Objective: This paper considers the influence of “Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse” and examines how it relates to the evolving issue of human-automation interaction. Background: Automation presents important practical challenges that can dramatically affect satisfaction, performance, and safety; philosophical challenges also arise as automation changes the nature of work and human cognition. Method: Papers cited by and citing “Humans and Automation” were reviewed to identify enduring and emerging themes in human-automation research. Results: “Humans and Automation” emerges as an important node in the network of automation-related papers, citing many and being cited by many recent influential automation-related papers. In their article, Parasuraman and Riley (1997) integrated previous research and identified differing expectations across designers, managers, and operators regarding the need to support operators as a source of automation problems. They also foresaw and inspired research that addresses problems of overreliance and underreliance on automation. Conclusion: This pivotal article and associated research show that even though automation seems to relieve people of tasks, automation requires more, not less, attention to training, interface design, and interaction design. The original article also alludes to the emergence of vicious cycles and dysfunctional meta-control. These problems reflect the coevolution of automation and humans, in which both adapt to the responses of the other. Application: Understanding this coevolution has important philosophical implications for the nature of human cognition and practical implications for satisfaction, performance, and safety.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Asher, J.J., & Post, R.I. (1964). The new field-theory: An application to postal automation. Human Factors, 6, 517-522.
2.
Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica , 19, 775-779.
3.
Barnes, L.R., Gruntfest, E.C., Hayden, M.H., Schultz, D.M., & Benight, C. (2007). False alarms and closecalls:Aconceptual model of warning accuracy. Weather and Forecasting, 22, 1140-1147.
4.
Bennett, K.B., & Flach, J.B. (1992). Graphical displays: Implications for divided attention, focused attention, and problem solving. Human Factors, 34, 513-533.
5.
Byrne, E.A., & Parasuraman, R. (1996). Psychophysiology and adaptive automation. Biological Psychology, 42, 249-268.
6.
Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
Edwards, E., & Lees, F. (1974). The human operator in process control. London: Taylor & Francis.
8.
Gao, J., & Lee, J.D. (2006). A dynamic model of interaction between reliance on automation and cooperation in multi-operator multi-automation situations . International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36, 512-526.
9.
Hancock, P.A. (1996). Teleology of technology. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance (pp. 461-498). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
Haraway, D.J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
11.
Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7, 174-196.
12.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
Kim, J., & Moon, J.Y. (1998). Designing towards emotional usability in customer interfaces: Trustworthiness of cyber-banking system interfaces. Interacting With Computers, 10, 1-29.
14.
Kirlik, A. (1993). Modeling strategic behavior in human-automation interaction: Why an "aid" can (and should) go unused. Human Factors, 35, 221-242.
15.
Klein, G., Woods, D.D., Bradshaw, J.M., Hoffman, R.R., & Feltovich, P.J. (2004). Ten challenges for making automation a "team player" in joint human-agent activity. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(6), 91-95.
16.
Lee, J., & Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243-1270.
17.
Lee, J.D. (2006). Human factors and ergonomics in automation design . In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 1570-1596). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
18.
Lee, J.D., &Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 40, 153-184.
19.
Lee, J.D., & Sanquist, T.F. (2000). Augmenting the operator function model with cognitive operations: Assessing the cognitive demands of technological innovation in ship navigation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 273-285.
20.
Lee, J.D., & See, K.A. (2004). Trust in technology: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50-80.
21.
Lees, F.P. (1983). Process computer alarm and disturbance analysis: Review of the state of the art. Computers and Chemical Engineering , 7, 669-694.
22.
Lees, M.N., & Lee, J.D. (2007). The influence of distraction and driving context on driver response to imperfect collision warning systems. Ergonomics, 50, 1264-1286.
23.
Moray, N., Inagaki, T., & Itoh, M. (2000). Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied, 6, 44-58.
24.
Mosier, K.L., Skitka, L.J., Heers, S., & Burdick, M. (1998). Automation bias: Decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits. International Journal of Aviation Psychology , 8, 47-63.
25.
Mosier, K.L., Skitka, L.J., & Korte, K.J. (1994). Cognitive and social issues in flight crew/automation interaction. In M. Mouloua & R. Parasuraman (Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 191-197). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
Muir, B. (1987). Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies , 27, 527-539.
27.
Najm, W.G., Stearns, M.D., Howarth, H., Koopmann, J., & Hitz, J. (2005). Evaluation of an automotive rear-end collision avoidance system (No. DOT HS 810 569). Washington, DC: Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Advanced Safety Technology Division.
28.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (1997). Marine accident report: Grounding of the Panamanian passenger ship ROYAL MAJESTY on Rose and Crown Shoal near Nantucket, Massachusetts June 10,1995 (No. NTSB/MAR97/01) . Washington, DC: Author.
29.
Parasuraman, R. (2000). Designing automation for human use: Empirical studies and quantitative models. Ergonomics, 43, 931-951.
30.
Parasuraman, R., Mouloua, M., & Molloy, R. (1996). Effects of adaptive task allocation on monitoring of automated systems. Human Factors, 38, 665-679.
31.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse . Human Factors, 39, 230-253.
32.
Parasuraman, R., 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, 286-297.
33.
Parsons, H.M. (1985). Special-issue preface - Automation and the individual: Comprehensive and comparative views. Human Factors, 27, 1-2.
34.
Roth, E.M., Bennett, K.B., & Woods, D.D. (1987). Human interaction with an "intelligent" machine . International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 479-526.
35.
Rouse, W.B. (1988). Adaptive aiding for human/computer control. Human Factors, 30, 431-443.
36.
Sagberg, F., Fosser, S., & Saetermo, I.A.F. (1997). An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 293-302.
37.
Sarter, N.B., & Woods, D.D. (1994). Decomposing automation: Autonomy, authority, observability and perceived animacy. In M. Mouloua & R. Parasuraman (Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 22-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
Sarter, N.B., Woods, D.D., & Billings, C.E. (1997). Automation surprises. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd ed., pp. 1926-1943). New York: Wiley.
39.
Sheridan, T.B. (2002). Humans and automation. New York: Wiley.
40.
Sheridan, T.B., & Parasuraman, R. (2006). Human-automation interaction . In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Reviews of human factors and ergonomics (Vol. 1, pp. 89-129). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
41.
Skitka, L.J., Mosier, K., & Burdick, M.D. (2000). Accountability and automation bias. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 701-717.
42.
Skitka, L.J., Mosier, K.L., & Burdick, M. (1999). Does automation bias decision-making? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51, 991-1006.
43.
Sklar, A.E., & Sarter, N.B. (1999). Good vibrations: Tactile feedback in support of attention allocation and human-automation coordination in event-driven domains . Human Factors, 41, 543-552.
44.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
Tversky, A., & Kahnemann, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases . Science, 185, 1124-1131.
46.
Weick, K.E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 305-317.
47.
Wiener, E.L. (1989). Human factors of advanced technology ("glass cockpit") transport aircraft (NASA Contractor Rep. 177528). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
Woods, D.D. (1994). Automation: Apparent simplicity, real complexity . In M. Mouloua & R. Parasuraman (Eds.), Human performance in automated systems: Current research and trends (pp. 1-7). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
50.
Woods, D.D. (1995). The alarm problem and directed attention in dynamic fault management. Ergonomics, 38, 2371-2393.
51.
Woods, D.D., & Dekker, S.W.A. (2000). Anticipating the effects of technological change: A new era of dynamics for human factors. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1(3), 272-282.
52.
Yeh, Y.Y., & Wickens, C.D. (1988). Dissociation of performance and subjective measures of workload. Human Factors, 30, 111-120.
