Effects of information source, pedigree, and reliability on operator interaction with decision support systems

Human Factors

Volumn 49, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 773-785

  Madhavan, Poornima ^a,b   Wiegmann, Douglas A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; DECISION THEORY; ERROR CORRECTION; RELIABILITY THEORY;

ADVISERS; HUMAN INTERACTION; PEDIGREE; USER INTERACTION;

INFORMATION SCIENCE;

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ERROR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; SCREENING; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; AUTOMATION; AVIATION; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EXPERT SYSTEMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PSYCHOLOGY, INDUSTRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TRUST;

EID: 34548829644     PISSN: 00187208     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1518/001872007X230154     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bowers, C. A., Jentsch, F., Salas, E., & Braun, C. C. (1998). Analyzing communication sequences for team training needs assessment. Human Factors, 40, 672-680.
2. Bowers, C. A., Oser, R. A., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Team performance in automated systems. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 243-263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Dijkstra, J. J. (1999). User agreement with incorrect expert system advice. Behaviour and Information Technology, 18, 399-411.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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, 53-71.
7. 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, 4, 1541-1672.
8. Lacson, F. C., Wiegmann, D. A., & Madhavan, P. (2003, August). Effects of instructional framing on automation trust and reliance. Paper presented at the 111th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
9. Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153-184.
10. Lee, J. D., & See, S. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50-80.
11. Lerch, F. J., Prietula, M. J., & Kulik, C. T. (1997). The Turing effect: The nature of trust in expert system advice. In P. J. Feltovich & K. M. Ford (Eds.), Expertise in context: Human and machine (pp. 417-448). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Lewandowsky, S., Mundy, M., & Tan, G. (2000). The dynamics of trust: Comparing humans to automation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 104-123.
13. Madhavan, P., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2005). Cognitive anchoring on self-generated decisions reduces operator reliance on automated diagnostic aids. Human Factors, 47, 332-341.
14. Madhavan, P., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2007). Similarities and differences between human-human and human-automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 277-301.
15. Madhavan, P., Wiegmann, D. A., & Lacson, F. C. (2006). Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids. Human Factors, 48, 241-256.
16. Meyer, J. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 4, 196-204.
17. Muir, B. M., & Moray, N. (1996). Trust in automation: II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39, 429-460.
18. Nass, C., Fogg, B. J., & Moon, Y. (1996). Can computers be teammates? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 669-678.
19. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81-103.
20. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B. J., Reeves, B., & Dryer, D. C. (1995). Can computer personalities be human personalities? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 223-239.
21. Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230-253.
22. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: Cambridge University Press.
23. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.
24. Safar, J. A., & Turner, C. W. (2005). Validation of a two-factor structure for system trust. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 497-501). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
25. Sheridan, T. B. (2002). Humans and automation: System design and research issues. New York: Wiley/Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
26. Sundar, S. S., & Nass, C. (2000). Source orientation in human computer interaction: Programmer, networker or independent social actor? Communications Research, 27, 683-703.
27. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433-460.