System-wide versus component-specific trust using multiple aids

Journal of General Psychology

Volumn 137, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 114-128

  Keller, David ^a   Rice, Stephen ^b  

^a NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER   (United States)

^b NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Automation; Component specific; Multiple; System wide diagnostic; Trust

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AIRCRAFT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; AUTOMATION; AVIATION; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; MAN MACHINE INTERACTION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHYSIOLOGY; TRUST;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AIRCRAFT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; AUTOMATION; AVIATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS; SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; TRUST; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 73849139588     PISSN: 00221309     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00221300903266713     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19, 775-779.
2. Bliss, J. (2003). An investigation of alarm related accidents and incidents in aviation. International Journal of Avation Psychology, 13(3), 249-268.
3. Couch, L.,&Jones,W. (1997).Measuring levels of trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 319-336.
4. Dixon, S., & Wickens, C. (2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48(3), 474-486.
5. Dixon, S. R., Wickens, C. D., and Chang, D. (2005). Mission control of multiple UAVs: A quantitative workload analysis. Human Factors, 47, 479-487.
6. Dixon, S., Wickens, C., & McCarley,(2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses? Human Factors, 49(4), 564-572.
7. Dzindolet, M., Pierce, L., Beck, H., & Dawe, L. (1999). Misuse and disuse of automated aids. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 43rd annual meeting (pp. 339-343). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
8. Green, D. M., & Swets J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. NewYork: Wiley.
9. Holmes, J. G. (1991). Trust and the appraisal process in close relationships. InW. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 2, pp. 57-104). London: Jessica Kingsley.
10. Lee, J.&Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operator's adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(1), 153-184.
11. Maltz, M., & Shinar, D. (2003). New alternative methods in analyzing human behavior in cued target acquisition. Human Factors, 45, 281-295.
12. Muir, B., & Moray, N. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429-460.
13. Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced "complacency." International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1-23.
14. Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230-253.
15. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.,&Wickens,D. (2000).Amodel for types and levels of human interactionwith automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286-297.
16. Rice, S. (2009). Examining single and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. Journal of General Psychology, 136(3), 303-319.
17. Rice, S., Trafimow, D., Clayton, K., & Hunt, G. (2008). Impact of the contrast effect on trust ratings and behavior with automated systems. Cognitive Technology Journal, 13(2), 30-41.
18. Rice, S., Clayton, K., & McCarley, J. (in press). The effects of automation bias on operator compliance and reliance. Human Factors Issues in Combat Identification.
19. Rice, S., Hughes, J.,McCarley, J. & Keller, D. (2008). Automation dependency and performance gains under time pressure. Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
20. Rice, S., & McCarley, J. (2008). The effects of automation bias and saliency on operator trust. Paper presented at International Congress of Psychology, Berlin, Germany.
21. Rice, S., Trafimow, D., Clayton, K. & Hunt, G. (2008). Impact of the contrast effect on trust ratings and behavior with automated systems. Cognitive Technology Journal, 13(2), 30-41.
22. Sheridan, T. B. (1987). Handbook of human factors. New York: Wiley.
23. Wickens, C. D., & Dixon, S. R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(3), 201-212.
24. Wickens, C. D.,&Hollands, J. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
25. Wickens & McCarley. (2008). Applied attention theory. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
26. Wiegmann, D. (2002). Agreeing with automated diagnostic aids: A study of user's concurrence strategies. Human Factors, 44(1), 44-50.
27. Wiegman, D., Rich A., & Zhang H.,(2001). Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2(4), 352-367.
28. Wogalter, M. S., & Laughery, K. R. (2006). Warnings and hazard communications. In G. Salvendy (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 889-911). New York: Wiley.