering. In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 3–43). New York: Elsevier Science/North-Holland.
